Sitting of 14 January 1987

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Renfrew District (SDA Expenditure)
    Mr. Allen Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish Development Agency money has been spent in Renfrew district since 1981.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): In the period April 1981 to Nov ember 1986 the agency has spent a total of £15·6 million in Renfrew, representing 2·4 per cent. of its total budget.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that 250,000 people live within the Renfrew district and that over the past decade more than 20,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry in that area? Only last week 600 jobs were lost at Babcock and Walcock Power Ltd., which is a high tech industry based in Renfrew, yet the Scottish Development Agency has spent only 2 per cent. of its overall budget for the past five years in this area. That is disgraceful. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to increase that percentage, and does he intend to instruct the Scottish Development Agency to take account of the dire and grave situation that now exists at Babcock and Walcock in Renfrew?
    Mr. Lang: I recognise the problems of Babcock's, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is a worldwide recession in the demand for power generating equipment. The development of the Scottish Development Agency's initiative reflects the concern in the Renfrew district. I shall meet the district council next week, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be as sympathetic and helpful as I can.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that we have been able to attract the firm of Compaq to my constituency of Renfrew, West. If we are able to attract such firms, it would be advisable for the Minister to initiate action along the lines of the successful
    246
    Inverclyde initiative, perhaps on a larger scale. Will my hon. Friend consider granting special status for Renfrew, bearing in mind that traditional areas such as that district have difficulty in competing with the new towns and the enterprise packages that they can offer?
    Mr. Speaker: May I ask for brief questions?
    Mr. Lang: I recognise the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). We are, indeed, anxious to get the Renfrew initiative under way. We are ready to give active and speedy consideration to any viable opportunities.
    My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that Compaq has been attracted to Erskine, and about 365 jobs will be created there in the next four years. This is an important success for Locate in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: It will take the next four years to create half the number of jobs that we lost last week. Does the Minister accept that a decade ago over 20,000 women were working in the cotton industry in the same area, but that now there are only about 1,100? The entire Linwood factory has been decimated. Originally there were 8,000 workers, now there are none. Does the Minister accept that at the time of the Linwood closure, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. Curley), the Secretary of State promised special measures but they have not come forward? Compaq is good news, but we have not been given a good deal.
    Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the initiative that we are considering and the success that we have had in broadening the manufacturing base of the Scottish economy. I recall the hon. Gentleman's prognostication in August 1978 that unemployment would rise to over 3 million, whichever party was in power.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the problems faced by Renfrew district and every other area in Scotland, what possible help can it be to impose, this week of all weeks, and today of all days, further moratoria on the payment of regional development grants in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? How long will the moratoria last and why, having lost 192,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland, are the Government now destroying the means by which industrial recovery could take place?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises the substantial take up of regional development aid under this Government. As he knows, two systems overlap at present, and this has created a bulge which will lead to a certain waiting period, but not an intolerable one.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about a meeting with Renfrew district and about the Renfrew initiative, but does he agree that a successful strategy for Renfrew must be based on successes in the area, such as the substantial expansion plans at Glasgow airport and the success and expansion of English Sewing at Neilston in Renfrewshire, in my constituency? Is it not appalling that Opposition Members should concentrate so much on the bad news instead of giving a balanced presentation?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those important successes. I understand that investment at the Neilston plant totals about £7 million and will create

    247
    approximately 760 jobs, which is rather more than was envisaged when originally planned. I believe that it is the major thread manufacturing plant in the English Sewing group.
    Mr. Dewar: I presume that the Minister is familiar with the contents of the Government expenditure plans for 1987–88 to 1989–90, which were published at noon today. He will know, therefore, that they contain an announcement of further moratoria on the payment of regional development grant to cover new regional development grant as well as old grant. How long will these moratoria last? What will they save the Treasury, or, more important, on the other side of the coin, what will they cost Scottish industry?
    What possible defence can there be for weakening a central plank of industrial policy when bad news crowds in on almost every side and when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said, the Department of Employment's own figures show that between June 1979 and June 1986 we lost 192,000 jobs in manufacturing industry in Scotland? What possible justification can there be for further cuts in the industrial incentives and industry budget for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I understand that the waiting period for RDG2 will be about two months, compared with four months for RDG1. That waiting period reflects the bulge that has arisen as a result of the substantial number of applications. However, the provision for next year is some 26 per cent. above what was originally anticipated.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland in each year since 1983.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): In 1983, 17,800 houses were sold to sitting tenants, including tenants of the new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association. In 1984 the number was 16,000; and in 1985, 14,800. A final figure for 1986 is not yet available.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the number of applications to buy council houses in Scotland is on an upward or downward trend?
    Mr. Ancram: In the second quarter of 1986 the number of applications was running at about 2,000 each month, which was very encouraging. That is about 20 per cent. up on the same quarter in 1985 and is only slightly lower than the peak levels in 1983. We believe that that shows the healthy continuing impact of the right-to-buy policy in Scotland.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the north-east Fife district still hold the record for being the Scottish district council which has enabled the greatest number of its tenants to buy their own homes? If so, does that mean that more funds are available to meet today's housing needs for those who wish to remain tenants?
    Mr. Ancram: I cannot say whether that district council still holds the record, but it certainly has a very high, successful rate of council house sales. It is a lesson to other councils that the resources released by the sale of council houses can be used to deal with the serious structural problems that exist in the rest of Scotland's public housing stock.

    Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the teaching unions about conditions for teachers in schools: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current state of the teachers' pay dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Discussions during December within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee resulted in new agreements on pay and conditions acceptable to the Government, the local authorities and the teachers' representatives. The proposals agreed offer teachers an improved salary structure and prospects, while clarifying teachers' duties and providing a more sensible approach to conditions of service.
    I hope that teachers will accept this package, so that parents and pupils can look forward to the end of this long-running dispute and a return to normality in Scottish schools.
    Mr. Strang: Did the Secretary of State notice that the Main arguments for a "Yes" vote used by the Educational Institute of Scotland in the teachers' ballot was that a bad deal was the best that could be obtained from this Conservative Government and that the alternative was an imposed settlement? Why have the Government refused to restore teacher salaries to Houghton levels? Why have they attacked the professional status of teachers by stipulating duties and hours of work? Why have they failed to provide the additional staffing and material resources which the children in our state schools so desperately need?
    Mr. Rifkind: For a start, in objecting to conditions of service, the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with every Labour-controlled local authority in Scotland. He will be well aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Labour-controlled education authorities have been as insistent as anyone else on that aspect of the negotiated package. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult his colleagues.
    The hon. Gentleman should also realise that the pay scale—the 16·4 per cent. increase—was the level recommended by the committee under Sir Peter Main. It has proved acceptable to the teachers' representatives and, therefore, should be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have seriously mishandled the issue ever since the Main report was produced and that there have been consequential effects in the low morale in our classrooms, is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. Friends and I will urge the teachers to accept the new agreement that has been struck? It would help to obtain a positive response from the teaching profession if he would say what plans the Government have to ensure that teachers do not fall inexorably behind in future pay claims?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is being courteous and kind enough to recommend teachers to accept the proposed agreement, he might also acknowledge that that agreement has proved possible only because of the huge extra resources being made available by the Government to ensure increases in teachers' salaries.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the present likely settlement is due to his wisdom in setting up the Main committee last year? Does he agree that the vote is being taken virtually on the Main committee's recommendations and that the parents and the children of Scotland will be highly delighted with his achievement during the past year?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. Although the agreement that has been reached departs in several significant ways from the recommendation by Sir Peter Main and his colleagues, any fair and objective commentator would agree that without the report that Sir Peter Main produced some months ago it is almost inconceivable that we could now have reached an agreement that is endorsed by the teachers, the local authorities and the Government.
    Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will, of course, recognise that we have severe reservations about the way in which this very difficult matter has been handled. Does he accept that there will be relief, certainly among Opposition Members, if a settlement is reached in the dispute? I am sure that parents, the public and the vast majority of teachers do not want a return to confrontation.
    In the circumstances, and with voting still in progress, would it not be helpful for the Secretary of State to confirm his and the Government's commitment to the staffing review, which is an integral part of the settlement, and to the funding of that and other items outwith the actual pay structure—such as class cover for absences and the phasing out of composite classes?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for declaring that he would welcome an acceptance by the teachers of the current negotiated position. The personal contribution that he has made to ensure that the atmosphere in which these matters have been discussed during the past few weeks has helped towards what we all hope will be a settlement.
    The Government have accepted the recommendation in the Main report that there should be a staffing review, and that is well understood.

    Forestry
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for forestry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The policy remains as set out in statements by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), now the Secretary of State for Defence, on 10 December 1980 and, as far as the sale of Forestry Commission land is concerned, on 8 November 1984.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is it not extraordinary that, in six years, the Government's forestry policy has not changed? Is there not a need to encourage the expansion of afforestation as an alternative crop, in the light of the surplus production from agricultural land and to increase the timber industry? Is it not also important that farmers, crofters and smallholders should be able to participate in that development? What proposals does the Minister have for the control of afforestation? Does he favour a licensing system, which seems to be widely favoured throughout Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. Forestry policy, as with all policies, is kept under review. Obviously, we are aware of all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. It is right that forestry policy should take into account matters such as conservation and the environment. It should also take into account the problem of agricultural surpluses, the need to find other uses for agricultural land and, indeed, the useful and important jobs that are provided by forestry in the countryside. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's view is on the rather more controversial issue of forestry in his own constituency, where important jobs are being provided.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend understand that there is great and growing concern about the widespread afforestation of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland? Will he ensure that forestry applications in those areas are taken by the Forestry Commission to the Nature Conservancy Council for discussion so that this unique habitat can be adequately protected?
    Mr. MacKay: From my correspondence, I am well aware of the wide interest in the flow country, usually outside the flow country itself, where perhaps the locals—like the locals in most of the highlands—take a slightly more relaxed view of these matters because they see both sides of the issue. There is no question of the whole of the flow country being covered by conifers. Most of the land outside the areas already planted or approved for planting is either not suitable for forestry or will not be available for it. We have set up a group of officials to consider the future use of land in this part of Scotland and the NCC is represented in that group.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the impression he gave, the level of employment provided has been extremely small, even in the Highland region? Is he further aware of the criticism by the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that the environment has been radically altered by insensitive planting and that most of that planting has been done by distant companies operating tax fiddles? When will the Scottish Office examine Scottish forestry policy?
    Mr. MacKay: The present procedure whereby the Forestry Commission consults several bodies before approving planting grants to the private sector and, indeed, before it decides on its own planting policy, works reasonably well. Forest planting is improving. Foresters in both the private and public sectors are more aware of environmental issues than they once were. About 40,000 jobs are provided in the forestry industry in Great Britain, either directly or in the downstream industries that depend on the raw material coming out of our forests.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that substantial forests are contained within my constituency and that they are an important part of the local economy. Does he agree that any nation that has a £4,000 million import bill for timber must look carefully at the policy for more afforestation, that there is substantial scope for it in Scotland and that it should be encouraged substantially through the private sector?
    Mr. MacKay: I first welcome back my hon. Friend to the House. We look forward to hearing from him on a number of issues. He highlights an important point,

    251
    namely, that forest product imports, running at £4·5 billion, are our major single import. Therefore, the increase of afforestation is important for that reason, as well as for many others.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I reassure the Minister on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that he will reply to the Minister's question as soon as possible? May I resume my hon. Friend's point with specific reference to Glenelg in my constituency, a socially fragile area as regards employment, as the previous Secretary of State said in the announcement to which the Minister referred in his initial answer? Surely the handling of that raises my hon. Friend's point—that if there were more local participation in forestry some of the anxiety would, perhaps, be overcome or at least partially allayed. Instead, there have been rather dubious dealings on the possible disposal of that asset.
    Mr. MacKay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is room for forestry, both on a large scale, financed by outside means, and for farm or estate forestry. It is important for us to find ways to encourage that. The Government are giving a good deal of thought to those matters at present.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NCC is designating as SSSIs areas which might contain something of interest so that they cannot be planted? Is that not a gross misuse of present legislation?
    Mr. MacKay: I should certainly like to study any case that exhibits that tendency, because, as I remember, designation must be done on the basis of present scientific evidence, not on the basis of something which may or may not happen in future. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who is more directly involved in SSSIs, he should do so.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Now that the National Audit Office has joined almost everyone else in criticising the inordinate expense and questionable effects of vast tax handouts to private forestry speculators, including Mr. Terry Wogan and others, in Caithness and Sutherland, will the Government reconsider the scope of those incentives and the adoption of more positive incentives and policies for both the Forestry Commission and the private sector to expand woodlands sensibly and sensitively, especially in lowland agricultural areas?
    Mr. MacKay: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and found it difficult to understand what his party's policy would be if, in the unlikely event, it won an election. The present tax arragements for forestry are of long standing and Governments of both parties have gone along with them to encourage private afforestation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Labour party is against private afforestation, many people whose jobs depend on it will be interested.

    Dundee and Aberdeen Colleges of Education
    Mr. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of Dundee and Aberdeen colleges of education.
    Mr. John MacKay: I have endorsed the main principles in the report of the working party set up to consider the
    252
    implementation of the decision to merge Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education, including the report's recommendations for the pre-service rationalisation of community education and secondary teacher training.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister think, in his heart of hearts, that it is nonsense geographically to link two colleges which are 60 miles apart and serve the distinctive areas of east central Scotland and northern Scotland? How does he think that the merger and the rationalisation that will take place will help educational provision in the areas concerned? Will he answer the particular worry expressed in Dundee, that there is an imbalance in the present arrangement in so far as the administration and principal are to be located principally in Aberdeen college, with Dundee reduced to a secondary status?
    Mr. MacKay: I cannot agree that the Dundee part of the northern college is being reduced to a secondary status. I remind him of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report which recommended to the Government that we should end up with three non-denominational colleges. This merger is an essential part of our strategy, which we adopted to achieve rationalisation without the closure of a single site. It is important to remember that. With effort on the part of the people in Aberdeen and Dundee, the merger can be made to work. There are important educational advantages in concentrating the services on one site instead of having very small classes indeed on two sites.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that the Government were absolutely right to take the line that they have taken? Although it may not be ideal, it is infinitely better than the line recommended by STEAC, and it was supported by the Liberal party, because the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told the EIS that it was in favour of maintaining the majority of education centres in Scotland. Of course, that implied that the Liberals were prepared to close some. Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the suggestion for a European education establishment in Dundee?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the choices that were before the Government—the STEAC proposals to close some colleges and what we have put forward, which includes the merger of these two colleges. If and when a definite set of proposals for a European college is submitted for consideration by member states of the Community, I shall certainly wish to see Scotland's claim, including the claim by Dundee, being seriously considered.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must recognise that it is nonsense to try to suggest that two colleges that are over 60 miles apart can somehow be regarded as one. Beyond that, the secrecy and speed with which this report was cobbled together takes away any attempt by the Government to suggest that any democratic procedure was involved in the drawing up of this plan. The shambles that has resulted from the allocation of various departments to Aberdeen or to Dundee can only be the result of this nonsense of rushing through an undemocratically prepared report.
    Mr. MacKay: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the report has been rushed through. The work was done on a tight time scale, but that was important because it cannot be in anybody's interest for the implementation

    253
    of this merger to be drawn out unduly. The working party has demonstrated that the merger can create a new and powerful college by combining the two colleges at Aberdeen and Dundee.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that colleges of education have a local impact, especially on curriculum development and on student teaching practice? Distance does count and has a serious impact.
    Mr. MacKay: I appreciate that, and that is one of the reasons why we decided to keep both colleges and not close one, or indeed both, as STEAC might have suggested if one had read it that way. We have decided to keep both colleges, and their facilities will be available for education in both Grampian and Tayside.
    Mr. Tom Clark: Will the Minister respond especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and tell the House what precise savings will be made by the proposal that will justify the inconvenience and disrupion that will inevitably arise?
    Mr. MacKay: There will obviously be savings in some of the staffing costs. When we dispose of certain properties in the buildings which are not being used now, or will not be used in the future, that will obviously result in major savings. Above all, there are educational points to be made. Both colleges were running with extraordinarily small classes and on an extraordinarily limited coverage of the curriculum. The colleges will be greatly strengthened by concentrating their resources on one or the other in different fields.

    Alcohol Rehabilitation Centres
    Sir Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide specific financial resources to enable local authorities to make provision for alcohol rehabilitation centres.
    Mr. Mackay: No, Sir. It is for local authorities to decide their own spending priorities within the available resources. Government grants are made to voluntary bodies which provide designated places under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
    Sir Russell Johnston: It is now seven years since the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 was introduced and we have still only one rehabilitation centre in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the reason for this is that the Government are unwilling to make any financial commitment beyond three years, and for that reason local authorities are unwilling to take on something for which they feel they will not be able to pay? That policy was again enunciated by the Government in a letter to Highland region in November last year about the proposed centre at Inverness. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider it there and elsewhere in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman ought to understand what pump-priming is about. It is an exercise to encourage the voluntary sector to set up these projects. We have put a lot of money into them, in capital terms, and we have helped them in the first three years in revenue terms. Indeed, in the case of Albyn House, we have gone on to help it for a fourth year. But these matters are the responsibility of local authorities. We are prepared to back voluntary projects to get them off the ground, and then
    254
    local authorities will have to take over the main line funding. It is a method of encouraging projects, and I am keen to see more of them. I just wish that more projects would be brought forward.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that Low Moss prison and Bishopbriggs have been doing valuable work in the treatment of alcohol offenders? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that alcohol treatment centres such as Albyn House in Aberdeen are far more appropriate places in which to treat offenders who are guilty of drunken and disorderly offences? Does he agree that if such a change were to come about it would help to reduce prison overcrowding?
    Mr. MacKay: I agree that Albyn House has been successful. As I have already said, we are keen to help voluntary projects, if they are brought forward. We have one in Dundee, but we are having an awful lot of trouble with it. It is in trouble with Tayside regional council, which has refused a certificate of registration under the Act to the Dundee proposal. This is very discouraging.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister not realise that alcohol is a very intractable problem and that what is required is not merely a local aspect to the treatment and rehabilitation of the people affected but a national aspect? Money needs to be spent on centres to help these people. Sometimes a one-to-one approach is required.
    Mr. Mackay: The hon. Gentleman has widened the question a little from designated centres. He is right to say that it is a difficult and intractable problem. The health boards try to play their part by providing facilities and resources and advice to people who have an alcohol problem. Help is also given by some of the voluntary bodies, which do excellent work.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I accept that the Albyn House experiment has been highly successful and is consistent with the objectives of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, but does the Minister accept that it is both unhelpful and hypocritical of the Government to endorse the principle without supplying resources so that local authorities are able to make such establishments available? Will resources be made available, or will local authorities be rate-capped if they pursue the Government's objectives?
    Mr. MacKay: That kind of resource is part and parcel of local authorities' social work resources. As for providing money for social work to local authorities, since the financial year 1982–83 to the one that we are just entering we have increased resources in real terms by about 12 per cent. That is a very significant increase in resources. Local authorities have to look to their priorities. If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to his friends in COSLA that they should give this group a little higher priority, I might be able to agree with him.

    Dornoch Rail Bridge
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Highlands Regional Council report on the Dornoch rail bridge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ancram: The consultant's report is still being studied carefully, but it does not appear to provide justification for the building of a rail bridge.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not accept that the independent report presents a powerful and emphatic case for the building of the Dornoch rail bridge at the same time as the road bridge? When the Minister has finished studying the report, may I ask him not simply to pass the buck to British Rail but to take the initiative and have discussions with British Rail about how money for the funding of the bridge might be found?
    Mr. Ancram: We are looking closely at the report, but our first examination of it shows that the social cost-benefit analysis describes the net present value of the bridge as negative. The hon. Gentleman knows that according to British Rail's analysis last year the revenue at risk was about £120,000, against a very conservative estimate for the cost of building the bridge of £12·7 million. When the spending of public resources is involved, this is a matter that has to be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that many people in the central belt question the justification for the priority given to the Dornoch road bridge within the total programme? Will he publish in the House of Commons Library a technical evaluation of the costs and benefits of the Dornoch road bridge?
    Mr. Ancram: In building any bridge or any road careful evaluation is made to show the positive benefits resulting from the work. This was done for the Dornoch road bridge and that is why we agreed to go forward with it. As regards a rail link associated with it, if this matter were to be re-opened it would delay severely the beginning of the construction of the road bridge.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister not recongised that the consultants' report called for a cost-benefit analysis to be done and said that it was not possible for Mackay Consultants to do it? Will he therefore finance an independent cost-benefit analysis as a matter of urgency, since the narrow financial appraisal to which he referred and which was conducted by British Rail did not make out the case which Mackay Consultants felt was capable of being made out? Will he please not support his own party's spokesman's view that the road bridge will be delayed? The work on the approach roads could begin while this cost-benefit analysis was going ahead.
    Mr. Ancram: On that latter point, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Were a rail bridge associated with the road bridge to be considered, the design competition which is presently taking place would have to be put off while the design specifications for a rail bridge was drawn up. That would have the effect, as I said earlier, of delaying the start of the construction of the road bridge by a year. This is essentially a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the question mark which the building of a rail bridge would place over the Lairg loop.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister reaffirm the excellent case put by the Government for the Dornoch rail link in his own submission to the European regional development fund, which takes into account the fact that the implications of this decision are far wider than the finances of ScotRail and British Rail and could well affect every aspect of life in the north of Scotland in the future? So will he stop passing the buck between his Department,
    256
    the Highlands region, the Department of Transport and ScotRail and accept his responsibility to take this unique opportunity to secure the future of the north rail line?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of passing the buck when this is a matter which has to be initiated by British Rail in the first place. British Rail made its own analysis last year, which showed a revenue at risk which was very small in comparison with the total cost of the bridge, and on that basis it did not believe that the project should go ahead. That was British Rail's judgment then, and I have no reason to think that it has changed its mind.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of British Steel Corporation to discuss the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on a regular basis. No date for the next meeting has been arranged.
    Mr. Hamilton: When the Minister next meets the British Steel Corporation chairman, will he discuss with him the steel users, many of whom are going out of business? As the Minister is aware, it has been announced today that the Caterpillar Tractor Company in my constituency will be closing within 15 to 18 months, with a loss of 1,121 jobs. As he is also aware, an announcement was made in September, when he was present, of a £62 million investment. Of that investment, £3·1 million of public money has been spent. Is he going to tell 113 now that he can do nothing about it? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it, because this is a diabolical scandal? This will mean unemployment in Lanarkshire on a 20 per cent. basis. The Secretary of State for Scotland and and the Government have a responsibility to do something about it.
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman over today's announcement affecting the plant at Uddingston. I regret and deplore the decision announced today. It is a decision which is all the more extraordinary because, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, as recently as four months ago the company announced a £62·5 million investment programme to secure the future of the plant. Substantial financial assistance for the project was offered by the Government and accepted by the company. The decision arises from a worldwide review of the company's manufacturing capacity. No consultation with the Government took place prior to today's announcement.
    I shall be holding urgent discussions with the company. I understand that the closure will be phased over at least the next year. This gives us the opportunity to explore with the company what can be done to retain operations and employment at the Uddingston facility.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to remind the chairman of British Steel of the importance of getting across to the people of Scotland the fact that unless steel costs are kept within competitive levels steel users in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, will find themselves uncompetitive and unable to compete?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very encouraging that British Steel recently announced half-yearly profits of about £68 million, compared with the vast losses that it was making a few years ago. Clearly, the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom can only be seen to be substantially improved now that the British Steel Corporation is profitable.
    Mr. George Robertson: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Steel, will he bear in mind the industrial wasteland being created in Lanarkshire as a result of steel industry and steel-using industry job losses and the fact that the closure of Caterpillar is yet another sickening blow for this area, which has suffered so much? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall Lord Young's speech at the Scottish Conservative party conference last year, when he held up the glowing example of the Garnock valley initiative in the creation of jobs where jobs in the steel industry had been lost? If the scale of help given to the Garnock valley is to be an example for Lanarkshire, the amount that will be required for Lanarkshire is more than £500 million. Are the Government willing to give that sort of help to unemployment-hit Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am well aware of the serious employment problems faced by Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman will know, not only does Lanarkshire come within the special development area category, but the Scottish Development Agency is particularly involved in a number of projects with employment implications in the area. Of course, we are always willing to look at any ideas that may be forthcoming to ensure the improvement of employment prospects in Lanarkshire. It is not the only locality with such problems, but I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by the community in that part of Scotland.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the commitment given by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to Ravenscraig still stand? If so, would it not be a good idea for the Minister to go to Ravenscraig to talk to the shop stewards there about the balance between low value-added slab and high-quality strip steel and the fact that, in the view of many people, this may well mean that Ravenscraig's future and profitability are gravely at risk?
    Mr. Rifkind: I visited Ravenscraig not long ago and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—intends to make a similar visit in the relatively near future. We have had the opportunity to discuss matters with the trade unions and management at Ravenscraig. That useful source of information reveals the developments affecting Ravenscraig. I believe that the plant is in a far stronger position than it was some years ago because of the general improvement in the productivity of the individual plant and the increased profitability of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Corrie: When my right hon. and learned Friend speaks again to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he tell him of the disappointment of some steel workers in my constituency who have been made redundant and have not yet been given help with retraining or received their redundancy money, although it is well over a year since the plant closed? Can my right hon. and learned Friend speed things up a bit?
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly ensure that the matter is drawn to the BSC's attention, to ascertain whether some progress of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred can be made.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that Eurofer, the European steel producers association, has undertaken to propose to the European Commission by the end of March the closure of some 5 million tonnes of flat product capacity in Europe? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the chairman of Eurofer is also the chairman of the British Steel Corporation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that those proposed closures will not include any reduction in capacity at the Ravenscraig or Dalzell works?
    Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the Eurofer proposals, decisions on the future of any BSC works are subject to the strategy agreed in 1985. It would be for the Steel Corporation to consider in the light of that stategy what part it might play in the development of Eurofer's proposals for Europe as a whole?
    Mr. Hirst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to remind the House and the people of Scotland of the very welcome news recently that BSC intends to spend a further £30 million on new investment at Ravenscraig? Will he reiterate the importance of the corporation being in profit in order to find these funds for new investment?
    Mr. Rifkind: The proposed £30 million investment must be good news, as one cannot seriously contemplate the closure of a plant if one is simultaneously proposing investment of that kind. I am aware that the trade unions have called for further investment in the coke ovens at Ravenscraig. I should point out that half the coke ovens should last until the turn of the century. There is good reason to believe that others will last well into the 1990s. Even the trade unions at Ravenscraig now recognise that limited reconstruction of existing ovens should overcome any shortfall in coke supplies during that period.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that on this side of the House we feel that the decision announced today by Caterpillar is either the result of monumental incompetence by management or soulless cynicism? There cannot be any other explanation of this astonishing turnabout in the last few months. Will he also note our sympathy, which I am sure he shares, for the 1,200 or so people and their families who are so suddenly and unexpectedly facing the dole queue? It is all the more bitter because it is so unexpected after the recent false optimism of the proposed £62 million investment. programme. Can the Secretary of State say whether any public money has been put into the firm since the announcement was made, that is, whether there is a public sector debit as a result of the announcement of that investment? If so, can he guarantee that there will be full recovery of that public money?
    Can the Secretary of State also say something about what can be done to safeguard this country against such a disgraceful scuttle operation by a firm which seemed to be so firmly established—and I do not mean this in any knocking sense—that it figured in his new year message only a week ago as a firm which was becoming more profitable and competitive, so helping to make employment more secure? It is an appalling condemnation of the

    259
    firm. What has happened to face us with this about-turn? Can the Secretary of State also say something more about the moratorium on regional development plans, because it seems extraordinary that this should be announced on the day when we have suffered such a hammer blow from Caterpillar? Does it make sense to delay by even a few months much-needed funds when we are desperately trying to save jobs and build on what is left of Scotland's manufacturing base?
    Mr. Rifkind: On his final point, the hon. Gentleman should realise that the proposed two-month period is half that which has been insisted on with regard to RDG 1 until now. With regard to his broader question on Caterpillar, I am not aware of any public funds that have yet been given to the company since the decision in September. Of course, we would take steps to ensure the recovery of public funds if that had happened.
    I very much share the sentiments that he expressed, for the simple reason that the decision announced in September of a proposed £62 million investment was itself the result of a very extensive review that the company had carried out into its international operations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand any development that might have taken place in the relatively short period since September which would justify such a major change in its outlook. I have indicated to the House that I intend to have early discussions with representatives of the company. Fortunately, a significant period will elapse before the proposed closure would come into effect. Therefore, one naturally hopes that that opportunity can be used to ensure some continuation of the plant and indeed of the employment of those who depend on it.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Murder Trials
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make it his policy that bereaved relations of murder victims are informed in advance of the date of the commencement of the trial.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Procurators fiscal do give this information to bereaved relatives, but it is not done as a matter of course. The present policy is being reviewed, as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has stated in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 12 January 1987.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General accept that great distress was caused to my constituents when they learnt in a casual conversation with neighbours of the trial of the person accused of murdering their 16-year-old son? Does he accept that that was appalling? Does he accept that it is grossly offensive and insulting for the Lord Advocate to say that it is up to the individuals concerned to make inquiries of the procurator fiscal's office? Will he make sure that the review that is taking place will be based on making machinery available whereby bereaved relatives of murder victims will be notified automatically of the date when the trial is to take place?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were upset. I should explain that until recently there was probably no problem over this, inasmuch as one or more of the parents would be required to attend as witnesses to give formal evidence
    260
    of identification. For good and proper reason, we seek as best we can to avoid that happening. I want to dispel any impression that there is any deliberate policy to avoid telling parents or spouses of these matters, and it is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has said that he will carry out a review to ensure that the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expresses do not arise again.

    Classified Information (Legal Proceedings)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how, in considering possible legal proceedings arising from alleged breaches of confidentiality in relation to classified information, the Lord Advocate distinguishes between his roles as prosecutor in criminal proceedings and as nominal plaintiff in civil proceedings.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in deciding whether to prosecute any alleged offence relating to the disclosure of classified information, exercises a discretion as public prosecutor wholly independently of the Government. In acting in civil proceedings to restrain such disclosure, he does so on the authority of the Crown or of the appropriate public Department in terms of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland find it difficult to agree that the Lord Advocate and Kerr Fraser would have made an altogether much better job than did Sir Robert Armstrong, for the Attorney-General, in the Wright case?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the hon. Gentleman's views of the abilities of Sir William Kerr Fraser. It would be entirely wrong, however, for me to draw any comparisons between him and Sir Robert Armstrong.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland say in how many instances either he or the Lord Advocate has had to take no part in legal proceedings because of a conflict of interest or because of some other activity that he or his noble and learned Friend undertakes, such as being a Commissioner of Northern Lighthouses? Is the example that I have given an isolated one, or are there a number of different areas of public offices or other activities where the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland have a conflict of roles?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot think immediately of any other situation where there might be a conflict of interest. In the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I am not entirely sure that there was a conflict of interest. To avoid any apparent disagreement or any apparent indication that we had acted with some impropriety, both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I declined to take any part in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Salmon Act 1986
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has had discussions with procurators fiscal on the implementation of the poaching clause in the Salmon Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I have not discussed this provision with procurators fiscal, a Crown Office circular has been issued to them dealing with the implementation of the Act in general.
    Sir Hector Monro: Having enjoyed some poached salmon today with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for fisheries, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry and to the the development of hotels in Scotland? Will he bring home to procurators fiscal and all involved that we must take a tough line with poachers if we are to achieve advancement in this area?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he is aware that the Salmon Act 1986 came into force last week. It is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, myself and the Crown Office have brought to the attention of procurators fiscal what is contained within the Act and made it clear to them that the provisions that deal with what might be described now as the statutory reset of poached salmon should be implemented wherever appropriate.
    Mr. Canavan: Given the draconian penalties laid down in the Salmon Act 1986, which mean that someone who is in possesion of a salmon in certain circumstances can be sent to prison for two years, and to avoid any accusations that the Crown Office is less than even-handed, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland assure ordinary working-class poachers who take an occasional salmon for the pot that they will get off with a friendly warning from the procurator fiscal in the same way as the Duke of Argyll and his cronies, who have been net fishing illegally for years in Loch Fyne and getting away with it scot-free?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman should be aware, as everyone else is, of the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry in Scotland. He should not think, even in a casual and half-comical fashion, that there is anything funny about the level of poaching in Scotland's rivers, which is causing real problems. If the hon. Gentleman would like to move away from the central belt occasionally and travel to the east coast of Scotland, the north-east or into the Highlands, he would learn of the serious effect that poaching and the prevalence of it has had on the tourist industry.
    Mr. Kennedy: What does the Solicitor-General for Scotland think of the apparent complacency with which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland accepts the fact that its own recently published figures show that 14 per cent. of Scottish salmon fishery owners in the country did not even bother to submit, as they were legally supposed to do, return forms for their catches? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concerned about that illegality, to which the Department is turning a blind eye?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One person who did make a return to the Department on that matter was the Duke of Argyll. However, if the proprietors of salmon fisheries are not making the appropriate returns, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is essentially a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay).

    Dangerous Driving
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the average length of time which elapses between charges being made for dangerous driving and an appearance in court.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This information is not readily available. Procurators fiscal take a serious view of cases of reckless driving and give them as much priority as their local circumstances permit.
    Mr. Forsyth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the distress being caused to relatives—especially in cases in which near relations have been involved in fatal accidents—by the considerable delays being experienced in my constituency?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of one case in my hon. Friend's constituency about which he is concerned and which he has discussed with me. However, I advise him that the case is now before the courts and, as it is sub-judice, I can say nothing further about it.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland agree that it would be a good and sensible thing if those who are responsible for trying driving cases, especially dangerous driving cases, which involve objective, professional and technical judgment, at least had a driving qualification of some kind themselves?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Although in general I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, if that principle were applied broadly across the criminal law field only those who had committed fraud and who had an understanding of how to do so would decide and judge such cases. Generally speaking, we require people with some intelligence and some experience, but above all, we need to see that those who judge act fairly and without prejudice.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?
    Mr. Clarke: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Later, please.
    Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions.
    I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on question No. 7, which concerned the proposed merger between the Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education. I came into questions specifically to raise a matter on that question which has direct relevance to my constituency. I should appreciate your help, Mr. Speaker, on the normal convention of the House. I have been led to believe that if a question is of direct relevance to a Member's constituency that Member will normally be called, especially in circumstances such as today, when I was the only representative—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my authority on that matter. I must advise him that I allowed a good run on that question and that I must balance both sides of the House, and all the parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman will find that a member of his own party was called to ask a question.

Television Licence Fees
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about decisions on certain parts of the Peacock report on broadcasting which the House debated on 20 November 1986.
We accept the judgment of the Peacock committee that the BBC should not be financed through advertising and that, for the time being, the licence fee should remain the principal source of income. As the House knows, we have commissioned an expert study of the technical and economic feasibility of subscription which, in principle, we find attractive. We should receive that in the spring, but it is, in any case, clear, as Professor Peacock noted, that that form of funding could not be introduced for some years.
I have already announced that the colour licence fee will remain at £58 until March 1988. We have decided that thereafter it should be indexed to move annually in line with the retail price index. That will provide secure and predictable funding for the BBC consistent with the principle of its constitutional independence. Increases in the licence fee will in future be determined on precisely the same basis as increases in pensions and benefits. As Peacock proposed, the new colour licence fee will be calculated on a notional licence fee for 1987–88 of £60. In April 1988 the fee will be increased by an amount which reflects the percentage annual change in the retail prices index as measured at October 1987. Given the past tendency of BBC costs to rise faster than inflation, this form of indexation will provide a strong incentive to practise efficiency and care in undertaking fresh commitments. The Government see the new arrangements I have announced today as lasting for at least three years from April 1988; any departure from them should be wholly exceptional and for clearly stated reasons.
We believe that people should have the option of receiving black and white television and taking out a significantly cheaper licence. Accordingly, despite Peacock's suggestion that the monochrome licence fee might be brought closer to that of the colour licence, we have decided that the monochrome fee should remain at broadly its present level. It will therefore be indexed on the basis I have described, starting from a notional base line of £20 and continuing to provide a cheaper alternative licence.
We have looked again at the arguments for concessionary licences. We are satisfied that there are overwhelming objections both on principle and on grounds of practicability to the Peacock committee's proposal that pensioners drawing supplementary pensions should be exempt from the licence fee if they live in households wholly dependent on a pension. We reject Peacock's suggestion which envisaged financing this proposal through a separate car radio licence. In the light of those decisions, we have decided to keep the existing arrangements for concessionary licences for those in residential care.
We accept in principle the Peacock committee's view that the BBC should be given a bigger role in collecting the licence fee. We have doubts about its specific proposal that the BBC should act as a managing agent, on a consultative basis, to the Home Office because we think that that might
264
lead to a confusion of responsibilities. While the Government will clearly need to determine the level of the licence fee and any concessionary arrangements, we believe, subject to study of the detailed implications, that the BBC should become directly responsible for collecting this revenue and for enforcing the licence fee system. The BBC's board of governors accepts in principle the merits of this approach. We shall be exploring together the detailed implications so that we can propose later any necessary changes in the law.
We are anxious that those wanting a television licence should have available, and be fully aware of, convenient means of paying for it. Since the last settlement, the Home Office, in consultation with the BBC and the Post Office, has carried out a thorough review of existing methods and examined possible new methods of payment. As a result, both we and the BBC see attractions in arrangements under which licences could be issued on a pay-as-you-go basis—at present, as the House knows, the licence fee has to be paid in full in advance. We shall be considering further with the BBC how that could be put into practice. meanwhile, we intend to make the public better aware of the various schemes that already exist for payment. We aim to increase convenience of payment for the consumer; to help those in financial difficulty to spread the cost of the fee; to minimise enforcement and administration costs; to reduce the levels of evasion and late payment; and to enable the BBC to maximise its revenue while keeping the cost of the licence fee down.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We note with satisfaction that the Government have abandoned any idea of imposing advertising on the BBC. However, on another aspect of his statement, the Home Secretary has been less precise and less forthright. He tells us that after March 1988 the licence increase will be on a notional base of £60. However, he does not spell out exactly what that means for licence holders. Does it mean that on 1 April 1988 the Government intend to put up the licence fee by £2 to £60 and, at the same time, add to that a cost of living increase of up to £3? Will the Home Secretary deny that if I am mistaken? If I am not mistaken, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Government are planning what they hope will be a post-election increase in the licence of £5 a year on 1 April next year? It is important that the country should know whether that is what the Government are planning.
What about pensioners? The Home Secretary has accepted the Peacock proposal for an indexed television licence based on a figure of £60. But one integral ingredient of that proposal was free television licences for pensioner households drawing supplementary benefit, yet the Home Secretary has meanly rejected that recommendation. He picks and chooses among the Peacock recommendations, accepting those that suit him and rejecting another that would help the poor.
The Labour party believes that the financing of the BBC should be re-examined in a way that seeks to address itself to the problem of the licence as a regressive poll tax. Meanwhile, the Labour party makes it absolutely clear and reaffirms its commitment to phase out the television licence for all pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I am coming to that. We consider that public expenditure to be a far more socially compassionate use of public money than squandering £164 million of taxpayers' money on the selling off of British Gas.
Mr. Hurd: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first question, in October 1987 the sums will be done to calculate the rise in the retail prices index between September 1986 and September 1987, in exactly the same way as happens for pensions and other benefits. From April 1988 that calculation will be applied in addition to the notional fee of £60. The amount of the increase will depend on the Government's continuing success in resisting the efforts of the Labour party to push up inflation.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked his question because it enables me to make it clear that by April 1988 the BBC will be spending at substantially above the level of the £60 licence fee. We shall be applying a double squeeze—a once-and-for-all squeeze, inasmuch as we have chosen a notional figure of £60 and not a higher figure, although the BBC will be spending at a higher figure, and a continuous squeeze inasmuch as we have chosen for the index the retail prices index and not the higher index that the BBC tended to favour, because its costs have been historically high. There will be a double squeeze—a once-and-for-all squeeze, and a continuous squeeze on the spending of the BBC in order to relieve the licence payer from excessive increases.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I notice that, in an incoherent way, the Labour party is set on the path that he describes. The policy that he announces from the Front Bench is different from the policy that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may have an opportunity to develop on Friday. Both are a deeply incompetent attempt at a bribe, as the debate on Friday will reveal. Once people have got over the immediate dazzle of the proposition, they will reach the same conclusion as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), a former Prime Minister and Home Secretary—that it is not a sensible use of social security money that elderly well-to-do people should suddenly receive free television. That is not an adequate or sensible way of spending the limited resources available for social security. The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to explain how the £230 million, or £330 million, would be found, and we look forward to further exploration of that rather important point.
Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people who have considered this matter will welcome the Government's decision that there should be indexation on what I hope will be an interim basis until the problems relating to the introduction of subscription as a means of financing the BBC have been resolved? Will he also accept that the principle of indexation will provide the BBC with a certain income, will encourage efficiency and will, I hope, also encourage the BBC to work towards the resolution of the problems relating to subscription which will provide a long-term answer to the BBC's problems?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I agree with him. The form of indexation that we have chosen is intended to be a reasonable squeeze on the BBC's revenues and, therefore, a reasonable protection for the licence holder. When we see the report of the expert study in the spring we shall be able to judge more clearly the merits of an approach towards subscription as a substitute for the licence and, perhaps equally important, the pace at which it is reasonable to move in that direction.
Mr. Clement Freud: It would have been absurdly optimistic for the BBC to have expected more support or understanding from the Government, but the Home Secretary must realise that indexing the new licence fee to the retail prices index is unsatisfactory bearing in mind the cost of wages, which far outstrip the retail prices index. We welcome the fact that he has ignored the Peacock recommendations in respect of monochrome licences. We welcome the fact that that fee will be pegged and we hope that it will be pegged even below £20.
It is sensible to let the BBC bring in its own procedure for collecting the licence fee, but we hope that that will not inhibit the Home Secretary from finding, before that becomes a fact, new ways of establishing instalments and other simple devices for paying licence fees for people who cannot afford them.
Mr. Hurd: It will be interesting as the debate continues over the coming months to learn how much higher the licence fee which the Liberal and Labour parties would propose to the BBC would be than the one which we suggest on the basis of indexation. The hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of these matters, which is substantial, understands the nature of the squeeze that we are proposing, but I ask him not to get entirely hooked on the idea that, simply because the costs of an institution, even a famous institution, have historically risen higher than the RPI, we should accept as God-given that such increases must continue.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision that the licence fee should remain the principal source of the BBC's income and what appears to be his sensible proposal for the indexation of that fee. However, will my right hon. Friend spell out in clear terms the cost of the Labour party's commitment that everybody of pensionable age should, apparently, be allowed a free television licence? It seems that that would be an enormous expense on those who pay the licence fee. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to spell out that cost?
Mr. Hurd: The cost of the official Labour programme, as repeated by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), would be £330 million. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), with uncharacteristic modesty, has a more limited programme which would knock £100 million off that figure. His proposal would be impractical to administer, but it would cost £230 million instead of £330 million. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made it clear that additional taxation would not he available to finance this. He has also warned against proposing that it could be done by extra borrowing. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that these substantial sums would be found either by loading them on the other licence holders or by cutting the social security budget in other respects.
Mr. Chris Smith: Early in his remarks the Home Secretary said that the Government viewed the proposal for subscription payment for BBC television as an attractive option in principle. However, would it not be nonsense to have two channels available on subsription while other channels were available free at the point of delivery and funded by

267
advertising? Will he consider again the difficulties which would be attendant upon the introduction of subscription television?
Mr. Hurd: We shall have an opportunity to consider the advantages and disadvantages when we have the consultants' report, but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should not over-egg this argument. We think that there is a powerful attraction in supposing that, instead of the existing licence fee, which will look odder and odder as time goes on and more and more channels are available, there might be a different system whereby people can, as they do in other respects in their daily lives, pay for what they choose to receive and not everything else.
Sir Paul Bryan: Am I right in assuming that the Labour Party proposals would mean that non-pensioners would be paying about £90 a year for their licence? Will the BBC be responsible for collecting the licence and will it be able to put the agency out to tender on competitive terms?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's question is among the details that we are discussing with the BBC. At present, the collection is done by the Post Office and in the past, there have been all sorts of suggestions and criticisms of that arrangement. If we reach an agreement with the BBC on lines that I have discussed, I am sure that the BBC would wish to consider various possibilities including continuing the arrangement with the Post Office.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his first point. If it is suggested that the cost of the scheme—the bribe—should be loaded on the existing licence holders, it is likely that the increase would be that suggested by my hon. Friend. I suspect that what the Opposition have in mind is that this figure should get lost in the general mish-mash of their financial policies and that they will seek to avoid a definite answer as to how and at whose expense the money is to be found.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary telling Sid that the licence fee will go up by £5 next year? Why is he perpetuating a poll tax system whereby the Savoy hotel, charging £100 a night for a single bedroom, pays for only one licence fee for 15 television sets and Harrods pays only a small fee for exhibiting several hundered sets? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1 million people do not and cannot pay their television licences because they never see £58 in a lump sum? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman implement the considered proposals of the Peacock committee and bring relief to hard-up pensioners?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the Peacock committee proposals, which are much more limited than those of the Labour party, would be administratively possible. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should abandon the licence fee principle, but his party is saying that we should continue with the licence fee principle—to which it seems much more devoted than myself—but that we should differentiate and give a special subsidy and free television to elderly people regardless of their means and regardless of the fact that a large number of people are substantially worse off than a high proportion of pensioners.
Mr. John Wheeler: Although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I entirely endorse his statement, will he give the House a little more information about pensioner incomes? Approximately one-third of pensioners live above the national income level. Would it be entirely fair if the licence fee was loaded on to all other existing licence fee payers, many of whom are one-parent families?
Mr. Hurd: I am sure that that would be unfair. The precise fact for which my hon. Friend is searching is that 35 per cent. of pensioners—rather more than one-third—are represented in the three upper-fifths of national income distribution. That makes absolute nonsense of the Opposition's approach.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is this not yet another step in the Government's vendetta against the BBC and their intention of cutting down the BBC? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the costs of advanced broadcasting technology are inevitably bound to rise faster than the RPI and that the effects of his policy will be damaging—which is his intention—and deleterious to the work of the BBC?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first step should be to do something to educate his own and the Liberal Front Bench because they have been sniping in a populist way at the proposal for indexation on the ground that it will be too high. The hon. Gentleman knows that it will be a substantial squeeze and therefore a substantial protection for the licence holder.
I shall repeat what I have said. We should be very wary of assuming that past cost increases were justified or of seeing them as eternal. The hon. Gentleman knows the problem that the BBC has had with its costs. The other system also has a severe problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the BBC is now making strenuous efforts, under its present leadership, to reduce its costs, and its stand in relation to the electricians' strike is part of that.
I believe that the Government should encourage the BBC in that effort by making it clear that the money which is available is compatible only with a considerable squeeze on costs. Moreover, I do not believe that the BBC should hold the idea that it must automatically leap first into any new venture without regard to the cost because it is afraid that someone else may come up with that idea.
Mr. Roger Gale: When does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that every television receiver sold in the United Kingdom carries a built-in encryption unit so that when the move comes, as it inevitably will do, to subscription television, that will be technically possible?
Mr. Hurd: I know of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for subscription television. However, we shall wait for the consultants' report as we shall then be able to judge whether that Peacock recommendation should be carried into effect, and, if so, how and at what speed.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Secretary of State realise that rather ignobly, because we might have hoped for better from him, he has shown himself to be suffering from the Tebbit syndrome, which means, when in difficulties bash the BBC? He has just enunciated a formula for slow strangulation, because the costs of technology rise more rapidly than the retail prices index. If we are to avoid the slow contraction of services, an erosion of quality, and a slow electronic rigor mortis,

269
the right hon. Gentleman will have to find revenues to supplement the licence fee—such as a point of sale tax on video tape recorders—and will have to end the present regressive policy by freeing the licence fee for pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has proposed.
Mr. Hurd: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is contradicting his own Front Bench, because it says that the licence fee increase is too much whereas he says that it is too little. He is right, as his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was right, to say that what we propose amounts to a squeeze. However, it is a squeeze in support of what the BBC is now trying to do. Consequently, I am not criticising or bashing the BBC. It is now making a manful effort to get its costs under control and to bring itself into the modern world in that regard. We want to help the BBC in its efforts.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is there not something terribly anachronistic about a system which in the foreseeable future will mean that many hard-pressed old-age pensioners will be forced to pay a compulsory BBC levy when, in other circumstances, they could watch the two ITV channels for nothing and elect in due course to pay a subscription fee, if they so wished, to the BBC?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has succinctly put the case for subscription and for the philosophy lying behind the main recommendation in the Peacock report. We believe that if that recommendation is to be persuasive and effective it needs more back-up than it receives in the report, and so we have asked the consultants for a further report. When we receive it in the spring, we shall be able to reopen the discussion.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that in refusing to make any concessions he has today demonstrated a cruel indifference to many of our elderly people? A large majority of them are on low incomes and they rely on the television as their sole form of entertainment and many use it, as Peacock stated in his report, as a link to the outside world. I have received many letters from constituents of Conservative Members on this subject and I should like to know whether it is true that all Ministers have been told to be in the House on Friday to vote down my Bill.
Mr. Hurd: What rubbish this is! In a way I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop his case and that we shall have an opportunity to refute it later this week. The Labour party has wholly failed to explain where the money to finance that concession or the more extravagant concessions sought by the Opposition Front Bench is to come from, and so we must assume that there will be competition with other social security payments.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and his hon. Friends must develop the case that this proposition should be top of the queue, as it is wholly unrelated to need and there are so many other demands on the social security budget at present. A large proportion of the concession will go untaxed to well-off members of the community. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will have to make the unmakeable case that the concession is a satisfactory priority for the social security budget.
Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his measured and sensible approach
270
to the Peacock report. Will he assure the House that he will put considerable umph behind the proposals for a feasible subscription system and that he will then bring positive proposals to the House? We must find an alternative to the ludicrous licence fee system, because the majority of people are fed up with paying such an enormous fee for a regular diet of old films, repeats, American soap and biased current affairs programmes.
Mr. Hurd: The licence fee system was perfectly natural when the BBC had a monopoly. It has been tolerable during the era of the duopoly in which we still live. Like my hon. Friend, I think that it is beginning to creak quite noisily as we move into a time of possible wider choice. But before we abandon the system we must be clear that there is an alternative that makes sense. We may have found one, but it is still too soon to be absolutely clear. I take note of the point made by several of my hon. Friends that the House will wish to discuss that point again when the consultants report is published.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not fair to say that a Government who refuse even properly to heat the homes of millions of pensioners is hardly the sort of Government that would be receptive to the principle of free television licences for pensioners? When the Minister tells us that the Government do not have the money to do that, will he give us an assurance that there will be no tax cuts in the Budget which is due in two months time? Will he assure us that there will be no cuts in the standard rate of income tax, in the capital transfer tax or in capital gains tax? That is where the money is. The Minister knows that he has it, but he refuses to use it to help Britain's pensioners. He should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Hurd: I refuse to accept that it makes sense in terms of social security benefits for the old and those in need to put at the top of the queue and establish as a priority the giving of free television to elderly people, regardless of their circumstances and need. That is nonsense and it will be rapidly seen as such as the debate proceeds.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the income from the licence fee is about £1,000 million a year? Does he recognise that there is considerable disquiet, and not only on this side of the House, that such a large sum of money that is acquired by compulsion can be disbursed by an organisation that is virtually unaccountable except when it is brought to account through the courts? Why should the BBC uniquely have a secure and predictable income that is not enjoyed by the independent broadcasting companies?
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the sale of programmes contributes little more than 1 per cent. of the BBC's total income? If the BBC wishes to increase its resources and it is as good as it says it is, why does it not sell more programmes?
Mr. Hurd: I am entirely in favour of the BBC trying to improve and diversify its sources of income in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. He is unpicking the BBC's charter, as several of my hon. Friends would wish to do, and the form of responsibility that exists between the BBC and the House. The time will come—although it is not immediate—when the charter must be renewed and those matters will come up for discussion. We are concerned more immediately with the basis of financing the BBC and whether it is possible to move from the

271
licence fee system, with all the criticisms made of it, towards a system of subscription based on individual choice.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Home Secretary aware that by rejecting all concessions he has, in effect, said that after the general election pensioners, among others, will pay £5 a year more for the licence? Does he really believe that people think that commercial television costs them nothing when the consumers, many of whom are pensioners, pay for it and when all advertising budgets are tax deductible and therefore the taxpayers, many of whom are pensioners, pay for it? The Home Secretary's statement is an attack upon the group that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) intends to protect.
Mr. Hurd: The only thing to be said for the hon. Member for Walsall, North is that he has never held office in a Government.
Having looked at the concessionary system and the proposals for improving it, I have come to exactly the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did when they were in office.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my mother and my mother-in-law, of whom I am inordinately fond, would very much enjoy a free television licence, but is it not nonsense to subsidise people by age group alone? Is not the proper use of public money to use it where it will do most good? To subsidise those who do not need it deprives people who need state and taxpayers' help.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I agree with his premise and his conclusion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has not paid any attention to the argument put forward on this issue, that there are countless hundreds of thousands of pensioners who live in warden-controlled accommodation and who get a relatively free television licence?
The Labour party and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will try on Friday to bring about some equality under the law so that every pensioner is treated properly. One thing is certain from the Home Secretary's remarks today. Hugo Young just about got it right in respect of the chairman of the Tory party. What he got wrong was that he did not apply it to the entire Government Front Bench, including himself.
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that anyone is entirely happy with the existing concessionary scheme that was introduced by the last Labour Government and which we have expanded by bringing in, in 1984, handicapped and disabled people.
As with winter heating, although on a lesser scale, we have taken what we inherited and made it somewhat more substantial. However one expands this housing-based concession, there will be borderline cases and difficulties. We have considered the matter carefully, but we have concluded that the best way is to continue with the present limited concession.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have looked at various proposals for the financing and control of the BBC. I think
272
that it has been suggested that there should be established a Ministry of arts and media, hence to be known as the Ministry of Culture and Propaganda. Originally that would be without the BBC, but knowing the nature of the proposals of such a Ministry inevitably the BBC would come within its ambit. Could my right hon. Friend tell the House, and particularly the Labour party, why that would not be an appropriate solution?
Mr. Hurd: I have noticed that there has been commotion in the shadow kingdom on this subject and I had mixed feelings when I read today that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Garton (Mr. Kaufman) had unhorsed the challenger who was attempting to take away part of his shadow fief. It is a shadowy business, as my hon. Friend would acknowledge.
For what it is worth, it is on the whole better, regardless naturally of all personalities, that the Shadow Home Office fief should resemble the accurate one as represented by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Home Secretary aware that Britain's 10 million pensioners will view this week in Westminster with a slight degree of incredulity? Yesterday, paid for through a cut in the real value of their pension, the Government said: "Here is a fiver." That is wholly inadequate to pay towards the heating of their homes. Today they are saying, "An extra fiver will go on your television licence?" Yesterday the pensioners were told that it was a choice between food and fuel. Today it will be a choice between food and entertainment. Is that really the future that the Tory Government offer Britain's 10 million pensioners?
Mr. Hurd: Pensioners are not so simple or silly as the hon. Member appears to make out. They know that in the lifetime of this Government there has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on pensions. They will know from their experience how to weigh in the balance the sort of shallow half promises being tossed about by the Labour party.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: As the BBC easily won the ratings war over the Christmas period, with eight programmes in the top 10, will my right hon. Friend accept that he is quite right to resist claims that funding of the BBC be at parity with ITV, as such extra funding is totally superfluous?
Mr. Hurd: I think that, on the whole, my hon. Friend commends the balance that we have tried to strike. If that is what he is doing, I agree with him.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Home Secretary appeared to reject the idea that concessions should be given to pensioners. Will he confirm that the present concessionary system will be maintained? If he does, will he accept that, in those areas in which local authorities have a splendid record in building and providing accommodation for the elderly, the grievous anomalies are particularly intense? Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the point that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is properly sustained? He said that my hon. Friends wil have to deploy arguments to convince the Government about the merits of the Bill on Friday. Have not the Government already made up their mind regardless of the case that my hon. Friends will make?
Mr. Hurd: I will welcome the debate because it will show the hollowness of the pretensions of Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman's first point is entirely right. The present concessionary scheme that we inherited and, as I have said, expanded to include the handicapped and disabled is patchy. It produces anomalies that are particularly severe in some parts of the country. We have tried hard to find a neater, tidier way of spending roughly the same amount—£22 million. We have not found a neater way to avoid creating new anomalies. Therefore, I confirm that we have decided to maintain the present scheme.
Mr. Richard Holt: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that the Government have rejected advertising as such out of hand. There is advertising every day on the BBC. Every sporting organisation that is sponsored by a commercial organisation receives money not because of philanthropy but because the commercial organisation wishes to advertise as widely as possible to the widest audience. There is no mechanical reason why this could not be done in the same way as money is collected for the Performing Right Society.
Mr. Hurd: Evidently, the BBC draws a distinction between advertising and sponsorship. As my hon. Friend may know, it is exploring and putting forward ideas for a limited range of sponsorship. The BBC has been in touch with us about that matter. It is its initiative. We shall be interested to see how its thinking develops on this matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been standing. I ask for questions on this statement and not the speeches that might be made tomorrow.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Home Secretary think that the public wish to see a reducing proportion of national income available to the BBC?
Mr. Hurd: So long as the licence fee system continues, the public will welcome a system that provides the BBC with an income that will rise in the same way, to the same extent and on the same dates as pensions and social security benefits. They will find that a much more reasonable proposition than others to which they may have to listen.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that his statement puts the BBC in a uniquely privileged position? Not only does it have a guaranteed income but it is protected against inflation, regardless of its ability to satisfy consumers. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the necessary changes in the structure of the BBC will be made to ensure that it is able to meet its obligations under the charter and thereby do something in return for this privilege?
Mr. Hurd: I assure my hon. Friend that the BBC will not regard today's announcement in anything like the same way as he does. The BBC clearly will see, as various questions have illustrated, the substantial double squeeze on its income—first, the once-for-all choice of the base line, and, secondly, the RPI indexation as opposed to indexation of relative costs, as Mr. Samuel Brittan and others rather surprisingly suggested. The squeeze is
274
intended to support and underpin the efforts that my hon. Friend and I strongly welcome being made by the BBC to bring its costs under effective control.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was the Home Secretary being any more than polite to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) when he agreed with what he said and, in particular, rather threateningly said that the BBC was creaking? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a cautionary little tale. When the late Reggie Bevins was Postmaster-General, in answer to questions he said he would do something about the BBC and "That Was The Week That Was". Reggie Bevins, when he went to his desk the following morning, found a little note on it. The little note said, "Oh no, you won't." It was signed "Harold."
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically inaccurate. It was not the BBC but the licence fee system for financing it, which I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley), seemed to be beginning to creak.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend accept that today's announcement will be seen outside as a victory for the BBC and, therefore, is most disappointing? Does he agree that the House seriously hoped that the licence fee would have been reduced rather than linked to an inflation increase and that the remainder would have been made up by advertising? Does he agree that the pay-as-you-view system is unlikely to succeed at the moment anyway because, as hon. Members have said before, there have been so many repeats? Please, may we reconsider this and again examine advertising?
Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend believes that that is how this announcement will be regarded by the BBC or others, he will believe anything. On the whole, the debate on 20 November supported the Peacock conclusion on advertising. There was hardly a whisper in the whole of the debate criticising that particular Peacock recommendation which, as I said, on examination the Government found to be cogent.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: How can a Government, who have cut the real value of the pension by £8 a week since they came to office, while handing out £3·6 billion to the richest 5 per cent. in the country, refuse 14,000 pensioners in my constituency, most of whom are poor, some concession on their television licence fee? The Government must bear in mind that those pensioners are fully aware that many of the right hon. Gentleman's rich friends who permanently reside in luxury hotels and west end clubs get their television viewing free all the year round.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may know that I tightened up the rules about hotels and television licences when I was Minister of State because I thought it was needed. The hon. Gentleman will not succeed in persuading his elderly constituents that the right way to spend £230 million, or £330 million, of social security money is to give free television licences to elderly dowagers and elderly people across the country regardless of need.
Mr. Bill Michie: As questions on the statement draw to a close, will the Home Secretary make it clear to the House whether he intends to organise opposition to the Bill to be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on Friday?
Mr. Hurd: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Kaufman: Have not two clear facts emerged from the Home Secretary's attempt to create a smoke screen this afternoon? First, the Government are planning a £5 licence increase for all television viewers on 1 April next year. Secondly, the Government oppose the Labour policy of phasing out television licences for all pensioners. The Labour party will be happy for the country to choose between those two policies.
Mr. Hurd: It has emerged clearly in this agreeable prelude to Friday's debate that some Opposition Members think that we are squeezing the BBC intolerably. Other hon. Members believe that we are giving far too much to the BBC and that an increase based on indexation is too generous. What we have set forward will appear to be sensible to sensible people—that while the licence system continues, the BBC, rather than having the occasional arbitrary increase that occurred in the past, should have a system of indexation that will provide a once-for-all squeeze when it is introduced in 1988, and then a continuing squeeze on costs that will show the direction in which it should go.

Guinness plc
4.9 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that some weeks ago I endeavoured to draw the attention of the House to the number of job losses in my constituency arising from the Guinness takeover. I seek your guidance principally because in today's issue of The Independent there are two articles, the first of which is headed, "£200m Guinness slush fund" and the second:
"Guinness's second secret Boesky link".
—[Interruption.] With great respect, the House is aware that you, Mr. Speaker, not individual Members, rule whether a matter is in order.
These important articles tell us that a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry is being undertaken at present, but no formal indication of that matter has been given to the House. The House knows how well you seek to protect our interests. How can an hon. Member find out from the
276
Department of Trade and Industry precisely what is taking place about job losses and broken promises, and how we can bring these matters into the public domain?
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to what I have had to say. I seek your advice most sincerely on how this most important matter can be pursued.
Mr. Robin Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that today the board of Guinness received a full report on the Department of Trade and Industry's inquiry? We understand that tomorrow the shareholders are to receive a special statement on the inquiry. We read that the Prime Minister has already received a private presentation of the report of the inquiry. The only interested body which, apparently, is not to be favoured with a statement is Parliament. May I urge you to reflect overnight whether Parliament can continue to command respect if it is not given the opportunity to consider a matter of daily press comment which relates to the biggest city scandal for generations and involves a slush fund which is big enough to enable us to double the fuel payments proposed by the Government?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is some difficulty in raising this matter in the House for two reasons which you should bear in mind, especially as we can discuss most issues properly. First, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is unable to speak on this issue because of the close association of his family with the whole affair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] That causes other difficulties. As the investigation has been set up in such a way that it will continue beyond the general election, we are unable to discuss the matter even with junior Ministers. How can you assist the House to enable the matter to be discussed?
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the matter had the urgency and importance claimed by the Opposition, would you not allow them to change yet again the subject for today's debate so that they could raise this matter properly? Would you allow them to do that if they asked?
Mr. Speaker: The proper way to deal with the matter is to table questions to the Department. That is what hon. Members should do.

Members' Correspondence
4.23 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have received many letters regarding my Bill on Friday, some of which have been dealt with by my secretary and some by the Library. This is part of the support campaign by the Daily Star—[Laughter.] Tory Members' constituents who write to me do not consider it to be a laughing matter.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with me?
Mr. Winnick: I am asking you, Sir, whether there is any arrangement—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen would shut up for a moment, I could continue. Are there any arrangements whereby authorities in the House could ensure that the increasing number of letters that have been sent to me instead of to the hon. Member concerned could be distributed accordingly by Friday?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot think that that falls anywhere within my responsibilities.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2248) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Late Payment of Debts
4.24 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a legally enforceable system of penalties on late payment of debts.
The problems created by the late payments of debts, particularly to small firms and the self-employed, are widely agreed by hon. Members and business organisations outside the House to be widespread and serious. The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) introduced on 8 April 1986 a ten-minute Bill on the right to interest, which has been reintroduced this Session. My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly to highlight the need for action on this problem; for example, the debate that he initiated on 24 July and early-day motion 63, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend also took part in a press conference on 18 November at which the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), representing the Labour party, and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), representing the SDP, spoke about the problem.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment has done an immense amount of work on the problem since he took office. Last year he introduced a code of practice entitled "Payment on time", and I congratulate him on that. It shows his and the Government's concern. Nevertheless, the problem of the voluntary code is self-evident: it has no teeth to ensure universal compliance. My case is that there needs to be legislative change to support the code.
Obviously, the law differs in some respects north and south of the border. But it is astonishing that despite a Law Commission report in 1978, recommending that contract debts should carry a statutory right to interest save where parties otherwise agree, the La Pintada case confirmed that under the Administration of Justice Act 1982 interest does not run before proceedings for recovery of the principal sum have begun.
My hon. Friend's Bill would establish a legally enforceable right to interest on late payment of debts. I would add to that, first, the need to ensure that the Scottish position is fully covered. Secondly, I would propose to limit the new rights of interest to individuals, partnerships and private limited companies. That would answer the Government's criticism that legislation might be used by large companies to the detriment of small companies and the self-employed. Thirdly, the long title of my Bill is sufficiently wide to enable the Government to introduce supplementary proposals in Committee, if they wish.
The problem is certainly widespread. In a survey in November, the Forum of Private Business suggested that Britain's small businesses were owed an estimated £57 billion—£5 billion in Scotland. The problems that result are not only those of cash flow, which inhibits growth, investment and job creation. The problems can create serious personal strain. The Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) recently described the practice as amounting
"to pernicious and dishonest trading."
A CBI survey in November 1985 showed that 81 per cent. of firms replying said that late payment problems were a

279
general burden in terms of the extra costs incurred and management time wasted, and that 11 per cent. suffered serious set-backs attributable to late payments.
Hon. Members will have cases from their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) told me of some earlier today. In my constituency a small firm came to see me last week with a problem so severe that it had gone to a debt collector. That has not helped, so now it must sue the debt collector. A business man told me that more than 50 per cent. of his time must be devoted to this problem. In Renfrewshire, Rathoprint closed because big firms would not pay in time.
The problem is becoming worse. Sixty-one per cent. of the CBI survey believed that standards had declined over the past 10 years, and only 8 per cent. believed that they had improved. A Forum of Private Business survey of members' opinions shows that an increasing number are in favour of legislation, now 84 per cent. The commercial collection division of Dun and Bradstreet, the United Kingdom's largest debt collector—and it ought to know what it is talking about—claims that the code of practice is not reducing the problem and that the situation has worsened since the code was introduced last May.
From 1 October last year, the Customs and Excise authorities have been empowered to impose statutory penalties on businesses late in paying VAT, and the penalties range from 5 per cent. to as much as 30 per cent. This puts an additional squeeze on small firms, and it is regrettable that no action has yet been taken to help them with their problems. The effects of what is proposed would not resolve all the problems, but it would be a further step in the right direction.
280
The Scottish secretary of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses has said that the Bill would not be a complete solution, but statutory powers would tilt the balance of the dilemma in favour of small businesses. I know that until now my hon. Friend has taken the view that we should wait for two or three years to see whether the voluntary code works, despite the evidence already that it does not.
The threat of a possible application for interest would be enough to change debtors' behaviour, especially if a few well-publicised test cases followed a change in the law. Most other countries, with the notable exception of the Republic of Ireland, have legislation to help with this problem. I commend to my hon. Friend the legislation in Germany and in Japan. This measure would significantly help hundreds of thousands of small firms and self-employed people. We need to change the balance in favour of the honest small business man, so that he can go ahead and expand and prosper in the sure knowledge that he has a greater chance of getting what he is owed in a reasonable time. I hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Robert Jones, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. Bill Walker.

Late Payment of Debts
  LATE PAYMENT OF DEBTS
  Mr. Allan Stewart accordingly presented a Bill to establish a legally enforceable system of penalties on late payment of debts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 44].
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Severe Weather Payments
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, recognising that the Government deliberately chose such a low threshold as—1·5° Centigrade for the Exceptionally Severe Weather Payments Scheme so as to ensure that help is difficult to obtain and insecure in provision, and noting that as a result of the break in the uprating with earnings, single pensioners are today £8 per week worse off and married couple £12 per week worse off than under Labour's formula, calls upon the Government to pay £5 per week automatically as of right to all the poorest and most needy pensioners and families with small children as the only way to guarantee that they receive the necessary heating when they need it without fear of debt.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Meacher: A month ago the Opposition launched a debate demonstrating that the Government's proposals for exceptionally severe weather payments were a cruel farce because the scheme had been rigged in such a way that hardly a pensioner would get a penny. We pressed the Government to improve the scheme before it was introduced on 12 December, but the Government took no notice. We then held another debate a week before Christmas to urge the Government to reconsider. Again the Government took no notice.
  Last week was bitterly cold and culminated in the coldest night for a quarter of a century. If there was ever a need for exceptionally severe weather payments it was demonstrated last week. Precisely one area in the entire country, one area out of the 64 weather station areas into which Britain is divided, triggered the minus 1·5 deg. C threshold. That area, Eskdalemuir, is a sparsely populated area in south-west Scotland where there are probably more sheep than people. It was obvious that the scheme had fallen at the first hurdle yet two days ago faced with irrefutable evidence of the scheme's pathetic inadequacy, the Minister blithely insisted that the new system had to be given a try.
  Precisely one day later, yesterday, the Prime Minister denounced the scheme as a bureaucratic procedure as though her Government had not introduced it in the first place. The Minister made a statement confessing that it did not matter about the temperature readings and that he would pay all the pensioners in the qualifying categories.
  "Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".
  We want to know whether the Government are genuinely repenting or whether this is a convenient one-off concession brought about, not by the temperature outside, but by the political temperature inside. This change of mind on the part of the Government was taken at the last possible moment yesterday and was clearly prompted by an anxiety to save the Government's face in the debate today. Perhaps we ought to have a debate on this subject every week in order to jog the Government's conscience.
  We want to know whether the Government are discarding this miserable little scheme altogether and replacing it with a payment as of right throughout the winter to all the poorest and most needy pensioners. That is what we have proposed all along. The Minister had
  282
  better understand at the outset that there is little rhyme or reason in a one-week concession. Why not last week, and what about next week?
  Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way now. I shall give way in a moment. What is the point of disregarding a bureaucratic procedure one week if one immediately returns to it the next week?
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Does the £3·6 billion poverty programme that the Labour party is supposed to have agreed at its recent Bishops Stortford meeting include provision for £5 a week for the duration of the winter? That adds up to about £180 million. If it does not include that amount, where will the money come from?
  Mr. Meacher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one place that it could come from. I do not know whether he has had notice of some of the contents of the public expenditure White Paper, but I see that the Government are proposing to spend an extra £230 million in the next two years on the cost of stocking Common Market food mountains. I suggest that that money would be much better spent on elderly people in the cold. [Interruption.]
  A single one-off £5 payment is not exactly generous in present conditions. It is about enough to heat one room for two days using a two-bar electric fire. What about the other five days of the week? I can tell the Minister that running a two-bar fire for 24 hours a day costs about £18 a week at current prices. I suspect that many pensioners need to spend an extra £10 to £15 a week to keep warm in the current freeze. That is why the cumulative effect of successive £5 payments every week which we recommend is so important. A one-off payment, like the one that the Government have just announced, does not lift any of the anxiety of elderly people who turn off the heating for fear of running into debt because of the uncertainty of future payments.
  Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how much the last Labour Government spent on exceptionally severe weather payments?
  Mr. Meacher: I certainly will, and I give advance notice of a later section of my speech. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that on the electricity discount scheme we spent nine times more than this Government are spending on the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme.
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): Since the hon. Gentleman has made that interesting and freshly discovered observation, would he care to put it into its proper context by reminding the House of the level of inflation in electricity prices at that time?
  Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. What matters to elderly people is the increase in the value of their pension, in real terms, after inflation is taken into account. On that basis, under the last Labour Government the value of the pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms. Under this Government, it has increased by 3 per cent. in seven years.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I do not intend to give way again. I want to get on with my speech.
  Nor are the qualifying categories for this single one-off payment anywhere near wide enough. They are confined to pensioners on supplementary benefit. There are a million or so pensioners with incomes that are only slightly above the supplementary benefit line who are just as much in need because they are struggling to pay their fuel bills. We would include them in the regular weekly payment of a £5 special winter fuel premium.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Meacher: The Government have not included them even in the single one-off payment that they have conceded for one week. That is the difference.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way once more.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman speaks loftily of the earnings-related formula, which is an integral part of the Opposition's motion. However, does he remember that his Government abandoned that formula in 1976, 1977 and 1978 and that in 1979 the then Secretary of State for Social Services—now Lord Ennals—in Pensioners Voice, said that he did not have to take it into account, anyway?
  Mr. Meacher: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will convince any pensioners by producing statistical distortions of that kind. What matters to pensioners is the value of the money in their pockets and its purchasing power. Under a Labour Government, it rose by a fifth, but under this Government it has been virtually stationary for seven years. However, that is not the real issue. The real issue is that this scheme is hopelessly inadequate. It must be replaced as a matter of urgency if thousands of preventable deaths are not to occur this winter.
  The scheme has three fundamental defects. The trigger threshold at minus 1·5 deg C is absurdly low. Even when that temperature is reached, nearly always it does not trigger payment because of the absurd seven-day averaging requirement from Monday to Sunday, which is so bureaucratically cumbersome. Pensioners cannot receive the payment, anyway, if they have more than £500 in the bank. The Minister knows, I hope, that most pensioners save for their funerals. Today a funeral costs more than £500. Under this scheme, money reserved for one's funeral makes it more likely that one will not get help to stay alive. That is hardly a sensible way to run a scheme.
  If the scheme had been in operation last winter—which was the bitterest for 40 years—more than half the country would still not have triggered payment for one week throughout the entire winter. What is so cynical about this exercise is that the Government chose the minus 1·5 deg C threshold not on the grounds of health or need but as a temperature level that would ensure that about only one in eight pensioners qualified for a single £5 payment once every five years. That is why the scheme is virtually useless, and it was intended to be useless.
  I invite hon. Members to look at the evidence. Last week temperatures reached minus 17 deg C at Aviemore, minus 12 deg Cat Shrewsbury, minus 16 deg C around the Pennines and minus 7 deg C in London, yet in not one of those areas did pensioners get a penny. After the worst January weather on record and the coldest night for 26 years, 99·9 per cent. of pensioners were still excluded from payment. At Aberdeen, Arbroath, Dumfries and Dundee
  284
  the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for three of the seven days last week, Monday to Sunday, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing. At Colchester, Clacton, Ipswich and King's Lynn in East Anglia and at Glasgow, Coatbridge, Paisley, Dumbarton and Inverness in Scotland the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for four of the seven days last week, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing. In Edinburgh, the temperature fell below minus 1·5 deg C for five of the seven days last week, yet pensioners and families with babies got nothing.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. Fourteen weather stations registered an average weekly temperature below freezing. Last week the highest weekly temperature in the whole of Britain was only 3·6 deg C. That was in the west country. Almost everywhere the temperature was virtully at freezing point, yet throughout the country only a handful of pensioners received the payment. That is not fine tuning. That is callous neglect.
  Mr. Ian Gow: If the Government's purpose in fashioning this scheme were to avoid making any payments to those who the hon. Gentleman says are in need, they have not been very successful, have they? Why is it that in the first year after the introduction of this scheme we find that we are paying out under it?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The point is that it was needed last week, but virtually nobody got it. The Government are so utterly embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that in the worst cold weather for 30 or 40 years nobody received the payment that they have decided to scrap the scheme, but only for one week, so that they will have something to say in this debate. Their action is as callous as that.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: When the Labour Government were in office is it not a fact that when the weather was nowhere as cold as this we gave a 25 per cent. discount on winter electricity bills to all pensioners and that we sold gas at cost price, which was a very much cheaper price than it is now, because of the profit margin that has been added to it?
  Mr. Meacher: That is right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) also ended disconnections in the winter of 1977 and, I believe, in 1978 for all pensioners. That was extremely important because it removed fear and did not lead people to turn off their heating when they most needed it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
  It is also very disturbing that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I have had the greatest difficulty in obtaining information about temperatures. I put down a parliamentary question for answer yesterday, asking for the average weekly temperatures last week in all 64 areas of the country. I was not given the answer yesterday but was told in the evening, by the press office I might say, that the answer said that the information could not be given. I have now found out why. The Meteorological Office would not give the information on temperatures because it is run by, of all organisations, the Ministry of Defence. I have also since discovered that a circular has been issued forbidding

  285
  officials from giving any information that might be contentious, and apparently day and night temperatures come into that category.
  We seem to have reached a point where the Soviet Union is more open about riots in Kazakhstan and about nuclear explosions at Chernobyl than are the British Government about temperatures in Britain. I would have thought that even a Government that abused the whole concept of national security over the Peter Wright memoirs could scarcely pretend that revealing daily temperatures endangered the safety of the realm. So I put the Minister on notice that the House expects and has a right to have weekly temperature readings in each of the 64 areas of the country, and the Ministry of Defence had better be told that now.
  Not only have the Government suppressed relevant information, they have also been active in an orgy of misinformation. The Prime Minister rested her case yesterday on the claim that £400 million more was being spent on heating allowances and that at least severe weather payments are being made, which was not the case under the Labour Government. What she did not say was that Labour did not need to do that because increases in the pension were so much higher under Labour. If the Tory Government had not broken Labour's uprating link with earnings—and this is of crucial importance—the pension for a single person would now be £7·20 a week higher, every week of this year, and that for a married couple would be £11·40 a week higher, every week of this year. If we had pensions at that level today, we could simply dispense with this piffling farce of a scheme, and guarantee that pensioners had the necessary income to keep warm.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just stated that the Labour Government implemented pensions in a particular way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that simply is not correct.
  Several Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members will leave it to the Chair to rule on points of order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Meacher: Another thing that the Prime Minister did not say was that while her Government have increased heating allowances by £400 million—about £140 million in real terms—which I welcome, they have also, by breaking the uprating link with earnings, cut over £3,000 million from pensioners' incomes. For every £1 which pensioners have gained from higher heating allowances and exceptionally severe weather payments, they have lost £8 from the cut in the pension under this Government.
  There is another thing, too, that the Prime Minister somehow did not quite manage to remember yesterday. Two years ago her Government knocked £1 a week—that is £50 a year—off the supplementary benefit of pensioners with heating allowances—not exactly the kind of policy that we would expect from someone who really cared about pensioners in the cold.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Meacher: The Prime Minister also said yesterday, in what I must say was the most selective misquotation of the political record that I have heard for a long time in the House, that Labour did not have a cold weather payments
  286
  scheme. Quite apart from the much higher pensions that we paid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has already made clear—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Pensions have increased under this Government, mathematical illiterate. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he cannot intervene in that fashion and must not seek to do so.
  Mr. Meacher: I suggest that the hon. Member for the "Hollering Tendency" listens for a bit. He might learn something about the true situation.
  The Labour Government did provide a top-up scheme, and it was a much more generous one than this miserly exceptionally severe weather payments scheme. Under the electricity discount scheme, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, £5 was paid automatically to all persons on supplementary benefit and family income supplement, plus 25 per cent. of the cost of the winter electricity bill in excess of £20. The Labour Government devoted £45 million to that scheme. The Tory Government are spending about £5 million.
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Meacher: Under our scheme 4·5 million people were eligible; under this Tory scheme fewer than 2 million people are eligible, so let us have no more of the lies and claptrap about Labour, which are specifically designed to divert attention from the central fact that, according to Age Concern, 100 old people are dying in this country at this time every week.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I will not give way.
  Unless the Government go a lot further than the tiny concession forced out of them yesterday, I fear that we are on the brink of an even bigger disaster than last year Last year 1,060 elderly people died of hypothermia and another 40,000 died of bronchial pneumonia, heart attacks and strokes brought on by the extreme cold. There is nothing inevitable about this roll-call of tragic deaths. They are preventable. In Canada, in Sweden, in France, the winters are much colder than they are here normally, yet hardly any old people die of hypothermia. That is because in those countries the houses are much better insulated and pension levels are much higher, perhaps almost unbelievably to many hon. Members—and even more unbelievably to many pensioners in Britain—three times higher in Germany and France, in relation to average earnings, so pensioners can afford the fuel to keep them warm. That is why we now press the Govermment as a matter of urgency—
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he at this stage in his argument concede that the worst year in the last decade for deaths from hypothermia was the winter of 1978–79? He will concede that fact, I hope.
  Mr. Meacher: It is perfectly true that the number of deaths from hypothermia has been in the region of 50 and has stayed at much the same level throughout the past 10 or 20-year period, but I will say this to the Secretary of

  287
  State. If this scheme is not changed by the Government tonight or in the very near future, more people will die of hypothermia this year than in 1978–79.
  I want to press the Government to adopt a three-point programme. First, they should announce today that they are dropping the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme, in acknowledgement of the fraud that it is, and replacing it not just for one week but for every week this winter with a £5 payment, not only to all the 1·75 million pensioners on supplementary benefit but to the I million or so on the margins of poverty, just above the supplementary benefit line. That is the only way for pensioners to be certain that they will receive payment and not be frightened into turning off or turning down the heat for fear that they will not have the money to pay for it.
  The Government should do something else to provide immediate relief in these exceptionally severe conditions. There are estimated to be between 25,000 and 40,000 people homeless and sleeping rough in London at this time. The London Labour boroughs have been opening night shelters as best they can. Young people are also being turned out of lodgings into the snow because of the Government's iniquitous board and lodging regulations. The Government should today instruct London Transport to open the tube stations at the Bank, Monument and Charing Cross to provide night shelter and protection from the bitter cold for the homeless. I am advised that those stations are best equipped for such an emergency, because they cover the worst areas, have the most space and facilities and using them would cause the least disruption. Will the Secretary of State, as a matter of priority, in conjunction with the London Labour boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and Camden, make available the facilities of the civil defence bunkers at Clapham Common, Clapham North, Clapham South and Stockwell underground stations for the immediate shelter of the homeless in inner city London? We regard immediate action as a litmus test of the Government's commitment at this time.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I want to conclude.
  I wish to refer to one other urgent matter. At present, the London borough of Greenwich is absolutely snowbound. At 9 am this morning, 100 soliders from the Royal Artillery, Woolwich, started to assist. They are using their four-wheel drive vehicles to deliver meals on wheels to the elderly and doing such vital work as getting home helps to elderly people and digging out elderly people from snowbound homes to take them to day centres to warm them up. At lunchtime today, the Ministry of Defence instructed the Army to cease all such help at 12 midnight. The borough needs to re-apply for assistance. If this is general Government policy, it is placing a bureaucratic block in the way of commonsense help which is urgently needed in this crisis. I hope very much that the Minister will give a commitment that this will not happen again. [Interruption.] This is not just about London. What happens in—
  Mr. MacKay rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) must not persist in that fashion. It is clear that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not giving way.
  Mr. Meacher: May I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that what happens in London can happen elsewhere if the Government so wish. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be more concerned about what we are proposing in London because there are many Scottish young people homeless and in need of assistance in the Metropolis.
  Secondly, there is a desperate need to improve insulation and draught-proofing, starting with the homes of the most vulnerable elderly people. Research has shown that a badly insulated home costs 12 times as much to heat for every 1 deg. C drop in temperature as a well-insulated home. Britain has probably the worst insulated homes in western Europe, and the biggest sufferers are probably the elderly. At present, the insulation programme is, to say the least, fragmentary. Worse still, for the elderly, it will come to an absolute halt in a year's time when the Fowler Social Security Act halts the single payments for this purpose in April 1988.
  As for the immediate crisis, the Child Poverty Action Group, Help the Aged, and four other major groups wrote to the Minister in October, I understand, pointing out the huge problems if there was a sudden drop in temperature and offering their help and experience. They received an acknowledgement and have heard nothing else since.
  For several years, the Opposition have been pressing for a national insulation scheme. It would provide jobs—since, of course, it is highly labour-intensive—save energy and protect old people from the extreme cold. We believe that some priority insulation work could still be done this winter, but at least the Government should now give a commitment that throughout this next year, this programme will command funding and support to ensure that elderly people, families on low incomes with babies and sick and disabled people never again have to face the rigours of exceptionally cold weather as unprotected as they are this winter.
  The third component of a programme—
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I am winding up.
  The third component of a programme to meet this crisis is an adequate pension, and perhaps it is the most important component of all. There is no way around that. That is why Labour is committed to an immediate increase of £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for married couples and committed to preserving and consolidating the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Government want to erode and destroy, to restoring the link with earnings that the Government broke so that pensioners share in rising living standards with the rest of the community and to providing the £5 a week special winter fuel premium. Labour believes in providing decent pensions, good health and welfare services and, above all, adequate heating for pensioners who have given their working lives for this country. I submit that those policies and the Labour Government who would implement them have never been needed more than at this time.
  5.6 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "'recognises the substantial improvement in the levels of supplementary benefit payments together with the containment of inflation, the extension and improvement of heating additions and the introduction of a statutory entitlement to cold weather payments to assest vulnerable groups; notes that these provisions are all running at record levels; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to provide good health and social services to the pensioners of this country'."
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) began his speech by misquoting my comments, misunderstanding the scheme and misinterpreting—deliberately, I suspect—the announcement that I made yesterday. He did not respond—it was easily noticeable to the House that he did not—to the specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) about whether his winter premium scheme is or is not contained within the £3·6 billion by which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) threatens to raise taxes. I offer the hon. Member for Oldham, West, an opportunity: is it, or is it not, contained within that £3·6 billion, which is the maximum, we are told, by which taxes will be raised? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman is silent.
  Mr. Meacher: I shall gladly answer. The Government propose, as the Chancellor did in the autumn statement a month or two ago, to increase public expenditure this year by £4·5 billion. That would easily provide an extra £150 for the elderly. The Government should put the money there, not into electoral tax bribes for the better-off.
  Mr. Major: Now we know the answer. It is that the hon. Gentleman does not know, and will not say, that this is yet another in those long lists of cynical and bogus promises which he knows he cannot meet, yet which he repeatedly makes every time he rises to his feet.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I shall not give way. [Interruption.] I shall get on with my speech.
  This morning the hon. Member for Oldham, West seemed to extend even his previous promises about the winter premium scheme. In composite 14 at the Labour party conference, it was to be for 13 weeks or so. This morning, when the hon. Gentleman conducted an interview on the "Today" programme, he seemed to commit himself for a far longer period. We shall carefully cost that extension. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is adept at making promises which he knows he cannot keep and does not intend to keep.
  The hon. Gentleman claims that he was in contact with our press office and sought certain information. I understand that he particularly sought night temperatures separately, which we have said we shall speedily provide and pass on to him. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall either pass them on to him directly or via the CIA, whichever option he prefers.
  Mr. Randall rose—
  Mr. Max Madden rose—
  Mr. Major: I shall not give way. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is not concerned about the people who are freezing, only about the money. The Government should and can find the money for these people.
  Mr. Major: I shall come specifically to other points when I have dealt with the dross of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. This is a debate, and I shall talk about the problems and our practical propositions when I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The hon. Gentleman talks of an electricity discount scheme and criticises bureaucracy at the same time. I seem to recall that that needed a vast amount of documentation to support it, with 40 to 50 specific questions, most of which included the magic words:
  "write to the Department of Energy for information."
  We will come specifically to fuel prices. The hon. Gentleman may not like this, but it is a fact that since the last election domestic gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms, gas by 7 per cent. and electricity by 10 per cent. In real terms domestic gas now costs less than it did in 1970. The hon. Gentleman may care also to bear in mind that the increase for electricity has been about 2 per cent. a year. It rose 11 times as fast when the Labour party was in power as it does today. That is something that he might usefully bear in mind.
  Mr. Ashton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Ashton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not rise when I am on my feet. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is deliberately misleading the House, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. The figure since the last election—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has ruled that allegations that a Minister or any hon. Member is deliberately misleading the House are out of order. The hon. Gentleman must not say that.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Ashton: Much of the debate this afternoon has been about the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was rising to withdraw the use of the phrase "deliberately misleading". I very much hope that he will do so.
  Mr. Ashton: I rise to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you ask me to withdraw those words, I shall do so, but I seek your guidance. When the Prime Minister deliberately makes a statement, as she did yesterday, and the Minister makes a statement today about what has happened since the last election, since 1979, what phrase can we use for this deliberate mis—whatever it is?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might have made a more generous and less grudging withdrawal. I advise him to do so.
  Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this will clarify the matter. In a written answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Neither the contents of speeches nor answers to questions are matters for the Chair. If there are matters which hon. Members think should be rebutted, I hope that they will seek to do so in the course of the debate.
  Mr. Major: No doubt it would be of considerable pleasure to the House if the hon. Lady were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She might then make the remarks that she has sought to make in a bogus fashion just now.
  Dr. McDonald rose—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The whole House is anxious to hear the Minister's speech. If there are matters with which hon. Members disagree, they will have the opportunity in the course of the debate to catch my eye. I hope that the Minister will be given the right to make his speech, which is the right of every hon. Member.
  Mr. Major: It becomes noticeable, does it not, that members of Her Majesty's Opposition seem disinclined to proceed with the debate and to determine what realistically may be done to solve the special problems that exist? There are specific matters that I wish to deal with later which even the most boneheaded Member of the Opposition might conceivably find of some interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] If hon. Members who shout "Name him" think the hon. Member may come well out of it were I to do so, I fear that I must disabuse them.
  We are having this debate today because yesterday the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and changed the business of the House for today. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the issue. Because of its importance, it was decided that we would have the debate today. It is interesting to note that the debate which he previously had in mind was to be on the economic crisis which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook keeps inventing, but that has been postponed. The crisis is off for today. It can apparently wait to be reinvented at a later date. Like Bunter's postal order, the crisis never comes, however much Bunter promises.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Major: Even with the change in the business, one thing that the Opposition will not like—the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is among those hon. Members—is listening, because facts disturb them, and reality disturbs them.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that when the Minister referred to a boneheaded Member he must have meant me, as I am surely the boniest-headed Member in the Chamber. If that is the case, he ought to give way. He should answer the point that I make, which is that he has got his statistics wrong.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not use bogus points of order to make the intervention that is otherwise denied them.
  Mr. Major: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on becoming spokesman for the arts, an appointment which the whole House
  292
  welcomes. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has much more inside his head than on top of it. For that reason, if for none other, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sure he is aware of his Government's statistics. In answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy explained clearly to the House that gas prices had risen in current terms by 124 per cent. since 1979. Will the Minister explain that?
  Mr. Major: If, upon reflection—
  Dr. McDonald: What about the written answer?
  Mr. Major: The hon. Lady has a delightful dulcet tone. I think that it would be more to the general agreement of the House if she were to rise in her place later and utter then rather than now. If, upon reflection, when I have studied the record in Hansard, I find that I inadvertently misled the House, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and willingly acknowledge that fact.
  In changing the business, the Leader of the Opposition was doubtless anxious to demonstrate the concern of the Labour party over the difficulties that the elderly face during this extreme weather. They do face problems. I propose to address those problems directly in a moment.
  I would have been more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's concern had his record in this issue not been so clear. We know that he supported the year-long miners' strike and a series of other industrial disputes without one peep on behalf of those who were suffering, whether the elderly, the sick, the disabled or whoever else. I might have accepted his concern even more if during those disputes he had bombarded the House, including the Order Paper, with questions that reflected his concern for the vulnerable. The fact remains, however, that he supported the miners' strike. He showed no public concern for the elderly whatsoever during a winter of savage industrial disruption. We know now the depths of his concern. The elderly come first after his support for militancy, his self-interest and the Labour party. That is the position of the elderly. They are to be the shock troops in the right hon. Gentleman's campaign on behalf of the Labour party and second to every interest of his own.
  I turn specifically to the matter which, for the Government at least, is of prime concern.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The Minister has spoken for 14 minutes before reaching the main topic.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may have lunched well if not wisely. If he wishes me speedily to proceed to the issues, perhaps he will permit me to do so. Perhaps the most vulnerable of all members of society are the elderly who live on their own. I shall address myself specifically to the social security benefits that are available to them, but there is—[Interruption.] The silence of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and others might be appreciated by many more hon. Members than myself.
  Whatever social service and social security help is available—and it is substantial—many vulnerable people are often proud, independent and determined to manage on their own. They are disinclined to bother others even though they may often need help, whomsoever may be involved. I hope that in these unprecedented weather

  293
  conditions others who are fit and healthy will unobtrusively keep an eye on their vulnerable neighbours and offer help, or call for statutory help if that is needed.
  Mr. Wareing: What is the Minister going to do?
  Mr. Major: I shall come to that. Such action will be increasingly valuable and may avoid unnecessary hardship or tragedy, and would be utterly in keeping with the longstanding tradition of community care in Britain.
  This morning one national newspaper—Today—printed a poster bill for the housebound to place in their windows should it be necessary to do so. I believe that the newspaper will continue to do that, and I welcome the initiative. It is a simple and excellent illustration of what can be done and I hope that everyone, even those Opposition Members who seem to have nothing more on their minds than to scream mindless abuse at me, will be alert to the needs of their neighbours during this severe winter weather.
  Mr. Kevin Barron rose—
  Mr. Major: When the hon. Gentleman talks sense I shall give him the Floor to do so, but I fear that it may be a long time before he does so.
  In making my plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do so without any attempt—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I endorse entirely what the Minister has said about the admirable act which Today and some other newspapers have performed in printing a poster for the housebound. If old people take the notice and stick it in their windows, if neighbours respond, as I hope that they will, and if the old people say, "It is all very well for you to come here, but I am afraid to turn on my heating because I cannot afford the bill that will ensure", what will the Government's response be to the bills that appear in old people's windows?
  Mr. Major: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said yesterday and on other occasions. We are determined that the elderly should keep warm during this extremely cold spell. That is why all the three tiers of help for heating, whether supplementary benefit, heating additions, or the new statutory entitlement to cold weather payments, have been improved in real terms during the Government's lifetime. The right hon. Gentleman cannot duck that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Major: I make no apologies for drawing the importance of neighbourhood help in these extreme weather conditions to the attention of the House. Whatever social security and social service assistance there is—and it is substantial—there are those who are left alone and who, through their own pride and independence, may miss the help that is available. I have suggested that their neighbours should ensure that where necessary help is directed to them.
  The main focus of concern—
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Stuart Holland rose—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Major: Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), are anxious that I should make progress, and that is what I propose to do for a moment or two.
  It is clear that the main focus of concern is the system of special payments at times of exceptionally cold weather. I make no apologies for reminding the House—not for the first time—that they have always been only one part, and a small part, of a substantial overall network of financial support. The primary help for those on supplementary benefit for heating is through the regular supplementary benefit weekly payments. These payments are made to cover normal living expenses, including heating costs.
  Further, there is a substantial system of heating additions. Extra money is paid each week throughout the year to those with special heating needs.
  Mr. Wareing: On that point—
  Mr. Dobson: Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. Major: It was this Government who put the payments formally on a regulated entitlement basis in 1980. That was not specifically acknowledged by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The Government—
  Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman can prevent his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras from saying "19 minutes" or "20 minutes" like an agitated parrot with constipation, I may conceivably give way to him, but not until that has been done.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Major: We have improved and considerably extended the categories of people who receive help through heating addition. They now go automatically—
  Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Major: The payments now go automatically to householders aged 65 or over—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Wareing by name and wearing by nature.
  Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred in a derogatory way to an Opposition Member. The hon. Gentleman pointed in my direction and I have a feeling that he was pointing at me. I wished to ask him whether he would restore the heating additions, or whether he would take them away from the available scale margin under which he introduced them just a couple of years ago.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear to the House that I deprecate bogus points of order being used as masks for interventions which hon. Members desire to make but have been denied the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Major: I was seeking to stress that the higher rate of heating addition is now paid automatically to those over 65 and to disabled people receiving attendance allowance or mobility allowance.
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in this fashion. He knows that if the Minister or any other hon. Member chooses not to give way, he should not persist in seeking to intervene. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Major: The House will be surprised that the specific increases in heating additions did not form a material part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Apparently he overlooked them. Nor did he mention that the latest figures show that nine tenths of pensioners on supplementary benefit receive a heating addition, compared with only about 70 per cent. during the period of the Labour Government. He did not mention also that there had been a significant increase in the value of the payments after taking account of inflation, an increase well above anything that was provided by any previous Government. We are bound to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, or is seeking to misinform, when he lays charges before the House of the sort that we have heard today.
  Regular help with heating costs is now over £400 a year for the average pensioner aged 65, and over £600 for the very elderly who are over 85 and for the severely disabled. The scale of that help is in sharp contrast to the impression given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and is notably more comprehensive than anything provided when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department.
  That is not all. The help that I have already outlined will enable people to meet their fuel bills and to keep warm. The help is there throughout the year and is paid weekly, winter and summer. However, we recognise that people look for extra help when the weather is particularly savage.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees rose—
  Mr. Major: That is why we placed the severe weather payments on a clear statutory basis, with a known entitlement. I must make it clear to the House that such arrangements have always been intended to deal with exceptional weather conditions to provide extra reassurance to people so that they turn their heating up at times of maximum cold.
  Mr. Rees: As we are dealing with realities, I advise the Minister that an old-age pensioner, from the part of Leeds that I represent, gave advice to other pensioners on the radio today. Feelings are running high and he said, "I do not intend to die because of the cold. I am going to have my heating on and, if needs be, I will go to gaol." That was heard throughout the country.
  Although not strictly relevant to that point, I should like to ask the Minister whether, before the debate ends, he will arrange for an official from the Department of Energy to come to the House. Whatever the scheme, some old-age pensioners will have on only one bar and they will not have the heating on overnight because they are afraid of the bill that will come later. Despite the £5 allowance that was announced, we must do something more. Officials from the Department of Energy must talk to the gas people, the electricity people and others. The bad weather may last for only a fortnight, but old people are cold in my area and in others, and we must do something to help them.
  Mr. Major: We have heard the right hon. Gentleman mention the comments of those who are worried about their personal position. I reiterate the assurance that I sought to give in the past. In these savage and unprecedented weather conditions, we wish to ensure that people keep their heating on and that they keep warm. I hope that there is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The old-age pensioner said that he could not afford to.
  Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. Most people pay their heating bills at the end of a quarter. The sum total of the quarter's bill is presented to them at the end of the 13-week period. Many people may not have borne in mind the fact that December 1986 was almost the mildest December since records have been kept. They may well find that they used less fuel that month than they previously would have budgeted for.
  In any event, the Leader of the Opposition, who is more the leader of the yobbo tendency today than of anything else, might do well to set a better example to this Back Benchers if he does not want the true spirit of the Labour party to be too well known outside the House.
  Mr. Kinnock: The Minister has been speaking for 27 minutes. There are people dying in this country, and people who are cold and poor, but all that the hon. Gentleman has done is to make inferior debating society points. He plainly does not give a damn. He should either get down to the issue, or sit down and let people speak who know about the issue.
  Mr. Major: As it happens, I have spent most of the 27 minutes listening to inane fifth-form interventions such as that one. While the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues try to spread fear and despondency, we are trying to reassure people that they should keep their heating on, and that is what we shall continue to do. I made that absolutely clear yesterday. Even the right hon. Gentleman should have understood, because I told him often enough, that people should keep their heating on and keep warm. I made it equally clear yesterday that in these circumstances the trigger point will overwhelmingly be reached this week, but even if it is not reached in some areas, payment will be made.
  We have taken immediate action to alert local and regional offices to that statement and to our intention to make that payment. We are placing advertisements in the national press tomorrow, if space can be found, or on Friday if it cannot. All 45 local radio stations in Britain and Northern Ireland will carry commercials advertising those payments, seven times a day from tomorrow. Local offices have been asked to advertise through the local press as quickly as possible and to make the new leaflets, now being distributed, available in their areas. Both the advertisements and the leaflets contain simple claim forms so that people can obtain the payment.
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Major: We have been especially concerned with the immediate plight of those who find themselves without any shelter at all during these appalling weather conditions. In addition to what I shall say about that, I give an undertaking to the hon. Member for Oldham, West that we shall look carefully and speedily at the specific suggestions that he made to deal with that problem.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Major: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment. We have already been in touch with the major voluntary organisations and are actively helping to coordinate the practical aid. I applaud their efforts, and I am glad to say that we have also been able to offer additional funds to enable them to expand their range of activities and to act more rapidly. We have, in effect, agreed to underwrite their additional expenses for the "crisis intervention" work that they are doing during this period of extremely savage weather.
  Mr. Tony Benn rose—
  Mr. Major: Their efforts, and ours, are being coordinated by Crisis at Christmas. By today, several new night shelters will have been opened in London, offering sleep, shelter and food to people who need it. Some people may choose not to go into shelters or hostels even in the present conditions, because that, alas, is their culture. The voluntary organisations are continuing their excellent work in going out to those people and offering what help they can. We are prepared to back those efforts, and we are actively exploring other ways in which we might help. There is space in several resettlement units and in Salvation Army units. I am delighted that the Bishop of London has asked many parish priests to open their church halls while the savage weather continues. Those are helpful and useful initiatives and I hope that homeless people will take advantage of them.
  Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I welcome the measures that he has announced. I welcome also the efforts which the churches, borough councils and charities are making. However, the Minister should remember that the 6,000 homeless people who live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London, and the 20,000 people who are sleeping rough, did not come down with the snow and that they will not go away when it melts. We need to stop the unemployment that has made them homeless. We need money to build houses so that those people have somewhere decent to live, and we need decent levels of benefit so that they can be looked after in the interim. That crisis continues and does not exist only in periods of bad weather.
  Mr. Major: It would also be helpful if some local authorities made more attractive and relevant use of the voids that they have, because they can often offer specific help, perhaps not least in the London borough of Camden, about which the hon. Gentleman knows so much.
  Mr. Benn: Will the Minister clarify one point?
  Mr. Major: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. In his usual graceless fashion the Leader of the Opposition said that the debate was making slow progress, so I shall not give way.
  Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) introduced a scheme.
  Mr. Major: If the right hon. Gentleman introduced a scheme, I am sure that he will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and be able to elaborate on that.
  Earlier today the hon. Member for Oldham, West apparently advocated a nationwide insulation scheme. He did not say whether he had costed his plan or what it would be. He did not say whether it was agreed with his right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor, or whether it
  298
  was genuine or another gimmick. However, whatever it may be, I must say that we have been promoting voluntary insulating projects for years. In 1980 the total number of such projects was under half a dozen. Expansion since then has been dramatic. There were 200 in 1984, there are some 360 now and many more are at the planning stage. As a result of the project, the home conditions of over 200,000 on low incomes have been made more comfortable and the total cost to public funds for the voluntary work is often funded through the public sector, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition may have muttered. The total cost to public funds now amounts to over £30 million a year.
  Even earlier today, at breakfast time, we heard yet again about the plan of the hon. Member for Oldham, West for a £5 winter premium. However, despite repeated challenges as to where the money will come from, there has been no answer.
  There is one further critical factor in ensuring that people are kept warm—the price of fuel. Whatever reflection I may subsequently make upon the statistics challenged by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, it is undoubtedly true that the level of inflation in fuel prices during the period of the previous Labour Government was infinitely higher than anything that has occurred subsequently. The Opposition's effrontery in tabling the motion before us today is absolutely breathtaking.
  There are three tiers of support for heating. First, there is supplementary benefit, where the levels have been increased. Secondly, there are heating additions, where the levels have also been increased, the number of people entitled has been extended and it has been made a statutory weekly payment. Thirdly, of course, there is the exceptionally severe weather payment, which has also been put on a statutory basis.
  We have substantially eliminated fuel inflation and we have expanded the insulation project. The value of pensions, despite the hon. Member for Oldham, West's extremely perverse statistics, has been increased and inflation has been contained. I am content to let our substantial record of practical help stand against the repeated uncosted promises of the Opposition. Their fine words and promises will keep no one warm. Our record of practical assistance throughout the benefits system and in the other policies that I have outlined will keep people warm. I invite the House to endorse all that and to reject the Opposition's motion.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I do not think that many of the pensioners and those on low incomes and supplementary benefit who are in the qualifying categories for exceptionally severe weather payments can take much comfort from the supposed assault launched by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or, more to the point—as he is the individual in the position to take the decisions—from the Minister's apparently complacent attitude. Given the scale of the problem we read about in our newpapers, see each night on our television screens and hear about daily from our constituents, how any Minister can say he is content defies belief.
  I welcome one aspect of the Minister's speech. During the latter part of his remarks, he announced the efforts that he is making on homelessness. Such efforts are essential. I should like to make an additional suggestion.

  299
  There has been considerable debate, especially within London since the abolition of the Greater London council, as to how the voluntary organisations will fare. It might be worth the Department's time to make available a civil servant, or several civil servants, to look at how co-operation operates between the Department and the voluntary sector in a major crisis such as this. There may be useful lessons to be learnt, not just for the Government and the voluntary sector, but for all those who are interested or have expressed concern about how the pattern of care might emerge after the disappearance of the GLC. It may be that some practical and academic information will come from such an exercise.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): As my hon. Friend the Minister said, our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had a meeting this morning with some voluntary organisations. That meeting led to some of the remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister has just made. One of the conclusions reached was that we wish to carry forward this work after the immediate problem is solved to see how we can ensure proper co-ordination in the future.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am glad to hear that. However, with a slip of the tongue, the Minister may have given part of the game away. Now that there is an emergency we realise that it is worth ensuring a proper system in the future. Surely that suggests that the system is not adequate at present. To be fair, that has to be set in the context of many of the assurances given especially by the Minister's noble Friend who was a Home Office Minister in the other place, as to the future of the voluntary sector in the post-GLC age. I welcome what the Minister is saying but I think that it highlights a deficiency in many of the assurances that Ministers were willing to give to those who inquired about this matter some time ago.
  Heating is not a luxury, and, sadly, each winter elderly people die simply because they cannot afford to heat their homes. This debate is an opportunity for the House to contribute its thoughts on how such unnecessary and cruel deaths can be prevented. I believe that there is much that the Government can and should do to help, beyond what they are offering already.
  I would argue, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends in our amendment, that the categories entitled to severe weather payments should be extended. The present categories are too restrictive. What about the old people whose income is just above supplementary benefit level or families on supplementary benefit with young children over two years old? Clearly, those are two obvious areas to which the Government should be looking, even under the constraints of the present system. I reiterate that we consider it an unsatisfactory system. Even within those constraints the Government could do more to widen the net of eligibility for some of the poorest in our community. How are such people to pay for their extra heating? I do not think that the Minister suggests that they can do without it.
  The problem of eligibility is closely related to the position of the DHSS staff and offices in administering the scheme. We all know that one of the trenchant and fair criticisms of the previous system was the complexity and what was seen as the manifest injustice that went with that
  300
  complexity. The Government have now opted for a flat rate or standard measure so that payment becomes automatic to all those who meet the qualifying criteria.
  The basic problem is that the trigger temperature of minus 1·5 deg C, which is an unsatisfactory measure in itself, is inadequate. Many of the elderly, as we know, live in houses that are poorly insulated and cold and the temperature in that sort of home begins to plummet well before an average of minus 1·5 deg C is reached and certainly before such a temperature, by the grace of God beginning on Sunday and ending on the following Monday, is reached.
  We have suggested in our amendment that it would be more sensible, if perhaps not ideal, for the Government to take zero deg C as the trigger. More important than that, instead of using the average temperature measured over the seven days from a Monday to the following Sunday, which is too inflexible—a fairer system based on zero deg C would be to use an average of the trigger point on any consecutive seven days. If bad weather sets in on a Wednesday and begins to lift the following Wednesday, because that bad weather came on the wrong days of the week no claim could be made. Under our proposal a claim would be eligible.
  Thirdly, a further criticism of the system is the fact that many in Britain, I would estimate tens of thousands, who are eligible to receive the £5 benefit that the Minister announced yesterday, must be labouring under the misapprehension that such payment will be automatic. It will not be automatic. It is worth underlining in this debate that although, by ministerial discretion, they are now eligible, they still have to make their claim to the local office. It will still take time for the money to come through and there will still be, for many, a great deal of indecision about exactly what they should do.
  In my part of the country, which is rural with a widely scattered population, it is not easy, particularly for the housebound elderly, to contact the local DHSS office. It is not easy for them to make a specific claim. That is one reason, among many, why we suggest that this scheme would be a lot more efficient and effective if it were made clear when payment was to be made so that those who should receive it know that payment will come automatically without a special claim to the DHSS.
  I refuse to believe that it is beyond the bureaucratic wit of man to devise a system that gives effect to that practical policy. I hope that the Government—I repeat again, within the constraints of the present system—will look at the suggestions and try to take them on board.
  A fourth point about the present system concerns the selection of the monitoring stations to decide when an average temperature of minus 1·5 deg C over the allotted days is reached.
  I speak in particular about the north of Scotland, being geographically the part of the country that I know best. The Government have selected, for example, in the north of Scotland area, monitoring stations at Dyce, Kinloss and at Leuchars. Braemar, for example, comes within the remit of the area of the Dyce monitoring station. Last week, the temperature at Braemar reached minus 18 deg C. Aviemore comes within the monitoring station covered by Kinloss measuring point. Last week, the temperature at Aviemore reached minus 16 deg C. The Earn valley comes within the area covered by the Leuchars monitoring station. Last week the temperature in the Earn valley reached minus 11 deg C.

  301
  Those are horrendously cold temperatures. Not one payment was made in any of those areas, because on each and every occasion, despite the severity of the temperature in the communities mentioned—plenty of other examples could be cited—the stations being sited on the coast, or nearer the coast than other available monitoring stations in that part of Scotland, do not give such an accurate reading of the temperature further inland.
  It is significant—I direct the Minister's attention to this—that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned that Eskdalemuir had been the only part of the country where the special payment was triggered under the scheme as originally constituted, leaving aside the Minister's special intervention yesterday. That is because, of the monitoring stations in Scotland, Eskdalemuir is the most inland and therefore gives the most accurate information on the severity of the temperature, the other stations in Scotland are coastal and do not give such an accurate reading.
  The Minister should be aware that monitoring stations that would be sufficient for his Department's purposes are available in two of the three examples that I gave where severe temperature was experienced. Braemar and Aviemore have adequate measuring facilities for temperature, but strangely those have not been selected. I am sure that that was purely a bureaucratic decision. They would have triggered payments this week or last week but they were not selected.
  In the north of Scotland we are not getting an accurate picture, because the stations are in the wrong place for measuring accurately the severity of the temperature throughout that part of the land mass. It would not take a great deal for the Government to redesignate those stations to try to obtain a better picture if they want the system to operate more efficiently, as the Minister tells us is his desire.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This arises in many areas. Anglesey, island in the sun, is the triggering point for the whole of Snowdonia. Even worse, the point in Trawsfynydd is near to a nuclear power station and is regarded as being 4 deg. warmer than the surrounding country. That looks after the other half of Snowdonia.
  Mr. Kennedy: I hope that not just the Celtic representatives in this House are being abused by the system, but I understand from television that there are as many anomalies in other parts and regions of England. The fact that the English are having to share our misery is, whilst I do not welcome it, a source of further pressure to bear on the Minister and I hope that he will take practical steps to improve the situation.
  Mr. Alexander Pollock: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the temperature for Aviemore and the reading required from Kinloss. I think that the figure he gave for Aviemore was minus 16 deg. C. Can he give us the relevant figure at Kinloss at that time?
  Mr. Kennedy: I do not have the specific figure, but, according to the North of Scotland Electricity Consultative Council, the average temperature for the seven-day monitoring period at Kinloss was more than minus 1·5 deg C. I seem to recall that it was slightly above zero.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I did not mean to get into a debate about RAF Kinloss, but I shall give way. I think that that does show the degree of discrepancy.
  Mr. Clarke: This morning's Glasgow Herald said that the figure for Kinloss was 0·6 deg C.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am afraid that this morning's Glasgow Herald has not made its way to my office.
  I spoke to the North of Scotland Electricity Consultative Council earlier today and I was interested by a point that was made about the Secretary of State's failure to answer correspondence. I was told that on 16 October 1986, Christine Davies, who is the chairman of the council, wrote to the Secretary of State drawing his attention to the anomalies that she and the council expected to arise from the proposed new system that the Government were to introduce because coastal points were to be used as the measuring criteria. She has not had a reply to that letter, although I think that it is fairly clear that more careful attention to her predictions should have been paid within the Department.
  It is also fair for people in the north of Scotland to feel a growing sense of outrage since 3,000 units of electricity per year is the average consumption for a family in England and Wales, and in excess of 6,000 units per year is the average consumption for a family in the north of Scotland. There is a considerable interest in the matter. It is highly relevant to people and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
  I have already said that people must claim payments, even the special payment which the Minister announced yesterday. That will put pressure on DHSS staff and resources. Before the Christmas recess the Minister gave me a set of written answers which showed the alarming percentage increase in claimants, for example in my part of the country, and that was set against a far smaller increase in the staff available to deal with them. If I recall rightly, it was of the order of 10:1.
  There will be a repeat performance of what has happened in recent years under the scheme, even under its previous organisation. Delay, frustration and resentment will build up among DHSS staff and clients. I appreciate that the Minister wanted fairness and so went for a nationally uniform system. But that has been seen to be defective and it sits oddly alongside the entire thrust of the social security proposals, which is to go for local discretion. If there is one area of the social security system where an element of local discretion would make sense, it is in deciding what level of special heating support should be given to people when the local officer can make judgments based on the realities of the local climate which will differ from one area to another. The Government seem to spend all their time putting through the social security reviews saying that local discretion is essential. Then in the one area where it might make sense to have an additional top-up formula so that people can be rewarded disproportionately well, in the most severely affected areas they say that there should be no such thing as local discretion. That is not being true to their rhetoric or to the reality of what they have been doing in the bulk of social security legislation. I cannot understand the apparent lack of common sense in this area.
  As we say in our amendment, in the longer term more must be done to obtain a national insulation programme. Many imaginative efforts are already being made in

  303
  Britain involving co-operation between the DHSS, local charities and, sometimes, the housing sector in providing draught-proofing and insulation, particularly targeted at those on the lowest incomes who, in many cases, are pensioners. More could be done to assist given that that has such beneficial effects in terms of saving fuel and such worthwhile effects in terms of keeping people's homes warmer and leaving them more of their disposable income to do with as they please. At the same time, it puts people back to work. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West fairly pointed out, the work is labour intensive and, my goodness, we need a few socially desirable and labour intensive schemes in Britain at the moment. We should make strenous efforts in that direction.
  In the longer term, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued on other occasions, we want to see the integration of the tax and benefit system which would provide the opportunity for the introduction of a basic benefit with additional top-up credits, be they on housing, heating or whatever, which will be simple to adminster and which will meet need much more effectively, fairly and efficiently than the present labyrinthine social security system.
  What we have seen in Britain in recent weeks, and what, if the severe weather persists we shall continue to experience, has been a disgrace. It has been a disgrace, perhaps more than anything else, because for the past two years there has been an annual parliamentary shambles. It has been an annual suffereance for those who are cold and who do not have sufficient money to heat their homes. Yet again, we have failed to get it right. We are debating the issue now and it is right that we should, yet steps should have been taken to correct it.
  Those are some positive suggestions, and it is not too late for the Government to respond more positively at the end of the debate and with a good deal less complacency than the Minister displayed when he opened the debate. If they can do that, they will be doing a good service to some of the most vulnerable in society whom the House, as much as the Government, should protect.
  6.4 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: The Opposition, who live in a fantasy world most of the time, have been trying to tread the Westminster stage this afternoon arrayed as a composite mixture of Oliver Twist, Tiny Tim and little Nell's grandfather. Their lines, with much ranting, raving and noises off, have sought to portray my hon. Friend the Minister as Scrooge, or worse. I have to tell them that the play will not run. Neither the facts nor the costumes fit and their acting is terrible.
  It is not so much that the Opposition forget their lines as that they forget what they did when they had the chance to act. There is not the remotest resemblance between what they have asked our Government to do this afternoon and what they did when in office.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave the debate what I believe is called in the trade a puff on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning. One would marvel at the height of his flights of fancy except that one always knows that he will indulge in them. He can explode to numbers; he rants to order. Because of that, he is one of the most predictable Members of the House.
  304
  This morning the hon. Gentleman told the nation that the Government had asked the weather centre to give them a trigger temperature at which the least number of people possible would be paid severe weather payments. One sees what I mean about living in a fantasy world. There is not one word of truth in that allegation.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Explain it.
  Dame Jill Knight: I cannot explain it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made the suggestion.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady said that it was fantasy. Explain it.
  Dame Jill Knight: Of course it is fantasy. I have said that there is not a word of truth in the allegation that the Government asked the weather centre to tell them the trigger temperature which would enable them to pay the least possible amount of money to people in need.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West said—he said it again this afternoon, although I notice that he did not dare to repeat his other allegation—that there should be a £5 a week allowance for everyone on supplementary benefit throughout the winter to cope with severe weather. I am not sure what "throughout the winter" means. Is it from November to March? But the fact that we sometimes experience quite balmy winters has apparently not registered with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that we often have two or three bad days a winter means nothing. He would still go on pushing out millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, whether or not the need existed.
  If ever, Lord help us, the hon. Gentleman were to be the Minister instead of the shadow Minister, the newspapers would have a field day. I must warn him about that. There would be pictures of pensioners basking in deck chairs on a Cornish beach having used their severe weather payment to buy their railway ticket down on a mild and sunny day.
  One of the differences between the Conservative party and the Labour party is that we believe that special generous help should be made available for those who need it when especially serious conditions exist. The Labour party believes that money should be doled out with no need established, whether it is bad weather or not or whether people need it or not.
  Any Government with such principles cannot possibly give enough real help to those in real need, because they are too busy spending public money in the areas where real need does not exist. Such a Government would face economic disaster. It may be time to say that no Government, however big their heart and however oppulent their spending, will ever be able to shield every citizen from every adversity from the womb to the tomb.
  If I may return to the remarks made on radio this morning by the hon. Member for Oldham, West—hon. Members should not draw the conclusion that I enjoyed his comments—he said that the Conservative Government were unwilling to spend any money on social security, preferring instead to give it away to the rich in tax cuts. This year the Conservative Government are spending £43 billion on social security—30 per cent. of public expenditure. If that is considered to be unwilling, Lord help us if we ever get a Government as willing as Barkis. The Government are spending £43 billion, yet the hon. Gentleman is saying that that shows that the Government are unwilling to spend money. The hon. Gentleman should

  305
  understand that there is all the difference in the world between deciding how to allocate all the billions of pounds that the Inland Revenue collects in taxes from everyone and taking further money away from those who have already paid large sums to the Inland Revenue.
  The Government give absolutely nothing to the rich, and that is right. Despite what Opposition Members may keep on saying, the Government do not use the collected revenue to give to the rich. That is absolute nonsense. Not one brass farthing of Government money goes to the rich. The Government take from them. The Opposition are rather like a burglar who claims that he has given his victims everything that he has not stolen. Allowing people to keep a little more of the money that they have earned is not giving them a single thing. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is not so much economical with the truth as incompatible with it.
  The Government have shown great concern about these payments, both yesterday and today, and rightly so. Many of us, from both sides of the House, were pushing for that and indeed the Government have shown their concern to help the old and the cold. The new arrangements, which were announced yesterday, were clearly and swiftly made to meet the sudden severe situation that has cropped up in the past few days. No one wants elderly people to be cold. No one wants them to be afraid to turn up the heat because they are worried about the high cost of fuel. That would be disastrous, and there has been a unanimity of concern about that in the House.
  The Government have seen to it that needy people should get automatic help with ordinary heating costs. Those on the basic rate for heating addition get over £8 a week regularly and the more needy still—in line with what I have said—get over £11 a week. The announcement yesterday was for a new increase for everyone, as of right, in need.
  Mr. David Maclean: That increase is on top of existing allowances.
  Dame Jill Knight: Yes; it is on top of those arrangements to which I have already alluded, and it will cover the three tiers of benefits.
  When the exceptionally cold weather occurred, it was the Government and not the Opposition who introduced special extra payments. It was a new conception of benefit, but it was not surprising that we did not get it right the first time as there are tremendous variations. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has already referred to the difficulties in measuring different temperatures. There are enormous variations with regard to benefit payments for the needy; we are aware that it is one of the most complicated areas of Government finance.
  The calculation of benefit for help in especially severe weather conditions is a complicated part of the complicated benefit payments. There are variations in different parts of the country—freak weather in one area that brings with it serious conditions while someone a few miles down the road does not experience the same weather. The different ages of people represent different threats. The different conditions within people's homes will also further complicate things. Some people may suffer problems that do not affect their next-door neighbour.
  Yesterday there was a swift response to a special situation and an acknowledgement that changes were
  306
  needed. I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has understood the need to reassure old people frightened about their ability to pay for the heat upon which their lives may depend. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about neighbours. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to recognise that it is not only a question of demanding or suggesting that a neighbour may be a very good friend at this time of special need? Perhaps there should be some recognition of the fact that so many neighbours have already helped, and that is very important. The Government are always willing to help, but they cannot replace a kind neighbour who may bring a hot drink or an extra blanket, make a thoughtful visit or offer to do the shopping. A lot of such neighbourliness is already going on, and we should recognise that.
  I wonder at the decision of the Opposition to choose to mount a debate on this subject when their own record is so incredibly vulnerable. Our record has demonstrated our concern and our determination to help those in need. I am sure that nobody on the Conservative Benches would suggest that we have got it absolutely right.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend asked why the Opposition mounted this debate. It was a mistake. They intended to create a lot of synthetic froth about the fact that probably we would not make the extra payment, but when we did it was too late for them to cancel the debate.
  Dame Jill Knight: That may well be right. It is a further illustration of the Labour party's inability to judge anything right.
  I support the suggestion about insulation. I know that a lot is being done to achieve that, and it is important to press on.
  Later in the programme in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke there was an appalling item about a couple in a terrible state whose boiler had burst. The old man had had a cancer operation and his wife was desperately worried about the burst and they sought help by telephoning the council. The answer they got from the council—I bet it was a Labour-controlled one—was that the office was shut and that nothing could be done. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider that salutary message.
  I do not wish my right hon. Friend to dictate to local councils, but, in these exceptional weather conditions, official help should be available at once when a boiler has burst, and especially when elderly or sick people are involved. It is appalling for a council to say that the office is shut and that therefore it cannot help. Let us not have that lack of help and care. The Government have amply shown this afternoon that they care.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I shall not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) down some of the byways that she has entered. I believe that the people who are affected by the cold weather want to know whether the House is able to secure an improvement in their position.
  I shall not be discussing the important points about what should be the exact temperature, over how many days that temperature should be measured, and exactly how that information should be handled. I want to put

  307
  before the House a proposition that I first put to the House 10 years ago when I was the Secretary of State for Energy. It was the objective of our energy policy that
  "everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home."
  That was in the energy policy Green Paper which was published in 1977.
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Mr. Benn: No, I shall not give way. I have listened to the interventions of Conservative Members and I am not persuaded that they are concerned about those who are cold. Let me develop my argument.
  I shall put before the House an idea that is so simple that it may surprise some: that it is a human right to be warm and not to be driven by poverty into dying of cold. That is the issue that we should have in our minds when discussing this question. We are talking about real people. I am sure that other hon. Members try to be as conscientious about their constituents as I try to be. In the past few days in particular I have had continual contact with people who are desperately worried that they will die of cold. Pensioners more than anyone else do not want to run into debt, and until they know where they are they will not even turn on the heat.
  The figure for death from hypothermia varies by 50 to 100 every year, but we know that it is about 800 or 900. However, that total depends on the doctor putting hypothermia on the death certificate. The surveys done by Age Concern, however, show that 44,000 more pensioners die in the winter months than in the summer months. Moreover, 13,000 of them die in the weeks when the weather is coldest. Others have estimated that one in 10 pensioners, or almost I million people, are at risk, perhaps not of dying from hypothermia but of suffering from it. They have to go through the winter cold and are unable to live any sort of life, huddled in bed under a blanket or whatever.
  I do not want the debate to revolve simply around how many pensioners should be catered for. No one should be driven into cold and poverty in the winter. Many other people are also involved. The homeless have already been mentioned and I heard discussion of that on the radio. There are poor people in housing that is so badly maintained that the draughts mean that the temperature in them is probably much lower than that at the local weather station. Yesterday I came across the case of some young unemployed people who had been turned out of their lodgings because of the harsh DHSS board and lodging allowance scheme, and who had been driven into the snow as a result of the regulations introduced by the Minister.
  Unless we are prepared to discuss the objectives that should be adopted, we shall be in serious difficulties. I do not want to engage in any tit for tat, as pensioners do not want to listen to that. I believe that this crisis is not just the result of this week's very cold weather but is the culmination of a series of policies pursued by the Government since coming to office.
  For example, there was the decision to force up fuel prices. There is a lot of talk about statistics, but I do not want to go into them. Nevertheless, it is manifest that gas prices have increased by 134·7 per cent. as against 90 per cent. for all items since the Prime Minister took office. That is partly due to the Treasury's policy of limiting the
  308
  external financing limit, or what used to be called the required rate of return, in order to boost the profits of British Gas before selling it off. Without being crude about it, I must say that those who have made a capital gain during the past few weeks by buying British Gas shares have thereby made it harder for poor pensioners to turn on the gas. That connection between the privatisation of British Gas and death from hypothermia must be made. I do not follow these matters in detail, but I believe that the cost of privatisation in terms of City charges was about £150 million to £160 million.
  My next point is obvious. During the past two years the big pit closure programme has laid off miners who wanted to dig coal that could have been given free to pensioners in the form of electricity. We would not then have had unemployed miners side by side with people dying of hypothermia. Without doubt the miners' case was absolutely right.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to draw the attention of the House and, I hope, the attention of those who read Hansard to some of the contributory factors to fuel poverty.
  Reference has already been made to the change in pension arrangements and to the abandonment of the 25 per cent. winter discount scheme. It is of no interest to anyone if an ex-Minister wants to defend his record years later. However, I cut 25 per cent. off the winter electricity bills of all those—not just pensioners—on supplementary benefit and family income supplement, regardless of the weather, and it gave people the certainty that they would not freeze to death in the winter. I was not satisfied with that electricity discount scheme and would have liked to do more, but it was the best scheme ever. The Government stopped it and they should restart it.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I shall complete my speech, as I am not persuaded that Conservative Members are addressing themselves to the problems that their policies have contributed to.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was my Under-Secretary of State when we negotiated hard with the public corporations to stop all supply disconnections of pensioners during the winter and to refer them to the DHSS, where discretionary payments were possible. It should be unthinkable that people can be cut off in the winter for failing to pay their fuel bills.
  I tried to intervene and to get a clear answer from the Minister on that important point. He said that he thought that no one should put his health at risk during the cold weather. Perhaps the Minister will answer my point later tonight, as I want to know whether people who fear for their lives and their health and who use fuel in their homes will be disconnected if they cannot pay their bills. I want an absolutely clear assurance that they will not be disconnected if they cannot pay their bills, or prosecuted if they can establish that they could not afford the fuel that they needed to maintain their lives.
  Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Benn: If I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall give way to another Conservative Member shortly.
  Mr. Winnick: Is not that point very important for those who are just above the supplementary benefit level and who live in great poverty? They cannot claim supplementary benefit and do not receive a penny of extra assistance because of the winter weather. What will happen to them? When the Minister made his totally irrelevant speech, he made no mention of that problem.
  Mr. Benn: That is one of the difficulties of having such a rigid system. The Government may talk about giving £5 a week automatically. But they could set the temperature at minus 20 deg and offer people £100,000 a week while saying that it was the best scheme ever. The Government have set the temperature at a low level and made the conditions tough. Friends of mine who work in the DHSS have told me that they think that if this scheme had operated last winter no money would have been paid. The DHSS is under a lot of pressure because of manpower cuts, yet it is asked to make assessments. Moreover, applications have to be sent in every week. Thus a pensioner aged over 65 on supplementary benefit must write once a week, having first studied the weather conditions in the local station, if he wants to get the money. On the other hand, until he obtains the money, he will not know whether it is wise to turn on his electricity.
  Without being party political, I must tell the House that this is a brutal way to treat old and poor people when the country has 1,000 years of coal as well as oil and is one of the richest energy countries in the world. I believe that we should adopt, as a matter of policy, the objective that everyone should be able to afford adequate heat and light at home. If hon. Members think that that sounds radical, they should imagine us tackling health problems with the same sort of measures as have been announced today. They should imagine the Secretary of State for Social Services saying that, in view of the problems of ill health in our society, pensioners on supplementary benefit would receive a little bit of money to go to a private doctor, provided that they applied to the DHSS. What made the Health Service so important was not nationalising the bricks and mortar but changing the basis on which people have the right to medical treatment from wealth to need.
  That is what we should do about the energy policy: to ensure that no one, at least not deliberately, although it may occur accidentally, is allowed to die or, if possible, suffer from cold. To do that we must increase the allowances and pay them automatically instead of by application. We must extend the categories covered by the allowances, as my electricity discount scheme did. That scheme covered 1·6 million people compared with the 100,000 or more who may get the heating allowances.
  We should stop the disconnections, because the greatest crime of all is to cut off the supply of someone who is in debt because he is too poor to keep warm and to sustain his or her life. We should cut or end the standing charges. I confess that I could not carry the Government of whom I was a member on the issue of standing charges. They tax the small consumer, whereas the big business consumer gets a discount from bulk supply. That means that the poor pay more for their fuel than those who use more of it.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that squares with the foreword that he wrote to a report in 1977? That report considered, among other things, the abolition of standing charges and stated:
  310
  "After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of the possibilities—"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be reading m an intervention.
  Mr. Nicholls: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as this is the only intervention that we Conservative Members have been allowed to make I thought that it might be all right. The right hon. Gentleman wrote that he was not in favour of abolishing standing charges. What has changed now?
  Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman considers that that is the best way to conduct the debate, that is entirely up to him. I quoted from the foreword which I have in my hand. It states:
  "Our objectives should be to ensure that everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home."
  I just said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that I could not carry the matter of standing charges. Now pensioners' organisations are demanding the cutting or abolition of standing charges. We should reintroduce the winter discount scheme. Some people have made a substantial profit out of the privatisation of gas. An incoming Labour Government should freeze gas prices until the benefit of that unearned increment goes back, and has gone back completely. To the gas consumers. It is an outrage, made more so by the Secretary of State and Sir Denis Rooke marching through the streets of London with blue ribbons to celebrate something which could now be seen more accurately as a funeral service for those who will die because they dare not switch on the gas this winter.
  If we cannot persuade the Government tonight to increase the heating allowances—although public pressure probably shifted them yesterday and it may shift them today—it will not be long before the pensioners, the poor, the homeless and the young unemployed will have the power though their vote to decide how they wish the matter to be handled. I hope that they will use their power to raise the quality of life for themselves and for everyone else.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House has come to expect my hon. Friend the Minister of State to handle his difficult and emotive brief with care and competence. Neither yesterday nor today did he let us down. The House is rightly entitled to compliment him on his recognition of the public will on this matter. When faced with an unprecedented burst of cold weather, he acted promptly, firmly and correctly, just as we would have wished.
  That was matched by hysteria from the Leader of the Opposition and the now inevitable rantings from the shadow social services spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). That may well have impressed those members of the public outside with short memories, but Labour's actions when in government give them no right whatever to chastise this Administration for their conduct. The mess resulting from their economic policies meant no Christmas bonus for the elderly. That happened twice during their Administration, and when they changed the procedures for normal pensions—my hon. Friends will correct me if I exaggerate—it cost the pensioners £1 billion.
  Yes, of course we would like to do more. I said in earlier debates on this and related issues that I personally would

  311
  like to see more done, but I am conscious that it must be paid for. I hope that, as our economy strengthens, we will do just that.
  It is easy when a party is in opposition and is not required to pay for or deliver promises to sneer at any reference to the cost of welfare services, but an article in The Daily Telegraph this morning by Mr. Julian Isherwood could not have been better timed. He wrote about the realities that now face Denmark's health service. He said:
  "Free medical treatment for everything from a cut finger to a new heart has been a right for every Dane… Like may idealistic dreams it has now collided with financial reality…the country's economy has run into deficit and the ingenuity of the Minister for Taxation can no longer match the bottomless pit of all embracing social security demands."
  That last phrase rings true for us in the United Kingdom, but it has not yet reached the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). It has indeed come as a shock to the Danes, who are rightly proud of their past achievements. But, as has been said, for them too, the party is over. That may be unpallatable, but it does not make it any less true. So when the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, in effect, that the economy could take second place to this matter he was not being caring. He simply has not yet learnt what our friends the Danes are now having to take on board—that every additional promise of more and yet more bounty in welfare provision makes the credibility of the Labour party less and less.
  I, too, listened to Radio 4 this morning when the hon. Member for Oldham, West gave a knowingly false picture. He said that the Government expected the elderly to heat their homes for £5 a week. He knew that to be untrue. He knew that heating costs are part of supplementary benefit throughout the year. He knew of the heating additions to vulnerable groups apart from the elderly that are already added to supplementary benefit. He knew of the £2·20 that is paid as of right to the pensioner over 65 on supplementary benefit and of the £5·50 that is paid to the severely disabled and to the very old, but he chose to peddle the untruth that the Conservative party expects a home to be heated on just £5. That is humbug and deceit that is unworthy of a shadow spokesman—even that shadow spokesman.
  But judge the Opposition not on their words; judge them on their deeds. It is true that they are not in control in this place, but they control many, indeed perhaps the majority, of local authorities. When the Labour party is in control at local level, its actions certainly do not match the promise of the new Jerusalem painted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  It is true that the housing authority in Nottingham has a Programme of upgrading the heating provision of its properties, and that recently it has encouraged council tenants to have central heating installed on a rent-added basis to pay for it. To be fair, that is good and I acknowledge it. But it is Labour's choice of priorities that I challenge. I suspect from what we have seen and read about some of the more lunatic Labour authorities that the choice is often made with the old and cold a low priority compared, for example, with their avowed intent to have all the trappings, such as race advisers, equal opportunity watchdogs, et al, rather than devote those large sums to home improvement, particularly for the elderly.
  312
  I understand that it has been estimated that central heating can be provided for perhaps £1,000 to £1,200 per home. On that basis, about 20 homes for the elderly could be properly heated for the cost of just one of the planned snoopers. It is not only the Labour authorities' overbearing obsession with bureaucracy, but their slavish devotion to public sector new-build before all else that militates against the ability to upgrade more council homes than they are tackling at present. They claim that they could do more if only the Government would let them spend all their capital receipts. It is much more to the point to ask whether they are getting value from what they spend now.
  It is the positive discouragement by Labour authorities of private sector development and the positive lack of encouragement to use all other agencies of provision other than themselves as landlords that diverts resources which can and should be used to improve the quality of existing housing stock, particularly the homes of the elderly. Whatever we spend on gas, electricity or coal, if a house is badly insulated or the elderly are physically unable to do the routine precautionary things that we younger adults take for granted, the old will remain cold.
  Mr. Allen McKay: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly, as I am sure he does, about insulation, why has he not said anything against his Government, who stopped the insulation programme under the new social security legislation?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on that point, but there are other ways—[Interruption.] I have not ducked this matter. If hon. Members refer to my earlier remarks as reported in Hansard, they will find that I said that I hoped that my Government would do more. I take the matter no further than that.
  This issue is not for the Government alone, nor is it for the Government and local authorities alone. In common humanity, we all can and should make a contribution. I pay a sincere tribute to the initiative and on-going support for the old and cold given by our local newspaper, the Nottingham Evening Post. In December 1985 that news paper sought to harness the basic good will of Nottingham's people and raised nearly £12,000 to help 250 special cases of need. This year, it is running a similar fund to assist not only the special hardship cases brought to its attention but, when necessary, to provide support for those who clearly are in need of such help and, for whatever reason, fall outside the qualifying categories.
  No matter how clever we think we are here in Parliament, there will always be such marginally excluded persons. It is splendid that this is still a society which cares enough voluntarily to seek to fill that gap. The staff of that newspaper have done more than just offer their good offices as a point of collection. They have put together a team of advisers from the DHSS and the county social services department, and have put the Lord Mayor of the city in the chair to deal with cases put before them. The sums needed may not be large. They have set an upper limit of £100. That appears to be satisfactory and is based upon the helpful advice of senior DHSS advisers.
  The paper was swift to react to the Minister of State's announcement yesterday. A coupon will appear in today's edition of the Nottingham Evening Post, dealing with the Government's special payment initiative, and, obviously,

  313
  the newspaper's own care-line service for the old and cold. I hope that that action will be repeated throughout the country by similar newspapers.
  I also pay tribute to one of our local industrial giants which has a social conscience. The Boots company has joined the newspaper's initiative and provided 500 special hypothermia warning thermometers carrying details of emergency telephone numbers as well as easily followed advice if the room temperature falls to an unacceptable level. I am not a religious person, but a certain phrase readily comes to mind:
  "Blessed are they that give."
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman contemplate that, for the purpose of the regulations, the critical temperature is not that of the room in which an old person is situated, but the temperature read at the National Climatological Message Centre?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman may be trying to get his remarks on the record. It is unbecoming of him to denigrate the efforts of Boots to direct some help and advice into the room in which an elderly person is trying to keep warm. That seems to me to be sensible advice.
  The line for benefit has to be drawn somewhere. Wherever it is drawn, the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition will be the same. I am concerned that, although I can defend the line in normal circumstances, the present arctic conditions must be a nightmare to those who fall marginally outside our safety net. I acknowledge that an old-age pensioner with a few pounds less than the heating allowance from an occupational pension scheme might find himself outside that safety net for help. I wonder, too, whether elderly people who have just a little over that £500 savings limit should not be advised, perhaps, to pay in advance some of those heating bills to avoid exclusion under our present scheme.
  As the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday, a savings limit has always existed. The Labour party has no right whatever to carp at the present £500 limit. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours to the limit of the legal restraints upon them to ensure that elderly people do not lose out through ignorance of the provisions that we seek to make. On those grounds, I reject the Opposition's motion and welcome the Government's reasoned amendment.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is regrettable that the House must debate this matter. It should have been settled many years ago. The yah-booing that sometimes occurs in the Chamber on issues such as this fills me with despair. In particular, those well-heeled people, company directors, those who have good jobs and those who have never experienced the difficulties of the kind that we are talking about, who shout abuse at hon. Members who sensitively raise these matters, fill me with despair. That has happened often this afternoon.
  Although past Labour Governments did a reasonable job up to a point, they did not do enough. No Government have done enough. Our Labour people began the process, but they were not able to complete it. Ordinary working men and women who have spent their entire lives helping to create the wealth of this country face death because they
  314
  cannot keep warm. Obviously, we all die sooner or later, but we do not need to hasten the process through people not being able to keep warm in their little homes.
  It is a scandal and a disgrace that, in this day and age, we must discuss this matter again because, outside, people are faced with death through hypothermia. It is a scandal that, once again, the House faces this sort of debate.
  Each and every one of us has a responsibility. None of us has done enough, not only for the elderly, but for young people who every night are getting under cardboard boxes, mainly in London. They have come here seeking employment from areas such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Wales and the north-east. They have found neither a job nor anywhere to sleep.
  During the last spell of severe weather I said in the House that emergency measures should be taken. Once again the voluntary bodies began to help. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. What would we do without the Salvation Army and rectors opening church halls? Tory Members, especially the Prime Minister, love the concept of voluntary bodies. I, too, like voluntary bodies, but we should not need voluntary bodies for this. It is the responsibility of each and every hon. Member to ensure that legislation is passed so that such debates are not necessary.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to the White Paper which he introduced when he was Secretary of State for Energy. What did it say? One line at the beginning gives the first priority for energy policy. It states that our objective shold be to ensure that
  "everyone can afford adequate heat and light at home."
  They do not have that, although some do. Those of us with elderly relatives must help them, and rightly so, because we are more fortunate. But all elderly people do not have relatives. Many are wholly alone and have nothing except state assistance.
  I heard the Prime Minister say—[Interruption.] I am coming to that. There is an old saying among my class that the poor always help the poor, and my God they do. At this moment poor people on the streets of Liverpool are still looking after other poor people. When there is a funeral in the road and the old person is without any assistance, everybody rallies around and does his best to help. Those people also give assistance in all sorts of other directions. Yes, the poor help the poor, but I thought that we were trying to create a society and a world—I say this as a Christian—where those at the bottom of the ladder should not have to live in desperate circumstances. I thought that we believed in compassion. The Prime Minister is supposed to believe in compassion.
  I shall never forget, to the day I die, the Prime Minister outside No. 10 having the audacity to read the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. He said:
  "Where there is despair let me sow hope;
  Where there is darkness let me sow light;
  Where there is sadness let me sow joy…
  To understand rather than to be understood.
  To love rather than to be loved."
  My goodness, when I think about it, this is an occasion when the right hon. Lady's compassion should be so overriding that she and all other hon. Members should say, "Never mind what previous Governments did or did not do. We will ensure that from now on there will be no question of people dying from cold, poverty or misery." That is what she should say if she believes in the prayer of St. Francis.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend call to mind the first line of St. Francis's prayer, which states:
  "Lord make me an instrument of thy peace"
  and speculate briefly on how well the Prime Minister has not been that?
  Mr. Heffer: I did not want to quote all of the prayer, but I agree with my hon. Friend that, since the Government came to power, instead of peace we have had confrontation.
  Last night I saw a brief television programme which reported on district heating in Sweden. Various local authorities have urged us to persuade the Government to accept the principle of district heating. We have done nothing about it. The only district heating that ever existed was from a power station into Dolphin square, and when the power station closed, even that closed. It was a marvellous system, and if it can be done for one area, it can be done in all our main cities. Incidentally, we can put our people to work introducing such a system. That would create employment and at the same time ensure that people have proper heating in their homes.
  We should ensure that no block of flats sinks below a certain heating level. That is done even in New York, where there is a much more vicious system than we have, although we are moving rapidly in that direction.
  Then there is the £500 rule. Some hon. Members probably spend more than £500 a month on meals.
  Mr. Nicholls: Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman may.
  Mr. Heffer: I do not. I merely watch other hon. Members and—
  Mr. Nicholls: What about the hon. Lady?
  Mr. Heffer: It does not matter which hon. Members they are, but I know that when they leave here for their restaurants they spend a great deal of money. They spend more money on one meal than some of our people have to live on for a month. That is the greedy, selfish society in which we live. Old people save for their funeral and if they go on a little holiday, for example a tour, at least half of that £500 will be spent. It is a scandal.
  I shall not make a long speech, because I have made all the important points. The position is terrible and we must do something about it. I appeal to all hon. Members on both sides to say, "The £5 is a beginning, but it should be paid automatically over a period of time, not merely for one week. That should be changed." From now on we should say that it is not good enough, that we will introduce an entirely new system and end the old system once and for all so that never again will we have to hold a debate like this. It is shameful that the House is forced to debate in such a way.
  7 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If I cannot agree with every conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I can certainly say that nobody who heard him on this occasion, and who has heard him on previous occasions, perhaps long before he came into the House, can doubt for one moment the sincerity of the way in which he puts forward his arguments. There is at least one other area of common ground. It is that the hon. Gentleman at least said that he
  316
  was not trying to pretend, as others have pretended in this debate, that when his Government were in office everything that they did about pensions was absolutely right and as good as it could have been. That remark has perhaps more significance than the hon. Gentleman might allow, because there is nothing wrong or unnecessarily adversarial in pointing out what previous Governments have done.
  Those pensioners who will avidly queue up to buy copies of Hansard to read our deliberations today may do so to find out what they can expect from the Government, but also to find out what they can expect from the Labour party if it is returned to office. To that extent they are entitled to ask, "What was the record; what was the history?" Therefore, there is some significance in saying that we have to look not just to the future, as the hon. Gentleman would have us do, but that we are entitled to look to the past.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate, started it in the way that we have heard before. Without being uncharitable, I expect that we will hear it again. He gave us a foretaste of it yesterday. He did not concentrate on this extremely severe weather and the severe weather payment. He went straight into the attack and talked about the whole of the retirement pension without any persiflage. He said, as he has said on many occasions, that the record of his Government when they were last in office was greatly preferable to the record of this Conservative Administration.
  The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday quite succinctly when he told the House:
  "Is he further aware that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings, as they were under the previous Labour Government, the single pension today would be £8 a week higher and the married pension £12 a week higher".—[Official Report, 13 January 1986: Vol. 108, c. 135.]
  He said that quite straightforwardly and quite deliberately. I was not in the slightest bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to let me intervene at that stage, because as he well knows that is simply not the truth. Although the last Labour Government passed legislation to ensure that pensions would be linked to the rise in earnings rather than to prices, they did not implement their own legislation in three of the four years that it should have applied.
  The Labour Government did not fail to do that because they lacked compassion or were heartless about the plight of the elderly or the poor, but simply because they could not find the money. I raised a point of order and I apologise for that because I now realise it was somewhat bogus, but when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was obliged to face the fact that they could not find the money, he accused me of having indulged in various sorts of manoeuvres and bogus statistics. He may see it that way, but that was not the way that it was seen by the then Secretary of State for Social Services at a time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Services.
  When Pensioners Voice chided the then Secretary of State because the pension issue had been avoided and the Labour Government's legislation was put to one side, the response by the Secretary of State was:
  "'There is a statutory obligation to take these figures (i.e., earnings) into account, which was done, but no statutory obligation to get it right.'"
  That statement was made by the Minister under whom the hon. Gentleman was doubtless proud to serve. There was

  317
  no mention by the hon. Gentleman that his party's record was anything other than sweetness and light. That is what the Secretary of State said and did when he found that his own sincere best wishes were incapable of being implemented. No wonder the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to let me intervene to put the record straight.
  It must be said that that was not the first fiddle on a grand scale which the last Labour Government perpetrated. An even bigger fiddle was the one when the method of calculating pension increases was switched from the historic method to the forecasting method. When that was done it was a real blow to pensioners, but we did not hear too much from the hon. Gentleman about that. If he had wanted to turn his mind to it, I have no doubt that he would have been able to tell us that in Barbara Castle's diaries she admitted that the reason why that method of calculating benefit was changed was simply to save money. She went on to say that she regarded that as not an honourable thing to do. She said that it was done to save money pure and simple. That was the reason, and pensioners suffered because of it.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Whatever the details of the matters about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, he may be aware that one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) might be reasonably content with the last Labour Government's actions on pensions was that, as the hon. Gentleman has been told over and over again, at the end of the lifetime of that Government pensions had increased in real terms by 20 per cent. Given that under this Government pensions have increased in real terms by 3 per cent., perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us how happy he is with his Government's record.
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall certainly address that point. The hon. Lady simply cannot avoid the fact that pensioners' expectations were raised to an extremely high level, because they were told that their pensions would be kept in line with earnings. In a nutshell, they were not, and to that extent pensioners were deprived of the money that they had expected to receive. That was the reality. The hon. Member for Walton at least impliedly admitted that the last Labour Government had done something that was, shall we say, less than perfect. If there was any validity in the point that the hon. Lady tries to make against a background of inflation at the time that was wrecking pensioners' savings, presumably the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have admitted that. However, he did not because he knew how ignoble his record on pensions was.
  The other point that the hon. Lady will obviously want to bear in mind is the consequence for the Labour party once the change in the method of calculation has been made. To hear the hon. Lady, one would think that pensioners would have said, "We may have been diddled, and the Government may have avoided their own legislation, but is it not marvellous, because look at all the money that we have?"
  At the time that the discussions were taking place in Cabinet, as recorded by Mrs. Castle, in December 1975, only a few weeks before, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not promising free television licences or free television sets. A matter of weeks before those Cabinet discussions he had to come to the House for the second year running and announced that there would be no
  318
  Christmas bonus. That was £10 a year, at a time when inflation was almost in the realms of hyper-inflation. The Labour Government were so stuck for cash that they could not even pay the Christmas bonus. If the hon. Gentleman was in any doubt about how pensioners felt about what he had done, he certainly knew fairly soon afterwards, because in the following year, in March 1976, the hon. Gentleman was addressing a meeting of pensioners—
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is in order to refer from time to time to the past in order to illustrate the current situation and compare it to the past, but is it in order to go on and on for a complete speech without referring to the issue before the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing out of order has been said so far.
  Mr. Nicholls: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment and it is nice that he has decided to join our deliberations at a relatively late stage.
  Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend has been present for longer than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foulkes: I was here earlier on two occasions, sitting in another part of the House just to confuse Conservative Members.
  Mr. Nicholls: By getting indignant about his own record, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is far more confused than any of my hon. Friends are likely to be. We have the background of two major fiddles in the way in which pension was calculated, and even the Christmas bonus was removed. That was at a time when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was not in his public school, languishing around the towers of academia, but was a member of the Government, because he was a Social Security Minister. At least it has to be said that there are other Opposition Members who have a rather better grasp of the figures in their own brief than has the hon. Member for Oldham, West. They know the reality.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West would do well to consider the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I remember that in one debate the hon. Member for Birkenhead intervened during a speech that I was making and asked:
  "Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Opposition Members would not seek to defend all the actions of the Labour Government, especially the manoeuvrings on pensions?"—[Official Report, 22 April 1985; Vol. 96, c. 666.]
  That was not a distorted use of figures, of which I was accused by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The most knowledgeable Opposition speaker on social security matters is not here today, but when he has felt able to take part in debates of this sort the hon. Member for Birkenhead has admitted, straightforwardly and frankly, that the manoeuvrings of the present Opposition on pensions—
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that we were discussing the exceptionally severe weather payments scheme. Is it necessary for the House to have to listen at such nauseous length—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Brief and relevant interventions are a definite and essential part of our proceedings. A number of hon. Members are anxious to

  319
  catch my eye. If there are many more interventions, their chances will be put back, particularly if the interventions are from those who are hoping to catch my eye. As for the hon. Member's point of order, nothing has been said that is out of order. It is better to leave the Chair to decide whether or not something is out of order.
  Mr. Nicholls: It probably does not need saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) I will say it, and I will say it slowly, too. The case put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that policies that have completely failed in the past to provide pensioners with a proper rate of pension, out of which they can meet their commitments, including their fuel bills, should be adopted again. As they have failed, Conservative Members should point out, not that Opposition Members do not care about the fate of the unemployed or pensioners, but that a scheme and a system for the future is being put forward which in the past completely failed to deliver the goods.
  Another matter that we might have expected to hear something about today is how to finance a policy that would provide more money for fuel bills in the summer and in the winter, irrespective of whether the temperature justifies it. We do not know how it will be funded. There were a number of interventions during the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to try to find out whether the commitments that he told us about today are part of the £24·5 billion or whether they are part of the deal that was done at Bishops Stortford. We did not manage to find out. However, that money would have to be found from somewhere.
  What bedevilled the last Labour Government and worked to the signal disadvantage of pensioners was that Labour's plan, as then implemented, had not been properly costed. There is no reason to think that Labour's plan today has been properly costed.
  During the few moments that I have for light relief I like to read Tribune. In many ways it is an excellent journal. Often one finds in it items of great interest. On 16 July 1982 it contained one particularly interesting article. I am sure Opposition Members know what it is, but I want to share it with other hon. Members. I appreciate the Opposition's embarrassment about what I am about to read out. The article said:
  "A major concern…must be the failure to cost adequately or to make a priority of the social programme."
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West may think that those words have a familiar ring. I can save him the embarrassment of suggesting that he wrote those words, because he did not. They were written by his wife. At a time when Labour wives are capable of completely rewriting the defence policy of the party, it seems to be not unfair that Labour wives should make a significant contribution here. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West returns home tonight, he will know that his wife will be able to tell him that there has been a signal failure and a complete inability to cost the programme. We have seen all this before. We do not need to look into the future when we can look into the recent past and see what has been done.
  There is one point to which I should return. On both this and previous occasions—and unless the hon. Member for Oldham, West undergoes a damascene
  320
  conversion today there will be future occasions—I have criticised the hon. Gentleman for making extravagant promises. However, despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has a use of language and hyperbole that would make the late Savonarola look like a master of the understatement, there is one thing today that the hon. Gentleman did not come to the House to do. That was left to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West did not promise to abolish standing charges. The Labour party ought at least to be given the credit for that. When all else fails, they will churn that out as well. On this occasion the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not do so, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield did. He has a reputation among his colleagues for looking back into history at those bits of the Labour party's programme that were successful and taking the credit for them, but if there were things that the last Labour Government did of which he disapproved, he tries to dissociate himself from them. The right hon. Gentleman was against the abolition of standing charges. However, he tried to say that he had been in favour of abolition, but that he was unable to convince his colleagues in the Government. Sometimes it is necessary to put the record straight.
  The report of the special group that was set up to look at ways to help the poor with their fuel costs considered a number of alternatives and in due course produced a report. The foreword to that report was penned by none other than the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. In that foreword, though not in the report, commenting on matters like the abolition of standing charges, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "After considering the Group's Report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities…by way of alternatives…offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 843.]
  It is not without significance that when a party takes office even Messiahs like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield sometimes find that they have to take reality into account.
  Mr. Barron: During the winter of 1976–77 my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave a 25 per cent. discount on electricity bills of over £20 and took standing charges into consideration. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this Administration ought to do likewise in this severe weather?
  Mr. Nicholls: It would have been a good idea if the hon. Gentleman had put that question to his right hon. Friend. It would have been even more impressive if that line had been adopted by his right hon. Friend when he was in office. However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield considered the abolition of standing charges and decided that he was unable to do that.
  If the Opposition were to acknowledge the link with the wealth that provides money to do all that is needed for the elderly, they would take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and look at the answer that he received from the Treasury in April of last year, which shows that the way to get money out of the rich is to reduce their taxes so that more money for the elderly can be generated—[Interruption.] If the Opposition were really concerned about producing the necessary money, that is what they would take into account, but the difficulty is that despite the strictures of the hon. Member for Walton the truth hurts so much that the yobbo tendency on the Opposition Benches has to start howling me down.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall not take up what was said by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). However, in all my years in this House I have rarely come across a speech that was so arrogant and superficial at one and the same time.
  This opportune debate arises from the United Kingdom wide weather emergency. Observers in Scotland are not too cynical if they believe that the Government's decision yesterday and the holding of this debate today arise from the fact that the south of England is affected by the severe weather. Many people in Scotland have formed the view that it is only when England sneezes that some attention is directed towards the pneumonia from which people in Scotland suffer in so many ways, whether it be in terms of industry, unemployment or heating allowances. Hypothermia and distress, we must remind ourselves, existed before this present cold snap. We will continue to have exceptional weather conditions from time to time. So I stigmatise right at the start the action which has been taken by the Government today as utterly inadequate.
  Four years ago I started my compaign for a cold climate allowance which would take cognisance of the fact that the United Kingdom has different climatic zones and yet people have to live on the same pensions and social security beneifts, regardless of the outlay which they have to make. When I did so, I must confess that I did not expect that three or four years later the whole question of heating allowances would have secured such a high position in parliamentary debate. Last year it was the temperature inversion that brought the colder weather to the south of England which first directed the attention of many hon. Members to the problem of heating allowances.
  Heating allowances and hypothermia have been with us for a long time. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was a Minister in the last Labour Government and in 1979 he was penitent enough to confess, in an article in The Observer, that on superior instructions he had participated in a cover-up in terms of the effects that hypothermia might have. I am glad to see that he has now been converted to the cause.
  There is no doubt that people die of hypothermia, but for every one person who dies tens or hundreds of thousands live in extreme discomfort, where they may question whether life is worth living. Death by hypothermia might be a release for many who live in houses where the temperature has dropped to such a level that they are miserable. It is at this time too that hospitals begin to fill with elderly people who are affected by the cold and who consequently suffer other illnesses, such as bronchitis, which remain with them throughout the winter.
  I suggested in my cold climate Bill two years ago that the United Kingdom ought to be divided into four climatic zones and that a regular payment be made throughout the year to take account of these climatic differences. The Bill had considerable support on both sides of the House but was unfortunately resisted by the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security, who now find themselves, for the third successive year, in a mess of their own making because they are unwilling to find the resources or to use their intelligence to devise a scheme which would address the reality of the problem.
  In Scotland heating is of great importance. Professor Markus of Strathclyde university in 1979 made the point that the Scottish climate is significantly more severe than
  322
  the English climate. He said that in terms of air temperature, wind exposure, rain and available sunshine the Scottish climate was different from the climate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Expressing the difference in terms of the cost of heating a house, he said that it would cost 20 per cent. more to heat a house in Glasgow than to heat a comparable house in Bristol, and that it would cost 30 per cent. more in Aberdeen. Those are the facts. It has not been denied that it is more expensive to heat a house in Scotland. So fuel consumption goes up. Scots consume about 21 per cent. more electricity than people in the south, 18·2 per cent. more gas and 15·5 per cent. more solid fuel.
  The problem that we face in most parts of the United Kingdom is that, because, in the 1940s and especially in the 1950s and 1960s, energy costs were so low, houses were not designed to be properly insulated against the cold, so many of our modern houses are concrete shells which exude heat that is bought expensively by the people within to the atmosphere outside.
  Although the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the nuclear power plant which was sufficient to raise the temperature in its vicinity by four degrees, many people living in council housing schemes, in particular, find that it takes a lot of heat, which they must pay for, to raise the ambient temperature to a comfortable level. House designs therefore are at fault. It must be remembered that 50 per cent. of Scottish houses were built to 1919 standards and 93 per cent. to 1975 standards. This is one reason why Scotland is in its present position in terms of illness statistics and why hypothermia frequently figures on death certificates.
  The average winter in Scotland probably last two months longer than the winter in the south, so we must take account of this. This is why I find the Labour party's proposal for an extra £5 over the winter period unfair. It does not take account of the climatic differences in Scotland. Someone in Torquay will get exactly the same amount as someone in Shetland. It is also unfair that the period should extend only from December to March. Our winters last from November to April and these days sometimes we are lucky to get a decent spell of weather in May.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: As Member For a constituency which, for the second year running, is, I suspect, colder than Scotland, I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman would do under his scheme if it were found that for quite long periods parts of the south of England were colder than parts of Scotland.
  Mr. Wilson: Under my scheme it would be possible to change the climatic zones. They were drawn up on an easy, simple and scientifically estimated basis from meteorological information available, but if it could be proved that one area was considerably colder than another there is no reason why it should not be upgraded appropriately. If one was to go for the perfect solution, each house should be assessed in terms of insulation and that would be the fairest way; but the Department of Health and Social Security would probably resist that on the basis of cost. So one must try to find a system which is reasonably fair to all concerned.
  A point has also been made about the help that the Government have been giving. I find the Government's scheme penny-pinching and deceitful because it gives the

  323
  impression that help will be available, help which for many people, even with the announcement made yesterday, will not emerge because of the restrictive way in which the scheme has been drawn up.
  At the urging of a Scottish nationalist councillor, the Badenoch and Strathspey district council has an additional local authority top-up scheme by which £3 a week is made available in periods when the temperature is minus 2·5 deg C., but more interestingly, Guernsey, between October and May, already gives a standard heating allowance of £6 a week and has just increased this by an extra £12 a week while the bad weather remains. So the authorities in Guernsey have been far more generous than the United Kingdom Government.
  The plain fact—the hon. Member for Oldham, West fairly made this point—is that in the United Kingdom pensions are exceptionally low compared with those in France, Belgium, West Germany and many other European countries in relation to earnings. In France the pension is equivalent to 60 per cent. of average earnings, in Belgium 60 per cent., in West Germany 50 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 26·5 per cent. This shows that those on pensions and supplementary benefit will suffer most. Perhaps that is why the death rate in winter rises by some 20 per cent. among old people and the very young.
  What we require is a system which is much fairer and more coherent, such as the one that I have outlined, but one also where automatic payments are made without people having to claim and without all this confusing jiggery-pokery about assessment of criteria and need and all the consequent bureaucracy. The Government said that they were cutting the red tape. Who was it who first produced that red tape? We were informed in two previous debates in the House that this would be so.
  As an editorial has said, under the existing scheme the Government are playing roulette with the lives of the old and the poor.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). It is important to retain a separate payment that varies according to weather conditions. Without it, some areas, such as those in Scotland, could not receive what is essentially a payment for that which is different. Such a payment is important to pensioners and other people on low incomes and supplementary benefit. If we introduced a scheme paying £5 a week throughout the winter, as the Opposition would like, many people would still have greater needs in a sudden cold spell, such as this, which result in a vicious rise in heating costs. People become used to a certain amount of money coming in. If an extra payment were made throughout the winter, there would still be a demand for more money. The amount of fuel used in badly insulated houses rapidly accelerates as the temperature drops and this is shown as an exponential on a graph. The Opposition have made detrimental remarks, but that fact must be understood.
  The House should consider the problems of the elderly and others on supplementary benefit. The publicity machine which has operated, largely because of political antagonism, has brought home in its peculiar fashion the problems of cold and what old people should do. In recent years, the DHSS and voluntary bodies have done much to
  324
  advertise what should be done. We should push advice and instructions to old people on how to get warm as hard as we can.
  This sudden cold spell followed an extremely mild December, when most of us strolled around wondering whether winter would ever come. But we have been hit dramatically in the past few days. It is hard to understand that some people ignore the fact that heating payments are part of general expenditure. The Opposition say, "We shall give extra pensions. We shall pay £5 automatically across the board." Yet they know that they must cost those measures and include them among general expenditure. What Labour Members want to do and what they will be able to do, should they ever unfortunately have the opportunity, are very different. People remember that many of the expectations for the 1974–79 period were not fulfilled.
  Inevitably, if a Labour Government ever give away such amounts of money, it will catch up with them. The odds are that, if Labour went ahead with the social service and general expenditure programmes proposed, it would not be able to meet the costs, inflation would be fuelled and there would be cuts. Almost certainly this would store up tremendous repayment problems in future years, which would hit the lowest paid and those on supplementary benefit. It is important that the DHSS, voluntary services and other organisations carry on their education programme, for the elderly in particular.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Elderly people know how to keep warm. They are not less intelligent than we are, but they lack the means to keep warm. There were 84,000 severe weather payments to applicants in Scotland during the exceptionally cold weather in February last year. I suspect that perhaps three times that number wanted that payment but did not receive it. The hon. Member should not lecture elderly people. They are as intelligent as any hon. Member.
  Mr. Stevens: In no way do I wish to lecture or underestimate the intelligence of old people, many of whom are more intelligent than many of us. But the importance of heating is not always easily recognised by some elderly people. They are reluctant to heat their houses as they should. During my youth, many people were prepared to keep their homes at a temperature that we would today condemn as being far too low. We were used to having no central heating. We were used to bedrooms that were so cold that the bedclothes felt damp. That was reality for many people, not just for those who were very poor. This resulted in a high incidence of respiratory and bronchial problems, especially for children, which could have been relieved had people understood what was needed. Many people accepted the fact that they lived in a warm room during the day and went to bed in cold conditions. Some elderly people are still reluctant to change. The future of insulation work should be considered. Some houses built since the last war have poor insulation. Flimsy wooden structures and lack of insulation are problems.
  I have some doubts about another matter. Although the exceptionally severe weather payments can work well and are given where they are needed, there is a problem with the strict weekly basis on which the system operates. I have not costed the effect of a change in this system, but I believe that the DHSS should take account of any period

  325
  of seven days during which the temperature drops to a certain level rather than use the present system. I should have thought that any seven-day period of exceptionally cold weather should qualify for exceptionally severe weather payments.
  I congratulate the Department on introducing a much simpler system, which will make payments automatically available. I welcome also the underwriting of some of the extra costs incurred by voluntary bodies during this period. It is important that elderly people and others should be able to benefit from Government support of voluntary organisations.
  Labour Members condemn the Government for what they have not done, but they have done a lot. They introduced new schemes such as these exceptionally severe weather payments. They extended the conditions under which supplementary benefit heating additions were paid to all people over 65 years, whereas before they were limited to those over 80 years. All pensioners who are on supplementary benefit are entitled to heating additions. That covers many more people. The payment is automatic.
  The Government have recognised the needs of the elderly and of those on supplementary benefit. They have kept supplementary benefit rates and pensions ahead of inflation. Labour Members have tried to give the impression that theirs is the caring party, but when it had the opportunity, it failed to look after the people as well as we are today.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I should like to carry on from where the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) left off in relation to what the Labour Government did. We have heard in today's debate and yesterday at Question Time about the Labour Government's attitude to fuel poverty. In the winter of 1976–77 the Labour Government improved the supplementary benefits scheme by the introduction of an electricity discount scheme. It was to cost £25 million and to assist about 3 million people on supplementary benefit. How the hon. Gentleman can say that such action in 1976 was non-action is beyond me.
  The scheme applied to people on supplementary benefit and on family income supplement. There was a single payment of £5 to each family and a 25 per cent. discount on all electricity bills which were more than £20 for the winter quarter. That scheme took into account the standing charge that this Government have refused to consider. It also took account of the fuel cost adjustment which was part of the cost that had to be paid for the oil crisis of the early 1970s.
  Under the 1978–79 scheme, which was extended to cover those receiving rent rebates, people were allowed to claim discount on one winter electricity bill. It was estimated that that scheme would cover approximately 4·5 million people. Although we cannot make a direct comparison with the exceptionally severe weather payments, only about 500,000 people are eligible to claim. Last year. fewer than 500,000 claimed the payments. It is fraudulent for Conservative Members to say that the Labour Government did not attempt to do anything about people's problems in severe weather. I think that the opposite could be said.
  The Prime Minister told the House that the Labour Government spent only about £90 million in 1978–79, their last year of office, and that this Government were
  326
  spending about £400 million per annum. Given the number of people who are eligible to claim the severe weather payment, and given the increase in energy costs since 1979, it is likely that the Labour Government did more to help people in 1978–79 than this Government have done over the last 12 months or are prepared to do under the new scheme.
  This morning I spoke to people in Rotherham citizens advice bureau about problems in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in south Yorkshire. There has been a lot in the press about severe weather payments. Many people who were contacting the citizens advice bureau this morning were saying that they had children of over two years of age but, according to what they had read in the newspapers, they were not eligible to claim the severe weather payment. Other people in receipt of different social security benefits, such as invalidity benefit, were also complaining that they could not claim. Indeed, many people in my constituency are trapped in their homes, and the severe weather payment will not satisfy their immediate needs.
  The only leaflets that the citizens advice bureau had to distribute were leaflets which were given to it by Age Concern and which it has had for some time. I understand that, even when the debate started this afternoon, the DHSS still had not issued leaflets about the new statutory scheme. There are none in the citizens advice bureau or the libraries in my area, and presumably there are none in the offices of the DHSS. It is a disgrace, considering the weather conditions, that no one can contact local DHSS offices to find out who is eligible for the severe weather payment. We have to rely on the press—not always a good source of information—to try to glean the information about the help that is supposedly coming from the Department.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to add to his questions to the Minister a question as to why DHSS offices, as of this afternoon, had not received instructions about how to deal with the matter. It is not surprising, therefore, that other agencies do not know what to do.
  Mr. Barron: That is right. I have put down a question for Monday to find out when people will get the payment. There is confusion because the Department does not seem to have done its job of informing the public about who is eligible to claim benefit.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke about pensions and tried to make the case that the Labour Government did not do what they had promised to do about old-age pensions. As everyone knows, people rely on their pensions as their main source of income, if they are not on supplementary benefit, to pay their bills.
  I repeat that, during the five years of the Labour Government, pensions increased in real terms by a massive 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was trying to make the case that pensions then were too high. Presumably he now argues that because they have gone up by only 3 per cent. in real terms over the last seven years it would be better to increase supplementary benefit and other means-tested benefits instead of linking pension increases to prices or earnings. If a link had been established with earnings in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, pensions for single people would now be £8 higher, and those for married couples would be about £12 higher. I am sure that

  327
  that link and the increases that it would have brought would have alleviated the fear of many people about their ability to pay the energy bills that will result from the present arctic conditions.
  Pensions have increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. They have increased by about 98 per cent. in cash terms since the Government came into office. The cost of gas, however, has increased by 134·7 per cent. since November 1978. We should not be too surprised about that because the Government have not followed the lead of the Labour Government in selling gas at cost price to the consumer. The Labour Government's policy meant that there was no need to introduce a discount for gas consumers during the winter despite the discount that was introduced for consumers of electricity. This Government have placed a levy on gas prices so as to bring moneys directly to the Treasury.
  Presumably this was one of the ways of funding £3 million per annum to the 20 per cent. in our society who are classed as better off then the rest. The massive income tax cuts that the Government have introduced have had to be funded, and it is immoral that so many people are worried about their ability to pay for their energy bills during the winter, or will be unable to do so in any event. Our gas supplies should have been a gift to the nation, but they are being used instead as a means of securing moneys for the Treasury.
  The same comments can be made about the electricity industry. The cost of electricity has increased by 99 per cent. since November 1978, and the Government's use of external financing limits means that about £1·4 billion per annum is finding its way to the Treasury's coffers instead of being directed elsewhere in society. A direct energy tax has been placed on the electricity industry, but at the same time there is talk of a £5 severe weather payment.
  The cost of coal has increased by 107 per cent. since November 1978, and the price of all three sources of energy has increased by a greater amount than the old-age pension. The average increase in the cost of energy has been 116·1 per cent. since the Labour Government left office in 1979.
  The Government took a welcome step forward yesterday when they said that everyone who is eligible to benefit from the new severe weather payments scheme would receive payment for this week. By taking that action, they are admitting, however, that the new scheme is a failure. Unfortunately, potential recipients are not convinced that they will be able to obtain the moneys that the Government say will be made available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, observed that in many areas of Britain there was cold weather last week and that this week saw the coldest night for over 40 years. He explained that many areas will not be eligible for moneys from the new statutory severe weather payment scheme.
  It would be better for all concerned if yesterday's announcement had, applied for the next four weeks, for example. That would enable us to say that energy bills could be increased by £20 more than consumers would normally expect to pay for the quarter without them being afraid of being unable to pay. There are many who are frightened to receive their quarterly bills, and we cannot expect them to heat their homes adequately during this
  328
  period of exceptionally cold weather if we give them no assurance that the Government will make moneys available to enable them to pay their bills. Yesterday's decision probably had more to do with the heat of the political debate and less to do with the low temperatures at Westminster, Scotland and elsewhere. That is no way to protect the many who are living in inadequate homes on inadequate incomes from the present severe winter.
  As most hon. Members know, I represent a coal mining constituency, and during the miners' strike there were many who found it difficult to pay their bills because of their lack of income. I received many requests from my constituents to support their request for pre-payment meters to be installed in their homes. Many of those who have pre-payment meters had them installed because they found that they were unable to pay quarterly bills. It is all very well to promise that £5 will be forthcoming for this week's energy bill, but that will not mean very much to those who pay through pre-payment meters. Many of those on supplementary benefit or on low incomes have to put 50p pieces or £1 coins into pre-payment meters. Are social service officers checking to ensure that families at risk—for example, those with young children or old people—are not in jeopardy? Only electricity boards are likely to know of those who have pre-payment meters, and with the present severe weather conditions the position of these families is extremely worrying.
  The Minister for Social Security, who opened the debate for the Government, made a speech which is destined to return him to the Government Back Benches in the near future. He referred to the miners' strike, and the Prime Minister spoke about it during Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Conservative Members are obsessed with miners and miners' strikes, and I wish to remind them that during the strikes of 1972 and 1974, when I was a coal miner, the miners ensured that coal was supplied to the homes with young children and old people throughout the country. Coal was supplied to hospitals and schools. The transportation of coal during those strikes was as efficient as at any other time.
  During the most recent miners' strike, miners in my constituency were working for £1 a day, sometimes for eight or nine hours a day, to bring coal to pensioners, hospitals and schools. That supply continued for nearly 12 months. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I challenge him to name one instance in which anyone suffered because of a lack of coal during any of the three miners' strikes in the past 15 years. That challenge extends to individuals' homes, hospitals and schools.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: I recognise that there is no particular virtue in political consistency, but I remind the House, at a time when there is obvious and widespread concern over cold weather and hypothermia, that I am one of the relatively few Conservative Members who has raised this matter consistently. As reference to Hansard will show, I have expressed concern about the adequacy of the system of payments and its operation during the past two winters. I have pressed the Government to improve and to adapt the severe weather payments system. If further evidence is required of my credentials to address the House on this occasion, perhaps I could add that, in June and July last year, when few hon. Members were thinking of this scheme, I was tabling questions about it.

  329
  I have no hesitation in saying that the system has caused me a good deal of concern. Although I realise entirely what animated the Government to introduce the scheme in the first place, since its introduction I have had a few questions in my mind as to whether it is the right way to proceed and to solve what all hon. Members must accept is an especially difficult problem.
  Having said that, during the past few days and also in the debate today, there has been inadequate appreciation of the efforts that the Government have made to improve upon the scheme that existed last winter. There is no question in my mind that, for all the criticism that has been directed against it, the severe weather payments system of 1986–87 is a considerable advance on the scheme that was rightly criticised last year. When this year's scheme is compared with that which operated a year ago, there is no question that the benefits are better targeted and that there is a better chance that those in greatest need will receive assistance this year.
  I positively welcome the fact that there is less distinction between one district and another. That caused great concern last winter when it was discovered that payments could be made in one area when, at the same time, they were disallowed in another area not far distant. For all those reasons, I repeat that the Government are to be congratulated on having moved forward from the system that was criticised by many, including myself, last year.
  However, I confess that I am still uneasy about the entire approach to the severe weather payments system. The system continues to depend this year, as it did last year, on two essential features. First, it depends on a particular level of cold. That will always be arbitrary, no matter how it is defined. Secondly, there is uncertainty under this scheme, just as there was under its predecessor, until after the need for heating has passed, as to whether the money will be paid. Those two basic defects in the scheme have not been, and cannot be, improved upon until we consider a different way of assisting a very needy section of the community.
  I warmly welcome the decision that was taken this week to the effect that the benefit has already been triggered before this especially cold week is over. Some hon. Members have suggested that that is due mainly to the pressure of public opinion and the press. Be that as it may, I hope that the House will not overlook the fact that the Government have shown a sensitivity to public opinion, and that they have not been prepared to stand on a strict bureaucratic interpretation of the severe weather payments system. To that extent, I respectfully suggest that the Government have received fewer plaudits than they might reasonably have expected.
  I should like to underline the welcome that I extend to the assistance given by the Government in relation to the improved supplementary benefit rates, and especially to the general heating additions. It is always tempting to concentrate on the specific matter of the moment, and there can be no doubt that, at present, that is the severe weather payments scheme. However, it would be extremely unfair if we failed to recognise that the scheme is, in effect, the icing on the cake.
  Since the Government came to office considerable progress has been made in the basic rates of supplementary benefit and on the general heating additions. Any suggestion that elderly people risking hypothermia are entirely dependent on the severe weather payments system is simply a malicious misrepresentation of that system. The
  330
  general heating additions are additional to supplementary benefit and are paid automatically to certain vulnerable groups in the community. They have increased dramatically in the past few years and, most importantly, although this seems to have been almost entirely overlooked in the debate, they are paid not for the one week in the year when the temperature is low, or for the 13 weeks which may or may not constitute winter as defined by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They are paid for 52 weeks in the year.
  I respectfully suggest that if we concentrate solely on the severe weather payments without noting the very real advances that have been made since 1979, we not only overlook a historical fact, but do a disservice to the very people upon whose behalf we are directing our attention to the operation of the severe weather payments system.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I have considerable respect for his record on such matters. I am sure that he will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) argue earlier that the Government are cutting back with one hand while giving wih the other.
  I refer now to the heating allowances which are paid for 52 weeks in the year. Although none of us would accuse the Government of wasting public money by giving to people who do not need it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise—some of his hon. Friends may not—that that money is paid to people who, by definition, have or are liable to have extra heating needs and extra heating bills for the entire year. That is why they get it. The allowance is not there to meet their needs in exceptionally severe weather.
  Mr. McCrindle: I accept that what the hon. Lady says is correct, but I hope that she in turn will accept the point that I was trying to make. To ignore the fact that that assistance is available to the category of people we are discussing throughout the entire year, and to imply hat such people are entirely dependent on the severe weal her payments, would be just as misleading as she rightly suggests I would be if I failed to accept the point that she made in her intervention.
  I discount the wild allegations of neglect that the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends in the Opposition have directed against the Government, coming as they do from a party which did not do half as much in office as, in many ways, the present Administration have done. However, thinking for a moment about those who do not participate in our debates but who listen to our deliberations through the columns of the press and the media, I doubt very much whether the Labour party's almost weekly announcement of still more expenditure is calculated either to solve the problem or to impress the respective recipients of the largesse, another instalment of which was announced this week by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Showering taxpayers' money like confetti without a recognition of where true need exists is not a service to the elderly. It will not impress people because there is no escaping the fact that the whole tenor of the Opposition's approach to this matter in recent days has shown that they see this as a political weapon rather than feeling the true concern that they would have us believe.
  Having made those criticisms of the Opposition's approach, I have to tell the House that I cannot honestly

  331
  say that I am wholly satisfied that as a Government we have come anywhere close to solving the problem. It is a particularly difficult problem, and one to which, if we are not careful, we will find ourselves returning year after year. At the heart of the problem is a dilemma represented by a generation of people who like to pay their bills, who cannot tolerate debt and who, as a result, risk hardship and even death rather than turn up the heat. They do not seek the indiscriminate help that the Opposition have promised in the past few days. They seek assurances that some assistance will be forthcoming when it is needed and without all the bureaucratic qualifications.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we might do worse than reconsider the whole concept of the special payments system and that we may give some consideration to whether an entirely new approach would be preferable. A system that requires a certain temperature for a certain period can never be wholly satisfactory, fair or consistent. Therefore, I would much prefer to see what I might call a fuel bonus. It is true that about every third winter will be relatively mild and that any payment that is automatic and not dependent on temperature will, arguably be unnecessary in such years. However, the benefit of being able to bring to elderly people the certain knowledge that fixed sum will be paid each winter for extra fuel costs would help to encourage pensioners and others to use their heating knowing before they do that a definite sum will be forthcoming.
  Accordingly, I suggest—I do so fully aware that any system, no matter how restrictive, would cost more than the severe weather payments system is likely to cost in this or any other year—that during one week in January and one week in February, perhaps on the basis of a pilot scheme, an additional amount should be added automatically to the supplementary benefit payment of pensioners and others in need of additional heating.
  It should be made absolutely clear that such a scheme would be a fuel bonus just as the Christmas bonus for pensioners has now become generally accepted as something that we relate to a particular time of the year. I do not for a moment suggest that it is an ideal solution but I believe that it contains two of the essential elements that are missing from the special payments scheme. Those elements are that it would apply irrespective of the temperature in any particular part of the country and that elderly people would know before they used the energy that a sum of money would be payable at least to help meet additional costs.
  My suggestion would be the beginning of a move away from the uncertainty of the special weather payments system towards greater certainty and more ability to use heating apparatus. I sincerely hope that it would also help to end the unseemly scenario of politicians using the hardship of old people as a politial weapon. That, in my judgment, and I suspect in the judgment of millions who may read or listen to our deliberations, is an obscene spectacle and I sincerely hope that the Government will at least explore my suggestion.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) mentioned the previous system of heating payments during periods of extremely severe weather. I agree with
  332
  him that the previous system, which operated up to and including last winter, came in for a great deal of deserved criticism because there were variable trigger points which threw up many unfair anomalies whereby in colder climates, such as in parts of Scotland, the temperature had to drop to a considerably lower level than that in the south of England before people qualified for the payment.
  I can remember that last winter there was only one calendar month—February—when my constituents qualified for the severe weather payment. I also remember that while the system was in operation I was a member of a delegation of hon. Members who went to see the Minister to complain about the system. We pointed out the anomalies. The Minister, or his predecessor, said that he would look into the matter. This year we have the revised regulations with a uniform trigger point of minus 1·5 deg C.
  I remember when the regulations were proposed. I was a member of a delegation from the Scottish parliamentary Labour group that went to see the Minister. We pointed out to him that the revised regulations were hardly any better than those in operation last winter. We told him in no uncertain terms that he was making a major blunder. He did not listen to us. He thought that the trigger point of minus 1·5 deg C would be a fair and uniform system that would operate throughout the United Kingdom and that it would get rid of many of the anomalies of the old system. We pointed out that the trigger point was far too low. In the light of the experience of the past few weeks, especially this week, even the Government have been forced to admit that they made a mistake in determining that trigger point.
  Yesterday's announcement, although welcome, will not solve the problem. There were people suffering arctic conditions before this week in parts of Scotland. I, like many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, have been inundated with inquiries and complaints from constituents about this matter. The Minister should have a big shake-up in the bureaucracy of the DHSS. It is strange that an individual Member who bothers to do some private research can obtain information and come to a decision as to whether his area qualifies before the cumbersome bureaucracy of the DHSS eventually announces the decision officially.
  Last week in Scotland only one weather station, Eskdalemuir, recorded sufficiently low temperatures during the week. Therefore, only people in the area covered by the Galashiels DHSS office qualified for the severe weather payment last week. On Monday of this week, because I could not get answers from the DHSS, I telephoned RAF Turnhouse, which is the weather station covering my area. I found out that last week the temperature dropped to as low as minus 7·6 deg C, on Thursday night. For five out of the seven days the daily average temperature was sub-zero.
  The average of the total week is measured from Monday to Sunday inclusive, but because that average of daily averages was only minus 1·2 deg C, my constituents, and indeed the whole of east central Scotland, were disqualified from receiving the payment by less than half a deg C, by 0·3 of a deg C to be precise. The Minister should look at the anomalies that result from setting a trigger point as low as minus 1·5 deg C. He did not pluck that figure out of mid-air. It was based on historical statistics in order to minimise expenditure, and the events of the past week have proven that.

  333
  Even if the temperature condition is met, it is important to remind the general public of these facts, because many people are confused about this issue. Many pensioners think that they will be receiving £5 this week, but in fact only a relatively small number of people on supplementary benefit will receive the £5. Earlier in this debate somebody mentioned a total figure of less than 2 million people. Will the Minister confirm that? The recipient of supplementary benefit or supplementary pension has to be of pensionable age, or chronically sick or disabled, or have a dependent child under the age of two years.
  Many other categories of needy people would benefit from a severe weather payment. Even if all the conditions are met, the amount cannot be described as over-generous by any stretch of the imagination. A mere pittance of £5 is hardly enough to buy a bag of coal. I submit that the system, although I welcome yesterday's statement, is grossly inadequate.
  What is the alternative? Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), have spoken about alternatives. I have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years. Over the past four or five years I have each year introduced a ten-minute Bill called the People's Right to Fuel Bill. One of the purposes of the Bill was to stop electricity and gas domestic disconnections unless the board had a court order. I also tried to introduce under the terms of my Bill a comprehensive system of fuel allowances, not just for supplementary benefit recipients, but for people on housing benefit. It would be tied to housing benefit to obviate the need for yet another means test, while at the same time targeting the assistance to those who were most in need. The amount that I proposed was a minimum of £5 a week, but the exact amount would be determined in the same way as housing benefit is determined—by a scale rate depending on the income of the person or family, and the actual heating costs incurred.
  We accept the principle of subsidy for a roof over someone's head. We ought to extend that principle and accept the logic of a subsidy for heating within that situation. A roof over someone's head in arctic conditions is not much good unless it is accompanied by adequate heating. Such a comprehensive system of fuel allowances would have to be backed up by a massive house insulation programme and the installation of efficient central heating systems. We have the disgraceful anomaly in this country of nearly half a million construction and allied workers on the dole queue when their skills and talents could be used to improve houses, to insulate houses, to put in efficient heating systems and so on.
  Urgent action is required to eliminate fuel poverty from this country for ever. Many people must be wondering tonight whether they have almost to freeze to death before they will qualify for this special payment. There is a real risk of hypothermia for millions of people in this country. Age Concern estimates that a hundred old people die every day because of the cold. There are many others who are suffering and running the real risk of hypothermia, and there are many people tonight who are having to make a choice between heating and eating, because they cannot afford both. It is a national scandal. The House has a responsibility to do something about it, and yesterday's announcement, although welcome, is not nearly enough.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that this £5 allowance would scarcely buy a bag of coal for some old people. If the £5 allowance was the only help that they had for their heating costs, he would be absolutely right in declaring it scandalous and thoroughly inadequate. Accidentally, he may have given the impression to the House that this is the only payment that we make and I am sure that he would not want that impression to remain. We maintain the normal heating allowance for those people who qualify through the supplementary benefit system in the first tier, and through the additional heating allowances in the second tier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has pointed out, this exceptionally cold-weather payment is the additional icing on the cake.
  Dr. Godman: Icing on the cake. That is an unfortunate remark.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) remind the House that the amount of additional heating benefit for people on supplementary benefit is £2·20 at the lower rate and £5·55 at the higher rate? As I understand it, that will be phased out by April 1988.
  Mr. Maclean: The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate today because of the current problem with the extreme weather that we face in this country. They say that the heating allowances currently available are inadequate and that this special allowance is not right. There is a range of heating allowances available, through the supplementary benefit system and the additional heating allowances—in some cases up to £11 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar has pointed out, these are paid automatically as of right for 52 weeks a year, and they are being paid at this very moment. The £5 allowance that my hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly said yesterday would be triggered this week and would be paid to those on supplementary benefit is an additional allowance on top of the first and second tiers.
  I know that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will be quite happy for those facts to be made available to the House, although he did not mention them in his speech. I will not give the same benefit of the doubt to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who, on the radio today and in his statements of the past few days, has been quite disgraceful in seeking to create the impression that the only help available for the old and cold in this country is the £5 allowance. Of course there are anomalies in the system. Whenever there is a trigger point there are anomalies, whether the temperature is set at minus 15 deg C, minus 1·5 deg C or plus 15 deg C. Wherever one draws the line there will be people who fall on one side of it or the other.
  We must never forget that this system is designed to cope with the extraordinary cases. When it is warmer than 1·5 deg C, cases are already dealt with by the normal heating allowances. The normal heating allowances are paid through the existing two tiers in the supplementary benefit system. We reserve this system for those exceptional cases.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he would cut through the bureacracy. We have

  335
  rightly cut through the bureacracy of this new system. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will not have bureacracy surrounding it in future because he is promising to give more money to all and sundry. The previous Labour Government had no bureacracy surrounding the system because they did not give any exceptionally cold weather payments to anyone. As they did not have the system, there was no bureaucracy surrounding it.
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No. I have a few more points to make in only a short time.
  Mrs. Beckett: What the hon. Gentleman says is not true.
  Mr. Maclean: It is inevitable that bureaucracy exists in a trigger system such as this. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made his promises, but he avoided saying whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has approved those promises. Indeed, his right hon. Friend has already warned him to stop making crazy promises that he cannot fulfil. Of course, he will be politically shrewd enough not to give him a ticking off this week, but next week, when the Opposition continue their bogus and synthetic campaign about the state of British industry, no doubt the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will have a word with his hon. Friend and tell him to stop making vain promises to which the Labour party does not wish to be committed because the electorate can see through them.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the Chamber. He has been present throughout a large part of the debate. I want to comment on something that he said. He asked why we are not providing free coal for pensioners. It is interesting that he should advocate such a policy when a couple of years ago he supported a miners' strike which drastically reduced the amount of coal available in Britain.
  No one challenges the charity of individual miners who helped to get coal supplies and solid fuel through to old folks' homes during the strike, but we do challenge the attitude of Labour politicians and union members who attempted to close down the power stations before Christmas. I remember Arthur Scargill saying, "Don't worry, chaps. Stick with us. We will get the power stations closed before Christmas when the bad weather comes." Conservative Members will not take advice from Labour Members who tell us to be more charitable or to have a conscience when they supported that sort of policy.
  I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, had he allowed me to intervene in his speech, how much electricity would be available at present if his anti-nuclear policy went through. We already know that the Central Electricity Generating Board is stretched to the maximum.
  Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.
  Mr. Maclean: If the Labour party's policy of closing nuclear power stations in Britain went ahead, not only would we have a shortage of electricity, but electricity prices would go through the roof, as they have done in the past under Labour Governments.
  I conclude as I started. The additional payment for severe weather is paid in exceptional circumstances. The
  336
  Labour party wants to perpetuate the myth that it will pay it to everybody in all cases and at all times. It wants it to become the norm. We know that when it had the opportunity to do that it failed to do so. We also know that the £28 billion that the Labour party will splash around on public expenditure—begged, borrowed or taken from us in taxation—will mean that it does not have the resources to do that.
  In the past two years the Government have brought in the extra payment, which is the third tier on top of the first tier of supplementary benefit, which we have increased, and on top of the second tier of additional heating allowances, which we have also increased. That is a good record of which no Conservative Member is ashamed and which the public appreciates.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am the only Member from Wales taking part in the debate, and we have particular problems in Wales. A study published last year showed that the proportion of the household income that went on heating costs was 7·3 per cent. in Wales—higher than in Scotland or in England, or, indeed, in any region in England. That is a reflection of the weather, low incomes, unemployment and poor housing in many parts of Wales. Therefore, we have a severe problem.
  Members on both sides of the House have addressed themselves to the problem, but a solution has not yet become apparent. It is clear that the present policy has, before it has been implemented, shown itself to be deficient. It has already been overridden before it has come into effect. It would be appropriate for the Minister, when he replies, to say what will happen to the minus 1·5 deg C system. Clearly, it is not practical. One almost felt sorry for the Minister on "Newsnight" the other night having to defend such an impossible case.
  We need a system that is flexible enough to meet people's needs from area to area, but which does not have the problem of discretion, which we saw was such a great difficulty for managers of DHSS offices during the previous winter's hard weather. I am attracted by the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) of a bonus system. There should be some sort of a bonus payment. A payment made regularly every week, six months of the year, can become psychologically subsumed as normal income. Pensioners expect it to be there to live on.
  That is the problem with the existing heating elements allowance in the supplementary benefit and supplementary pensions, to which many hon. Members have referred. It tends to be assumed to be part of the normal income, so it is not available as an extra element when it is really needed. A bonus of perhaps £10 for a limited number of weeks, whether alternate weeks or every week during cold weather, is very attractive because of the certainty that it will be available when it is needed.
  It is not just those on supplementary pension and benefit who need such a payment. There are people on ordinary pensions, just below supplementary pension level, who are hit equally hard by the cold weather that we have been having. There are people on low incomes or family income supplement who are in an equally difficult position.
  I have been asked to present one set of cases to the House tonight by Mencap. Mencap has been conducting a study in Manchester on profoundly mentally

  337
  handicapped people which has been going on for some time now. It shows that for mentally handicapped people—usually children or young people—who are living at home with their parents in the community, the single most severe problem for those families, virtually all of which are in receipt of attendance allowance, is heating costs. In the survey, 79 per cent. of those families put heating costs as the most difficult problem that they are facing. Yet only 20 per cent. or so of those families, are in receipt of supplementary benefit. That means that only one out of every four of the families who have identified heating costs as their greatest difficulty will be helped by the provisions that the Government have brought forward. The position of those on attendance allowance but not on supplementary benefit—not only those with mental handicap but disabled people also—needs to be rethought.
  There is also the unfairness of the £500 capital rule. In my part of the world old people regard it as a matter of dignity that they should save enough money to pay for their funeral, and if a husband and wife are saving up for their funerals they will be over the £500 mark immediately and it is wrong that such people should be debarred and penalised for their upstanding attitude.
  Finally, let me deal with the anomaly in the measurement of temperatures. My constituency falls into two halves, one of which, in Snowdonia, is covered by the RAF Valley base on Anglesey. The temperature in places like Deiniolen, Dinorwig and Llanberis up in the mountains of Snowdonia can be much colder than in RAF Valley on the island. In the southern part, the Trawsfynydd power station warms the lake so much that there is sub-tropical life in it. That is the point where the temperature is being taken for the southern part of my constituency, the Dwyfor area, and, indeed, for Blaenau Ffestiniog, up in the mountains. That is clearly ridiculous.
  We need a reliable system so that people know that the money is coming as soon as it gets cold, so that they do not have to hold out in freezing circumstances. There needs to be certainty and regionality and a broad enough net to take in all those in need. That is not the case at the moment and we certainly need to rethink.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that the first Front-Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at about 9.30 pm. Five hon. Members have been sitting here for a long time seeking to catch my eye. If they do their arithmetic, we might get them all in.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I note your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will not object if I do not take up his comments. I am well aware that the House regards the hon. Gentleman highly and that what he has said will be carefully noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, not only when he replies but in further deliberations on this sensitive and difficult issue. Instead, I want to devote my comments to three separate points which have arisen during the debate and require further consideration.
  I was saddened and surprised that Opposition Members should be so derisory when my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact that it is desperately important in this cold winter to ensure that neighbours, friends and relatives look after elderly people. It is all too
  338
  easy for people, any time a crisis occurs, to ask, "What are the Government going to do?" I believe that charity should start at home.
  In most cases elderly people have children and grandchildren who live not very far from them—[Interruption.] I said in most cases. I think that it is important that we should generate greater family responsibility for elderly people.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. MacKay: No, I shall not give way, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I believe that we should encourage families to take on a greater responsibility for their relatives.
  In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, people in the neighbourhood wish to play a greater part in caring for the elderly. That should be encouraged. At this difficult time relatives and neighbours should keep an eye on old people to ensure that they are adequately looked after.
  With hindsight, Labour Members—most of whom I know are very concerned—will realise that their laughter and derisory remarks about the Minister's suggestion of increased community help was unfortunate, insensitive and misguided. Perhaps their remarks were made in the heat of the debate, and in the cold light of day they will regret them.
  It is not sufficient to make sure that the elderly are looked after. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is seeking to say.
  Dr. Godman: Give way.
  Mr. MacKay: I will not give way.
  Dr. Godman: Then stop interpreting my thoughts.
  Mr. MacKay: It is not sufficient for neighbours and families to keep an eye on old people. Many old people worry about paying the bills. The hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly pointed out that there are many who have modest savings to pay for their funerals. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) also pointed out that there are many people who were brought up to pay their bills promptly. They become desperately concerned if they get into debt. They would endure pain, suffering, or worse, to avoid such debt. That is why it was desperately important that the Government should make it clear that it is right that all old people should maintain adequate heating at this cold time.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has done a great disservice for cheap political gain by some of his broadcasts, in which he has suggested that old people would be foolish to heat their homes adequately as their bills would then be difficult to meet.
  Labour Members behaved in a despicable manner and not in the interests of old people when they laughed at the Minister's remarks concerning the exceptionally mild December that we had. That mild weather means that the heating bills for that period will be relatively small and will go some way to offset the larger heating bills that we will all face for January. That is simple economics. The laughter and dismissive remarks of some Labour Members prove that they are not interested in old people. The Labour party is looking at the opinion polls and it is aware that it will lose at the next general election. It is clutching

  339
  at straws to try to salvage—[Interruption.] The electorate will not look favourably at a political party and some Opposition Members—thankfully, not all—who have tried to use this exceptionally cold winter and the concern for elderly people to political advantage. That will do the Labour party a great deal of harm when it comes to the next election.
  Unfortunately, I fell out with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I apologise if I caused you any embarrassment. I was trying, as was the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), to ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is the official shadow Cabinet spokesman on health and social security, how a future Labour Government would pay for the extra heating allowances that he was proposing.
  We are aware that there has been a meeting at Bishops Stortford and that the Labour party proposes to spend £3·6 billion on a poverty programme which is to be financed from a total of £28 billion of extra public expenditure. Independent commentators are anxious to know how that money will be found. We want to know whether the extra money for the heating allowance, as proposed by the Labour party, will come out of the £3·6 billion. We have a right to know, and I am sure that the electorate would also like to know. It is irresponsible of the Opposition to promise extra money if they do not know how they will raise that money. The Opposition have an obligation not to make such promises.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have explained this if I had successfully intervened. The hon. Gentleman would not wish to deceive the House, nor the electorate. The hon. Gentleman would have explained whether the extra money for the heating allowance would eat into the £3·6 billion poverty programme or whether—as I suspect—such expenditure would be additional to that programme. I hope that when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sums up for the Opposition, she will explain to us where that money will come from.
  There has been considerable hypocrisy in some of the speeches made inside and outside the House. There was a clear impression that in the periods of the Labour Administration—1964–70 and 1974–79—there had been no cold winters and no tragedies when old people had died. It was claimed that the Labour Government had made special provision. That is not true—[Interruption.] I believe that the electorate will judge the Labour party's record, not its promises.
  Under the Labour Government, electricity and gas prices went up because of massive inflation. It is very easy to say that discounts were provided, but those discounts were provided on the massively increased prices of electricity and gas. It was all funny money.
  At the end of the debate some of the more thoughtful Opposition Members—many of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment—will be thoroughly ashamed of the way in which the Labour Opposition—I stress Labour Opposition, as we have had a more responsible approach from the Alliance and from the hon. Member for Caernarfon—have tried to exploit this difficult situation.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, (Mr. MacKay) seemed to want to join in a competition in frivolity among Conservative Members, as that is quite inappropriate to the very serious situation facing many people today. Conservative Members have almost totally failed to respond to the severity of it. They would like us to believe that everything in the garden is lovely—[Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) even though he made an even more frivolous speech than the hon. Member for Berkshire, East.
  The fundamental question to be asked is why people are dying from the cold and what the Government are going to do about it. I have facts that cannot be challenged and that are not being given the necessary consideration because of the frivolity of Conservative Members. In 1986, 1,060 people died of hypothermia, and that does not include deaths related to cold. In March, 1986, 16,000 people died as a result of cold-related illnesses. Are we to pretend that that is not happening, or that because of party political considerations, which mean that some people have their eyes on the next election instead of on the problems facing folks today, we should stay sitting here gagged, saying nothing? Are we being asked not to agree with what the hon. Member for Caenarfon (Mr. Wigley) said in his splendid speech? He understands these matters and the feelings of ordinary people who have to face the day-to-day realities.
  Is that number of deaths necessary, given that we live in a rich country that has plenty of resources? The facts available on other countries suggest that the answer is no. In February 1986 in Sweden and France 6 per cent. more elderly people died than the average for the year. The figure for the United States was 8 per cent. and for Scotland, 19 per cent. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should find that funny, because it is a serious problem that must be addressed. We are debating the fact that the Government's policy does not respond to the problems that exist but reflects, rather, the Treasury's cash limits.
  For several years now we have debated the problem of fuel poverty. Every year the Government say that they will deal with it. Ministers appear on television programmes giving all sorts of assurances, yet we are now holding a similar debate to the one held last year. People throughout the country are challenging the Government's policy. Even some of the sychophantic newspapers that support the Government on almost all their decisions challenge their attitude on this issue.
  The newspapers challenge the Government's thinking on the trigger point. Where does the minus 1·5 deg C come from? It is a totally arbitrary measurement. Newspapers have challenged, just as we have, the stipulation that that level must be averaged from Monday to Sunday. Indeed, that outrageous stipulation has been manipulated to the disadvantage of those whom we seek to help. Above all, they challenge the Government's intentions about reading stations. For example, Aviemore has registered a teperature of minus 17 deg C, but that is not taken into account in the readings for that region. We are told that it is sometimes colder in Aviemore than at the North pole. How does Government policy take that into account?
  Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend has spoken about Aviemore and the frivolity of Conservative Members, but has there not also been some hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members? For example, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has been a Member of Parliament since 1974, yet it took him until 1982 to discover that there were different climatic zones in Scotland. We were raising the issue much earlier than that.
  Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the House will have noted that point. My hon. Friend has certainly gone on the record on that issue.
  The problem of fuel poverty is reflected in the fact that 6 per cent. of household expenditure in the United Kingdom relates to necessary fuel charges, while the figure for Scotland is 7 per cent. and for all the elderly in the United Kingdom, 9 per cent. There is no way that any DHSS arrangements take that into account. Moreover, there is no way that the problems of the elderly can be recognised if the Government insist that people with capital of £500 or more should be excluded.
  It astonishes me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has mentioned, only Eskdalemuir should qualify because of the method of taking into account recorded temperatures. I am pleased that Eskdalemuir at least qualified. Last week it exceeded the magic figure for four days out of seven. However, the same was also true of the Glasgow area, including my constituency. In the Edinburgh district the Government's magic figure was exceeded for five days out of seven, but that area was not entitled to claim the allowance. How can the Government regard that as a reasonable approach to such wintry conditions?
  Moreover, people in many parts of the country live in great poverty. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister a question and the reply confirmed that the top 10 per cent. of earners had increased their wealth since 1979, while the bottom 10 per cent. had become poorer. Given that, it is not easy to respond to the problems of fuel poverty. Yesterday morning I heard BBC radio giving warnings to motorists and pedestrians. That was only right. However, we should always be prepared to give warnings to the elderly about drops in temperature and wintry conditions, and we should not simply depend on the voluntary organisations.
  There are many voluntary organisations, and they all do an excellent job. They would not for a second tell the Government to stand on one side and to pursue their present policies. I have listened carefully to every hon. Member who has spoken and have tried to contrast their speeches with some of the representations made to me and no doubt to other hon. Members recently. Yesterday I had a discussion in my own home with an elderly retired man called Eddie. For 20 years he had been a caretaker, looking after people in a 14-storey block of flats. He sat and wept. He did not make cheap political points but, rather, demonstrated the reality of the situation. I would be failing in my duty if I did not reflect that in the House tonight.
  When Ministers and Government supporters say to the House and the country, "Where will we get the money?", I say, on behalf of Eddie and millions of others, that the money is there if the will is there. If the position that exists in my constituency were reflected in the Falklands, the Treasury would be told to find the money, and that is what the House is telling the Government to do tonight.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I declare an interest as 30 per cent. of my constituents are over retirement age and, undoubtedly, some of them are old and cold. I have another interest. I represent the Hebridean Isle of Thanet which this week, last year and the year before suffered some extreme weather conditions. On Monday I drove through a blizzard to get here and tomorrow I shall return home. During my absence my office has been manned 24 hours a day by my staff seeking to help those who suffer from the cold. In case that sounds grand, I happen to be married to my staff.
  The constituents of Thanet will not be especially impressed by the political opportunism of this debate. They will recognise, as we recognise, that a couple of days ago the Leader of the Opposition said, "Okay, boyos, it is snowing, so let us do snow and cold this week and then we can do economic disaster next week or the week after that." His disgraceful performance this afternoon was manifest of that sentiment.
  The alliance can take little comfort from its position. After all, it was those disunited parties that kept the last Labour Government in office and doing nothing. I have checked the records and there are no proud speeches, nor one word from the Liberals or the Members of the Social Democratic party, who were then members of the Labour party, on this subject.
  Today we have heard of the three levels of heating assistance that the Government have introduced.
  Dr. GodmanThe additional heating allowances have been called the icing on the cake.
  Mr. Gale: Would the hon. Gentleman like to rise to his feet to speak?
  Dr. Godman: I said that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) called the third tier "the icing on the cake". That was an especially unfortunate remark given the fact that in my constituency there are many thousands of elderly people who desperately require help. Under the discredited scheme that has been thrown out, 3,000 payments were made for the exceptionally severe weather of last February. My research showed me that that represented about one in five of those who should have received that payment.
  Mr. Gale: I am sorry that I gave way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene in my speech. We can probably all agree that the only icing on the cake of England at present is several inches of snow, and it is the effects of that that we are here to discuss. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make a speech later.
  This afternoon and this evening we heard that the Government have introduced three levels of heating assistance. I do not believe, and I do not know any Conservative Member who believes, that that is any cause for complacency, that we have done enough, that there is no more that needs to be done or that there are not at this moment elderly people who are suffering from the cold. Since 1962, year on year, the incidence of death from hypothermia has fallen except in one year. It may be a coincidence that that happens to be the year in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was in office. The fact that the incidence of hypothermia is falling is also no cause for satisfaction, if the level is still too high, as indeed it is.

  343
  Today the House has not discussed providing help where it is needed. Earlier this afternoon, during the debate on the television licence, we heard a classic case of the Opposition saying that they wanted to give a television licence free to every pensioner, irrespective of need. Clearly many people and many pensioners would welcome that. I do not doubt that those who can afford to pay their licence fee would welcome that, but by no means all those people are in need, and to use valuable resources where they are not most needed is simply a waste.
  I said that 30 per cent. of my constituents were over retirement age, and so they are. Many of them are old, cold and living in their own homes in which they have invested a vast quantity of capital. In other circumstances, for example if the money were released, they could well afford to pay their way and to pay for insulation, central heating and the comfort that they deserve. Sadly, they are often widows who have been bereaved earlier than expected, living in under-occupied properties which are too big and expensive to heat and maintain.
  Another section of the elderly population in my constituency are extremely comfortable. They are not rich. Some are well off and some have not a bean to their name. They live in sheltered or warden-assisted accommodation which is well heated and lighted and they are well fed and cared for. They have a cord to pull if they find themselves in trouble.
  If we are to address ourselves seriously to the problem and the needs of the elderly, and not to make cheap political capital because there happens to be some snow on the ground, we must build more warden-assisted housing to provide for the ever-increasing elderly population. With respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is the Secretary of State for the Environment who needs to address himself to that as much as the Department of Health and Social Security.
  Some Opposition Members will immediately say, "Yes, if the Government allowed us to use more receipts from housing sales, we could do just that"; but we know that that is borrowed money. We also know that there is under-occupied property, not only in the private sector, but in the public sector. Tonight we have also heard about the needs of the young. It has been suggested that far too many young people are homeless, particularly in London, and I concur with that, but it is also a fact that there is too much under-occupied private and public sector property. That results partly from bad local government and management—the vast number of housing voids is a disgrace—and partly from the Rent Acts which have taken a great deal of property out of the housing market.
  If we are to address ourselves to this problem seriously and in the long term, we should look, not at five quid here or there, or say, "We have done a bit more than you," or, "You say you will do a bit more than us." We should consider the housing available and ensure that every room is being used to best advantage. I freely accept that the responsibility for under-occupied property and for the lack of warden-assisted property lies equally with both sides of the House. If we address ourselves to that, irrespective of who is in power next winter and during subsequent winters, we may not have this argument. If not, we know perfectly well that whoever sits on the Opposition benches will say, "There is snow on the ground; the Government should do more."
  344
  The Government have a good record on assistance, but that does not mean that more does not need to be done. I said that I would be brief, but, coming from Kent, it would be wrong to sit down without paying tribute to the armed services which have given so much help in the past few days and are continuing to do so. In particular, I mention the Gurkha regiment which has brought the Isle of Sheppey back to the mainland, as it were, fighting their way through the snow to deliver supplies.
  It would be wrong not to pay tribute to the many people who have been getting food through, not only to the elderly in need but to young families in need and to village shops which are running out of food. It would be wrong not to pay tribute to the county council, especially to its employees who have been driving the snow ploughs and keeping the roads open.
  Finally, it would be wrong if we did not recognise, as our constituents will recognise, the considerable contribution made yesterday and today by my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much in this crisis.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Pensioners have an enormous number of problems in severe weather because many of their houses or flats are defective and their roofs leak. They also have problems because they cannot get out and they cannot get food in. The worst problem, and the one that rightly has prompted the debate today, is that severe cold leads to ill health, and for many pensioners that means death.
  As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) intimated in his splendid speech, every winter about 90,000 people die from cold. In the last full year for which figures are available, over 1,000 people, most of them old people, died from hypothermia. Some 86 per cent. of them were over 65, and 70 per cent. were over 75. In the first quarter of last year there were 578 hypothermia-related deaths. That is not surprising if we consider the background figures. They show that 46 per cent. of those over 60 and living alone have no central heating, and, also according to the 1983 general household survey, 41 per cent. of couples over 60 have no central heating.
  Additionally, the surveys carried out by the DHSS in the last decade accept that the temperature for the elderly should be 70 deg C, but that the vast majority of elderly people's living rooms have temperatures of about 10 deg C less than that. Against all those problems, the DHSS proposes that, in 14 months time, the extra heating allowance provision be removed for up to 2·5 million people and that insulation grants should be phased out.
  The severe weather payments issue has been raised regularly in the House. It is sad that this winter we had to wait until yesterday for another Government U-turn. Clearly, they want to be popular with the electors. The autumn statement, the rate support grant which helps the Tory shires, and now the extra £5 a week given at the last moment demonstrate that fact. We do not mind the Government being nice. We are happy that they are generous, but being generous so late in the day does not smack of a commitment to make sure that people do not suffer when it gets cold. I hope that people will remember that, for years they were frozen out of their entitlements and only given a one-week handout when, suddenly, the pressure was put on.

  345
  As the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and others have said, there has been a long history of debates like this. They are annual events. It is not appropriate that party political points should childishly be made across the Chamber. A perfectly valid question was put to the Minister by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the leader of the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees): if old people felt that were they to put on their heating they would not have their bills met, could they be guaranteed by the Government that their bills would be met when presented? I regret that the response to that question by the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security was total silence.
  On the radio this morning, the chairman of one of the electricity authorities said that the authority would be compassionate with old people when bills were presented. Many old people need not just compassion but the knowledge that they will not be without the resources to pay if they have to keep up the heat to keep themselves warm.
  We had a bad winter last year and the old scheme went back to the Government but, sadly, they have not produced a well-laid plan of action this year. Winter comes every year and some winters are worse than others. This may be the worst winter for many years. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that, unless the Government had a plan that was geared to work when the weather became bad early, we would inevitably have an emergency response to the crisis with additional deaths. The tragedy is that this year the Government have been caught out early in the life of the new scheme by their own innate meanness.
  The scheme was contrived to spend as little money as possible and to choose a temperature that was not logical. A logical temperature must be 0 deg C, the temperature at which things freeze. The logical measuring points must reflect geographical diversity. My colleagues from Wales and Scotland have made the self-evident point that measuring stations by the coast clearly do not take into account enormous differences of temperature inland. The worst thing of all is the profoundly unsatisfactory nature of the approach to the system. One should ask what old people need, should try to meet it and then should be determined to meet it.
  Although we may be willing to save fuel by telling people in offices and young people in their homes to turn down their heat, we should not be willing to tell old people to turn down their heat. That is because they are the most vulnerable people in our society and cold is clearly often the worst and most obvious cause of death.
  I hope that we will hear the immediate announcement of a system where the trigger is 0 deg C and which will run on a basis of at least any seven days rolling together so that people will realise that if there is a run of a few cold days it is likely that they will be entitled to benefit. The categories need to be expanded to more than the few penny-pinching categories that we have at the moment. I should like to know why we cannot have an automatic triggering of the system. Why do people have to put in forms to get the benefit? It could be given to them automatically. The DHSS keeps records, so such a system is not impossible.
  346
  Why cannot we have the adoption of the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggested last year? The winter months from December to March are the months when people should have a bonus. If we examine the ideas from Members in all part of the House, we see that those are the 13 weeks of the year when people should have a bonus. If we had the unusual circumstance of winter extending beyond the end of March, we could look at it again. Under such a scheme, at least people would have certainty—old people need the certainty—of knowing that they will have money to pay the bills.
  We ask the Government to think again about their plan to phase out insulation grants and, next year, to phase out heating payments. Home insulation is the long-term sensible solution, and must be an intermediate step before we change the whole tax and social security system to be fairer to those at the bottom of the heap. As some hon. Members have said, it is quite disgraceful that in a civilised and rich country in 1987 we should condemn more of our fellow citizens to die of the cold than die in any neighbouring country in Europe.
  The Minister of State said that he would use the media to advertise tomorrow or on Friday in newspapers and on the radio information and advice. I hope that we can have additional advice telling people how to keep warm and avoid illness or accident. Help the Aged and other agencies are as concerned about those who do not telephone as about those who do. We must start a health education exercise, but there is no point in starting it on 7 January or 1 March. We should have it in advance so that people can have a system into which they can plug their right to benefits.
  If the Government spent one tenth of what they spent on advertising British Gas shares advertising to meet the needs of the elderly, we might be making some progress towards a civilised society. Repeatedly, we are not prepared and pressure has to be exerted. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party had to write to the Minister of State on Monday morning to ask him to introduce the additional bonus which arrived a day later.
  I ask the Government to consider what I hope are a few helpful and certainly urgent proposals. Why can we not have a national plan, a "cold aid" plan—call it what we will—so that local authorities, Government and voluntary bodies are brought together in advance to act and build on the experience of voluntary agencies?
  All local authorities could have a well known "white line" telephone number for emergency help and advice. Advance advertisements everywhere could advise how to "stop the cold from killing". Additional staff could be recruited by the statutory agencies so that people do not have to wait a long time for electricity, gas and water repairs. There should be encouragement of neighbourhood watch schemes especially for pensioners, and people should be encouraged to give extra volunteer help to such organisations as Age Concern.
  The Government should appoint somebody in advance to be in charge of Government policy with a statutory duty to co-ordinate ministerial initiatives. Local authorities should be encouraged to have a sort of "white alert" like Adur district council, where there is a scheme initiated by my colleagues which says to people, "If you put in £1 to help give old people a fuel bonus, we in the local authority

  347
  will match it." My colleagues are to be complimented on that scheme. The week of action suggested by voluntary bodies for cold homes should also be accepted.
  As we also suggest, there should be a change in the rules to abolish standing charges for fuel. That charge is a great iniquity and Britain could well afford to do without it. Fundamentally and finally, we must increase the pension.
  We may be greatly worried about the young and others who are vulnerable, but tonight we are discussing pensioners. This is a test of public generosity, not just of cash but of spirit. Enormous tax handouts to the rich sound pretty hollow to that much larger group in our community who have to prise £5 out of the Government's hands at the very last moment, and only for one week. Ministers should return to the Elephant and Castle and persuade their colleagues that the age of Dickens, when the old had to come with a begging bowl, asking for more, should have long gone. It is their responsibility to ensure that it never returns.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I have been an associate member of Teesside Pensioners' Association for the past 14 years and must therefore declare a vested interest in today's debate. Membership of that association means that I am qualified to speak with a little authority and with direct knowledge of the pensioners' outlook on these matters. If all hon. Members had the welfare of senior citizens at heart and a vested interest on a similar scale, today's debate would have been unnecessary. The only speech from the Government Benches that I commend is that of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
  Ministers will recall that I took part in the debate on the proposed annulment of the regulations on 18 December 1986, when I referred to the omission of the Stockton district DHSS offices from the list of areas and their associated designated national climatological message stations. I explained in painstaking detail how application of section 4(b) of new regulation 26A would result in
  "close neighbours in the same geophysical location suffering similar socio-economic deprivation being subject to evaluation on statistics that are quite different."
  I explained that such a practice could give rise to a constituent in the north of my constituency being assessed on the same basis as somebody in Humberside, while his fellow elector on the south side of the same Stockton street would be subject to the data that apply to claimants in Castle Morpeth in Northumberland, 140 miles away. I said that it was sheer madness, and sheer madness it will remain if such stupid regulations remain in force.
  On that occasion the junior Minister said:
  "I shall refer later and briefly to the comments made by the hon. Member."—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1385–89]
  Later and briefly it proved to be, right enough. No reference has been made to it from that day to this. I suppose that that is as late and as brief as one can be. I trust that today the Minister will not be guilty of the same oversight. However, we shall see. He has a second chance.
  During the same debate I goaded the Minister by referring to the period of seven days beginning on a Monday and ending on the following Sunday. I pointed out that one does not have to be a great mathematician to
  348
  realise that the definition could refer to an exceptionally cold weather period lasting for 19 days and that effectively it is a way of denying a week's payment to any pensioner who may qualify for it. It could prove to be a mechanism to deprive the elderly of payment for 12 days of suffering in sub-zero temperatures—all for a miserable, penny-pinching £8·57.
  The Minister indicated dissent to such an extent on that occasion that I offered him the opportunity to deal with the point. He declined to do so, much to my disappointment and his colleagues' relief. He made no reference to this matter on that occasion. I hope that he will cover the point today. When he does so, perhaps he will bear in mind that the two weather stations covering Cleveland are at the Whitby coastguard and at Leeming. Last week they recorded average temperatures which at Leeming were 0 deg C and at Whitby 0·3 deg C. However, the average for Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday at Leeming was minus 2·5 deg C and at Whitby minus 2·25 deg C. Thus, if the period runs from Monday to Sunday, it means no help for last week, in spite of the very low temperatures in the last four days of that week.
  The announcement yesterday, far from being a gesture of generosity of the Snow Queen, as some of the sycophantic "Torientated" media have described it, was no more than the reinstatement of four days of suffering that would have been filched from our senior citizens by these regulations which the Minister claims, in his own words, were so carefully and skilfully structured. The regulations are a farce. If they were in any way adequate, yesterday's statement would have been unnecessary. In fact, yesterday's announcement, much vaunted by the Prime Minister, was no more than an admission of failure to provide adequately, and the right hon. Lady should admit that.
  Notwithstanding facts and figures and well placed guilt, the plain truth is that many people cannot afford to keep themselves sufficiently warm. The sum of £5 a week is clearly insufficient. The Cleveland "elderly at home" team reported to me that some of their clients who have inefficient heating systems have had to use up to four bags of smokeless fuel a week at £7 a bag—this means £28 a week during severe weather. Even with the weekly heating addition which we have heard so much about tonight of £2·20, and the severe weather payment of £5, the single pensioner has to find over £20 a week out of a weekly supplementary pension of £37·90 if he or she is to heat himself or herself adequately. How many Government Members could afford to spend 53 per cent. of their normal weekly income on fuel?
  At this point perhaps a comparison with previous circumstances may prove enlightening, for under the old rules anyone receiving supplementary benefit could qualify for a severe weather payment. Under the new rules, only pensioners, children under two and the chronically sick and disabled are entitled to the payment. What about the others? What, for instance, about families with three-year-old to four-year-old children? We have been asked for facts today. Perhaps the House will bear this fact in mind. The highest percentage rise in winter male deaths, as opposed to summer male deaths, occurs in the age range of one to four years. In fact, the 1980 figure indicates that the increase in winter over summer is 151 per cent. So if the children aged nought to five qualify for the age-related

  349
  weekly heating additions, what justification is there for excluding the two-year-olds to five-year-olds from the severe weather payments?
  I shall listen most carefully for the ministerial response to that question. I shall listen as carefully as I did on Monday last when the Minister said that his Department had deliberately taken the usual budget element allocated for the purpose of severe weather payments and devised a structure of regulations that would disperse the same amount of money more fairly to those who needed such help throughout the country. It is clear that the choice of that approach, coupled with the choice of trigger temperature, was designed not to help the pensioners withstand the cold in their shivering misery, but simply to minimise expenditure and maximise the facade of the Government's pretence at compassion, a form of mendacity which was quite malicious and mischievous in its intent.
  If the Government had wanted to be as generous as the Prime Minister now protests, they could have taken a leaf from the pensions book of our tiny neighbour, Guernsey, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—although he got his facts reversed—where a weekly amount of £12 is paid throughout the winter period in a manner similar to that proposed by Labour Members tonight. In fact, this Channel Island tax haven. this bolt-hole for Brits who seek to avoid or minimise their financial contribution to collective care and concern, has, despite a gulf stream climate measurably more clement than our own, announced yesterday a further weekly payment of £6 for the duration of the present severe weather. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight how generous the Snow Queen is now in comparison with our Channel Island neighbour.
  Perhaps I may make a point about the comments of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on nuclear power, to show how specious his contribution was. The reactor at Dungeness B was down this Monday and the reactors at Sizewell, Heysham and Trawsfynydd are now out of commission. According to the Central Electricity Generating Board today, it is because they are undergoing annual maintenance. This is the first time that, as an engineer associated with power stations, I have known of annual outages in January. Incidentally, the Isle of Grain, Ince and Littlebrook power stations produce between them 4,000 MW of oil-fired power which has not been used since the miners' strike. The hon. Gentleman made a specious point and I hope that the House noted that.
  The regulations are nothing more than an elaborate attempt at a pathetically opaque confidence trick. Again the Government have ensnared themselves in a web of their own deception and misinformation. The Minister knows it, we know it, and the electorate know it, and they will record that knowledge appropriately when they get the chance to boot this regime out at the next general election.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I am bound to say, as a relatively new Member, that I have been amazed to hear Conservative Members pour scorn and vitriol on the Labour party, quote the actions of the last Labour Government and, in one case, even quote from Tribune. The Government must face the fact that we have rebutted every accusation with facts, and that they have
  350
  been in power for seven long years. They cannot continue to evade their responsibilities by throwing vitriol and abuse at the Labour party.
  This month, in 1987, some elderly people are living their lives entirely in one room, wrapped up in blankets and several layers of clothing because they cannot afford the cost of heating their whole house. That has been happening not just during this week, but during other weeks too. The Government must accept their responsibility. They have failed to maintain the level of pensions and to provide adequate heating help.
  Even before this current spell of cold weather, it was impossible for many families on low incomes to pay for the energy needed to heat their homes. I hope that, once the debate dies down and the Minister thinks about this matter, note will be taken of the points made by Labour Members and, in certain cases, Conservative Back Benchers.
  In the short term, during this cold spell, we need more than yesterday's statement, which we all accept. I hope that the measures announced will be extended, irrespective of the precise measurement of the temperature during the next few weeks, until the cold spell ends. I hope that the Government will seriously consider dropping the £500 savings limit. As hon. Members have pointed out, in many places including my constituency, that is the amount saved by old people for their burial. I hope that the Minister will do something about this problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has spelt out a sensible programme for the longer term which we hope the Government will take on board. They must take responsibility for what is happening. I hope that they have listened to our points and will take at least some short-term action to ameliorate the position, or the inevitable consequence of their inaction will be death for many people.
  9.33 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: When these debates occur, one is often conscious of the gulf across the Floor of the House—a gulf of experience and understanding.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: We understand; Labour does not.
  Mrs. Beckett: Every now and again we have a debate like today's, which has not mostly been graced by the presence of the hon. Member for Preston, except when he pops in to make the odd sharp remark.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady means the hon. Member for South Ribble.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I should hate to label any other hon. Member, because of his contribution.
  Today's debate is one in which the gulf that is sometimes visible has become a yawning chasm. Opposition Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others too numerous to name, made sensible, valuable contributions and talked about the problems that people are experiencing. They talked about the actual temperatures that people are facing as opposed to the average temperatures experienced

  351
  between a Monday and Sunday in a group of weather stations selected so as to ensure that payments are not triggered more than once every five years.
  The Government decided, first, that these payments should be made only in a period of severe weather and, secondly, that once every five years was their definition of exceptionally severe. It sometimes seemed that some hon. Members imagined that this was handed down on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, but that was the definition the Government chose to make.
  Some of my hon. Friends have rasied questions about people with prepayment meters who need the money now. They have called on the Government and electricity boards to give clear assurances about disconnections and meeting bills, whether now or in the future. In that context it came ill from the Minister of State to accuse us of scaremongering, particularly when we already know that people are dying under these conditions, but all the more so because, when he was pressed to give assurances about people being given help to meet their bills and about what electricity boards meant by saying that they would deal leniently with people, the best he could come up with was that December was a mild month and perhaps that would help when bills came in at the end of the quarter. That must have done more to strike fear into those concerned about meeting their bills than to give them reassurance.
  What we understand it to mean, and what Conservative Members know perfectly well it means, is that the Minister hopes that at the end of the quarter the bills will not be large because of the offset of the mild weather. He has given no assurances about what electricity boards will do regarding disconnections, helping people to meet their bills, or how they will define leniency. If the Minister for Health has a definition of what electricity boards mean by leniency, we will more than welcome hearing it.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in a remarkable speech, expressed concern for the old and cold, but reminded us all of the severe problems faced by the rich and accused us on this side of the House of living in a fantasy world. The complacency of most of the speeches made by Conservative Members during the debate has been mind-boggling. From the Government side we heard little but congratulation, first, on the Government's record on the matter in general and, secondly, on their flexibility in lifting the conditions which should apply under the severe weather regulations. Lest any hon. Member challenges it, of course we are all pleased that those conditions have been lifted. Inadequate though the scheme may be, we all want the maximum help for the maximum number that can be squeezed out of the Government.
  In their relief at the Government having got them off the hook, most Conservative Members seem to have missed the fact that there is a serious flaw at the heart of the Government's case. They have claimed credit for lifting the trigger conditions because, in the Minister of State's own words, this winter is savage and unprecedented or, as the Prime Minister said, the worst for 40 years. If, as the Government claim, the regulations that they insisted on passing before Christmas are sensitive enough to be triggered in conditions which, although exceptionally severe by the Government's definition, are not as bad as today, why are they not sensitive enough for today's even worse conditions?
  352
  After all, the Government are not giving more help because the winter is worse. They are not giving more money in any week, never mind for one week. They are not lifting the capital limit of £500. They are not prepared, as in the past, to make payments to the unemployed or to the homeless unless they have a child under two. All the Government are doing is saying that they will definitely give the help that the regulations said they would give anyway.
  We must conclude that the Government have decided to lift the trigger conditions because they feared that even in the worst weather for 40 years the condition they set of minus 1·5 deg. C average temperature for seven days from Monday to Sunday might not be met in every part of the country. They are saying that the conditions they set only a month ago are so harsh, so bureaucratic and so unworkable that they dare not let them stand. Only last week the Minister of State, defending the regulations, said that it was too early to judge them. Yesterday, he said that even if the trigger conditions cannot be met, the payment will be made to those who are eligible.
  Mr. Major: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her typical courtesy in allowing me to intervene.
  It is our expectation that the trigger conditions will be met throughout the country. It is precisely because we expected the conditions to be met that we made our announcement yesterday so that the public may be aware of the position in good time. Our concern for people and our expectation that the trigger conditions would be met throughout the country led us to make our announcement yesterday, and I think that that has been welcomed generally.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Minister seems to have forgotten that yesterday he said that payments would be made even if the trigger conditions were not met throughout the country. He said that would be done retrospectively, I believe, and—I cannot remember his exact words—that he would fiddle the law afterwards. The Minister said that yesterday, and I suggest that those who doubt me should read the record.
  Although the Government's supporters seem not until this moment to have realised it, the Government are admitting by their action what they have not had the guts to admit in words. They are acknowledging, in effect, that the criticism made of the scheme was correct. The Government have not made their concession because they were overcome with compassion. They have not made it because they wanted people to be sure and secure in the knowledge that payments were being made. I heard the Minister on the radio the other morning explaining that the Government had not issued leaflets because they felt that that might encourage people to claim at a time when they would not be eligible to do so. So much for ensuring that the public knew well in advance what they could claim and that they could have security in the knowledge that payments would be made.
  As I have said, the Government have not been overcome with compassion. Even they have been able to see that the scheme would be rightly discredited if the trigger conditions were not met in the worst winter for 40 years.
  It is right that we should consider the criticisms that have been made of the scheme. Although the conditions of the scheme will not apply this week, they might apply

  353
  next week or the week after, and certainly as soon as the Government think that the public's attention has been diverted. If the Government claim that £5 in one week is enough to meet conditions that might occur every five years, it cannot be enough for the worst conditions that have prevailed for 40 years. There should be more money or payments should be made for more weeks.
  Some Conservative Members have tried to argue that a winter premium is not needed because heating allowances are paid all the year round. They may not recall that some of the allowances, such as the central heating addition, have already been abolished. That happened quite recently. Even the allowances that have not been abolished were subjected in 1983–84 to a reduction of £1. That reduction was made to the allowances awarded as of right to meet established need. The heating allowances that are paid automatically throughout the year are paid to those who are known to be likely to have extra heating need throughout the year. They are paid to meet existing bills, not to meet the extra need that arises in the winter, and in any winter, let alone the worst winter for 40 years.
  No one with more than £500 in the bank will be able to claim under the scheme. The Prime Minister, who I am glad to see in her place, is always talking about the need to save. Someone who was unwise enough to listen to the Prime Minister and to save just enough to pay what is currently the average cost of a funeral will have to choose under this Government between preserving his or her dignity and paying the heating bill.
  The Prime Minister referred most misleadingly to the fact that capital limits are higher now than under the previous Labour Government. In real terms there is little difference between capital limits, but there is a substantial difference between funeral costs now and in the days of the Labour Government. The capital limit under the Labour Government was substantially more than would be needed to meet someone's funeral costs.
  Some of my hon. Friends have said that many among the most vulnerable, including many on supplementary benefit and those with young children between the ages of two years and five, whose needs are met automatically under the other allowances for which the Government have been claiming credit, are all excluded from the severe weather payments scheme. Of course, those eligible must make a claim.
  The system is harsh and unjust and the Government have tacitly admitted that by suspending the harshest conditions. Will they now have the courage of their convictions and withdraw the regulations? The Government should agree to pay a £5 winter premium to vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friends have suggested.
  The Government's record on this issue is one of incompetence and neglect, but, most of all, it is one of complacency. Will the Minister tell the House whether, if only out of fear of the electoral consequences, the Government will now at last do what they would not do before Christmas, out of either common sense or sheer Christian charity?
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the House will understand if I observe rather wryly that, following my transfer in September, I had not anticipated
  354
  finding myself in this position today. However, I am happy to confront once again the old firm on the Opposition Benches.
  Although I shall come fairly speedily to some of the important points raised in the debate in relation to social security issues, I hope that the House will recognise that those issues are by no means the only proper focus of concern about the position of many pensioners and others in such harsh weather. Although those issue; are important, I hope that, whatever the House may disagree about, it will accept that it is right for me to say a word or two about our current assessment of some of the problems that have arisen because of the present weather.
  Despite the use that has been made of the figures of excess winter deaths and hypothermia by some hon. Members, and especially the use which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made of those figures in a similar debate not many months ago, I do not wish to make purely party points about them. However, there have been echoes in the debate of the hypothermia and excess winter death figures which were used last year in a speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also in an intervention by the Leader of the Opposition.
  I advise the hon. Member for Oldham, West that his suggestion that those figures have varied by only about 50 over the years is, in relation to winter mentions of hypothermia, straightforwardly wrong. I should like to put the figures that I have on the record. The number of hypothermia mentions on death certificates for those of all ages in the December to April period in 1978–79 was 725. Last winter the figure was down to 634, and in the intervening period it had been between 50 and 100 less than that. Similarly, for those aged 65 and over, the 1978–79 figure was 570. In the milder winters between then and last winter, it was about 350 at the bottom. Last winter the figure was 552, but that was lower than in 1978–79
  As I have said, there are difficulties about those figures and I do not want to play games with such a delicate subject. However, any suggestion from Opposition Members that Government policies have contributed to an increase in hypothermia or excess winter deaths is fanciful and far-fetched.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is another success story.
  Mr. Newton: Since the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) chooses, with his usual gentleness and tact, to intervene in that way, I should like, without further labouring the point, to give the figures that I have for excess winter mortality over five-year periods. In 1971–75 the figure was 28·2 per cent.; in 1976–80, a period that the Opposition will recognise, it was 33·6 per cent.; and in 1980–85, a period which Conservative Members recognise, it was 29·3 per cent. Let us not hear the Opposition make too much of that.—[interruption.] Having made those points, I am glad to have produced a decent silence on the Opposition Front Bench.
  We must recognise that the problem of excess winter deaths rightly concerns everyone in the House. All of us wish to see those figures reduced, as they have been reduced historically over a long period since the war. We want to see the figures brought closer to those of other countries. That has been part of the purpose of the policies we have adopted on the subjects that have been debated today and in a variety of other ways, not least the

  355
  arrangements that are currently being made by health authorities to ensure that some of the inescapable consequences of a period of weather such as this are properly dealt with.
  As far as I can judge, the hospital services have been coping very well with the position in which the country finds itself. The majority of hospitals yesterday were still admitting non-urgent cases from their waiting lists. Therefore, the pressure was not such as to warrant the restriction of admissions to emergency cases only. However, that must necessarily be a possibility in some circumstances if the situation continues.
  There are some exceptions. I have noted the concern expressed during the debate by some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent. Certainly in Kent and Lincolnshire some hospitals have had to stop all but emergency work. There are other areas in which patients who have been booked for elective surgery have been unable to travel to hospital. However, the ambulance services—I want to assure the House of this—are following up the urgent cases such as those requiring radiotherapy.
  Staff are having difficulty in getting to work in some places. However, nurses, doctors, catering staff and others are sometimes walking many miles to be able to maintain services and some are sleeping overnight at work in order to be there the following morning. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to those health workers for what they are doing to maintain services. In some circumstances, the physical conditions are creating great difficulties for the vital services.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West specifically raised an issue concerning the Army and the question of help at Greenwich. We are anxious that every possible help should be given to maintain services. I am advised that the position is that the Woolwich Training Regiment had a free training day and offered its services to Greenwich for snow clearance and other purposes for that day. We know that in some areas the forces are helping out in a variety of ways. For example, in Southend four-wheel drive vehicles are being used to help with emergency services. On the Isle of Sheppey—this will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who raised the matter in the debate—they are ferrying supplies to hospitals. In Essex they are providing transport and drivers for meals on wheels, and in other places they are providing similar services. They are continuing to receive calls for help and will offer as much help as they can. I am sure that that will apply in Greenwich as elsewhere.
  Mr. Winnick: We all admire the work being done by hospitals and voluntary services in helping the elderly during this harsh winter. However, does the Minister recognise that the crux of this debate is the fact that so many elderly people will not receive a penny? They may be a few pennies or a pound or two above supplementary benefit level and they will not receive the heating addition or the £5 a week. Why is it that there is always money in Tory Budgets for the rich and prosperous but that when it comes to the poor and needy there are always excuses as to why the money cannot be found?
  Mr. Newton: Since the hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to return the debate to the subject on which he has what
  356
  amounts almost to a fixation, I shall be happy to do that. However, he must recognise that the issue of the exceptionally severe weather premium is only one element of the Government's responsibility to pensioners and the rest of the people of this country.
  In view of the time, I shall not elaborate further on what my hon. Friend said about the work that we have been doing. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for her work with the voluntary organisations in connection with the problems of homeless people that has been welcomed in the House and widely by the voluntary organisations and others.
  I assure the House that we shall not let up on those efforts, and we shall continue to support the bodies in every way that we can, and, through our own facilities in the resettlement units, to meet the problems of that group.
  I will come to what the hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned that I should talk about and re-emphasise—it is a point that he and others persistently fail to recognise, or, at least, pay proper attention to. The fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Minister at the start of this debate was that the main means of help with fuel bills to those on supplementary benefit are the scale rates, and the second major means of help are the weekly heating additions which we have greatly extended and improved.
  It cannot be said too often that, taken together, those two arrangements mean that any supplementary pensioner householder over 65 years of age is receiving about £8 a week for heating costs each and every week, amounting to over £400 a year. For a supplementary pensioner householder over 85 years of age, the comparable figures are over £11 a week and therefore nearly £600 a year. There is nothing mean or half-hearted about that. It is significantly more generous and goes to significantly more people than anything that any previous Government have done.
  As the Social Security Advisory Committee recognised, the arrangements that we have made this year for the additional payments that have been the subject of this debate are a significant advance not only on anything that this Government have been able to do before, but also more than anything that a Labour Government ever tried to do.
  It is right again to remind the House that that £5, which so many Opposition Members have talked about as if it were the only help that we were giving to pensioners, is not the only help that we are giving. It means that in any week that it is paid, a supplementary pensioner householder over 85 years of age is receiving about £16 a week for help with fuel bills.
  What has amazed me in the course of this debate more than anything else—not least from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—is the fact that against this background the Opposition's remedy appears to be to go back to the electricity discount scheme of 1977 and 1978, one of the most notorious failures in its field that there has ever been. We hear about bureaucracy and complication. That scheme took a 16-page leaflet, with 48 questions and answers, to explain it. Even then one had to obtain another leaflet to tell the claimant how to claim.
  We heard from the right hon. Gentleman some half-explanation about why it was confined to electricity when so many pensioners used other forms of heating. I will tell him the answer from his own leaflet. It says:

  357
  "The Government has only limited funds available to help people".
  Wait. The best is yet to come. It goes on:
  "If other fuels had been included the amount of the discount would have been too small to have been of real help."
  I shall tell the House what this has really told us. It has told us that, while everything outside is freezing, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has melted away because he could not bear to listen to the irresponsible speeches of his hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 335.

  Division No. 52]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Eadie, Alex

  Alton, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Forrester, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Foster, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  George, Bruce

  Blair, Anthony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Boyes, Roland

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Buchan, Norman

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Caborn, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Howells, Geraint

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clay, Robert

  Hume, John

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  John, Brynmor

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lamond, James

  Craigen, J. M.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livsey, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Edward

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dixon, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dobson, Frank

  McGuire, Michael

  Dormand, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dubs, Alfred

  McTaggart, Robert

  358

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Madden, Max

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

  Snape, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Nellist, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  O'Brien, William

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Park, George

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Pike, Peter

  Tinn, James

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prescott, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Radice, Giles

  Weetch, Ken

  Randall, Stuart

  Welsh, Michael

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alexander, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Cash, William

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

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, William

  Cockeram, Eric

  Best, Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cope, John

  Blackburn, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Corrie, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Couchman, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  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

  Durant, Tony

  Brinton, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Browne, John

  Evennett, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  359

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Favell, Anthony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Franks, Cecil

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Gale, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Galley, Roy

  Lilley, Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Gorst, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gow, Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Greenway, Harry

  Maclean, David John

  Gregory, Conal

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Ground, Patrick

  Madel, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Major, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Malone, Gerald

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maples, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marlow, Antony

  Hannam, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Mates, Michael

  Harris, David

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hayes, J.

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mellor, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Heddle, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Henderson, Barry

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Hill, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hind, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hirst, Michael

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Holt, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mudd, David

  Howard, Michael

  Murphy, Christopher

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

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Needham, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Newton, Tony

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Norris, Steven

  Hunter, Andrew

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irving, Charles

  Osborn, Sir John

  Jackson, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pollock, Alexander

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Porter, Barry

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Portillo, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Powell, William (Corby)

  360

  Powley, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Price, Sir David

  Sumberg, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Raffan, Keith

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tracey, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trippier, David

  Rost, Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ryder, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Silvester, Fred

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Speed, Keith

  Wheeler, John

  Speller, Tony

  Whitfield, John

  Spencer, Derek

  Whitney, Raymond

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):-
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 185.

  Division No. 53]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Amess, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

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

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brinton, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Browne, John

  Benyon, William

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Best, Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  361

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayes, J.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Henderson, Barry

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

  Hickmet, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hirst, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Coombs, Simon

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Cope, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Evennett, David

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Favell, Anthony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Franks, Cecil

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Gale, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Galley, Roy

  Lilley, Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lord, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gorst, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Gow, Ian

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maclean, David John

  Greenway, Harry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Madel, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Major, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Malone, Gerald

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marland, Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marlow, Antony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hannam, John

  Mates, Michael

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Harris, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  362

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shersby, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Silvester, Fred

  Mellor, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Merchant, Piers

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Speed, Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Spencer, Derek

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Squire, Robin

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stern, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Needham, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Newton, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Norris, Steven

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, Barry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Michael

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powley, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Raffan, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Watson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wheeler, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whitfield, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rost, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wood, Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Beith, A. J.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Alton, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashton, Joe

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

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

  363

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Campbell, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gourlay, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hardy, Peter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clarke, Thomas

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clay, Robert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Geraint

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hume, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dormand, Jack

  Leighton, Ronald

  Douglas, Dick

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Livsey, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Loyden, Edward

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Hugh

  Faulds, Andrew

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McGuire, Michael

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  McWilliam, John

  Forrester, John

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  364

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, William

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Nellist, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Park, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Parry, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Patchett, Terry

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Pike, Peter

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Prescott, John

  Tinn, James

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wareing, Robert

  Raynsford, Nick

  Weetch, Ken

  Redmond, Martin

  Welsh, Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Robertson, George

  Wilson, Gordon

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Woodall, Alec

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the substantial improvement in the levels of supplementary benefit payments together with the containment of inflation, the extension and improvement of heating additions and the introduction of a statutory entitlement to cold weather payments to assist vulnerable groups; notes that these provisions are all running at record levels; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to provide good health and social services to the pensioners of this country.

  Industrial Training
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 8th December, he approved.
  The order requires parliamentary approval because one part of it—that covering labour-only subcontracting—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments. Hon. Members will need no reminding of the importance of the construction industry, which last year accounted for approximately 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. Protecting the skill base of the industry is clearly vital. That is why it is essential that this order should be approved so that money is available to the Construction Industry Training Board to enable it to encourage firms to train in the industry.
  The levy proposals are in the same format as those approved by both Houses last year and are expected to raise about £50 million. The levy is made up of three parts. First, there will be an occupational levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. A set amount will be raised for each occupation, but this is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wage bills. The rates vary according to the type of craftsman trained and reflect the training costs of each craft. These rates are in the main the same as last year, but increases are proposed in five areas. These affect less than 10 per cent. of the total directly employed work force in the main industry. These increases are judged necessary to enable the board in particular to increase its contribution to the youth training scheme that it operates on behalf of the industry.
  Secondly, with continuing strong support from the industry, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made by firms in the main industry for work done by labour only sub-contractors. This rate has remained unchanged since 1981. This reflects the board's continued judgment that labour only sub-contractors, in the main, undertake an inadequate level of training but rely on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers. For the sectors covered by those two measures, companies with payrolls of £15,000 or less will not be required to pay levy, and this will exclude about 37 per cent. of all construction firms coming within the board's scope.
  Thirdly, for the smaller brick manufacturing sector, the board proposes a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll. This is a reduction on last year's rate. All employers with emoluments of £100,000 per annum or less will not be required to pay levy. This is unchanged from last year. These proposals have been unanimously approved by the board and are strongly supported by employer associations in the industry.
  Hon. Members will wish to know in particular that the proposals are supported by the Federation of Master Builders, which two years ago expressed concern about the proposed method of calculating levy. At the same time, other employer organisations spoke equally strongly in favour of keeping the current system. The board set up a working party which included the federation to examine this concern and it has agreed that the issue needs to be
  366
  re-examined when the board can evaluate the financial implications of participating in the new two-year youth training scheme. I am pleased that the industry has been able to come to at least an interim agreement on this matter, which we have always said is one for the industry to resolve. The proposals have the necessary level of consensus support under the Industrial Training Act 1982.
  During the year the board has continued to work hard to develop training in the industry. I was pleased that in April the board signed a contract with the Manpower Services Commission for the new two-year YTS. The board currently has some 17,000 young people undergoing training in its YTS, and this is making a central contribution to training in the industry. In addition, the board is piloting practical skills tests for trainees seeking to qualify as building craftsmen. This represents a major step towards the objective of obtaining a more coherent and relevant structure of vocational qualifications, set by our recent White Paper, "Working Together—Education and Training". The board will be playing a leading role in following up the White Paper's recommendations on vocational qualifications.
  The House may also be interested to know that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, yesterday had a very useful meeting about training with senior figures from the industry, including the chairman of the training board. We talked about a number of important issues which the industry needs to face, and the chairman of the board has agreed to produce by Easter an action plan for promoting training in the industry. This underlines the need for the House to support this order, and I commend it to hon. Members.
  The proposals have been adopted by the board without opposition. They have support from the majority of employer organisations in the industry and have been approved by the Manpower Services Commission. They are necessary for the board to continue its important work to extend and improve training in the construction industry and to play a significant part in the Government's training initiatives.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: First, I should like to confirm that the Opposition support the Order. We congratulate the Construction Industry Training Board on the work that it is doing and has done. We also congratulate the board on its strong commitment, which is a mark of the commitment on both sides of the industry, to training. Both sides demonstrate the strength of the industrial training board system. Perhaps the Minister does not like to hear that. His order is about a 1 per cent. levy, which Conservative Members seem to find amusing. They are derisory about it when it is mentioned in terms of the Opposition statement about the sort of training that we want throughout industry.
  In this debate we are discussing the Construction Industry Training Board, and it has a sensible system. It has a commitment to training and imposes a levy on employers to make sure that the training that Britain's construction industry needs is carried out. I put that down as a marker. We support the development of skills testing for the construction trades. There have been teething troubles, but it deserves a cautious welcome, because I am sure that the teething troubles will be overcome.
  There has been discussion about whether the 1 per cent. levy should be based on turnover or on sales, but what is

  367
  important is that the industry should train and that a levy should be imposed. The sad fact is that this is one of the few industries which are left for which the Government have a responsibility to ensure that training is given.
  During the next year we hope that the industry will make progress on equal opportunities. I had hoped that the Minister would refer to this. The Manpower Services Commission has taken the initiative, and that is to be welcomed. It should be supported at every level. The trade unions support the move towards equal opportunities. The construction industry has a poor image for equality in race and gender. The CITB ought to adopt a tighter and more co-ordinated approach, and the MSC needs to give an even clearer lead to the CITB and let it know what it must try to achieve.
  The Government have a responsibility to underline the importance of equal opportunities to the CITB. Women's groups and the ethnic minorities have lobbied hon. Members. They say that opportunities in the construction industry must be open to all. Far too few women are given the opportunity to train in the traditional construction trades. There is no reason why women should not be good bricklayers, painters and plumbers and become an essential element in the construction industry.
  The CITB is not too keen on the suggestion that contract compliance could be used to ensure that equal opportunities are provided for ethnic minorities and women. The Government sometimes ridicule contract compliance, but it has been taken a long way by, surprisingly enough, the MSC. If the managing agent for an MSC scheme, particularly a youth training scheme, does not take seriously the fact that opportunities should be provided for ethnic minorities and women, he runs into real problems.
  The MSC has given a lead in contract compliance. The Government cannot parade the MSC before us as the looney Left. Bryan Nicholson is its chairman, and the MSC is carrying out pioneering work. Why should not the Government, local authorities and public enterprises say to those who want to sell their services to them that they will deal only with those companies which train, offer equal opportunities and take seriously their obligations to their employees? That is the question that industrial training boards can advance, and must seek to advance, and the Government have so far ducked that issue. Contract compliance, in terms of a sensible approach to using, in public contract work, proper employers who actually train, who have obligations to their employees, cannot be a bad thing.
  There are other issues involved in tonight's order. The wider context of the CITB's work is also very important. In recent years we have seen a major reduction in construction training. All the fine words that the Minister used this evening cannot disguise the fact that yesterday's meeting between the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, himself and the construction industry was a crisis meeting. It was a meeting of people dreadfully concerned because—surprise, surprise—training in the construction industry is at such an all-time low that if the Government wanted to build more houses, construct more roads, or rebuild sewers they would be unable to do so because there is a national shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry. That is bad enough this week when we are talking about the construction industry,
  368
  because no matter whether it is a plumber, a bricklayer or an electrician, there is a tremendous shortage of skilled building workers in a nation with nearly 4 million unemployed people, many of them building workers. It is true that many of them are not in the right part of the country at the right time, but the fact is that the meeting yesterday was a crisis one about how we can get trained people in the building and construction industry in a hurry.
  One of the problems with the CITB and the levy system as it now works is that the CITB can work only on the basis of what employers say they need at this particular time. The big trouble with the CITB is that it cannot forecast a likely need in, say, two or three years' time for more skilled workers in the building industry, for which we should make plans, because since the present Government came to power in 1979 they have had an appalling record on housebuilding. There has been absolutely no certainty about how many houses and roads there will be and what other construction will take place.
  The construction industry has been at an all-time low for the past seven years. In such a situation, employers, the people who decide what training will take place, even under the CITB system or the levy system, do not train.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not; I have not finished making my point. The industry does not train, and because it does not train the ITB is unable to train either, or to plan for the future. Here we are in 1987, with a slight sign of an upturn in building, and with no possibility of finding the skilled workers that we need for that change. Even more significant, in a few short months there is likely to be a Labour Government. There will then be an enormous demand for skilled workers in the construction industry, because we will turn our hands to building up our country again, making decent homes for people to live in, having new public investment, and we wall inherit, as we always do when we get into government, the apathy and neglect of a Conservative Government, and in this particular respect, the very real problem of training skilled people in the building industry in a very short time.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is now less training by firms. Is he aware that at the meeting yesterday, to which he referred—this crisis meeting—a paper submitted by the CITB said that the ratio of trainees to the directly employed work force is now the same as it was in 1976, so there has been no change?
  Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman would take the time to talk to CITB officials, as I do regularly, he would know that not only has the proportion declined over the years, but that the number of people being trained has dropped dramatically. In 1979 there were not an enormous number of YTS trainees. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, I am not against youth training. This is not skills training, but a possible introduction to skills training. The ratio of trainees to those who finish their apprenticeship is well down on 1979. As I understand from yesterday's meeting, the CITB said that if it was given resources, had genuine leadership from the Government and the Government said, "Go, boy, go for it", training under the CITB could be increased by 25 per cent. But there will not

  369
  be a 25 per cent. increase in training in the short term, because the Government do not have the courage to show leadership in expanding training.
  It is not just a matter of the CITB having a crisis meeting with the Government. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) admitted that it was a crisis meeting.
  Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to a meeting yesterday, not to a crisis meeting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman can read Hansard in the morning to see what he said, unless he does some nifty footwork.
  It is had enough that there are not skilled workers over the length and breadth of the country to start the task of rebuilding it, but only six days ago the Engineering Industry Training Board—the central training board for manufacturing industry—said that there was a crisis in training and an appalling level of skills at every stage of the engineering industry. Every industry is bedevilled by the Government's lack of concern for and neglect of training. Our work force is less trained and less skilled than ever before, and less trained and less skilled than that of any of our international competitors. All that was glossed over by the Under-Secretary of State, who said little about training costs.
  A much more important matter is the continuing uncertainty about what work will be available. If employers are uncertain about the industry's future workload, they will not train. They have not done so and they will not do so in the future. There are significant skill shortages across the board and large numbers of building workers—an estimated 450,000 or more—are out of work. Perhaps a Conservative Member will ask: if there are 450,000 workers out there, why do they not suddenly come on stream? The reason is that skills are not like investments in a bank which are conveniently there for use on demand. Skills rust and decay. If a building worker is on the dole for a few months and then a few years, he needs retraining and upgrading. Many of the highly skilled people in the construction industry who have been out of work for a long time now, tragically need retraining.
  That brings me to a point that the Minister skated over niftily. We still do not have under this Government or under the CITB an adequate mechanism for dealing with labour-only contractors. Whether the levy is doubled or not, labour-only contractors do not train. I have not seen any mechanism under the ITB, under the Government's legislation or under the MSC's intervention to deal effectively with that enormous percentage of the industry that does not train and evades its responsibility to the work force.
  It has been estimated in recent months that the major social and economic needs of the country could be met through new construction. Even on a conservative scale it is estimated that we could spend £20 billion on the repair and maintenance of local authority homes, £2 billion on the repair and maintenance of hospitals, £4 billion on roads and so on. To put it in perspctive, the total value of construction activity at the moment is only £23 billion. We could have a new building programme, under a decent Government, that would take us to a £28 billion
  370
  investment in the future of our people. Tens of thousands of people could go back to work in construction. Rather than spending the whole of our North sea oil inheritance on the dole queue, we could have invested that money in new homes, new roads, new sewers and new hospitals. Under this Government we see that money being wasted and the skills of the people who could have produced that new development decaying.
  Three ingredients are missing. The first, of course, is a Labour Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like that prospect, but they will meet it soon. The second is a commitment from a Government who have closed their eyes to the opportunity to get people back to work at a low cost to build things that are needed. Thirdly, the Government should ensure—the record of the Minister on this is disgraceful—that the unemployed have sufficient skills to produce the products that people want.
  Here we see one of the deficiencies of the ITB system,. I am a great defender of the industrial training board system, but the boards have to be expanded. We do not say that everything that ITBs traditionally did was wonderful. We should not just restore them, but would improve them. We would learn from experience to make them even more efficient. Within the present structure, industries find the training remit too confining. They could do much more. That is what the EITB said last week and what the CITB is saying to the Minister at present.
  ITBs cover only a meagre 25 per cent. of employees in British industry. Because they are not effectively linked to an economic and employment strategy, they cannot easily meet the challenges of training. What is missing from the Govermnment's policy is a link between a strategy for economic development and growth. As they set an objective of a target for growth, whether in house construction, public service construction or hospital building, they should at the same time plan—a word which the Minister and the Government do not like to hear—the construction targets and the training to go with it. Unfortunately, the Government are frightened to plan construction and the economy. They are incapable of planning the training of the British work force and all that that entails.
  A Labour Government would set the challenges of generating economic growth and getting people back to work. Such a Government would plan for their training, and that is something that the present Government will never do. We have seen this with the EITB and the CITB, the two major training boards that still remain. I fear to think what is happening in the rest of British industry where industrial training boards were thrown away, where they were wasted.
  Under a Labour Government there will be a commitment to link training with a strategy to get people back to work. We shall bring them back to build our homes and to rebuild houses and our infrastructure. We shall encourage the stability and continuity of growth in the industry. That will make training a sane possibility.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make his contribution to the debate.

  371
  I am sure that the ITBs want to encourage and see occur the decasualisation of construction employment, and that will happen under a Labour Government. We shall tackle the problem of labour-only supply. That is the effective way of getting the amount of training that we need by the community as well as by the industry. We shall move towards a more regular employment structure throughout the construction industry.
  The Government must take responsibility for training. So far they have denied that responsibility and we have seen the end of industrial training as we used to know it, along with skills training. Nothing that the Government have done has fooled the British public into believing that the highly skilled men and women whom we need to compete in international markets and to meet the challenge of technology have been trained under their stewardship. The Opposition support the order, but we must use this occasion to point out that industrial training has been left to go to rack and ruin.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Having listened to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am surprised that he did not suggest that there should be an industrial training board for Opposition spokesmen. I should think that the electorate will continue to ensure that the Labour party remains the missing ingredient in the mixture that has been advanced in all the hot air that has been generated this evening.
  I support the order, although it is not on every occasion that an employer wishes to support a levy on his operations. The characteristics of the construction industry, however, support the need for a collective training organisation. I pay tribute to the good work that is done by the Construction Industry Training Board. As a member of the Electrical Contractors Association, I should like to say how much the employers welcome the way in which the board has co-operated with all the training arrangements which have been made.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to a characteristic of the electrical contracting industry's training arrangements. The fact is that many more apprentices were taken on once the high starting rates for apprentices had been reduced to levels more comparable with those that prevail on the continent. The present starting rate is 22·5 per cent. of the adult craft rate, which enables employers to pay for training in a way that they seem unable to manage in other parts of the construction industry. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a lack of training, I suggest that the high starting rates which have been imposed by union agreements in the past must be one of the reasons.
  The hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate the argument advanced by the CITB that an average of 9·5 per cent., as a ratio of trainees to the directly employed work force, has prevailed from 1976 to 1985. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that the ratios have changed, he is not looking at the figures.
  There are two points of concern. One is shoddy work. I was appalled to read that the Department of the Environment had received 42,000 complaints of shoddy work. I am sure that one way of overcoming that is to ensure that there are skill tests for those who undergo training in the industry. I hope that the pilot work taking
  372
  place at present will lead to skill tests for all branches of the industry, as has been done in the electrical contracting industry for some years.
  The suggestion that there should be a kite mark to tackle cowboys may well help to reduce the vulnerability of the public to shoddy workmanship. I hope that that idea is successfully developed.
  I should like to deal with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield called the problem of labour-only subcontractors. It is unfortunate that he was not able to visit Japan last year with the Select Committee on Employment and learn some of the different ways in which the industry there is organised and the training methods that are used. As far as I am aware, there is no great crisis in the construction industry in Japan, although many firms have 100 per cent. arrangements for labour-only subcontracting. It is instructive to know that people in Japan still look on some matters as we do here. The Japanese Ministry of Labour's book on human resources development said:
  "In Japan, however, skilled workers are still socially underestimated. Because of excessive importance attached to academic background, they do not yet enjoy an established social position."
  Therefore it seems that we have the same problems in both countries.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Japan in May. Looking at his itinerary, I know that he did not have the time to talk to people in the construction industry. Perhaps next time he goes he might be able to do so. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General had to be called back so suddenly from Japan because of the confused ideas on the Opposition Benches as to exactly what debate we were going to have today. Had they been able to make up their mind at a proper time, my right hon. and learned Friend would have been able to continue his visit.
  I should like to mention to the hon. Member for Huddersfield a typical Japanese company—Kokko Shisetsu Kogyo Company Ltd. The president is an excellent gentleman. His name is Hiroshi Sakanishi. He told me that the turnover of his firm was a figure in yen equivalent to £10 million a year. However, he employed only 80 people. That ratio would be out of proportion for any electrical contractor in this country. However, he said that, in addition, up to about 300 people worked for his firm on a self-employed basis, working in small groups of five, 10 or perhaps more on a labour-only subcontracted basis. Although he is a leading electrical contractor in Japan he does not employ any electricians at all. We should look at that example and see—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating an order that is concerned with the levy and the purpose of it. He should relate his remarks to that.
  Mr. Thurnham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are talking about a 2 per cent. levy for the labour-only element. It is because of that 2 per cent. that we are having to address the matter tonight. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it should be seen not as a problem but as an opportunity for more flexible working practices to be introduced into the industry, as long as the measures that are carried out for training in Japan are looked at closely by the CITB as a model for what can be done in this country. I recommend the CITB to pay close attention to the way in which licences are issued to skilled operatives

  373
  in Japan as an incentive for people to undertake training with the provision of loans for training costs from the Government.
  I believe that we can learn considerably by looking at other countries—for example, Germany, where four times as many apprentices are employed because of a much lower starting rate of pay.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the order inasmuch as it provides for the continuance of training by the Construction Industry Training Board, but I have one or two questions to which I hope the Minister will have time to reply.
  The industry, according to my information, perceives itself as having problems. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred to a "crisis meeting". Whether or not that is the case, it is clear that, first, the amount of training is directly related to confidence and optimism in the industry and, secondly, that various figures seem to be bandied about. The proportion of the work force in the industry engaged in training at any given time has fallen over the past six or seven years. If that is in dispute, perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation, because there is no point in arguing over spurious statistics. It seems to me that that is maintained by the board itself to be part of its problem.
  I want to take up the comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), because I notice that the Construction Industry Training Board points to the increase in the number of self-employed in the industry as a problem. I do not believe that the Minister would regard the increased number of self-employed as a problem. I certainly do not regard it as a problem in the sense that we should not welcome it. The problem is how we absorb them into the mainstream of the training activity. If I am right in my presumption, part of the way of getting them to contribute is to go for the 2 per cent. levy, which is why we are having this debate.
  I do not accept the presumption that people who are small by definition—self-employed, labour-only contractors—even if they do not directly contribute to the training process in the terms of the training that they do, are not a proper and legitimate component of the industry.
  I have watched the oil industry in my area and the way that it has developed, with a number of sub-contractors. The big companies tend to do the bulk of the training, which spins off into the foundations of smaller companies which still feed back into the industry. I am not objecting to the point of the levy; I am simply saying that I hope we do not get into a bureaucratic way of restricting the flexibility within the industry so that we discourage flexible developments.
  The Government have got themselves into a slight bind, because they have come forward with an order fully endorsed by the industry and fully backed by the MSC, which basically is saying, "We have a training board that imposes a levy. It is working well and we want an order to support it." Yet it is the same Government who disbanded the training boards.
  According to the Minister:
  "Training has improved significantly since the demise of the 16 industrial training boards."
  I have been unable to find any evidence to support that. If that sort of statement is made by a Minister, it requires proof and support.
  Mr. Trippier: I would not dare to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is taking my words out of context, but, if he studies Hansard and reads the various exchanges at Question Times, he will discover that I have made it clear that I have undertaken an investigation into the work of the non-statutory training organisations. I have informed the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) of that and am awaiting the result.
  Mr. Bruce: I accept what the Minister says, but we need the evidence to substantiate that statement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to substantiate it.
  There is a widespread view that the Government have substantially dismantled training organisations for reasons which, if one were fair-minded, one would say might or might not be justified, but they certainly have not convinced people that what has been put in their place is adequate or will enable us to cope with our existing problems, never mind the challenges of the future.
  In that context, the Government are saying in the order that the Construction Industry Training Board effectively wishes to extend its existing functions, and they ask the House to support it. In principle, of course, there is support from both sides of the House. However, let me ask a few pertinent questions.
  If the Government support the order, it behoves them at least to explain the continuation of the levy. I think that I know the answer. The board currently has reserves of £73·5 million, and, if I heard the Minister correctly, the continuation of the levy is likely to yield something in excess of £50 million in the current year. Is the Minister satisfied that that is the kind of money that the industry needs and that it will be sensibly and intelligently spent, rather than it being just a matter of, "That is what we have been getting for the last few years, so let us carry it through."? It is important that that should be justified. I am not suggesting that it is not, but it should be explained.
  It is reasonable to ask the Government to explain how they satisfy themselves that the work of a board, for which Parliament has to approve the levy, is being conducted fully and satisfactorily. I am not suggesting that it is not. All the comments from other speakers shows a general satisfaction with the board. However, I should be interested to know how the Government go about satisfying themselves that a levy is justified, both in terms of reserves available, and the proposals to go with it.
  It would be helpful if the Government would say how the labour-only contractors have been affected by the 2 per cent. levy. I understand the reason behind it, but is there an effect in terms of their trying to evade it, because, after all, at that end of the market there are ways of getting round such things, and, given the extra levy that they are being asked to pay, are they getting a perceived benefit at the end of the day? I would be prepared to accept that their perceived benefit is their ability to recruit trained people from larger companies. That is the way that it tends to work. I do not regard that as an unobjectionable argument, but it is right that it should be explained and justified.
  Over the past two or three years we have experienced a depression in the construction industry that has clearly had an effect on training within that industry. We have had a general debate on the importance and merits of training. We have, I think, acknowledged that the amount of training that goes on is directly related to activity.

  375
  Therefore, it is important that the Government should recognise that they need to instil confidence within the industry if they are to get training moving.
  Anything that the Government can do over and above the order to stimulate and to instil confidence in the construction industry will provide the framework wherein the levy will produce the trained people who, regardless of who wins the next election—I hope that the Minister believes this—will be necessary.
  Britain wants to see some investment in our infrastructure and in the quality of our housing stock. That must be confronted and we need trained people in industry to do the job. To the extent that the order will contribute to that, I welcome it, but I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I have asked some pertinent questions which he should answer.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Roy Galley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will by now be bathing in a rosy glow of satisfaction, having heard plaudit for his order from Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, it is almost churlish of me to enter a minor note of dissent and anxiety about some aspects of the order.
  Were I my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary I would be rather worried about the order because, listening carefully to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), this sort of order is but one brick to the foundations of the centralised planning for which the hon. Gentleman so wonderfully looks.
  On the macro level and almost going off at a tangent, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned and regards centralised planning as such a key factor in the regeneration of the nation, he should go for a few months to countries behind the iron curtain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and I have done recently, and he will see the effect of that centralised planning.
  On the micro level, I am rather concerned about how the order will relate to small firms within the construction industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of those worries in any future consideration of the issues.
  The construction industry is dominated by a plethora of small firms. I accept that, as a group, small firms receive a large amount of assistance with training. Some of the small firms are unable to take advantage of the Construction Industry Training Board's facilities but are, nevertheless, required to pay the levy.
  For some time the exemption limit has been set at £15,000 of payroll. In effect, that means a firm with, at most, three employees. The order maintains that exemption level. Every firm that has more than three employees must pay the levy. For many small firms—my hon. Friend is the Minister with responsibility for small firms—that represents a considerable financial burden. If those firms received their money's worth from that levy, it would not be a burden, but, in many cases, they do not.
  At this stage, I must enter a caveat. Many representations that I have received about the order have come from a small firm of civil engineering contractors. However, my inquiries suggest that those problems are common to many other similar companies, especially in the north of England.
  376
  Such small firms are seldom able to allow staff time off for off-site training. In today's competitive climate such firms cannot afford to carry surplus staff. They need to be able to react to an extremely competitive market place. Even with grant aid, the course fees and other associated costs can make the training offered by the CITB almost prohibitive. Courses cannot always be specifically designed to the needs of particular firms. Even courses held at local colleges, for which grant aid may be available, are not necessarily relevant to the firms' specific work. When appropriate courses are available they are often held too far way. The firm in Halifax—which has made representations to me—is aware of a relevant course that is held in Norfolk. That is too far away.
  When operatives have been trained and have obtained a new qualification, they often move to a larger firm where they receive higher wages. Thus, the small firm pays the levy and takes advantage of the training facilities but the trained staff go off to other employers.
  If one considers the global figures, small firms may represent a high proportion of the grant take-up. That tendency relates specifically to building firms, not to civil engineering firms or other disciplines.
  Mr. Sheerman: What is the name of the firm in Halifax?
  Mr. Galley: It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to make a comment from a sedentary position, and I am not prepared to name a firm because I am dealing with principles rather than individual firms.
  Mr. Sheerman: It does not exist.
  Mr. Galley: It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Huddersfield to make a comment from a sedentary position, and it is wrong to impugn my honour and integrity.
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order.
  Mr. Sheerman: I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Halifax if he thought that I was impugning his honour. I merely think that it is suspicious that he cannot name the firm that is having such terrible troubles.
  Mr. Galley: It would be wrong and invidious to name a particular firm. I have consulted more than one firm. The hon. Member for Huddersfield was impugning my honour because he suggested that the firm does not exist. It jolly well does, and it will be deeply concerned about the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  In some sectors of the construction industry it may be that the large firms are receiving a disproportionate share of the benefits while small firms pay a disproportionate share of the levy. In smaller companies the emphasis is often placed on on-site training, but they may then lose experienced staff to the larger companies. As a result, small companies may be given no recognition of the contribution that they make to on-site training. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield has again impugned my honour from a sedentary position, and is quite wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may well say that the levy arrangements are subject to consultation with the industry, but the evidence seems to be that many of the representative bodies are, of necessity, dominated by the large firms, and that the smaller firms have a relatively small voice in those consultations. In specific sectors there

  377
  is, therefore, some evidence of small businesses being treated unfairly. However, there are ways of mitigating that.
  I am very disappointed that the order does not address itself to those problems. The Engineering Industry Training Board excludes from any levy all those firms with fewer than 40 employees. Such a blanket exemption may not he appropriate for the construction industry, but it is surely possible to have two or three grades of payment, whether devised on a pay roll or number of employees basis. It may be possible to say that people with 10 to 20 employees will pay one rate while those with more than 20 employees pay another. Alternatively, the Construction Industry Training Board is very much taken with the idea of the pay roll, and so one could say that firms with pay rolls o £15,000 to £30,000 should pay one levy while those with bigger pay rolls pay another.
  The order makes special provision for certain groups, with particular reference to brick manufacturers. Similar arrangements could be made for other specific sectors of the construction industry that do not fully benefit at present. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note the concerns of small firms when making any future arrangements for the Construction Industry Training Board.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I shall make a brief speech. I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General in the Chamber, fresh back from Japan in order to hear this important debate.
  I have no direct experience of the construction industry, but I have experience of training boards and of filling in the necessary forms for them, with all the bureaucracy that is involved. Indeed, I take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) about the effect that the order may have on small firms. I fully endorse the remarks made about the national shortage of skilled workers. I realise that we must ensure that more and more people can pursue the various necessary crafts and professions if we are to maintain our export drive and remain a competitive nation.
  The training boards were launched in the 1970s with every good intention, particularly with regard to matching the training programmes being introduced by other countries, such as West Germany. We had only to consider the number of apprentices and training courses that those countries had in place to know that we came out very badly. Mention has already been made of the trade union rates being applied to apprenticeships in Britain compared with the situation in West Germany. British employers were consequently reluctant to take on unskilled youngsters at such high rates.
  However, the bureaucracy often escalated to match the activities of those training boards and that hit small firms. They started to rebel against all the form filling. Often the levy grant system turned out to be just a recycling process with no real influence on the level of training to be provided for those working in those companies. Many small firms endured that, along with all the other centralised taxes, such as rates and national insurance, and just added the training board levies to those figures. We must ask what effectiveness is being achieved by our training boards in providing the skills and expertise that we need for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for
  378
  Halifax and others have made the point that training is carried out by large firms. They produce the skilled people who take the more senior managerial positions within industry.
  Although I shall support the order, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the £15,000 exemption level will be too low in future and whether it should be considerably higher. Small firms cannot effectively carry out training if they are levied at above £15,000. It must be a considerably higher figure. They do not have the management time to devote to training and they do not have time to send their young trainees on courses. They do not get contracts that produce the necessary revenue for them to finance young apprentices or trainees on day release and other courses.
  When the measure comes before the House in a year or so, I urge the Minister to consider raising the exemption level to a considerably higher figure than £15,000, to give small firms relief from the bureaucratic form-filling involved and, possibly, give large firms the opportunity to carry out the training schemes that will be necessary for the industry in future.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Trippier: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) in welcoming the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, who, due to the stupidity of Her Majesty's Opposition, has had his essential visit to Japan curtailed. We all regret that fact, but are delighted to see him.
  The CITB will welcome the complimentary remarks made by hon. Members. Obviously, I wholly endorse them. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in his initial address, refer to the proposed 1 per cent. levy which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggested, perhaps not with the total agreement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). In fact, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has heard me say in the past, the Department of Employment has calculated that, if this were to be applied across industry and commerce, it would lead to an increase of about 15 percentage points in corporation tax.
  Mr. Sheerman: It would not.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman seems to doubt the statisticians in the Department of Employment. These are not politicians' figures. The prospect of such a levy being imposed on the industry would fill the hearts and minds of the employers represented on the CITB with absolute terror. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was prepared to admit, there are people operating in small business—which he supports, as I do—who are taking a risk. The construction business is a more risk-taking one than many others that we might think of. It is vital for us all to recognise that those who are prepared to take risks should not be over-regulated and over-penalised by increases in corporation tax or in direct taxation. Government Members totally disagree with the hon. Members for Huddersfield and, dare I say it, for Gordon on this and similar issues.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield made a point about equal opportunities. I agree wholeheartedly with what he

  379
  said, with the exception of the point that he made about contract compliance. I had a meeting with members of the CITB in the Department of Employment about progress on equal opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that it appears that we have a problem in the construction industry. But he was a little unfair to suggest that only the MSC, with the construction industry and the CITB, was taking the lead because both my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and I have played an active role and are anxious that this type of initiative should develop. I am glad that we shall enjoy the hon. Gentleman's support. It is right to pursue the initiative, and we are intent on doing that.
  It is important that the House should know that the CITB could not be recoganised as an approved training organisation for YTS unless it complied with a new mandate being given by the MSC which also emanated from the meeting in the Department in September.
  I did not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about contract compliance. The employers' representatives on the CITB would run a mile from contract compliance. The hon. Gentleman should see some of the mail that I receive on this issue from employers in the industry who must comply with the regulatory paperwork introduced by some Left-wing head bangers in local authorities, especially in London and the south-east. If they have to dance to the tune of that sort of regulation—they are prepared to do that because they need to work—they are prohibited from getting on with the job that they do best, which is creating wealth and work. I could not wait to hear what the CITB would say about contract compliance, but I was certain that there would be nothing unanimous about its decision.
  Mr. Sheerman: What is the difference between the sort of contract compliance that the MSC under Bryan Nicolson is introducing for recognised approved trainers under YTS and what the Minister constantly refers to as that of head bangers and the loony Left? He knows that exactly the same is going on in contract compliance in terms of ethnic minorities, equal opportunities and the employment of women. He knows as well as I do that the CITB has swallowed what for some employers was a bitter pill in terms of the MSC's demands for contract compliance. What is the difference between that and what local authorities demand?
  Mr. Trippier: There is a great difference. If the hon. Gentleman has taken the time and trouble to study the documents sent out by local authorities, he will realise that it is madness for authorities to issue them because of the problems that must be tackled by employers. We are talking principally about a problem with regard to YTS. If I could just have the hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment, he will find that we have another point of agreement.
  Our concern is with YTS in particular. The CITB should be proud that it has a higher number of YTS trainees than any other sector in industry generally. That is fine. We have detected a problem, and one does not have to be clever or a genius to see that few coloured people appear to be taken on by the industry. If that point will unite the Opposition with the Government, I welcome it. Certainly, the CITB has undoubtedly taken that point firmly on board.
  380
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting yesterday with the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and me as a crisis meeting. It was called some months ago by my hon. Friend the Minister. I reached the same conclusions as he reached, but from an entirely different route—a report issued by the Federation of Master Builders. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State thought that it was rather quizzical that we identified several skill shortages—about 4,000—yet we had an unacceptably high level of unemployment. [Interruption.] With respect, I am about to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Sheerman: If yesterday's meeting was not a crisis meeting and the Government had for some time recognised severe skill shortages in the construction industry, why have they waited since September to have a meeting to talk about them? That is a dereliction of duty if ever I heard one.
  Mr. Trippier: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework a little more carefully. He does not seem to appreciate that the CITB has considerable reserves of money. He did not mention that and I do not think that he even knows about it. That helps to answer one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Gordon in his intervention. We drew the attention of the CITB to this problem because we knew that it had reserves which we thought could be better spent. The hon. Member for Huddersfield cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that he wants to see a replication of statutory training boards right across Britain in different sectors. On the other hand, here is a training board which is not meeting a specific shortage—the shortage of skill.
  Yesterday's meeting was not a crisis meeting. We wanted it to be properly prepared. We wanted the trade unions to be properly represented—which they were—and we wanted to see the representatives and leaders of industry from various trade associations. It was a most constructive meeting, and, as a result of it, we have asked the CITB to come back to us by the end of March with a specific proposal to deal with the skill shortage which I have already said will be about 4,000 apprenticeships. I have no doubt that the board's response will be positive.
  The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Gordon were wrong when they said that the number of people being trained in the industry was falling. Between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 2,000 apprenticeships in the industry. The number of YTS trainees was also on the increase. [Interruption.] I am talking about 1985 to 1986. Certainly, there have been ups and downs, but it is unfair to say that the figure is still going down, because it has increased.
  As I have said, between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 2,000 apprenticeships in the industry. Given that the shortage is 4,000, I do not believe, nor does the CITB, that the problem is insurmountable. We are spending £1·5 billion annually on training—more than double the amount that was being spent when we took office. It is grossly unfair for the hon. Member for Huddersfield to suggest to the House that we are not taking a lead in training. I have already said how we are doing that with the CITB in two specific areas. We are convinced that the CITB, however good a job it is doing at the moment, could do much more by encouraging employers to regard training as an investment and not as a cost.

  381
  I listened carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who spoke about the skill tests. He may be interested to hear that at yesterday's meeting one of the employers' representatives talked about quality assurance—a point which my hon. Friend touched upon in his speech. I agree with him that quality assurance needs careful study. I hope that by March, when the CITB is to come forward with the other proposals that I mentioned, it will also deal in some detail with how quality assurance can be improved.
  The CITB is also to report on the labour-only subcontracting problem, about which my hon. Friend spoke. I have no doubt that the CITB will read with interest his contribution to this debate.
  I have answered the first question put to me by the hon. Member for Gordon. He made a fair point when he spoke about the self-employed, but it is incorrect to suggest that people who are exempt from paying the levy cannot receive grants from the CITB. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) got that a little wrong. It is wrong and it is important for me to put it right. Of course, there are exemptions for those who have a payroll of under £15,000, but they can certainly enjoy the training facilities available for employers and employees, although it would be principally those who are self-employed who would use those facilities, either locally and organised by the CITB or through distance learning modules. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax did not mention that, but it holds the key to the problem that he identified. They can also use open learning generally for which the Manpower Services Commission is responsible. It was again raised at the meeting yesterday afternoon and we all agreed—the Government, unions and the employers' organisations—that this must be the way forward. Distance learning and open learning should be developed and strengthened.
  Mr. Galley: Even with open learning and distance learning, is my hon. Friend able to guarantee that the facilities that will be made available will be relevant to firms throughout the industry, including civil engineering? I do not see how he can give such a guarantee.
  Mr. Trippier: I have to be careful how I answer my hon. Friend, because he has asked for a 100 per cent. guarantee. My hon. Friend said that for a firm in his constituency the specific kind of training that was required was available only at the other end of the country. The only answer to that problem is distance learning, and it can be provided relatively cheaply. If that need is not being met, I should
  382
  like to discuss with the CITB and the MSC how it could be met, and I shall do everything in my power to try to put it right.
  The hon. Member for Gordon asked me how the Government monitor the spending of the CITB. Initially, it is monitored by MSC officials, the Department and Ministers. I do not suggest that the CITB has been irresponsible, but the CITB's spending led to the meetings to which I referred earlier. We are anxious to get the extra value for money to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The hon. Members for Gordon and for Huddersfield referred to the depression in the industry. The Labour, Liberal and the Social Democratic parties have a vested interest in trying to paint as black a picture as they can, but output in the construction industry has grown steadily since 1981. In 1985 it was 11 per cent. above the 1981 level, and 1986 promises to be the fifth successive year in which output in the industry has grown. It will be the first time that that has happened since the 1960s. In the first nine months of the year, output was nearly 3 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1985. It is particularly encouraging that the growth was led by the private sector. Private industrial and commercial output in 1985 was the highest for 14 years and the second highest ever. In the first nine months of 1986 private commercial output was at the highest level ever—up by 12 per cent. over the same period a year ago.
  It has been claimed again tonight that the Government should spend more on the infrastructure to help to create additional jobs in the industry. The Government are aware of the need for spending on the infrastructure and they will direct whatever resources can be afforded to those areas that the public sector can tackle. In the autumn statement the Government were able to increase the provision for capital expenditure on construction by nearly £1 billion and they have provided £450 million for housing. That illustrates the support that the Government are giving to the industry and to training in the industry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Sir Humphrey Atkins be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Michael Mates be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

  Mr. Alexander Ogorodnikov
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: During the whole of Advent, from 30 November until Christmas eve, Athanasius Hart, an iconographer and lay reader in the Orthodox Church, lived in a tiny cage in St. Sepulchre's church in London. He was on a complete fast. He was attempting to draw the attention of the world to the plight of Alexander Ogorodnikov, imprisoned in a Soviet prison camp since 1978 for founding and running a Christian discussion group.
  On 16 December, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess), and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I went to St. Sepulchre's church to take part in a lunchtime Bible reading and thereby show my support for Mr. Hart's action and for Alexander Ogorodnikov. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) drew the attention of the House to the case of Alexander on 15 December, and tonight I welcome the opportunity to reinforce what he said then in this Adjournment debate.
  Alexander Ogorodnikov, who is 36, grew up in an atheist family. His interest in Christianity began when he saw the film "The Gospel According to St. Matthew." In 1973, soon after his conversion, he was expelled from the Cinematograph Institute in Moscow at which he was studying, despite obtaining excellent marks. His persecution had begun. He wished to learn more about his faith and share it with others, so he organised, with like-minded Christians, a discussion and study group, the Christian Seminar. It was an informal gathering of friends, which met in private, without seeking publicity for its activities. Despite this, members of the group started to attract the attention of the authorities. Alexander himself experienced difficulties both at work and in private life. He was dismissed from a variety of menial jobs and forced to move house. Two other members of the seminar were incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals, and 31 members were interrogated, searched and pressurised.
  The seminar continued to meet. The members had lectures and discussions on theology, theosophy, sociology, philosophy and the history of religion. On 20 November 1978 Alexander was arrested on charges of parasitism—it is illegal to be out of work in the Soviet Union—even though he was on his way to an interview at the time. He was tried and sentenced in January 1979. He was not allowed to call defence witnesses, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and sent to a labour camp. In transit he was beaten up when he asked to see a priest.
  In September 1980 Alexander was tried on charges of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, for publishing and publicising the seminar's official journal. He was sentenced to six years in a strict regime labour camp, followed by five years' internal exile. In January 1981 he began a hunger strike to protest about the taking away of his Bible. His attempts to have his Bible returned were unsuccessful. He was particularly harshly treated in prison. He was forbidden to pray and his cross was torn from around his neck on numerous occasions. In six years he spent a total of 659 days in protest hunger strikes to
  384
  back up his demands for the return of his Bible, 411 days in the camp's internal prison and three days in the severe conditions of the punishment cell.
  From December 1983 until February 1984 he was in a cell, the walls of which were entirely covered with ice, and on one occasion his cell was deliberately flooded with sewage. In November 1985, when he was due to complete the camp part of his sentence and go into internal exile, he was rearrested in camp, charged with violating camp discipline and re-sentenced.
  He is in a desperate condition, having lost all his teeth and become almost blind. In eight years his wife has been allowed only one visit. In a letter to his mother, he pleaded that she appeal to the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet to show him a measure of mercy by ordering his execution by firing squad, thus putting an end to the prospect of a lifelong, painfully slow torture by deprivation of living conditions fit for a human being, by imprisonment in punishment cells, by humiliations, by beatings, by a total lack of rights.
  One of the worst aspects of his imprisonment was the feeling that he was alone. He could not draw comfort from the knowledge that Christians in Russia and in the West knew about him and were working and praying for his release, because news did not reach him. Thankfully, as a result of the growing, worldwide interest, the signing of petitions, letters to the Soviet authorities and the efforts of Athanasius Hart, Alexander was, around Christmas time, allowed a visit from his mother and from a priest, who was able to give him holy communion.
  We are grateful to the Soviet authorities for allowing those visits, but this courageous man, who is setting such a splendid example to those of us who are free to practise our religion and who often take our freedom for granted, needs our continued support. His treatment and the reasons why he received it clearly contravene not only the Helsinki agreement on human rights but Soviet law. We must continue to press for his release and also draw attention to his many fellow countrymen who are facing similar difficulties.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his speech. His comments on the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov in the light of the Helsinki accord on human rights were extremely informative and expressed powerfully.
  In this country, as my hon. Friend said, we take our freedom for granted. The opportunity to vote, to express our views and to worship as we wish are fundamental to our way of life. In Russia, however, despite that country's signature of the Helsinki accord, the authorities blatantly fail to allow their citizens such human rights. I deplore the Soviet regime and distrust the word of its leadership. That is one reason why I strongly support the British Government's defence policies, particularly the retention of our nuclear deterrent, to ensure that our freedom is safeguarded.
  We are all aware of the plight of many of Christian and of Jewish faith in the Soviet Union. They are oppressed, victimised and in many cases harassed, imprisoned and mistreated. However, the newsworthiness of the sufferings of ordinary people in Russia has diminished in the West. Regrettably, the stories of the dissidents and the oppressed

  385
  in Russia no longer command the newspaper headlines or get the media coverage that they deserve, yet the sufferings of individuals, their families and their friends go on. We in the West have a duty to ensure that the torch of freedom continues to burn and let those suffering in Russian gaols know that they are not forgotten. To that end, I was delighted to visit Mr. Athanasius Hart during his recent vigil at St. Sepulchre's church for Mr. Ogorodnikov, not only to support Mr. Hart but, I hope, to help to obtain freedom for Alexander Ogorodnikov.
  In 1977, the Soviet Union, along with the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other countries, signed the Helsinki accord. In part VII of that agreement those signing agreed
  "to respect human rights, freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion or belief."
  They agreed also
  "to recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise alone or in community with others, religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience."
  The cruel and inhumane treatment received by many in the Soviet Union is at variance with the undertakings given when the Helsinki agreement was signed. Alexander Ogorodnikov is but one case in an unhappy line.
  The story of Alexander Ogorodnikov has touched many of us deeply. His position is heartrending, as we have heard. He has committed no crime, nor harmed his country. He is neither a politician nor a political activist. He merely wants the freedom to worship God in his own way with other Christians and live a Christian life with his wife and child. For such a limited demand, he has been starved, imprisoned in inhumane conditions, denied all rights, separated from his family and friends and caged like a wild animal. For the activity of organising Bible studies, he is imprisoned and treated badly. This is the Russian way of implementing human rights post-Helsinki 1977.
  We must remember that Alexander Ogorodnikov is not an isolated case. Altogether there are some 10,000 prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union of whom some 2,000 are religious believers. Soviet law states that believers may hold worship services only in a building registered for that purpose, but even members of registered churches are not allowed to discuss their beliefs outside the building registered for worship. Meanwhile, Christians who encourage others in the faith stand to lose their jobs.
  The 1977 Helsinki accord on human rights, signed amid a fanfare of trumpets and loudly acclaimed, has turned out to be an absolute farce. The record of the USSR on the important issue of human rights is deplorable and has not shown any appreciable improvement since Helsinki. The suffering regrettably continues and the hard men of the Kremlin remain unconcerned, unmoved and unchanging.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has done a great service in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and I warmly commend him for doing so.
  Alexander Ogorodnikov has suffered the most appalling privations because he wishes to profess the Christian faith, to further his own spiritual pilgrimage in that faith and to discuss that faith with others. For that he has had the most appalling penalties which go far beyond anything that Soviet law, restrictive as it is,
  386
  prescribes for someone who takes such actions. It is right that the attention of the world should be focused upon it. A total of 60,000 people have added their names to petitions in support of him and there have been many other petitions about others who have suffered similarly.
  There is a lot of change going on in the Soviet Union at the moment. General Secretary Gorbachev has a lot of change on his plate as he embarks on economic reforms, but of crucial importance to the perception of the Soviet Union in the West is whether these attitudes towards religious dissidents will change. If they do not, no amount of glossy propaganda or overtures on wider issues like disarmament will convince people in the West that the necesssary changes have taken place.
  Mr. Gorbachev put his name to a declaration alongside Rajiv Ghandi in Delhi at the end of his visit, on 27 November. That declaration said:
  "Philosophies and policies based on violence and intimidation, inequality and oppression, and discrimination on the base of race, religion or colour, are immoral and impermissible. They spread intolerance, destroy man's noble aspirations and negate all human values."
  I suspect that that sentence owes more to Indian than to Soviet drafting, but Mr. Gorbachev signed it with his name, and now is the time for him to demonstrate that he believes what he signed.
  We all welcome the release of Irina Ratushinskaya. Whether or not that was influenced by the potential propaganda effect is immaterial to those of us whose concern was that she should be released. We want to see Alexander Ogorodnikov and others released. I hope that the Government will continue to add their voice, as they have already done, to campaigns for people such as this.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I felt privileged to show my support for Alexander Ogorodnikov by taking part in the Bible readings at St. Sepulchre's church.
  My colleagues have set out in detail the history of this sad case and have shown quite clearly that the cruel and inhuman treatment which Alexander Ogorodnikov has received contravenes the Helsinki agreement on human rights. I believe that his treatment also shows many instances of violations of the Soviet Union's own laws. Article 124 of the constitution of the USSR provides that
  "freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognised for all citizens."
  Article 125 says:
  "in conformity with the interests of working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law, (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c) freedom of assembly".
  Clearly, from what has been said about the arrest of Alexander Ogorodnikov and the publication of the seminar's magazine "Community" he has not been allowed free speech, freedom of the press or freedom of assembly. The Christian seminar was simply a small group of people wishing to discuss and strengthen their belief. There does not appear to be any legal basis for the Soviet Government to take action against them. In addition, practices and conditions in the camp often do not meet legal requirements. There is overcrowding and illegal detention, whilst punishment cells are built smaller than is specified by law.

  387
  The treatment of Alexander Ogorodnikov needs dealing with urgently at the highest level. Along with my colleagues, I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to make representations to the Soviet authorities and to press for the immediate release of Alexander. We ask that the Prime Minister take up the case with Mr. Gorbachev, along with the whole question of human rights, when she goes to Moscow. We ask that she emphasises to him that people in the West cannot understand how people such as Alexander can be treated in such a way in a supposedly civilised society. My right hon. Friend needs to explain to Mr. Gorbachev that people in the West are extremely worried by the obvious failure of the Soviet Union to implement the Helsinki agreement. Such examples of its blatant contraventions make many people wonder whether the Soviet Union, if it cannot be trusted in this respect, can be trusted to abide by other agreements that it seeks to make.
  When the Prime Minister met Mr. Gorbachev, she said that she thought that she could do business with him. I met him briefly myself and I agree with my right hon. Friend's judgment. That being so, I hope that in March, when my right hon. Friend goes to Moscow, she will do business successfully with Mr. Gorbachev on this important issue of human rights.
  12 midnight
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): The issues before us in this evening's debate are important, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargeaves) for raising them. I am grateful also to my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess), and to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for contributing to the debate.
  Alexander Ogorodnikov, who is the subject of our debate, is about 36 years old. He is a Christian. The suffering that he has had to undergo because of his faith has been movingly recounted by my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to detain the House at length by recounting those sufferings, because the House is aware of them.
  Alexander Ogorodnikov's story is well known to Foreign Office Ministers and officials. It has caused us concern for a considerable time, for a number of reasons. First, Alexander should not have been arrested. The organisation of a discussion group should not be considered a crime merely because the opinions that the members express are not those of the Government. Secondly, once arrested, he should have been given a fair trial and allowed to conduct a proper defence. Thirdly, once imprisoned, he should never have been subjected to the sort of treatment that he has received. One would not wish such treatment to be meted out to anyone, irrespective of his crime.
  Sadly, Alexander's story is far from unique. There are many others languishing in prisons or labour camps for their faith. There are Baptists, Pentecostalists, Catholics, Moslems and, of course, many members of the Soviet Jewish community. In the short time that is available to me tonight I do not wish to spend more time detailing the
  388
  tragic facts. Instead, I want to address what the Government can do and are doing on behalf of these people.
  The Soviet Union has no monopoly of inhumanity and injustice. Eleven years ago in Helsinki, however, the Soviet Union, together with 35 other European Governments, put its signature to the Helsinki Final Act. In doing so it solemnly committed itself to a number of important undertakings. The one which particularly concerns us tonight is known as principle VIII. It is frequently quoted and I think that it bears repetition. It commits all those who signed it to
  "recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience".
  One has only to reflect upon what that principle states to realise that the Soviet Union is in direct breach of it. We cannot allow it to continue to get away with it. That is why the British Government continue to return to the subject again and again in all out bilateral contacts with the Soviet Union, both directly an in multilateral forums such as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and we shall continue to do that for as long as it is necessary. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raises human rights issues regularly in his meetings with Mr. Shevardnadze. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is at this moment in Moscow, where he is consulting Mr. Kovalev, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister. I know that he intends to raise human rights issues and will have the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov in mind.
  I went to Vienna just before Christmas to address the CSCE review meeting on behalf of the European Community. I drew the attention of delegates to the harassment of religious believers and the many other ways in which citizens in certain countries were being deprived of their basic human right. I warned that we and our partners in the European Community would continue to speak out for as long as the injustices persisted.
  Our delegation in Vienna has ensured that human rights issues have been at the forefront of the meeting's attention throughout this first session, and it has pointed specifically to the case of Alexander Ogorodnikov as an example of the sort of behaviour that cannot be reconciled with the commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act.
  If those representations are to have their full effect, the Russians need to be convinced that the Government are not engaging in political point scoring but are representing the deeply felt concerns of the British public. That is why the debate tonight, together with the numerous pressure groups, organisations such as Keston college and many individuals who selflessly devote time and energy to bringing cases such as that of Alexander Ogorodnikov to public attention, have such a vital role to play. On behalf of the Government I should like to pay a warm tribute to them.
  Public statements of condemnation, whether by private groups and individuals or by the Government, are not enough. Of course, we must make such statements, but for maximum effect they must be mixed with a good measure of quiet behind the scenes persuasion, or we risk producing only stubborn resistance. Quiet persuasion requires a certain element of confidentiality. That is why the Foreign Office sometimes prefers not to give full details of exchanges with the Soviet Government or other

  389
  Governments on human rights issues. That is also one of the reasons why, although we regularly raise individual cases, we avoid giving categorical commitments in public.
  We cannot "force" the Soviet Union to behave better. Experience suggests that in practice threats to cancel trade deals, and cultural events, or to refuse to talk to the Soviet Government until they mend their ways, carry little weight. Sadly, such tactics are unlikely to do anything to help Alexander Ogorodnikov and his fellow sufferers, and our general principle must he to try to expand contacts, not cut back on them. Cultural contacts, trade contacts, contacts in any area are one of the means that we have of influencing the Russians toward more civilised behaviour. The Vienna CSCE meeting was one such attempt, semipublicly and privately, to raise issues such as we have been discussing tonight. As I have already said, we raised the case of Alexander.
  It might be of interest to the House to say that at the Vienna meeting the Soviet delegation tabled a proposal for a conference of all 35 participating states to be held in Moscow to discuss the so-called Basket III subjects—human contacts, information, culture and education. As yet we do not know much about the proposal. We have only the bare outline of it. It will be discussed along with proposals in the same area from other CSCE participating states in the next session of the meeting. Then we will want to know more about what is proposed. We will want to know specifically whether it is envisaged that human rights as well as human contacts will be on the agenda. We will want to know what arrangements are to be made for attendance by interest groups of various types from abroad, and from interests groups from within the country concerned, especially Helsinki monitors. We will also want to know about publicity arrangements.
  We believe that any country offering to host such meetings will need to have its own performance scrupulously examined. In the case of the Moscow conference proposal, for example, it would be difficult to conceive that agreement would be reached to hold such a meeting if foreign broadcasts were still jammed or Helsinki monitors still imprisoned. But, as I have already explained, the main thing that we will be looking for in considering this and other proposals in this area will be a mechanism to increase the incentive for participating states to match their implementation record to the brave words that they signed at Helsinki 11 years ago.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot be anything but gravely disappointed with the progress that has been made during the past 11 years. The cruel death of Anatoly Marchenko a few weeks ago, at a time when his release was being widely forecast, is a reminder of how much progress we have to make.
  As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there have been some encouraging signs. These recent
  390
  developments demonstrate that the Soviet Government are at times prepared to respond to sustained western pressure. Shcharansky, Orlov and others who have come to the West have all stressed the importance for the human rights movement in the Soviet Union of continued support from Western Governments, both public and behind the scenes. Their voices are voices that we should listen to.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the Gorbachev policy of greater openness. That policy has struck a chord with many, both in his own country and abroad. But those who wish to believe that the Soviet Union has turned the corner will come up against the sad fact that in reality the breath of fresh air creeping into some areas of Soviet society has not yet been heard or felt by those who run human rights policies. We have much progress to make.
  Our aim must be to persuade the Soviet Government to question their own attitudes—to put themselves under the microscope. Sometimes repressive practices can become institutionalised to the extent that Governments no longer believe that they are wrong. We must try to bring the Soviet Government to understand that a country of such stature as theirs, a superpower, should not feel threatened by handfulls of brave individuals who refuse to conform and insist on thinking for themselves. The Soviet Government should also understand that lessons of history suggest that in the long run such persecution does not succeed in stamping out non-comformist thinking—often the reverse; it encourages it.
  We also have to try to get across to the Soviet Union the extent to which their failure to meet their CSCE obligations damages their reputation in the West and undermines the "charm offensive" to which Mr. Gorbachev and others in the Soviet leadership have been devoting so much energy in recent months.
  In a letter smuggled out from his prison in May 1986, Ogorodnikov appealed to the Soviet Government for his own execution. There can be no more heartrending evidence of the suffering that he is undergoing. I appeal to the Soviet Government—and I am sure that all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will join me in saying this—to consider whether his suffering is really necessary and to set him free before it is too late. I also ask the Soviet Government to ask themselves again whether it is in their own interests that the hundreds of prisoners of conscience still incarcerated in labour camps need to remain there. The answer from this House must be no. The answer must go out clearly, and I believe it has done so tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Fire Research Station
  Fire Research Station
  Building Research
  Building Research
  Hamilton Development (Leicester)
  Hamilton Development (Leicester)
  Mersey Barrage
  Mersey Barrage
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  Reema Houses
  Reema Houses
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Newham
  Newham
  Agricultural Buildings and Works
  Agricultural Buildings and Works
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Refugee-related Infrastructure Projects
  Refugee-related Infrastructure Projects
WALES
  Land Authority
  Land Authority
EMPLOYMENT
  Restart Scheme
  Restart Scheme
  YTS
  YTS
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
PRIME MINISTER
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Theft
  Theft
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock
  Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  High Court, Glasgow
  High Court, Glasgow
  Tobacco Products (Under-age Sales)
  Tobacco Products (Under-age Sales)
TRANSPORT
  A46–A47 Link Road
  A46–A47 Link Road
  Car Parking
  Car Parking
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  In-service Staff Development
  In-service Staff Development
  Research Activities
  Research Activities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Chinese Refugees
  Chinese Refugees
  Prison Chapels
  Prison Chapels
  Prisons (Films)
  Prisons (Films)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Export Management Training (Exhibition)
  Export Management Training (Exhibition)
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
  Guinness plc
  Guinness plc
  Mr. Geoffrey Collier
  Mr. Geoffrey Collier
  Condoms
  Condoms
  Industry (Incentives)
  Industry (Incentives)
  Companies Act Investigations
  Companies Act Investigations
  EC Industrial Council
  EC Industrial Council
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Oleg Gordievsky
  Mr. Oleg Gordievsky
  NATO Information Service
  NATO Information Service
  Council of Ministers (Presidency)
  Council of Ministers (Presidency)
  Australia
  Australia
  Colonial Prisoners
  Colonial Prisoners
  Grants
  Grants
  Diplomats (Parking Fines)
  Diplomats (Parking Fines)
  Entry Visas (Ghana)
  Entry Visas (Ghana)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Abortions
  Abortions
  NHS (Fuel Supply)
  NHS (Fuel Supply)
  Condoms
  Condoms
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  General Practitioners (Surgery Premises)
  General Practitioners (Surgery Premises)
  Patient Care
  Patient Care
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  EC Presidency
  EC Presidency
SCOTLAND
  "Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Great Britain"
  "Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Great Britain"
  Ayr Road Route
  Ayr Road Route
  Pratt and Whitney (Prestwick Airport)
  Pratt and Whitney (Prestwick Airport)
  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Edinburgh District Council
  Edinburgh District Council
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Public Expenditure (Unemployment)
  Public Expenditure (Unemployment)
  Forestry Aid Grant
  Forestry Aid Grant
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Scotch Whisky Industry
  Scotch Whisky Industry
  East Neuk of Fife
  East Neuk of Fife
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Road Upgradings
  Road Upgradings
  Conservation Organisations (Funding)
  Conservation Organisations (Funding)
  Afforestation (Consultations)
  Afforestation (Consultations)
  Industrial and Employment Prospects
  Industrial and Employment Prospects
  Blanket Afforestation
  Blanket Afforestation
  Unemployment (Glasgow)
  Unemployment (Glasgow)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Agriculture and Rural Areas
  Agriculture and Rural Areas
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Buses (Deregulation)
  Buses (Deregulation)
  Tree Planting
  Tree Planting
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Historic Buildings Council
  Historic Buildings Council
  Sheriff Courts
  Sheriff Courts
  Hospitals (Maintenance)
  Hospitals (Maintenance)
  Prisons (Disturbances)
  Prisons (Disturbances)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Scottish Fishing Fleet
  Scottish Fishing Fleet
  Alternative Land Use
  Alternative Land Use
DEFENCE
  Scottish Fishing Fleet
  Scottish Fishing Fleet
ENERGY
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Viscount Bearsted—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Electricity: Wind Generation
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 it is their policy to encourage the economic generation of electricity from wind power.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. To this end, Her Majesty's Government are supporting a comprehensive research and development programme aimed at exploiting the United Kingdom wind research for economic electricity generation. This programme, which since 1979 has cost some £20 million, has largely been directed to the development of large wind turbines for the United Kingdom grid operation and includes major projects on Orkney and Carmarthen Bay.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome reply. But are the Government prepared to introduce new factors to be applied in assessing full rates for this novel kind of installation? A test case, such as the one at Ilfracombe which was mentioned in reply to my previous Question a few months ago, cannot do more than interpret the present system, which may not be relevant and may penalise enterprise and new technology.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, local rates are of course a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But I can tell my noble friend that he has agreed to review the position of rating of private electricity generators in response to a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us how much electricity is now being generated by wind in Orkney and what is its cost?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord how much electricity is being generated. This is part of the research and development programme and it is being supported by the Government.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Viscount not tell us what percentage of our total energy needs would come from this source? Does he not know that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not know that. If the noble Lord wants a truthful answer, that is it. But
546
what I can say is that wind energy is currently emerging as the most promising renewable energy source for generating electricity in the United Kingdom. Department of Energy assessments of the economic prospects for wind energy show that from the year 2000 generation costs could be competitive over a wide range of scenarios. We intend to continue research and development to find out how cost-effective a contribution it can make. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that however excellent the various alternatives may be there is no substitute for a good conservation policy so far as energy is concerned? Can he reassure the House that the Government's present policy of privatising energy sources will not mean that they let up on their conservation programme?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly can confirm that. I can tell the noble Baroness as well that the environmental impact of issues such as noise and visual intrusion will be studied as part of on-going research and development so that their acceptability can be assessed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give us comparative figures for the amount of money spent on wave research? He will be able to give us, I hope, the figure spent on nuclear research since 1979. He said that we have spent £20 million on wind research.
Viscount Davidson: The answer is, not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the total amount of contribution likely to be made by the year 2000 by alternative energy sources is in the region of 8 per cent. of our total requirement and that this is a very small contribution indeed? Does he further agree that it would be quite ridiculous to divert all our attention to alternative sources of energy when we have already successfully invested so much money in nuclear energy? Should we not be giving every possible encouragement to the nuclear industry to continue its forward march?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend, but the Question on the Order Paper is directed to the possible benefits from wind power and my view is that we must not neglect any source of alternative energy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, reverting to the Question on the Order Paper about wind power, may I draw the noble Viscount's attention to the important export spin-off from this technology? Have we captured any markets abroad and is there a prospect of doing more if we develop this process successfully in the UK?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I do not have the figures with me, but I shall write to him.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords; I wonder whether my noble friend will go a little further than he did in an earlier answer that he gave. Is he anticipating that more power will be generated by wind than from tidal schemes such as the Severn barrage and indeed the Mersey barrage?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that there is a competitive race in this. We are trying to harness all sources of energy.
Lord Cambell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in putting the original Question I was not suggesting that this source of energy should compete with nuclear? But is it not correct that it could make a very useful addition, even though it would be a limited proportion of the energy needed, because it is clean, it does not cause pollution and also our oil will be getting used up?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. I can say that wind powered generation is particularly attractive for isolated communities such as islands not connected to the grid, where it would be competing with diesel plants. This also represents a useful export potential for British manufacturers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how and in what manner the Government will be reporting on the results of the research? He mentioned the year 2000, which is rather a long way away. Perhaps he can tell us whether we shall get interim reports from time to time and in what manner.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I suggest that the best way would be to put questions down.

Illegal Parking: Police Action
2.44 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action the Metropolitan Police are taking to combat illegal parking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Metropolitan Police devote considerable resources to their continuous effort to tackle illegal parking in London. Nearly 1·9 million fixed penalty tickets were issued in the first nine months of 1986. The new fixed penalty system was implemented on 1st October 1986, and wheelclamping was contracted out on 1st December. These measures should improve the effectiveness of the police's enforcement effort.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and should say that I am in favour of the scheme of wheel clamping. Can my noble friend tell the House whether the contracting out will lead to more wheel clamping and can he confirm that a police officer accompanies the units going around London?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that wheel clamping teams operate under the supervision of a police constable who decides which vehicles are to be wheel clamped. We anticipate that wheel clampings, which at the moment number about 30,000 to 40,000 a year, will increase up to 100,000. That should certainly have a deterrent effect on illegal parking.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, have the Metropolitan Police any instructions with regard to clamping invalid driver cars?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I can write to the noble Lord on that particular point.

The Lord Chancellor and 1956 Records
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 Lord Chancellor has not resigned in view of the information now revealed in the records of 1956.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, in my opinion I have nothing in my personal conduct with which to reproach myself in these matters.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept from me that there is no iota of personal animosity in this Question, nor is there any question of the noble and learned Lord's personal conduct? However, is he aware that in 1956, as part of my duties, I had to help Hugh Gaitskell, Jim Griffiths and Nye Bevan to write speeches and broadcasts in which we accused the Government of breaking international law and colluding with the Israelis? We were told we were liars. Has it not now been revealed by the papers published on 1st January that it was the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary who lied and that there was a breach of international law? In that case, is there not at least some case for the application of the principle of collective responsibility?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must have misunderstood the purpose of the noble Lord's Question. I had not regarded it as a reference to collective responsibility, in which case it would have been a constitutional solecism. I regarded it as a rather clumsy attempt at a personal smear.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not deplorable that a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, disregarding all its traditions, should abuse Question Time by launching a thinly disguised personal attack upon a distinguished Minister of the Crown?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I repeat that there is no personal attack whatever attached to this Question. It is a political issue—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is a political issue, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to accept that. Will he further tell us whether, at the time of the Cabinet of which he was a member, which according to the record is now seen to have colluded with the Israelis and to have broken international law, he did not feel that this was a matter of collective responsibility? Will he further tell the House whether it is his department that is responsible for the suppression of those records which were not published on 1st January?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are two points. First, I was not a member of the Cabinet until January 1957. Secondly, the Question relates to those records which have been published and not to those which have not been published.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not the case that the suggestion that a Minister of the Crown should resign suggests to most people that that Minister has been guilty of some form of improper conduct? On that basis, is it not an abuse of the practice and procedure of this House to place such an attack on the Order Paper in the shape of a Starred Question, rather than the traditional way, if it is so desired, of putting down a formal Motion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think it is for me to answer the question.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is it not the case that in this particular instance the judgment of the noble Lord in putting down his Question has been rather less sound than usual?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord has told us he was not at that time a member of the Cabinet, does that not dispose of the whole Question?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in relation to the answer of the noble and learned Lord about documents, may I ask whether we may now feel that all relevant documents have been published; or are some being withheld? if so—and I am making no personal indications here—on whose authority are they being withheld?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the House will know, the Lord Chancellor's Office in fact decides which papers are to be withheld and which disclosed. I was particularly careful on this occasion to make quite certain that any conflict of interest did not arise. There have been files to which the usual criteria were applied, but in any case in which my own actions were in question I made quite certain that the decision would be taken on the advice of an impartial third authority.

Rules for Severe Weather Payments
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper:
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what medical advice they took in determining that a temperature of minus 1.5 degrees centigrade averaged over a Monday to a Sunday was necessary before claims could be accepted for severe weather payments; and whether this temperature limit took account of both night and day temperatures and of wind chill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, medical advice is that the groups most at risk from hypothermia and other cold-related illness are people over the age of 75 or under one. We have in fact extended the qualifying groups to include those over 65, under two, or chronically sick or disabled.
The qualifying temperature was set not on medical criteria, but on the basis that help would be given one year in five on average. This is because the scheme is intended to give help only when it is exceptionally cold. The qualifying temperature takes account of daily maximum and minimum temperatures, but not wind chill factors.
It is expected that the qualifying temperatures will be reached throughout the country this week. We have therefore announced that the extra £5 payment will be made available to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that Answer, but I must press her further. If no medical evidence was taken into consideration in fixing the minus 1.5 degrees, surely this is totally irresponsible. Is it not a fact that the Meteorological Office was asked to pick on a datum line that would ensure that the Government only had to deal with the issue on average once every five years? If that is not true, then I invite the Minister to say so. I will try to keep within the Rules of Order and not abuse Question Time.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, but conceding that, no one has found a real answer to the problem. I want to suggest that it is time we all got together and found some way of giving a winter bonus irrespective of temperatures and ages, so that people do not have to suffer this uncertainty.
May I ask the Minister why the qualifying age for children in families to receive the extra benefit is only two years old? Is it not the case that for the ordinary heating addition, children up to five can qualify? Now I suddenly find that children have to be two years old, or under two years old. So are we not faced with the absurd situation where a family with a two-year-old baby can get an allowance this week but, if the baby has a third birthday next week, cannot get it? Surely this is the sort of rigid arithmetic which shows how useless and stupid this arrangement is.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, thirdly—it is not unusual for Front Bench speakers to ask three

551
questions on such an important matter—we welcome of course the sinners who repented yesterday and who agreed that £5 should be given for this week. But will this be paid automatically? Surely the local offices have the records of all those who are on supplementary benefit. Why cannot they be paid automatically instead of having to apply, to have those applications processed and then to wait until the Ministry can deal with the matter before receiving the money they need so badly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the five-year-olds, we considered the point carfully. But, in the light of the improvements which we have already made for this group—automatic entitlement to a heating addition and an increase in the value of their scale rate of over a quarter—we could not give the matter priority. I would point out to the noble Baroness that the amount spent in 1984–85 was about £400 million annually, compared to spending by the last Labour Government of under £90 million.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not totally wrong that £500 in savings should disqualify people who would otherwise qualify when that sum is hardly more than the cost of a funeral? Secondly, simply on the question of monitoring, is it not absurd that places in Scotland which last week experienced temperatures of 11,16 and, I think, 18 degrees below, did not qualify because the monitoring stations were in a coastal area? Should not the whole monitoring system also be revised?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the weather stations were chosen after consultation with the Meteorological Office. We have concentrated on stations where information can be provided quickly to enable help to be assessed as near as possible to the time of bad weather. SSAC has commented that our proposals are manifestly an improvement on past methods.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would the noble Minister tell the House what arrangements are being made to monitor hypothermia among the elderly? Will she respond to approaches that I understand have been made by the National Pensioners' Convention, who want to make representations to her in that regard?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government are taking the problem of hypothermia very seriously but the underlying causes are uncertain. We are therefore studying the available information closely. We need the right information to produce the right, effective policy.
Lord Avebury:My Lords, did not my noble friend raise a very serious point when he drew attention to the fact that the micro-climate within a region can vary enormously from that measured at the official station? Would not the Government think it desirable, indeed essential, to increase the network of monitoring stations so that people in areas where severe cold is experienced, who at present do not qualify because of the location of the monitoring station, should
552
nevertheless get the heating allowance to which, by all objective measures, they are fully entitled?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is of course the case that an absolute standard means that help will go to places where at any one time it is actually coldest. That seems to me wholly reasonable. SSAC firmly supports an absolute standard. When there was a comparative system in 1984–85, it was heavily criticised, particularly in Scotland.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this? We have seen appalling pictures on all channels of British television of British men and women around 90 years of age dying because they are too cold almost to live. I do not find any humour in this situation, unlike some of your Lordships on the Benches to my right. I find it an extraordinarily serious and dreadful situation that every night we should hear of somebody dying because they have not enough money to keep themselves warm. In view of this, would it not be possible for the Government, please, to consider the suggestion that they should contact the British Medical Association, some of the local authorities, and particularly the voluntary organisations, who are concerned with this problem, to try to find a formula which will replace the current soulless, barren, mathematical formula on which they are working?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think the noble Lord exaggerated greatly in the first part of his question. On the second part, I would say we are already closely in touch with all the voluntary organisations, with whom we are working agreeably.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the statement made in answer to a Question in another place yesterday was generally welcomed by all the voluntary organisations throughout the country as a step in the right direction? But inevitably and predictably the debate has now moved to another plane and other questions are being asked. Is what is being done enough? Will the assistance get to the right people? How will they get it? In particular, how will those people who pay for their fuel by means of a slot meter as they go along get this extra allowance so that they can put it into the meter, and when will they get it? Finally, may I solicit the noble Baroness's support for my Motion which has been going around for a long time? It calls attention to the need for a comprehensive strategy to end fuel poverty and this annual argy-bargy about who gets what, when and why, and calls for the introduction of a proper, decent policy that all governments can pursue.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think it is important that I tell the noble Lord that advertisements including claim forms will appear in the national press this week. Revised instructions have been issued to local offices on publicity when the conditions for payment are met. This includes local press advertisements and a wide distribution of a specific leaflet, both containing the claim form for help. I doubt whether any scheme will ever be seen as fully satisfactory. We have devised a system which provides a reasonable solution judged over the years.

553
Severe winters are not all alike. We cannot keep trying to devise a system based on one year's experience.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness just answer my question about whether savings of £500 act as a disbarment to people who are otherwise qualified, and whether this is right?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the £500 savings comes into the question because the people who are entitled to receive severe winter payments are those who are on supplementary benefit. One might spare a thought for those who are just above the level of supplementary benefit. The level was raised from £300 to £500, but there has to be a limit.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that one of the best ways to help old people with their fuel bills in cold spells is to ensure that their homes are well insulated? Is she aware that some important home insulation work by the Neighbourhood Energy Action Group has been jeopardised by the intended withdrawal of single payments? Can the Minister say whether the Government have decided on a replacement for this very important benefit as far as home insulation goes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the information provided.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. 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 the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it will be to the disadvantage of subsequent speakers in that debate.
In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I know that the House will appreciate it if noble Lords confine their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Regional Policy: Imbalance in Prosperity
3.3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe rose to call attention to the situation which arises from the difference between the prosperity of the South-East of the country and the decline in other areas, and the case for an effective regional policy to redress this imbalance; 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. On Monday of this week, eloquent tribute was paid in this
554
House to the memory of the late Lord Stockton. I want to recall that in 1936 he fought an election in Stockton and declared in his manifesto:
"I want to bring before the South, London and the Government, the really desperate position of some of the distressed areas (and the North-East in particular) and to demand effective action for the relief of unemployment".
I think it is appropriate to remember our late, distinguished colleague by returning to his concern today, and that is the simple purpose of the Motion before the House.
I suggest that before we discuss controversial matters in relation to regional policy we should try to establish common ground on a number of principles. First, I think we can agree that regional prosperity cannot be achieved in the absence of national prosperity. Secondly, I think we can agree that there is a regional problem and certain parts of our country have suffered disproportionately from the collapse of manufacturing. Thirdly, if there is a an upturn in the economy the disadvantaged regions will be the last to respond, for in the absence of an effective regional policy it is the industries in the prosperous South which have been able to invest and modernise.
Fourthly, the division of our country into a prosperous South-East and a decaying North is unjust, dangerous and wasteful. This does not suggest that there is no poverty in the South-East or pockets of affluence in the North. But measured in terms of unemployment, housing, average household spending and the general quality of life, we are moving towards a two nation situation.
Fifthly, an effective regional policy can make some impact in redressing these imbalances, and the Government have a responsibility to pursue such a policy. It cannot be left to market forces. Here I suspect that the consensus ends. I am arguing that the Government are failing to discharge that responsibility.
I notice that the Prime Minister has recently declared that the North-South divide is a myth. The Sunday Times last Sunday apparently dismissed the concept by the unique device of counting the number of Porsches sold in Newcastle. I live on Clydeside. If the Prime Minister or the Sunday Times reporter will accompany me down to Port Glasgow where one in four of the male population is unemployed, they will receive the true facts of the situation.
These are decent people. Many of them are skilled tradesmen, with families, who seek the same comforts and opportunities as all of us. They have built luxury liners and great battleships. They have sustained and protected us in wartime. Today they feel rejected and humiliated. They are anxious to work. When Nissan advertised 240 vacancies on the shop floor of the Newcastle factory, 11,500 people applied for the jobs. This is the reality of the North-South divide.
In the South-East unemployment is 8·5 per cent. In the North-West it is 14·2 per cent.; in the North it is 16·6 per cent. The average weekly expenditure per household nationally is £156. In the North it is £131. In the South-East it is £186. The South-East weekly average household income was 51 per cent. greater than that in Northern Ireland, which is a special case, and 41 per cent. higher than in the North of England.
The trouble is that, instead of diminishing, these regional disparities are increasing day by day. For example, 94 per cent. of the jobs lost since the Government took office in 1979 have been in the depressed areas of Scotland, the North, Northern Ireland and the Midlands, while the South has lost only 6 per cent. of the jobs in that period.
It is suggested by some market economists—mostly Conservative—that market forces will adjust these regional disparities because if there is a surplus of labour in the North, so the theory goes, it will cause wages to fall and employers will hire more labour; while in the South-East the reverse will take place. If there had been any justification for that view it would have already happened. But that has not taken place. The same distressed areas exist today as there were at the end of the First World War.
The other main market mechanism—the migration of labour and capital—has also failed since it tends to be the employed and the skilled who migrate. Today, because of the high cost of housing in the relatively prosperous South-East, no unemployed person can afford to move—even if he has a bike! The average price of a dwelling in the South-East is 70 per cent. higher than it is in the North. The failure of the market mechanism to correct regional imbalance makes government intervention a necessity.
The present situation is wasteful. Schools, hospitals, houses, transport and recreation facilities already exist in the North, while pressures in the South require public investment in all those services. Such is the pressure on land in the South that a building plot in the South-East costs 28 per cent. of the total cost of a house. In Wales it is 7 per cent. and in Scotland 9 per cent., so there is a continued inflationary pressure on the price of housing.
Everyone in business knows that economic growth depends on the entrepreneur and the innovator. In the absence of employment opportunities in the regions the bright young people inevitably drift to the South and leave the regions impoverished. The tendency towards centralisation in control of large companies following the recent merger mania drains the regions of their bright managerial talent.
Privatisation and the creation of large private monopolies have also contributed to centralisation. The international companies whose investment we have welcomed in the regions tend to have their headquarters elsewhere and the regional plants are branch plants which inevitably suffer with the downturn in any economic activity. It is necessary that we should stress to the Monopolies and Mergers Commisson, which examines cases of mergers, that it should consider the regional dimension.
I am frequently asked whether the regional policy works. The DTI recently asked that question and commissioned two Cambridge economists to study the matter. In a recently published report they revealed that between 1960 and 1981 an estimated 630,000 new jobs were created as a result of positive regional development policy.
I should like to say a word about the Scottish Development Agency. It could provide a model for an effective regional intervention in other parts of the
556
United Kingdom. It has an investment function. It supports venture capital projects. It encourages inward investment. It has a responsibility for advisory services to small businesses and initiates schemes for urban renewal. It is a success story. However, I give the Minister a word of warning. Accountability of the SDA and similar bodies to the Minister and his civil servants must never be confused with control. These bodies must retain the freedom of the entrepreneur.
I should like to say a few words about how the Government discharge their responsibility. I confess that, as in other areas of the economy, their performance is sadly inadequate. In November 1984 the Government announced a new policy, the objective being the reduction of regional disparities in employment opportunities. This placed a greater emphasis on support for purely labour-intensive projects and withdrew subsidies from large capital investment, ignoring the fact that it is precisely capital investment in modern plant which will raise the competitiveness of industry, on which the regions depend. The high-technology industries, for example, are not always highly labour intensive. Capital investment provides the necessary stimulus to cost reduction which assists industry to expand.
Behind all the so-called justification for the new policy of November 1984 emerged the distressing fact that in a period of increasing unemployment problems in the regions the Government have cut regional development grants. In 1982–83 the amount was £900 million; in 1983–84 it was £700 million; and it is expected that between 1985 and 1988, £300 million will be spent on regional aid. I ask the Minister: what is the wisdom of this policy that cuts regional support, which is employment creative, and with the money saved pays people to stand idle in the dole queues? It is madness. Perhaps the Minister will pay some attention to employment-creative support in the regions so that he can take people out of the dole queues.
The Government have confessed that their policy will not work. In their submissions to the European Regional Development Fund they confessed that they did not see any possibility of unemployment being reduced right through to the 1990s. I should like some assurance from the Minister as to how he honestly sees this new policy working. There have been two years of it and it is not working. Is it not time that we had some reconsideration of this strategy?
This is not only an economic matter. I should warn the Minister that the present two-nation situation creates dangers for the future unity of this country. People who feel neglected and who feel that their voices are no longer heard may be tempted to pursue desperate solutions. The latest opinion poll in Scotland reveals that 81 per cent. of the voters are opposed to the present Government. Even the separatist Scottish National Party is now attracting 18 per cent. of the votes against 11 per cent. at the last election.
That is the climate in which the demogogues of nationalism can flourish. The citizens of the "other nation" can readily reach a stage of disenchantment with our existing democratic institutions if they feel that they are not being heard. I want this nation to survive as a unit. I want the democratic institutions of

557
this country to prosper, but they cannot do so on the basis of these economic facts.
What would the Alliance do to deal with the situation? First, we would take steps to increase the number of jobs as part of a national strategy by spending on investment and infrastructure rather than tax cuts, since regional disparities are at their narrowest when national unemployment is low. Secondly, in calculating government expenditure, including government purchasing and location of Civil Service departments, the regional factor would always be taken into account.
Thirdly, there would be an extension of regional development agencies, on the model of the successful SDA, to other disadvantaged areas and they should work in partnership with private enterprise and be given wider powers to raise finance from private capital markets. I suggest that if these policies were pursued there might be some impact on the present depressing situation of increasing unemployment and hopelessness in the regions. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this Motion. This subject is being discussed in the media and throughout the nation at the present time and I believe that it is right that your Lordships should also formally consider it.
As the World Bank has said, we are going through a structural adjustment as the nation moves from its traditional manufacturing base to a wider one including the service industry and new high technology. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, the decline in manufacturing and the resulting unemployment situation is not the same thoughout each region. Although there are difficult and unpleasant figures that can be quoted, I believe that we need to look at this question not on a regional basis but on the basis of smaller areas. That is what I shall be proposing to you in a moment.
I should like to suggest to your Lordships that there are three underlying assumptions that ought to be kept in mind when we consider this matter since we all aim to be positive and want to produce answers that help toward mitigating this world-wide problem. The first assumption is that we want industry, including high technology, to expand in this country both for the benefit of the nation and in order to mitigate the unemployment situation. This is required particularly in places of highest unemployment. I believe that as high technology industry expands and the computer bases increase so will our young people, who are perhaps the most discouraged by unemployment, receive encouragement.
It is not sufficient for this country to have a service industry. A service industry needs manufacturing and serves it. And, my Lords, manufacturing industry must continue. We must always bear that in mind.
Secondly, I believe that research is vital for industry and perhaps that has not always been sufficiently emphasised over the past 50 years. The pattern needs to be a partnership between industry and the universities. The universities and polytechnics are vital
558
for research and for training. We have recently been looking at the reports of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology and I believe that there are matters there which need further consideration.
Thirdly, the information that is obtained through research and otherwise needs to be disseminated both formally by means of publication and also by person to person contact. It is important for people who are working in the academic field on a particular subject to have plenty of opportunity to discuss their work formally and informally with those in industry who are dealing with the same subject. I shall return to that topic in a moment.
Let us take the example of Cambridge where, I have been told, very good communication takes place between the university and local industry, not only in formal settings but also in discussions over a cup of tea or the various other kinds of drink that are imbibed. Such communication sparks off ideas and leads to the application of the results of research.
I should like now to turn to my proposal, which is that we need to consider much more clearly the need to focus in one place the resources for one industrial sector. I shall illustrate this by picking out at random the suggestion that all the resources for biotechnology should be focused at Middlesbrough in order to produce a biotech centre for Europe. This would mean that certain requirements had to be met. First, it would mean recruiting key academics in the biotechnology field for Middlesbrough Polytechnic. Secondly, the best courses for biotechnology should be focused on Middlesbrough Polytechnic. Thirdly, there should be special incentives for firms which are working in biotechnology to set up in Middlesbrough. Fourthly, Middlesbrough would need to publicise its role throughout the world by advertisements, exhibitions and so on. Fifthly, leading employers, such as ICI, should participate in this field (in the recent past ICI has cetainly done work in biotechnology).
That is what I should like to recommend as worthy of consideration. It could be argued against the proposal that surely Middlesbrough in the past has had that sort of focus in shipbuilding and steel-making. However, there are two points that I should like to make against the argument that this idea has been tried and failed. First, research needs to be the new factor—a partnership between academics and industrialists. That is the new pattern and is the way forward to the new technological age into which we are moving.
Secondly, surely the lesson has been learned that a new industrial focus is needed before an old industry collapses. We all know that we are living in an era of accelerating change. We cannot get away from the fact that old industries must come to an end and new ones start. That fact has to be faced. Before old industries die it is important that a new industry should be born and started up, ready to take its place. Before the old dies the new must be born. That is my suggested industrial focus strategy for the regions.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I also should like to echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for introducing this subject. I am sorry that we

559
do not have longer time in which to discuss it. I am certain that almost everyone on this side of the House, and I think some Members on the Cross-Benches, would agree with me that it is a great pity that the consensus to which the late Lord Stockton referred—and which was referred to after the First World War as building a land fit for heroes and encapsulated in the phrase, "Never again will the economic problems of this country be solved by mass unemployment", to which so many politicians in this country subscribe—is not found inside one party. It is indeed a great pity that the present Government are maintained in office because the opposition to that Government is split.
I shall not go into details about the responsibility for that situation but it is a very sad reflection on modern politics. I do not think that there is any need for anyone to argue that there is a North-South divide and that it is severe. There is no doubt about it. If anyone had any doubts about that on the last occasion that we discussed this question, since then they have only had to read the national press—the serious papers—to be convinced of the fact that there is a North-South divide. Amazingly, the Prime Minister does not seem to accept it but seems to think that something could be done locally to get rid of the North-South divide. I think it is about time that someone from the Conservative Party took the lady on one side and whispered in her ear the real truth about our economic situation.
Worse still, however, that kind of attitude illustrates another form of divide. I quote the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Ridley, who said that such areas—he was referring to Merseyside and Tyneside—had been in the firm control of the Labour Party since before the war. The decline was because of forces within our control. He tried to show, and actually said, that the responsibility for the problems in those areas lay fairly and squarely with the people and their leaders, whom he associated of course with the Labour Party. Someone should have told him before he went to the North-West to look up his political history, because in fact over the years of decline Merseyside was fairly and squarely under the control of the Conservative Party.
Is it right to blame Merseysiders for the fact that shipping moved down to the South-East with the advent of the container trade? Of course it is not. Was it right to blame Merseysiders when an organisation such as Tate and Lyle, in which industrial relations were nearly perfect, decided to close, or when Dunlop's decided to close? There were many other firms on Merseyside with excellent industrial relations. Was it right to blame the Merseysiders when they closed? Why did Mr. Ridley come to the North-West to lay the blame on those people? He was simply appealing to the base motive of selfishness. He wants to demonstrate to the Tory heartland that it is not the problem of the people in the South; they can solve their own problems up North.
When we debated the Queen's Speech, the Leader of the House, with pleasure in his eyes, defended his Government's attitude to the problems of the regions and informed us that they had spent £465 million on regional aid. No doubt he was glad to boast about that.
560
Let me give your Lordships some of the figures. I put down a Question in the House not long ago to which I received a reply from the Minister. I asked what the difference paid in wages to Civil Service staffs in London was as opposed to anywhere else in the country; i.e. London weighting. I was told that there are 124,000 civil servants in London alone who receive extra payments which in total amount to £150 million per year. That is much more than the aid sent to parts of the North-West.
Not only that, the expense in the South-East is so great that, as I have said before, there is a levy for London on the rest of the country. In parts of London the Government pay to the local authorities £87,685,000 in lieu of rates on government buildings. Let me give a comparison. In Liverpool they pay £9 million and in Westminster alone they pay £53,198,000. Those are only two of the extra costs met in London.
If we add to the 124,000 civil servants in London who are being paid for by the rest of the country support on the basis of one for one for jobs in the community, we have a figure of 250,000 people. Can anyone imagine the consequences if the Government were to transfer 5,000 of those civil servants to any part of the regions? Those 5,000 people sited in the middle of Liverpool would rehabilitate Liverpool and transform the economic situation almost immediately.
What did the Government do? Their first act was completely to destroy the consensus that had been arrived at across the broad political spectrum that at least 3,000 civil servants should be transferred to the area. That was nothing but a pay-off to those people who did not want to see that happen.
Five minutes have already gone. The time allowed is much too short. I conclude by saying that I rarely speak in a debate upon which there is no vote. But if we are serious and if we mean it when we say that something should be done about the North-South divide and about re-establishing the consensus that existed when we thought it advisable that unbridled capitalism should be controlled, we should perhaps make a start here. We should put down a Motion on which we can all vote and express our feelings so that the Government will look at the problem of the imbalance which exists among the regions. That means not only that something should be done about the North but that something should be done about the problems that exist in the South-East, because they are considerably worse than I have heard anyone mention.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as this is a short debate, I shall confine what I have to say to Scotland which is a part of the country about which I know a little. I should like to start, like other speakers, by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on his Motion and the admirable speech with which he introduced it.
I take over several of the points made by the noble Lord but I do not wish to repeat them. He started by saying that the problem was a longstanding one, which indeed it is. It is notable that so far our efforts to

561
redress the balance between the regions have not been successful. One major cause of that—it is to the major causes that we should look—is the centralisation of this country. Our usual habit is not to go to the cause of our troubles but to try and palliate them. In this case, one of the major causes of the imbalance and failure of the regions is that power and influence are centralised in London. That means political and, following that, financial and social power of all kinds. If we want to strike at that cause, we must look again at devolution, probably for the English regions and certainly for Scotland and Wales.
Recently at any rate all parties have been in favour of devolution in varying degrees and at different times. It is high time, when the feeling in Scotland is rising again, that all parties should look carefully at what can be done to devolve government.
My second point is that the Government are not everything when we come to discuss power and influence. What are important are the major institutions of a country or a region. In those institutions of course I include the head offices of businesses. What is so damaging for Scotland is that constantly since the First World War it has lost control over its main activities and businesses. That is going on now.
The Government cannot do everything, but they can do a certain amount. I should like to congratulate them on some of their efforts. When they wound up the British National Oil Corporation they set up a headquarters in Glasgow. That is an example which they should follow. They also attempted, as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said, to move some of the civil servants to the regions and to Scotland. They seem to have lost enthusiasm. They lost a great opportunity when carrying out privatisations, one of their main policies, by not setting up, for instance, electricity and gas corporations in Scotland, and by not going further in the case of the savings bank and having a separate Scottish savings bank or putting its headquarters in Edinburgh. That point is becoming more and more important as services take over from industry, as the noble Viscount said.
One of the most hopeful things in Scotland is that Edinburgh and the central belt may become a centre for financial services and for the higher technologies. They are doing so, but the Government must give encouragement and contracts and see that when they privatise the process of privatisation is dealt with partly through Scottish institutions and that advantage is taken of the opportunity to set up some headquarters in Scotland.
My next point is that there is a considerable amount of saving in Scotland but there are few local means of channelling it into local needs. Other countries have a less centralised banking system than ours. It is desirable to have local outlets for local savings, not just in government stock but in local enterprise and business. A look could be taken at the powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It could conceivably take on some of the functions of a merchant bank and even be authorised to take deposits. Something must be done to keep local savings in Scotland.
Lastly, it seems to me time that the law relating to takeovers was looked at again. The example of
562
Guinness and Distillers is horrifying in many ways. One of the most horrifying things about it is that probably one of the largest and most important Scottish companies—Distillers—was taken over by means which are a disgrace to any financial centre in the world. That may have done great damage not just to the reputation of the City and the companies but to the people in Scotland and the working of the Scottish economy. It seems disgraceful that that can happen without there being any effective powers to deal with the matter retrospectively.
It was also, I may say, rather shameful. It was not only the Guinness board, but it was actively encouraged, so far as I can make out, by the board of Distillers. So I hope the Government will look at the lessons to be drawn from this unhappy incident when it is over and take whatever steps are necessary to strengthen their powers in the case of takeovers.
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, much is being said in this debate about the North-South divide and especially about deprivation in the older industrial areas in the country. The first point I should like to make is that the northern areas are wonderful places in which to live if you have the money: wonderful scenery, excellent road networks, especially around Greater Manchester where I live; warm and friendly people, including many from the ethnic and cultural minorities who enrich our common life. But there is no doubt at all about the disparities we have in this country. As has rightly been said, there have been growing disparities between the comparatively affluent South-East and other regions in Britain.
If you look at the figures, for example, for the city of Manchester and the city of Salford—and these could be paralleled with many of the other older industrial areas—the statistics are quite horrifying. These are places into which back in the late 18th and 19th centuries, people crowded from the countryside and also from overseas—Ireland in particular—and later from other parts of the British Commonwealth or the Empire, as it then was. They manned the factories which made Britain the workshop of the world.
Unemployment in Manchester has now increased from 11 per cent. in 1978 to 24 per cent. in 1985, and in some areas of the city more than half the adult male population is now unemployed. We have congregations in my diocese of Manchester in which hardly a single person has a paid job, and by 1985 nearly one-third of the residents of Manchester were claiming supplementary benefit. That was at a time when not everyone entitled to it in fact claimed it. Unemployment is not of course the only cause of poverty. There is very low pay, and recent research has indicated that nearly half of all those in work in the city of Manchester earn poverty wages. So there are very great disparities in our country today and I think we must take them very seriously—more seriously than any government perhaps have taken them in recent years.
They show themselves in every field of life. If you take health care, for instance, the Black Report back in 1980 showed a terrifying picture of what was happening in inequalities in health care. More recently, Professor Townsend has stated that the

563
health gap between rich and poor is widening with an increasing proportion of the population having very poor living standards. When it is said, perhaps rightly, that too many people who live near poverty suffer from ill health, particularly in later life, because they smoke too much, drink too much and eat the wrong kinds of food, it should be realised that this in itself is a result of inequalities and poverty.
As has rightly been said, particularly by the second speaker in the debate, some of the problems that we are facing now are from technological change, over unemployment in particular. In the North-West, textiles were a great employer. Now you can go to those textile mills which are still in operation and see modern machinery being operated by a handful of operatives compared with those who kept the machines going in the past. They are achieving greater output at the same time.
I agree with those who have already stated that we cannot go back to the old days and simply revive traditional industries. But what we must surely do is not to allow change to cause great suffering, as in the days of the Industrial Revolution. One of the things which we have around our area in the North-West is the splendidly imaginative museums which illustrate what life was like in the past. But is is a very sad picture because it also shows the grinding, terrible poverty which afflicted people in the 19th century at a time when much of Britain's industrial wealth was being created. Small numbers of people grew very wealthy; large numbers suffered terrible hardship. Change was not managed well. That must not happen again.
Today we are in the grip of another revolution with even deeper and more far-reaching effects. A recent study from Edinburgh University has put the challenge in front of us very clearly. The problem is how to distribute equitably the benefits of technological change without destroying the incentive to innovate when the technologies being adopted no longer require the kinds of tasks for which large numbers of people are needed.
We are not doing very well in facing up to that challenge. Some people today are getting very much richer and we are not distributing equitably those benefits. This study goes on to point out that we live in a society that is able to produce more goods with less labour time than ever before and which in historical and global perspective is in the midst of a veritable orgy of consumption of colour TVs, hi-fi sets, home computers, video recorders, food mixers, dishwashers and deep freezers; yet governments proclaim that we cannot afford more public services and industrialists insist that we cannot afford a 35 hour week. The real problem is not public expenditure; it is private expenditure.
I do not decry what has been done in the regions. I was very impressed when just before Christmas I visited the Salford Quays development, a partnership between Salford City Council, central government and private developers. But much more is needed and many voices in the North are now calling for a change of policy.
564
Mr. John Morris, president of Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry, at a dinner attended in December by the Prime Minister, said:
"What we are calling for is an end to 'central' government and a move towards 'national' government … This would represent quite a fundamental change in management as well as policy. It would mean locating government departments where they are most economical, co-ordinating policy and work of all government departments at regional level, developing a national plan for infrastructure development, and consciously seeking to invest in the untapped economic potential of the regions".
We must not assume that jobs will come back in traditional ways, but a prime point of policy must surely be to manage change rather than simply drifting with it, to the hardship of so many people in this country.
My last word comes from a manual of perhaps a personal and even a national instruction over 2,000 years ago:
"A body is not one single organ, but many. Suppose the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body', it does belong to the body none the less … If one organ suffers, they all suffer together. If one flourishes, they all rejoice together".
Perhaps that is a text for national and international policy today.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and I very much appreciated, as I am sure we all did, his sincerity in expressing his fears on the industrial imbalance between North and South and the consequences which he and others fear because of it.
I am taking part in the debate for one principal reason, which is to warn that this constant suggestion of there being two nations within the one is inaccurate. It is potentially immensely damaging not only to the North but also to the economy of the country as a whole. I think we need to face facts a little more than we are doing. It is so easy to stand up and say that there are two nations within the one. It is so easy for a newspaper or a television company to display on the front page or flash on the screen a picture of a derelict shipyard in the North-East of England. It is so easy for us all, I believe, possibly to get the wrong impression.
I live in the North-East of England, I have done so all my life. As my area is one of the principal places always quoted in the context of the North-South divide, I feel it necessary to dispel the engendered impression that my area is depressed, derelict and in despair. It is nothing of the kind. I disagree also with the suggestion in the second part of the Motion, if I may say so to the noble Lord who moved it, that we need an effective regional policy to redress the imbalance. It is my contention that we have an effective regional policy which is working. There is, of course, always room for improvement. I will try, in the short time available to me, to give my opinion on areas of that policy which, from the experience of their success, can be strengthened and play a greater part in the enormous task of converting old industry to new.
This is the basis of the whole problem, and no one should underestimate what an enormous task it has been. But a great deal has been achieved, as I have said on other occasions, not only by Conservative

565
governments but by governments of both parties in their periods of office. For instance, in the city of Newcastle there are today two colleges of technology. At this very moment 30,000 young people are getting some form of training. Neither college existed when I became a Member of Parliament for that city 30 years ago.
Training is a problem which remains, and it is one to which we need to give more attention. But, in the North-East of England today—here I refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—the quality of living is high for those who have the money, that is the 82 per cent. of people who are in employment.
In the North-East of England we have the finest road network in the country—again, a tribute to both parties when in office. The scars of the Industrial Revolution have been largely removed, and this process is continuing. The all-important training in modern skills has been substantially provided. No one should underestimate the enormous problem presented by the decline of old industries but the achievement in redressing the industrial balance should be appreciated.
Many new firms have been encouraged to establish themselves in the North-East; and they are providing ever-increasing employment. There are now 22 Far East companies in the region. In September last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister opened the largest such enterprise, the Nissan plant. Every area in the country wanted the Nissan plant, but it is right there in the North-East of England. Exactly a week after its opening, I had the privilege of opening a factory for Superbadge Limited of Hong Kong, which will provide 300 new jobs. And we have Komatsu at Birtley, and many others. To us, this movement shows continuing progress.
I turn to the encouragement which regional policy is giving to those parts of the northern area with the greatest difficulties. During the recent recess I visited the area of Derwentside as the guest of the Derwentside Development Agency. I made the visit for two reasons. First, I had been impressed by the success of the agency; indeed, I have spoken of it here on a previous occasion. Secondly, it is of particular interest because, in a region that has known the enormous challenge of industrial change, the challenge was a formidable one on Derwentside. In the space of a few years leading up to 1980, 15,000 jobs in coal mining disappeared. In September of 1980, the Consett steel works closed with the loss of 10,000 jobs.
The Derwentside Development Association was formed in the face of sheer necessity, and it has been remarkably successful. It has known two external substantial aids; one, the involvement of the British Steel Corporation task force, the other—and I quote the chief executive on Thursday last week—
"The superb support of the Department of Trade and Industry and the continued enthusiastic interest in our agency of all Government departments".
There is no doubt in my mind that it was very strong local commitment which led people in this area to get up and go and to refuse to be borne down by the closure of industry. Their own indigenous achievement is a very considerable one. I visited the Consett
566
steelworks with a group of students many years ago when I was very young. It was on a dark November evening, and I remember the flames, the heat and the noise. I thought it was the nearest thing to hell on earth I would probably ever see. All that is left of the Consett steelworks today is a large aerial photograph of it on the boardroom wall. The actual steelworks have been demolished. It was the largest industrial reclamation programme in Europe. The 650 acres where the works stood are now green fields. This joint effort on the part of local people and the Department of the Environment was a tangible symbol of required change.
At the other end of the town, there is a new industrial estate. In 1980 there was one empty advance factory there. Today there is only one vacant plot. There are 200 new companies in shining new buildings, and 3,000 new jobs have been created. Best of all, in these buildings are ex-steel workers and ex-miners who are coping with modern skill requirements.
I hope that no one will imagine that this is a temporary situation. City institutions are not reluctant to invest in the North-East of England. It is not a "river flowing uphill" situation, as a letter to the press said a little while ago. There is considerable City interest in the North-East of England. North-East England wants more venture capital and seeks to encourage it. So the town of Consett, which was once said to be dying, flourishes today. There is an example here of what can be achieved in other areas by existing regional policy.
I make one plea finally to the Government through my noble friend. There are areas of recent regional policy which are extremely successful. The local enterprise agency support scheme, which is comparatively new, is good. The pound-for-pound grant is exactly what is needed to encourage local initiative with a helping hand.
I conclude by suggesting that the North-East of England, far from being a depressed region, is one of optimism and determination. I quote the chairman of the development agency in Derwentside:
"We are a proud people. We do not want just straight Government investment here; we want a helping hand".
I believe that, through present development area policy, we are on the way towards solving our major problems.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will take the courtesies and my respect for him for granted, and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, will accept that I understand and appreciate what he was saying in the contribution he made to this debate.
We are the products, and in some ways the prisoners, of our environment. I was born and bred in Wales and have lived there all my life. It is a beautiful country. It is peopled not by a regional body but by a nation. It has its own language; it has its own culture; and it has weaknesses that are long-standing within its economic background. These weaknesses have not been cured despite the policies which have been entered into by successive governments in Britain since 1945.

567
If I were to select at random one constituency, a constituency that was won in 1951 by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition who is sitting before and below me, the constituency of Anglesey, we should find there an unemployment rate in excess of 26 per cent. for the male population. That unemployment rate is one which has endured for a very long time indeed; there is long-standing unemployment. That is not deny that the island of Anglesey is beautiful beyond belief. It has mountians that attract people to visit it. It has encouraged industrialists to invest in it; and some of the policies of successive governments have in fact been effective.
I could snatch a number of points at random from the pages of reports I have been reading over the past 48 hours which would prove that there is depression in the economy of Wales; that those very beautiful areas are the most blighted in terms of employment and human opportunity; that the communites that have been built within them have deteriorated beyond all belief through the past 50 years; and that the aspects that sustained them have gone to the wall. Having said that, one must not then stand up in this Chamber to defend in a party political sense the policies of one's government without recognising the vital policies of all successive governments: we have failed to cure the radical imbalance in the economy of Great Britain.
As I am speaking for Wales, let me now identify places and percentages. When you take income tax as a percentage of total personal income, Wales is bottom of the league. When you take personal income before tax (that is, by range of income) Wales is third from the bottom of the league, topping only Northern Ireland and the West Midlands. When you take regional employment, Wales is third from the top, with 16.9 per cent. unemployment—greater than anywhere else other than the northern United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. We cannot get away from this, which is the product of 50 years of political history and of changes in the economy.
More than a quarter of the men have been unemployed for a very long time. If you look at the Employment Gazette for January 1987 it shows that between March 1985 and June 1986 the numbers of employed in Wales fell by many thousands. If you look at production and construction, the numbers fell by many thousands; if you look at production alone, it fell by a great deal; if you look at manufacturing, it fell in Wales. Indeed, one noble Lord earlier referred to the service sector and its inability to provide for the total economy, despite the expansion of tourism, which is vital and a very important contribution to our economy. The service sector increased but it was the only part of the economy that grew. We cannot sustain the British people on a service economy only. That has never been part of my argument nor was it a part of that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. I wholly agree with what he had to say.
Let me take some more figures. The third digest of Great Britain regions tells us that households in Wales were relatively less likely than others in Great Britain to have most consumer durables. We did rather well for washing machines, which is not surprising, since cleanliness is next to godliness in our little country. We did fairly well for deep freezes and televisions. These
568
are important, although they are not altogether basic. However, the Welsh people spend less as consumers per head. Expenditure was lower in Wales than in any other region of Britain apart from Northern Ireland and the northern United Kingdom. Within that expenditure the Welsh spent 2 per cont. more on food, drink and tobacco than anyone else in any other region of Great Britain.
The effects of the coal strike on the gross domestic product cause general concern, and there was also a decline in the value of the gross domestic product. However, as a matter of pride, Wales had the highest proportion of all regions of children under five in maintained schools. We were beaten only by Scotland, Northern Ireland and the South-East of England in numbers of pupils aged 16 in maintained schools. We have the third highest figure in Great Britain for school-leavers intending to go on for higher education.
This small nation of Wales is attempting to sustain itself and to make a major contribution within the economy of Great Britain. It is also attempting to sustain its culture and language. The very fact that there are depressed areas in the North or South is reflected within the small nation of Wales. Unemployment is high in the North. The traditional industrial regions are in the South. However, I discovered, in association with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who helped me to prepare some of these notes, that there are large pockets of high unemployment and depression very close to the major capital city of Cardiff. There is therefore a complication within that area.
We have a very great problem to which we have to address ourselves. I ask the Minister this question. Are the Government prepared at the end of this debate to say yes, it has been terribly difficult, despite the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency and the commitment of the present Secretary of State for Wales, to cure the difficulties in the economy of Wales? Will they give us time for a debate so that we do not have to race with our figures and tumble over our words in trying to express our concern? Will the Government tell me during the reply to this debate that they appreciate that there is a very great need for the regional imbalance as it affects Wales as a nation to be attacked in a more aggressive way?
4.03 p.m
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am particularly pleased to have a lucky colleague on these Benches. This is the second time that he has been lucky in one of the ballots for the Wednesday debate and it is the second very topical and important subject he has brought before us.
In 1984 I had the great privilege of being a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade. I am very glad to see my noble friend Lord Ezra, who also served on that Committee. It is well known that we drew attention to the malaise in this country and the dangerous drift towards which our manufacturing imbalance was leading us. At the end of the period of 10 months during which we sat together one of the most important matters we emphasised was the need for a change of attitude in this country—an attitude towards wealth creation and

569
the participation of all people in a new atmosphere of wealth creation which did not include only those who were employed but the unemployed and those who were going to be employed.
Attitudes have changed since we produced that report. Although several of your Lordships have referred to these terms, I am not encouraged by the slogans and catch pharases which unfortunately we are always having to tackle. These days it seems that the press and the media have to over-simplify these problems into one or two words or a phrase. I think that the "North-South divide" and the "two-nation state" are not helpful phrases. I can understand that we are nearing an election—whether it be this year or next—and the two major parties are assuming combative and confrontational postures. This is the way we carry on our affairs in this country. It is something which we on these Benches would like to see changed.
The atmosphere at the moment is creating the kind of article which we saw in the Sunday Times last Sunday and to which reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Taylor. The article began with the very curious point that no such thing as a "North-South divide—as they referred to it—existed because 150 Porsche motor cars had been sold in the Newcastle area. I find that curious not only because it is totally irrelevant to the problem of our nation—but why did they not mention Jaguar? This morning I called the public relations director of Jaguar motor cars, who told me that they too sell a vehicle for what he described as "young thrusting people". I do not know whether we have any young thrusting noble Lords in this House, but the article might well have mentioned a British car. Why mention a German car? Of course it is nonsense. Cars are bought by people who have windfalls or a lot of disposable income. This has nothing to do with the problem.
The article also drew attention to the fact that employment was being created in this country in large shopping centres in retailing and in the service area. This is so but it does not contribute to the new wealth-producing process of this country which we need fundamentally to create. That has been eroded by the disappearance of over 20 per cent. of our industrial base. We need to develop this wealth-producing process, and it can only be developed regionally because of the speed with which solutions have to be reached. The variety of solutions which have to be proposed need to be effected on a regional as well as a national basis. I have to give credit to the article. It pointed out that in one region there has been a great deal of innovation and energy to create interest and employment. Perhaps I may refer to the right reverend Prelate's biblical analogy. The underlying pathology of our problem is very complicated. How we get the arms, hands and legs together will take a great deal of ingenuity and skill on the part of not only government but of everybody in the private and public sector.
I feel that the Government have not entirely failed us in this area. It is fashionable to criticise the YTS schemes, but they have accomplished a great deal. I was talking today to the public relations officer at Jaguar. He told me that he had three sons who were successful. They achieved at school and went straight into employment. However, he had a daughter who
570
unfortunately did not achieve that level of attainment. She went to a YTS scheme, which taught her a great deal. At the end of that she developed self-confidence and was exposed to various opportunities where she could express her skills and develop her potential. She is now earning a good salary in the legal profession. I believe that there are many such instances.
We need to develop our real asset in this country: our individuals, our people, and particularly the young. The Government are on the right track but they have to recognise that there needs to be much more input from individuals in the regions. The Manpower Commission is contributing usefully with its Restart schemes and its job clubs. I believe that this will result in young people being able to express themselves, to handle their aspirations, to stop being victims and to take control of their destinies. This will help to counter the malaise to which I have referred. I hope that we shall be able to develop this subject in the future in a longer debate, because it is a vital one.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has raised a very important issue in the debate, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him for giving the House an opportunity to discuss it. I feel that I can make a very modest contribution if only because, in the past 12 years, I have spent seven years in the island of Islay in the Hebrides and five in South-East England; so to some extent I have a foot in each camp. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I must confine my remarks to Scotland because unfortunately I do not know much about northern England except when I go through it when travelling from Scotland to London.
I should begin by saying that the problem is not new, and I will give a historical illustration. One of my ancestors in the 17th century had 11 sons. He lived in Scotland, and the union with Scotland must have come at a very fortunate moment for him because, of his 11 sons, only one remained in Scotland. One of his 11 sons became Bishop of Salisbury and another the first Scottish barrister to practise at the English bar. I do not know what happened to the rest of them. One could say that it was a family success story, but not so much of a success story for Scotland which had lost a number of obviously rather talented sons. Scotland has been losing talented sons ever since, as have Ireland and Wales, and now in the North of England they are to some extent in the same predicament.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and others that Scottish nationalism is getting more support than it used to. All that I would say about that—and I have thought about the problem for a long time—is that Ireland has tried political independence, but as regards retaining its population and industry this seems to have had no effect whatsoever, good or bad.
What then is the answer? Can we give talented people what they want in their own country and in the area in which they live? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his work in the Forestry Commission and elsewhere has practically dedicated his life to the proposition that we can and that we ought to do it. He has emphasised this in what he has said today. Taking the Alliance politics out of it, I would say that I agree

571
with most of what he said. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will take serious account of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said. I have no intention of repeating it.
As to regional development boards, tourist boards, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, we have tried them all over many years and they have all in their way contributed towards the aim of giving young people work and incomes in the places where they live. This is all very commendable because no civilised country can willingly allow and connive at wholesale depopulation of large areas of its territory such as happened in the Hebrides in the last century. The Hebrides in particular is aware of depopulation, and, indeed, of dereliction. It is a continuing threat in those areas. One needs no further reminder in the Hebrides than to look at the remains of the old villages of the 18th and 19th centuries, and a few miles beyond them. Therefore, as I say, in that area the threat is not new and unfortunately continues.
The trouble is, I think, that no matter what we do—I am talking of the outlying areas, not of the industrialised areas of northern England and Scotland—it will be very difficult to stop the populations of these areas from falling. One reason I find is that, of the young people who live in remotish islands, the enterprising ones want to get out and find what the world is like. It is not much good creating a few more jobs in hotels, distilleries and so on if they are going to go away. One should try to mitigate it, slow it down, and give the people who want to stay a chance to stay.
If one takes the other side of the noble Lord's Motion, I think the movement of the population into South-East England will continue. I do not think that anyone will be able to stop it in the foreseeable future. It is part of a worldwide trend. We have only to look 300 miles away at Paris to see that the same problem is happening across the Channel.
We will also have to face the fact that people are not just going to come from remote areas into the United Kingdom. I am thinking in particular—because I have been abroad for a few weeks—of the ramshackle socialist economies of eastern Europe where people have no kind of a standard of living that anyone would put up with in this country and where they would leave if they had half a chance. Also, there is the fact that their governments are now less willing to prevent them from leaving so that we are finishing up with visa controls and such like. How long we will be effective in stopping these people from coming here and, indeed, whether we are effective at all in doing so, I do not know, but I leave that as a last thought for your Lordships.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is always very difficult to speak for a short period in a debate such as this. I believe that we are already running over time, so I shall try to allow your Lordships to recover some of the time.
One of the worries about the whole question of the North-East divide was brought home to me very forcibly recently when I attended a seminar on the Channel tunnel. I have always been very pro the idea
572
of a Channel tunnel. It may seem a strange way to begin to speak in such a debate. It was in about 1964 in another place that I made my first speech about it. In the past few months particularly I have become more and more concerned about the Channel tunnel. What originally sold it to me, I suppose, was the idea that goods would be able to be put on a train in Scotland, the North-East or the North-West of England and driven straight to Italy, Germany, France or Spain. What has become apparent to me now is that we are not really producing any goods in Scotland, North-East England or North-West England that are likely to be sent through by train in that way, so I am having serious doubts about it. I still like the idea, but to my mind the original purpose seems to have gone.
If one looks at the area that I come from, Strathclyde, the west of Scotland, where we are famed for our heavy industries, even up to 1960, 42 per cent. of our population was in heavy industries as against only 38 per cent. for the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom; so one will realise how dependent we were on heavy industries. Since 1974, a matter of 12 years or so, we have lost 20,000 jobs; 56 per cent. of the workforce in metal manufacture, 17,500, which is 56 per cent. in vehicle manufacture; 13,200, which is 42 per cent. of those previously employed in shipbuilding. In textiles there has been a reduction of 44 per cent. of the workforce, and in mechanical engineering a reduction of 53 per cent. of the workforce. That makes it very difficult for me to be enthusiastic about the possibility of our being able to make the use of the tunnel that I thought was going to be one of its major helps to the United Kingdom.
In his introductory remarks the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, spoke about the fact that we had an infrastructure in Scotland and the North of England that it would be quite wasteful in national terms to ignore; in other words, it would be wrong merely to duplicate the infrastructure that we had in the North and leave it derelict while we built up an infrastructure in the South and solved all the problems. I think it was my noble friend from Liverpool who made the point that the South will have its problems if it does not already have them, because the problems are building up seriously in the South.
In the evening Standard night after night I find that many jobs in the building industry are vacant in the South-East and people are wanted to come from the North. I know lads who come from the North. If they are young and have no commitments, they get on very well for a period because they do not need to buy a house and can live in lodgings. However, they cannot really settle down in the South-East, partly because of the incredible cost of housing. That does not mean that I am advocating that houses should be built for them; I want us to get the jobs back up in the North.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, talked about centralisation mania and in my view what he said is absolutely true. We have far too much centralisation, particularly in the South of England. We in the North do not want people to move up to the North; we want jobs to go up to the North. I must say that I believe that when my own party was in power it did not do as much as it could have done in this respect. I am not saying that this is a solution to everything but it would certainly be helpful if some of the Civil Service jobs

573
could be moved up to Scotland. I do not know what the figures are now, but I shall certainly put down a Question to ascertain them.
Some years ago I put down some Questions and discovered that if a young man or woman in the Civil Service in Scotland wished to stay and work in Scotland they needed a 70 per cent. pass in the Civil Service examination. However, if they were willing to go to Newcastle, then partly because of the big new NHS complex there they could manage with a 60 per cent. pass. But if they were willing to go to work in London they were grabbed if they had a 50 per cent. pass in the clerical examination. In fact, I believe that one could manage with considerably less.
It would be interesting if the Minister could check with his own department and find out where many of the letters for his department are typed. I think he would be surprised to find out that some are typed in Edinburgh, some in Newcastle and some in Liverpool. It seems crazy to me that with the pressure on jobs here we send letters up there to be typed. It is nationally wasteful to build up the South-East in this way. I think that is one means by which we could alleviate the problem.
However, that is only tinkering with the problem. The real problem for British industry is surely the fact that we have never spent enough on research and development and on investment. When I think of the figures for Clyde shipbuilding—the Clyde used to be the greatest river in the world for ships—I realise that Connels Yard—it has now gone and there is nothing left of it at all—spent £2 million on development and they thought that they were doing a great job. At the same time the Swedes were spending £20 million and £30 million on a single yard and we were expected to compete with that.
As a nation we have never, since the Industrial Revolution, spent enough on research and development. When matters were going well immediately after the war industrialists said that we did not need to reinvest, that everything was going well and that we were getting the orders. When the orders began to go down they said that we could not afford to invest any more, and so they did not do so.
I should like to emphasise one of the things that we must do. It is the only solution ultimately for Britain because we cannot get a solution from the City of London. The money that is being made there is fancy money or Mickey Mouse money; it is not real money. I know that the Minister will come back to that matter when he replies, but we have seen in the past few months the ridiculous situation there now is. Huge fortunes are being made, but where they are being made is beyond most of us. We must start investing in industry, and one of the ways to get out of the difficulty that Britain is undoubtedly in is certainly not to be cutting back on university and higher education where the real solutions lie.
There is no quick way out. There will be a slow build-up if Britain is ever to get back again to the position of even having a chance of decent competition with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who so admirably introduced this debate, I shall restrict my remarks to the two subjects for which I have been given specific responsibility by my party in your Lordships' House: that is, health and broadcasting and the media in general. So far only my noble friend Lord Grimond has not overrun his time. Perhaps I may try to follow him.
Taking health first, we need look no further than the Black Report on inequalities of health to see the extent to which people in the North are disadvantaged from a health point of view as against those in the South-East and in the South in general. In common justice that is something that ought to be remedied. We do not all believe in equality but I think that we all believe in equality of opportunity. Surely that means the opportunity to stay alive and perhaps the opportunity to remain fit and well. We shall not have that kind of equality of opportunity until we remedy the underlying factors—that is, the extent of unemployment, bad housing, low pay and perhaps the decaying environment in which people in the northern industrial cities have to live. It is a matter of justice.
As a matter of justice let us not forget that over the centuries the wealth of Britain has come out of the North. Surely it is time that we put some of it back. If noble Lords go up to the Pennine Hills and look out on either side of those hills they will see spread in front of them monuments to centuries of greed; monuments to taking wealth out and putting nothing back. That wealth should be put back and perhaps the people in the North can deal with it themselves if they are given the opportunity.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said, there are prosperous people in the North. The trouble is that so many of them are Londoners. When I use the term London it is customary in the Manchester sense to include Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and all points south of the Wash. However, it is the recruitment that is in London, and because recruitment is in London people are moved from London up to the provinces. They are frightened to death to start with. If they go to Mancheser they live in Prestbury or Wilmslow; if they go to Merseyside they live in perhaps Formby or the Wirral. They live in fear and trepidation of being promoted and having to move back to London again where they could not possibly sustain the same quality of life as they enjoy up there.
The problem is that those opportunities ought to be available for the people born and bred in the North. However, they are not available to them because the seat of power is down in the South and that is where posts and appointments are made. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was absolutely right. What one has to move is power and influence. He spoke of metropolitanisation. Therefore, let me deal briefly with the media and broadcasting. There is no more overmetropolitanised organisation than the BBC. The only badge of success for an employee of the BBC out in the regions is a single ticket to London. It really is time that power and influence in the BBC was moved away purely from London.

575
With regard to the Civil Service, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, talked about thousands of civil servants. Much has been done: part of the DHSS is up in Blackpool and part is in Newcastle, and so on. What is needed is not just exercises like that. One does not devolve by shifting the typing pool from the Department of Transport 30 miles up the Thames. One has to move the top people and one does not have to move many of them. If the control of the National Health Service were situated not in the Elephant and Castle but, for example, in York, then very quickly the heads of those firms which build hospitals would settle around York so as to be close to the people giving out the contracts. The people who supply the drugs—the pharmaceutical companies—would soon settle up there too. One does not need to shift a lot of people; one needs to shift a few top people. Once one does that one gives opportunities back to the North.
I date the beginning of the widening of the gulf between the North and South as stemming from the time when the Manchester Guardian stopped being the Manchester Guardian and became the Guardian and moved editorial responsibility and control down to London, because with that it moved recruitment. We would never have seen journalists like Neville Cardus or perhaps Francis Boyd if recruitment in those days had been purely in London. It is not that people in the North are better; they are just different. They do not get opportunities unless the point of recruitment is situated in the North.
Let us look at the media in general. Let us look at television. I have mentioned the BBC. The idea now is that the independent television companies should give much more of their work—it is said perhaps 40 per cent.—to independent production companies. Where are they? They are all in London. Do we want to finish up with nothing in broadcasting in the North except transmitters transmitting programmes made in London to the North? We need companies like Granada, which has left the seat of power up in the North, recruits in the North and does its work in the North. There need to be opportunities for the other smaller regional companies, Tyne-Tees, Border, Grampian and so on, to make their contribution to the network. One does not want an arrangement whereby there are more and more production companies growing up in London so that recruitment remains in London and opportunities are denied to people in the North.
I conclude by saying that we owe it to the North of Britain to put back some of the wealth which has been taken out of the North over the centuries. That is a matter of common justice. In the North we do not need hand-outs; we merely need power and influence. With that we should soon be able to put our affairs in order and also put affairs in order down in the South as well. My Lords, even the compass points North!
4.30 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, speak about the North. I spent nearly 20 years of my working life in the North starting in 1932 in Sheffield where I worked until the war. At the time I went there, one in
576
three was unemployed. Sheffield was pulled out of the slough of despond but not by government planning which, to my mind, was doing more harm than good. I suffered a 10 per cent. cut in salary which was not very welcome when I had recently married. What really cured Sheffield was war, and the preparation for war, which brought us into a state of prosperity. Perhaps we will have to have another war before we can get back to full employment.
The idea that the Government have powers to cure all these evils is hopelessly exaggerated. Any notion that we can cure or bring down unemployment by one million overnight is not only nonsense; it is dangerous nonsense. We must realise that it is not the Government who will improve the situation. They can help. But they can only do a certain amount. If the Government are so powerful, why is it that British Leyland, one of the jewels in the crown, cannot sell a car or manufacture cars that nobody wants? On the other hand, they cannot take any credit for Jaguar, now producing such a good car that people are apparently paying a £3,000 premium over the list price for early delivery.
The answer is something quite different. It is important to remember that according to the Employment Gazette issued by the Department of Employment there are more unemployed in the South of England than there are in the North. It is no good clobbering the South in order to spread misery evenly over the country. What we must do is reinforce success wherever we see it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, create wealth wherever we can find it.
I am not an industrialist. But one fact that sticks out a mile is that 215,000 vacancies in the job centres are not being filled because people lack the required skills. In the North of England there are very highly qualified people with masses of skills. But they are the wrong skills. They are the skills required in industries that have died. There is a hopeless mismatch of skills. I urge the Government to spend far more money on retraining. This must happen and the North is the place to do it. It is necessary to pay a responsible wage to people while they are being retrained in order to restore their morale.
I have spent all my life in the financial world and I can talk about that. What now clogs investment is the quite ridiculously high interest rate. It is quite scandalous. If one wants to know the real interest rate one looks in the Financial Times to see what rate of interest industrial institutions are prepared to pay on indexed Government stock. It is 3 per cent. or less, That is the real rate. Taking inflation at 3½ per cent. the base rate ought to be 6½ per cent. and not 11 per cent. With industry having to pay probably 12, 13 or 14 per cent. for money in competition with something of the order of 4½ per cent. in Germany, it is possible to see what an enormous disadvantage this represents.
Quite apart from the international disadvantage, I invite the House to consider a company such as GEC which has at times accumulated a billion pounds in cash. All it has to do is put that on the market and earn 10 per cent., taking no risk and doing nothing but look at it. What incentive, frankly, has that company to invest in new enterprises which no doubt carry a high risk and where there is no possible adequate return for

577
at least five years with the result that shareholders lose possibly £500 million? If interest rates were reduced, the situation would be quite different.
When I returned from the war, the Bank rate was 2 per cent. In the first five years when we started ICFC, the International Commercial Finance Corporation, all the money was borrowed from the banks at 2 per cent. That enabled us to start small businesses and growth businesses on the basis of 3½ or 4 per cent. The company with which I was concerned issued irredeemable preference shares at 3½ per cent. Something has to be done. It may require international co-operation. I do not know quite what the answer is although if I had more time I could give some possible solutions. If the Government have thrown in the towel in order to protect our foreign exchange rate, heaven help us.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, first of all I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his comment that the Government's powers in this matter are grossly exaggerated. I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, when he said that we do not just want hand-outs. The fact of the matter is that all countries have negative passive regions. Passivity is everywhere exaggerated by two factors. One is the migration of labour-intensive industry to where labour is cheaper. Secondly, there is the consequential freezing up of local entrepreneurial, enterprising skills. All governments, irrespective of party and whether or not they are planners or marketeers, if I may use the term, try to hold the advancing desert at bay. They all try to do so by pumping in activity centres (growth centres as they are called) and infrastructure in an endeavour to make water run uphill.
I refer to Scotland because that is where I belong. What has been done during almost 40 years since 1950 is quite astonishing in terms of infrastructure. At Thurso we have had Dounreay—the Atomic Energy Authority; at Inverness the HIDB; at Fort William the pulp mill; at Dundee a Technology Park; at Bathgate the British Motor Corporation; at Grangemouth and Mossmorran petrochemicals. No fewer than four new towns have been created and no fewer than three new universities have been set up in addition to the five already there.
A motorway network has been developed at great cost with some flamboyant bridges—the Forth Bridge, the Tay Bridge, the Kessock Bridge, the Cromarty Firth Bridge and even a causeway over the Kyle of Tongue. Three international airports have been developed. I approve of this development. But it has all been done for the sake of a population equivalent to half that of London, a population which is one-tenth of that of the United Kingdom—5 million all told.
Still this is not enough. It has not stopped the rot. There is no sign of Scotland developing the atmosphere and the spirit and the go, go, go enthusiasm of Hong Kong or Singapore. The reaction is more like that of the Falklands. The real question is how to regenerate the spirit.
I have only three suggestions. Nationally-based wage bargaining has proved a disincentive to the development of industry and business in the passive
578
regions. I well remember that when BMC came to Bathgate the cry went up from trade unions—I have been a trade unionist: I am not against them at all—"We will not let them push our wages down; we will stick out for the highest wages we can get". I am sure that national wage bargaining is a real disincentive to development of the passive regions.
Secondly, local authority power to milk business and industry by means of rates is a disaster. I hope that the Government's studies of the rating problem—we are well aware that this is very much in the forefront of Government's thinking—will take due account of the principle (and I should like to establish the principle) that the power to make rates for business and industry should be a national power and that business rates should be graded according to areas of opportunity or passivity.
The third point worth looking at is the treatment of tax and in other ways of the companies exploring for and developing oil and natural gas. They still have a great future in the North Sea and elsewhere. The Government have many ways of leaning on those companies, and do not hesitate to twist their arms in all sorts of directions, particularly for the promotion of research.
The Government could very well apply a differential system for the levying of royalties on oil and gas developed from the Continental Shelf, and make the diminution—shall I say?—of royalty takings a reward for the creation of work in the workless areas.
The problem is terribly simple yet terribly difficult. It is, first of all, how to make water run uphill. That is what this is all about. The second thing is how to elicit intitiative of the Hong Kong/Singapore style rather than the, I have to say, supine negative attitude that is exhibited—shall we say?—in the Falklands.
I believe that this Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, are tackling the business of restoring incentives for individual enterprise. I believe that that is the key. I also appreciate the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, opened this debate by saying that it is common ground that in the strength of the economy lies the key to the whole problem.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for initiating the debate. I come from a region of the country, the north-west region of Lancashire, which has boasted over the years of the way in which it has contributed towards the national wealth of the country. We are a proud people. We do not come before the Government at this time with a begging bowl in our hands, but we come asking for what we think is right and due to us, because so much has been taken away over the years.
Let me remind your Lordships of the position as it was, and as it is, in the town whose name I bear in my title, Blackburn. Prior to the 1914–18 war Blackburn was the largest weaving centre in the world, with 80 per cent. of its population employed in the textile industry. Over the years change has taken place, and now we are down to roughly 1½ per cent. of the working

579
population being employed in textiles. From 80 per cent. to 1½ per cent. is a big jump.
Your Lordships will remember that shortly after the last war one of the slogans that the Government were using was, "The nation's bread hangs by Lancashire's thread". This was commonly used throughout Lancashire to encourage people to go into textiles. But of course shortly afterwards the developing nations of the world started to use their own textiles, so that Blackburn and towns such as Burnley, Accrington and Colne and all the east Lancashire valley changed from textiles and went into light engineering and also electronics.
At the same time that this was taking place—and this change was a revolution—we in the local authorities were changing too. We were renewing our schools, because most of them at that time were old, Victorian-type schools; and it can be said that over this period schools changed along with industry changing. We realised in education that we had to look at new technology. We have built new technical colleges, and now we have a polytechnic in Lancashire at Preston. All these are making a contribution, but we still face the difficulty of a population that is getting elderly, that is ageing. A lot of our younger people no longer can stay because there are not the jobs. Years ago a lot of them got on their bikes and left.
Also what happened was that when our own people were not going into the textile industry a lot of immigrants came into the textile industry. When the industry went they had nowhere to go, and so they are still left there. Statistics prove that the growth in population is with the ethnic minority. If the ethnic minority go on increasing as they are doing at the present time, they will by the end of this century become the majority in north-east Lancashire, creating problems.
My colleagues in the teaching profession who teach these children at the ages of 14 to 16 see depression written over their faces because they know that there are no jobs for them when they leave school. They know that they cannot get on their bikes and go. They know that they have nothing facing them at all. All the problems come from this, and they grow. These are the difficulties.
In such a short debate time does not permit us to do justice to this subject. It is difficult, because one would like to quote figures and bring in all kinds of arguments to prove our case. We believe in partnership. We believe in partnership with government, industry, local authorities and the churches, because the churches have played an important part in the growth and improvement within the area. But we cannot do this if one partner does not realise its responsibility, and the partner that we want to realise their responsibility are the Government.
We want the Government not just to lay out money on wasted schemes, but we want to improve our infrastructure. We want to improve our drainage system and our housing stock. These are things we rely on and things we cannot do on our own. Therefore I plead in this debate for the Government to look again at the regions and try to work out some system and some help to enable us to go forward as one nation. We
580
do not want any division. We want to be part and parcel of the United Kingdom. Therefore we appeal to the Government to see and recognise the problems that we are facing.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe in the admirable way in which he introduced this Motion took an objective view of the situation, which has indeed been followed by all other noble Lords who have spoken. It is important that one avoids exaggeration in this difficult situation. To claim that all that is North is in great difficulty and recession is as wrong as to claim that everything in the South is doing very well. What we need to do is to be selective in our understanding of this situation and find the measures within the total economy of the country that will resolve the problem areas.
In order to find the measure of the situation it is important to look at different industrial sectors as well as at different geographical areas. I took as an example the sector of construction—it is one in which I happen to be personally involved—and I therefore contacted the Building Employers' Confederation to get their view on the situation in so far as their industry was concerned. They told me that in their latest quarterly survey they considered that the building industry as a whole has begun to recover from the 1980–81 recession, but that nevertheless there were some inequalities.
For the most part this recovery had been in the private building sector, in house building and in industrial and commercial work. There had been a continuing fallback in the workload in the public sector, noticeably in housing repairs, which I viewed with some alarm in view of the many reports we have had about the poor state of the housing stock in the public sector.
However, the main feature which emerged from their last survey was the continuing gap between the activity of their members in the North and the South. That was illustrated by the fact that their northern firms reporting work at full capacity came to only 32 per cent., whereas in the South it was over 50 per cent. That was associated with an even more disturbing feature because in the North 56 per cent. reported no difficulty in recruiting building labour—that is bricklayers, carpenters and joiners—but in the South only 27 per cent. were in this category. In other words, 73 per cent. of building firms in the South currently have recruitment difficulties.
This is a most unfortunate state of affairs. Natural market forces, far from correcting this, appear to be adding to the problem. The demand is growing in the South and the building firms are finding it difficult to satisfy the demand. The demand is reduced in the North and they have adequate access to skilled labour. So here is a major issue to which we should be addressing ourselves. In the limited time available I cannot quote any other examples, but many have been mentioned during the course of this debate to illustrate the nature of the difficulties between North and South that exists today.
I believe that we need to take much more vigorous action, in spite of all the efforts so far made. What

581
worries me slightly about the solutions being attempted at the moment is that there are so many of them. There are a large number of initiatives—Government inspired, privately inspired or jointly inspired—all very admirable and worthy, but there is a degree of duplication and there is a degree of difficulty in knowing which ones are likely to go forward.
I must say that I was very impressed by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who suggested that perhaps we should concentrate the effort in a structural and sectoral way in different areas, bringing these areas' initiatives together in order to replace by careful selection industries which, by the evolution of time, are going out with those that are coming in. Therefore what I suggest, to sum up in the short time available—and I am giving my successors another two minutes—is, first, that we look at this problem objectively and see what the specific problems are; and, secondly, that we seek to co-ordinate the many initiatives at present being taken to resolve them.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I spoke on this matter during the economic debate on the Address and again, with your Lordships' indulgence and by sleight of hand on my part, I confess, in the debate on the Canary Wharf railway. I will try not to repeat what I said then, or indeed what has been so well put today in so many of your Lordships' speeches. I particularly do not want to go back on what I said about Teesside last autumn, because I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said on that matter today.
I think it has appeared today, and indeed on other evidence, to be a gross oversimplification to speak about a North-South divide. But what is quite clear is that there are pockets of stagnating economy in parts of the country, mainly in aggregate in the North, and pockets of vital, moving economy, mainly in the South. The stagnating economies are mainly those of the old manufacturing industries. I so much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about that; and that should condition our approach.
However, what one gets is not only stagnation in parts but also a seething increase in economic activity in other parts, which is almost as dangerous. To those of us who remember the late 1940s and 1950s it calls to mind a boiling labour market, resulting in economic inefficiency. There was a shortage of skilled labour, resulting in what were popularly called at the time bottlenecks. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to that and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has also just referred to it. Those I think are equally dangerous economically: stagnation and a boiling economy, with a not sufficient trained labour force, quite apart from the social evils which have been dealt with today so admirably, notably by the right reverend Prelate.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I do not argue every point but rather state the conclusions which seem to me to have been established by other noble Lords. It seems to me there are certain incorrect and inappropriate measures to take. We should view with considerable reserve any proposals to raise vast new sums by new borrowing. The reason for that is
582
that borrowing keeps interest rates up, and the more you borrow the more you have to maintain your interest rates and the more you postpone bringing them down. That point, again, was made by my noble friend Lord Seebohm. The second point is this. It is no use trying to prop up a declining industry which is in a secular decline. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned textiles. The prime example of that was under the Weimar Republic, where money was poured into trying to keep up a declining textile industry at the expense of new industries, with the result that the economic recession hit Weimar Germany far harder than elsewhere.
I entirely agree with the approach of those of your Lordships—it is also that of the Government—who say that what we need is to replace these industries which are in secular decline with the new high-tech industries. At that point, as will be clear in a moment, I have to part company with the Government because it is clearly the policy of the Secretary of State for Employment—and I put this forward specifically in the employment debate—to relax planning controls in the South-East with the aim of making it easier for new high-tech industries to establish themselves there. That seems to me precisely contrary to what the proper planning approach should be.
It is quite true, as has been said, that by inhibiting development in the South-East you do not necessarily promote it in the North or elsewhere in these other stagnating areas. You do not necessarily do so, but you tend to do so. What you also do is avoid the shortage of skilled labour that was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Ezra. You dampen down the economy where it is overboiling and you tend to promote it where it needs stimulation.
The other matter of which one should be very wary—this was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale—is government intervention. The fact remains that even the most non-interventionist government—and the present Government are more non-interventionist than any since the war—intervene massively in the economy. One has only to think of the spin-off that will come from the Channel tunnel if it is built, involving great government expenditures even if the Channel tunnel itself is privately financed.
Then there are the universities. I thought that the decision to close university courses in the North, to the advantage of the South, was simply deplorable and quite inexplicable, except on the basis that there was no co-ordination of regional policy in the Government. On the contrary, I so agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford—
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way for one second? I think the House might like to remind the noble and learned Lord that time is of the essence.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry that I have overrun my time. Perhaps I may just draw attention to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Sefton and Lord Carmichael, as well as by other noble Lords, about our policy of concentrating government in London, giving a London weighting, so as to make it more difficult to devolve it, instead of sending it to the provinces.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to start by giving the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, top marks for topicality, but, if I was correct in understanding him to be adding his voice to those who see this as a North-South issue, low marks for diagnosis.
My responsibility in these matters is as chairman of the South-East Regional Planning Conference, comprising the 32 London boroughs, the 12 home counties and the 92 shire districts in those counties. To do our work we have to do as my noble friend Lord Elliott said you had to do and look underneath the regional statistics. If you do that, you see something quite different from a North-South issue. You see what my noble friend Lord Brentford described as the world's first industrial nation still undergoing major and painful structural change in all its parts—North, South, East and West. It is not a North-South divide. To think, and still more to act, as though it was greatly hampers and inhibits proper treatment.
Perhaps I may illustrate as briefly as I can the point that I have just made. South Tyneside is a metropolitan borough of 158,000 people, suffering from our decline in the share of the world's shipbuilding. It has 16,000 unemployed. A comparable borough in London, Tower Hamlets, has 145,000 people and, suffering from the total disappearance of the London docks it has the same unemployment figure, 16,000. St. Helens, riddled with dereliction from the early days of the Industrial Revolution, has unemployment of 14,000. Islington, an almost exactly comparable borough in London, has unemployment of 17,000, slightly higher. Calderdale, better known as Halifax, one of the textile metropolitan boroughs which the right reverend Prelate mentioned earlier, has unemployment running at 10,000. An almost exactly comparable borough in size in London, Hackney, has double the unemployment. Unemployment is what concerns us most and that is why I have been deploying those particular arguments based on unemployment statistics.
But other people will look to the home counties and say how affluent they are compared with other places in the North. I ask your Lordships to take Surrey and a factor of affluence—home ownership. Home ownership is high in Surrey but it is higher still in the proud county of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lancashire. Let us take qualifications in higher education. It will be years before the people living in the boroughs of east London and the shire counties further down the Thames catch up with the level that has been reached by Newcastle. They are about three times lower. Let us take the ethnic minorities, with all their disadvantages. They are far more heavily concentrated in London than in the North. The figure is three times what it is in Manchester and twice what it is in West Yorkshire.
I ask your Lordships to consider the condition of the housing stock. It is a major factor in the matters which we are discussing. One-third of all the unfit houses in the whole country are in London, and whereas in the rest of England the amount of unfit housing is gradually falling, in London the stock is deteriorating rapidly.
584
That is the diagnosis and now to the remedies. I first want to agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale that the first thing is to avoid giving the impression that the Government and regional policy can do very much. They can do a great deal to make matters more difficult but they cannot do a great deal to make them better. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, much more lies within the human spirit itself. The most effective remedy comes into play when more people come to the view, and then act on it, that the revival of their fortunes and those of their neighbourhood lies to a very large extent in their own hands.
But of course there are things that can be done by policy and planning and by local authorities and central government. In the South-East the strands of policy which our members are pursuing (all within their own region) are these. The first is the renewal of the infrastructure and improvement of the housing stock, which is getting worse at the moment, in the inner city boroughs. The work that is being done in the docklands is good, but it is nothing like enough. It is a matter primarily for the local authorities. Then there is the retraining of the labour force, as my noble friend Lord Elliott and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said. Until you do that, it is very difficult for much else to happen. Next we seek to encourage development in the east of the region, particularly on the eastern banks of the Thames estuary, and linked with that to make the most of the opportunities provided by the completion of the M.25—not, I hasten to say, by allowing development in the green belt.
None of that planning activity does anything, I submit, to make life more difficult for the other regions. It is quite true that the Channel tunnel, which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and others have mentioned, provides an opportunity to do something for the other regions. Members of conference have just encouraged me to write to the Secretary of State for Transport pointing out that it would be quite wrong for the Channel tunnel to be designed in such a way as to give all the benefits to the South-East. It must be designed in such a way as to enable goods, traffic and passengers arriving to disperse throughout the kingdom.
Finally, I should like to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Grimond, that one of the things we suffer from is an overcentralised system of government. I should like to commend as a defence against that the existence, from which we have benefited for 20 years in the South-East, of a regional planning conference. During the passage of the London government legislation and the Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties, I urged upon the House and on the Government the adoption of this happy arrangement in other parts of the country. That fell on deaf ears at the time. I repeat it again because I think that if the party political divisions and the divisions between the shire counties and the metropolitan boroughs can be overcome and conferences of this kind formed, it will help to press forward the matters which are being discussed this afternoon.
5.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Companion to the Standing Orders gives me approximately one and a half minutes to speak. I hope that the Minister will be able to use a red pencil to give me something closer to the five minutes to which I might otherwise have been entitled. I shall waste a little time in congratulating most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on his initiative. He must be pleased at the standard in this debate as well as at the number of interventions.
I suspect that my colleagues put me up to reply from the Dispatch Box in this debate as a Londoner and that in doing so they thought that it would be possible for me, from the prosperous South, to be generous to the deprived regions of the North. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has effectively demolished that argument. Indeed, the statistics which have been produced since the topic for debate was put down have reinforced his points very clearly.
In London, since this Government came to power unemployment has increased by 242 per cent., and in the South-East as a whole it has increased by 224 per cent. Differences in gross domestic product per head are not only great between London and other parts of the country but are actually increasing. The GDP per head in London is 125 per cent. of the national average. Generally speaking, it can be said that the pattern of prosperity as well as patterns of employment and unemployment give no support to the simplified ideas of a North-South divide which have to some extent been current.
That is not to say that things are not desperately bad in many parts of the country. The evidence for that comes from the Government's own report to the European Communities in the form of its regional development programme for 1986 to 1990. I shall take only a few examples from the Government's own analysis of regional problems. In the North-East a loss of 200,000 jobs since 1978 is noted. That is almost one in five of the workforce. Almost half the unemployed have been unemployed for more than two years. The report uses the phrase "bleak job prospects".
In Bradford the industrial infrastructure,
"was built to serve 19th century manufacturing industry and is largely unsuited to modern needs".
In Humberside the fishing industry has been devastated by the European Community's common fisheries policy. According to the European Community's second periodic report, Merseyside is the fifth most disadvantaged region in the Community of Ten.
I shall skip over the other regions of which equally devastating things could be said. As regards Scotland, noble Lords will not like what is said as Scotland is described as,
"one of the most peripheral areas in Great Britain".
Lord Lurgan: My Lords, England is peripheral to Scotland!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it depends on your point of view, does it not? However, after a horrific survey of many particular areas in Scotland,
586
the conclusion about the Orkneys and Shetland is that they now require more permanent jobs, as opposed to temporary oil-related jobs. That is indeed the case and the issue of the temporal and the short-term nature of oil industry related jobs must be referred to.
What is the response of the Government to these problems? Coming to the section on financial resources, we find that the Government almost entirely opt out of serious responsibility for the problems of the regions of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the overlapping of measures put forward by government and their consequent inefficacy. However, the fundamental point is that the Government think that,
"expenditure is responsive to the applications made for the various forms of assistance available".
What that means is that the Government are not prepared to put the money there in the first place. They are simply prepared to produce limited measures and then be satisfied if the response from individual employers and individual local authorities is not adequate. The Government are quite honest in saying that they take account of expected European Regional Development Fund receipts when planning public expenditure and that if it were not for the European Regional Development Fund, expenditure would be lower than it is at the present time.
This is not the attitude of a government who really care for the economic prosperity of our country, despite the fact that the report says:
"Regional prosperity cannot be achieved in the absence of national prosperity".
That is the fundamental fact that we have to face. With a government whose idea of economic policy is to strip away our national assets by privatisation and to use up the temporary benefits of oil-related industries in the form of tax cuts rather than in the form of investment in our infrastructure; whose idea of economic policy (and I wish the late Lord Kaldor were here to say this more effectively than I can) is to allow interest rates to be at a level that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, rightly referred to; in a society and economy where we have insane capital and currency movements between different countries—my Lords, I must be allowed to finish my sentence as I have taken much less than the time I was supposed to take—and where there is gambling in place of economic policy, can it be any surprise to this House that our economy is in the state that it is?
5.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord opposite for breaking in. I have a feeling that the Clerk may very well break in on me in mid-sentence and I therefore feel obliged so to do.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in his opening remarks should have spoken immediately of two nations. Indeed, I believe that in his closing remarks he talked himself precisely into the depression which other noble Lords have been at great pains to lift us out of this afternoon. I do not believe that second time lucky in the ballot is necessarily to his good fortune.

587
I think it is with a certain canniness that he picked this subject area. I thought he put down the Motion extremely carefully. It is:
"To call attention to the situation which arises from the difference between the prosperity",
and so on. The Government have never denied the existence of differences between the North and the South, the East and the West, and various other parts of the country. Of course there are differences; to deny that would be to deny our very history. Our nation has developed over hundreds of years and different parts have been influenced and affected by different factors at different times. The resulting variations between different parts of the country are of several kinds. There are economic differences, cultural differences, geographical differences and social differences.
Much is currently being said about the run-down of the North, but particularly in this noble House we must not fall into the trap of oversimplifying the problem and concluding that a simple solution is available. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested that there exists a trap of oversimplification and that the media sometimes fall into it. There is no simple solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, spoke about his part of the country. I believe that the North of the country has an awful lot going for it. In the late 1960s I worked up there in Blackburn, Burnley and Bolton. I found there a people hard-working, industrious and proud. I believe that they remain so and are ready to work when the opportunity presents itself. I am certainly not blind to the problems. However, I see no grounds for some of the pessimism that has been expressed this afternoon.
There is much for government to do, especially in creating the overall climate of economic and fiscal policies conducive to the prosperity of all parts of Britain, a point to which several noble Lords referred. However, the Government cannot do everything. Much depends on the contribution of the wealth-creating sector of the economy, especially the private sector. Given co-operation among all the parties, a great deal can be achieved.
Indeed I cite an example in the Garnock Valley in North Ayrshire. Through the combined efforts of central government, the Scottish Development Agency, the British Steel Corporation, district and regional councils and local industry, some 800 new jobs have been created and many more have been safeguarded. The co-operation involved in this programme of regeneration has successfully served as a model for other areas, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, in his call for partnership among all the interested people. Such co-operation is important whether it is for that kind of activity or for some of the others which he described.
Heavy industries such as coalmining, steel, shipbuilding and textiles were all pioneers of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the radically different circumstances of the late 1970s and the 1980s their fortunes have changed. Changes in demand patterns, in productivity and in technology have affected all of them, I add not only in this country but worldwide. Inevitably the changes
588
have impacted on the geographical areas where such industries flourished and were traditionally concentrated. Their legacy, however, is such that the necessary changes cannot be accomplished overnight and certainly not within the timescale of a single government.
The right reverend Prelate acknowledged that to try to resurrect dead or dying industries located in the North or elsewhere would not help resolve our problems. We cannot go back. We cannot reintroduce outdated practices or outdated machinery. We have to look forward, not in the short-term but over a very much longer time frame. The answer cannot be reindustrialisation as we have known it but there has to be some alternative. We must look at our various strengths and determine how best to harness them to maximum advantage—and that means, I would argue, to the advantage of the nation as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and my noble friend Lord Sandford expressed the view that central government could do only a limited amount. What is the role that central government should play? It certainly is not a simple matter of drawing a line between the South-East of England on the one hand, and the rest of Britain on the other; nor of drawing a line dividing North and South, or indeed any other lineal division, such as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, attempted to draw. Other noble Lords referred to the problem in those terms. It does not work that way.
I am certainly not prepared to divide the country into North and South, though some commentators may well be so bold as to do so. There are great variations even between the regions. My noble friend Lord Sandford illustrated the black-spot problems across a wide band of the country. He drew some parallels with a series of figures. There are variations even within the regions, let alone between them. I shall give one example. One can compare an area of high unemployment such as Liverpool with Macclesfield, where unemployment is similar to that of the South-East.
The North is certainly not a huge barren waste. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth described a few of the newly attracted enterprises and by the example of Derwentside indicated how he thought the problems could be better faced and better met. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in an extremely balanced contribution pointed to some of the areas in the southern part of the country that have problems.
I have been able to outline the complexity of the problems. Inevitably the solutions, too, are complex. There are many aspects—housing, health, education, training and industrial policies. Not one can be taken separately. All are integral to any solution and to the formation of any policy that has to be constructed. Therefore they have to be seen as a whole.
I mentioned housing. We are dealing with this problem through a number of programmes. For those areas with special social needs we have developed the urban programme, with the aim of securing economic regeneration, improving the physical environment and encouraging local initiatives to the benefit of the whole community. An example is our new urban development corporation initiative. Four new urban

589
development corporations, in Manchester, Teeside, Tyne and Wear and the Black Country, have been set up to tackle dereliction and to regenerate urban areas. Each UDC will spend between £100 million and £160 million over the next six years. There are very successful employment measures. There is the community programme designed to improve the long-term employment prospects of participants. There is the enterprise allowance scheme, job release, new workers, adult and youth training schemes and others. The Manpower Services Commission is spending, roughly speaking, twice as much per head of the labour force, which includes the unemployed, in the North as it is in the South. I can hear critics saying that these measures do not create jobs and are of little benefit. I say that those critics are wrong. Ridicule the measures they may, but let nobody doubt that they are working.
Much publicity has been given in the press to the new government job figures illustrating just how bad the situation is. There is always a danger of quoting figures in isolation, and this is no exception. First, and very importantly, the 1984 census of employment does not take account of all jobs. It excludes the self-employed whose numbers have grown by 800,000 since 1979. Secondly, since 1983 the picture has improved greatly, with more than 1 million new jobs in total being created in the country, one-third, incidentally, in the North.
The third point is that the average percentage of those becoming unemployed who find jobs within the first six months is little different between those in the South-East and any other region. I think it is worth noting, perhaps in parenthesis and since much attention has been drawn to the so-called wealth of the South-East, that the South-East supports the economies of the less prosperous areas. That support is considerable. With over one-third of England's manufacturing industry by employment and GDP 17 per cent. above the national average, the South-East has considerable wealth-creating capacity, and that gives some support to the less prosperous areas.
During the past two-and-a-half years I and my colleagues have travelled a great deal overseas encouraging inward investment and we have received a number of delegations from other countries about the possibilities of setting up factories in the United Kingdom. I know from these discussions that grants are often low down in their order of priorities. Other considerations before how much grant come first—the stability of the workforce, the investment regime, financial exchange controls, transport infrastructure, and so on. However good the answers may be, one thing is quite clear. We cannot drag companies to the North or to any other part of the United Kingdom if they do not want to go. What we can do is make sure that all the constitutent parts needed to ensure the expansion of industry, wherever it chooses to locate, are there. I believe that we are doing that.
Some people have suggested that the changes we announced in 1984 to the regional policy amounted to sounding the death knell. That is a nonsense. The Government recognise the need for there to be a reduction in regional disparities in employment opportunities on a stable and long-term basis. We remain firmly committed to a regional policy which
590
gives the best value possible from the considerable amounts of money which we are spending.
I would be quite wrong if I did not draw attention this afternoon to the announcement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today made in another place with regard to the Government's plans for expenditure on regional incentives in 1987–88. The provision has been set at £419 million—an increase of £36 million on the provisions contained in last year's public expenditure White Paper. I should like to spend more time on that point but I merely draw the attention of your Lordships to it and advise that a press release is available in the Printed Paper Office.
I have listened with great interest to all the points made by noble Lords this afternoon. Many points have been made about what is or is not happening or what should happen in the other regions. I very much regret that there is not sufficient time for me to answer every noble Lord. We believe that we can talk ourselves into a state of depression. It is quite wrong to talk, or even to think, about a divided nation. We are one nation. We always have been and always will be. That differences do exist and may well continue to exist is unfortunate. However, I think I have demonstrated that, while we recognise these differences and the problems, we are convinced that our economic and industrial policies are the right ones to produce long-term solutions for the nation as a whole.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister have a word for Wales, if only goodbye?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, I have to say that the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed and I must ask the noble Lord whether he desires to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords from all sides, both critics and supporters, who have participated in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

International Institutions: Britain's Commitment
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to call attention to changes in Britain's commitment to international institutions, and to the consequences for Britain's influence on world affairs and the prospects for peaceful co-operation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Ever since men began to live together attempts have been made through various agencies to develop means of cooperation between them. Right from the days of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia attempts have been made, sometimes by force, to collect people together into co-operative units. The great Mediterranean civilisations of Greece and Rome followed the same

591
type of endeavour—again, often with the use of force but not always—with the objective of getting communities to live and work together. The same kind of events were happening in India and China at the same time.
Following that period there were the great Arab empires, also around the Mediterranean and stretching into Asia. Moreover, one should not forget—and many people in this country either do forget or never knew—that the same kind of progression was developing in Africa at the same time. There were empires in Africa. There were the empires of Ghana, of Songhai Mali and Monomatapa. All these endeavours were to get people, by some means or other, to work together for single aims. They were all supranational endeavours.
Perhaps the best and most successful of these attempts can be seen as that of Latin Christendom in Europe during what are called the European Middle Ages—a common language, a common faith, a common church, movement across boundaries and a common community. At the same time so was Islam endeavouring to achieve the same objectives around North Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula. The same attempts were being made during that period in Asia.
However, in the 16th century there was a development which still continues and which constantly threatens the attempts to get communities to work together. I refer to the development or concept of the sovereign state. So we find that there followed a period in which the world was largely under the domination of great powers such as the Iberians, the Dutch, the British, the French, the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans and the Russians with very little attempt to develop any form of international co-operative movement.
After the Napoleonic wars there was a specific attempt in Europe—perhaps the first specific endeavour made in modern times—to get a form of international order and a form of international law. Following the Congress of Vienna and its succeeding congresses, what was known as the Concert of Europe was established. It did not last, but it was attempted. One could perhaps also say that of the Berlin conference later in the century although that had a different characteristic and a different dimension in that it was largely based on the division of the Western world between the European imperial powers. However, there was again an attempt to get some form of order accepted between them.
So we come to our modern organisations: first, the League of Nations after the First World War, and then the United Nations—both of them with many weaknesses and many mistakes, but nonetheless human organisations. The case that I want to argue tonight is that with all their faults, all their weaknesses and all their mistakes those are the types of institution which alone can save mankind for a healthy future.
Nor should one forget that since the end of the war, when the United Nations was established, there have been other attempts on a regional basis, such as the Organization of African Unity, the European Community, the Organization of African States and the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, to bring
592
people together for common objectives. I suggest that out of this history one can identify a specific choice between mutuality and polarity, between co-operation and conflict. I believe that that is the choice that lies before mankind today.
In our own generation we have seen the large nations of Europe and the Atlantic bound together in a military alliance, which was unfortunately all too quickly broken at the end of the war. Yet out of that alliance there arose the United Nations, which was again an attempt to establish international law and to establish an organisation in which disputes, quarrels and conflicts could be settled internationally rather than on the basis of national sovereignty. Unfortunately that hope very soon deteriorated into the cold war and into the concept, which I believe the Government have taken up much too readily, that the world is divided between two super powers who are the determinants of everything important that happens in the world.
However, if one looks back over the past 20 years, does one not see that this bipolarity has been crumbling ever since the 1960s? During the 1970s the word detente became not only popular but realistic for the first time since the cold war began. One can mark this period with successes in understanding, partial though they may be, between the major powers: at Helsinki in 1975 and at Reykjavik in 1986. Despite the coming together in understanding of the two great super powers to an extent never seen since before the cold war, there are still in the world those strong forces which, in American parlance, believe in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which in America is commonly and rightly known as MAD.
So far as concerns the United Nations, I speak with the full authority of the Labour Party, of which I am a member, because the Labour Party has written into its constitution pledges supporting the international idea and the United Nations in particular. I shall quote just one of the key objectives as stated in the constitution; namely, to:
"Support the United Nations Organisation and its various agencies, and other international organisations for the promotion of peace; the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration; the establishment and defence of human rights; and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world".
I believe that that declaration represents not just a pious hope but the international character of the British Labour movement.
However, it has too frequently seemed that the Government have been reluctant to accept (and sometimes they have downright sabotaged) institutions of international endeavour; yet they have accepted the concept of super power division of the world and have increasingly hung on to the coat-tails of the United States. For example, the specialised agencies of the United Nations, which are of major importance—and I have frequently raised the issue of the International Fund for Agricultural Development as a good example—have been neglected and starved of funds and yet these agencies are the basic agencies for development, humanitarianism and emergency relief in the world.
And what about the peace-keeping force? The United Nations was set up also to keep the peace. Why

593
are there no peace-keeping forces? Why has it never been suggested? Why have the British Government never taken the initiative to suggest that there ought to be a peace-keeping force—perhaps more than one peace-keeping force—in Southern Africa to protect our friends in the front line states against the constant attacks and sabotage from South Africa? Similarly, in Central America, why has there not been any attempt made to mobilise a peace-keeping force to protect the people of Nicaragua?
I cannot go through the whole history of the Government's relations with the United Nations, but it is obvious to anyone who follows that history that frequently this Government have flouted the decisions of the General Assembly. Moreover, Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council, and ten times in five years, from 1981 to 1986, the Government have used the veto on Security Council resolutions, usually on Southern Africa.
Then, what can be said about UNESCO? It was a sad day in the history of this country when the Government took Britain out of UNESCO, which was one of the major attempts made to collect together education, science and culture throughout the world on an international basis. The Government followed the example of the Reagan Administration: But there was a more menacing dimension that came into the decision to withdraw from UNESCO, and I refer particularly to the work of the Heritage Foundation. Two years ago some of us met Gough Whitlam, the former Prime Minister of Australia, who was then the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, and the stories that he told us—all of them corroborated—of the work of the Heritage Foundation in persuading leading politicians and the media in this country to withdraw from UNESCO make reading that could have been written by John Le Carré.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Heritage Foundation in the United States, which urged President Reagan to speed up the arms race, to end disarmament talks with the Soviet Union, to increase paramilitary action against foreign governments and to defy SALT II is an organisation that has its own associated organisation in this country; namely, the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies. Those stories of wining and dining and the pressures brought to bear on leading politicians and media personnel in this country over UNESCO is something that I believe the Government should look at very closely because that infant organisation in this country is accepted by the Charity Commissioners as a charity.
The British Government have equally refused to sign the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Why? Surely that convention is based upon a fair share of the wealth of the sea bed. Is that not a worthy international objective? Is it not crucial for this country's future economic prosperity which depends upon international co-operation?
What about the Commonwealth? The Conservative Party used to claim to be the major supporter of the Commonwealth. Let us look at what has happened over the past year. There was Nassau. In a minority of one, or perhaps with one or two satellites supporting them against the whole weight of opinion in the Commonwealth, the Government disagreed with the
594
imposition of sanctions on South Africa. There was a rejection of the Commonwealth's proposition for changes in the world's financial institutions and a rejection of the report of the Eminent Persons Group, which Nassau set up.
It is a similar case with the EC. There was similar opposition to the weight of opinion favouring the use of sanctions to undermine the policy of apartheid. Surely the Government will agree that there is a crying and ever-increasing need for international action in the world in which we live for global arms control, for the control of environmental pollution, acid rain, lead in petrol, radioactive discharge and industrial effluent. After Chernobyl, surely the need for international action is apparent to everyone. It is needed to face the debt crisis which shapes not just the third world but a great deal of the developed economy; to meet the famine conditions which have spread throughout Africa and parts of Asia over the past five years; for the task of economic reconstruction and particularly for the finding of jobs when 16 million people are out of work in the EC (6 million under the age of 25); and for the provision of technology and equipment not just for the third world but to help international recovery.
What have the Government done about that when a quarter of the world's population is living in poverty? They have cut aid during their lifetime by 20 per cent. They refuse to give any extra aid to combat the African famine; they reject the two Brandt Commission reports prepared by highly distinguished international economists and politicians, and they have done nothing about one of the central issues of the economic weakness in the world—the varying price of commodities.
Our generation faces a challenge which has never had to be faced before by mankind—just the pace of change. It could well be that the pace of change is so rapid that man will not be able to provide the answers quickly enough for his self-preservation. It could be that by mistake, miscalculation, accident or madness our nuclear age could end the existence of mankind on this planet. The only protection against those dangers is the mutuality in mankind's history of which I have spoken. It is essential for survival. Polarity, conflict and competition between sovereign nation states and insistence on national sovereignty may be fatal to mankind.
Only genuine international co-operation expressed through international institutions can give us, our children and our grandchildren any reasonable hope of life on this planet into the next century. That will be based upon a common security—security between East and West and security between North and South—in which Britain should be playing a full and complete role, because that is in the interests of our people as well as those of the rest of the human race.
It is the Government's job to build confidence between nations and people. They have had an opportunity through UNESCO, through the British Council and through the external services, but aid to them all has been cut. I suggest that by their lack of enthusiasm and frequent opposition to the international organisations upon which mankind's future depends, the British Government are doing the British people and the rest of the human race a grave disservice.
5.56 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, not just on his luck in the ballot but on his speech, with a good deal of which I was delighted to find I could agree. I also owe him an apology. I may have slightly misunderstood his Motion. I hope that neither he nor the rest of your Lordships will find my speech too esoteric, because I want to remind the House and the Government of our commitment to one particular international institution. It is called UNRWA. For the benefit of noble Lords with long memories, I should explain that it has nothing to do with an earlier UNRRA which did its essential work among displaced persons in the chaotic aftermath of the second world war. That was the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency. The one about which I want to speak is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East which was established originally in 1950 as a purely temporary institution. It was the collective response of the United Nations to the painful consequences of our relinquishing the mandate in Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel, and of the unsuccessful attempt by Israel's Arab neighbours to prevent its creation.
All those events were highly controversial. One obtains a starkly different narrative and opinion according to whom one asks. I do not want to re-open old wounds or blow on the embers of past arguments. I believe that the minimum requirement of honesty is that anyone who touches on those subjects should make his position clear, at least in outline.
I first became closely involved in the problems of the Middle East about seven years ago when the Council of Europe's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography handed me as rapporteur the simple task of writing a report on Palestinian refugees which had to be "non-political".
My study of the UN Yearbooks for 1947 to 1950, my visits to the refugee camps in all the areas of UNRWA's operations, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, my conversations with representatives of all the governments concerned and with many Palestinians, left me convinced, as I had been beforehand, of three things: first, that the events of 1933 to 1945 in Europe had made the creation of the state of Israel inevitable and wholly desirable; secondly, that the Arabs made a fatal miscalculation in not accepting the partition plan which was offered to them by the United Nations and at least trying to make it work; and thirdly, that in a situation where every single party has made mistakes, it is outrageous that the consequences of those mistakes should be visited upon the children and grandchildren of some of those who made them.
I also became convinced at that time, as perhaps I had not been before, that the Palestinian Arabs must not indefinitely be denied a homeland, some adequate territory which they can regard as home and within which they can exercise the same sovereign rights of self-government as every other country. To discuss that question in detail belongs to another debate, a debate which I hope we may one day have, but it does not belong to this evening.
596
I must get back to UNRWA. Perhaps I should add that I am still closely in touch with the agency, as chairman of the Middle East Sub-Committee of the British Refugee Council. UNRWA started at the very end of 1949 as a typical emergency operation, supplying food, tents and blankets to about two million refugees who were then in the direst need. Its mandate has been renewed periodically by the General Assembly. It operates in five different geographical areas, in Jordan, Syria, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, most critically of all, in the Lebanon. It has a little over two million registered refugees of whom just over a third live in camps. It is noteworthy, perhaps, that this is the only substantial body of refugees, so far as I know, which is not the responsibility of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. In that respect, UNRWA is unique.
Moreover, in the course of these nearly 40 years, while the Palestinians and the rest of the world have waited for a just solution to their problems—essentially the problem of a people without a country—the needs of its clients have changed and the agency has altered the nature and emphasis of its operations to meet those needs. Thus, today, we find it operating 635 schools for 350,000 pupils and eight vocational training centres for nearly 5,000 older pupils.
So much for education, which is UNRWA's most important and most expensive activity. However, it also has to run 98 health centres which deal with 4¼ million patient visits a year, as well as 94 supplementary feeding centres for just over 100,000 of the neediest of the refugees. I said that education is UNRWA's most important function. I think this is true, though in no way would I wish to downgrade the importance of the health service which has rightly a very strong preventive element.
Now, about the schools. I wish that every one of your Lordships could have a chance to visit them. You would see 10,000 teachers, all Palestinians, working under conditions which would provoke an immediate walk-out almost anywhere else. Nearly all the schools have to operate a shift system with one set of children coming in the morning and another in the afternoon. You would also see in the children themselves a thirst for knowledge which would make any member of any of our teacher unions green with envy. Discipline is no problem. The punishment for misbehaviour is not being allowed to come to school the next day. That threat is enough to ensure good behaviour. The end product is, I think, as good an education as you can get in that part of the world.
Before I come to Britain's commitment to UNRWA, may I suggest an additional reason why that commitment must be maintained and, I would hope, increase? The humanitarian reasons surely speak for themselves. But, additionally, one has to appreciate that over the years, UNRWA has turned into what one could almost describe as a de facto quasi-governmental authority. By that, I mean that it is supplying to the refugees many of those services which ordinary people expect to get from their governments—a rudimentary health service and a more than rudimentary educational service. This means that when the day comes, as I hope it will, when the Palestinians can order their own affairs within their

597
own territory, they will find a substantial part of the essential social infrastructure waiting for them more or less ready made. The contribution which that will make to the viability of the Palestinian state is surely obvious.
What of our commitment? I am glad to assure the noble Baroness that it is no part of my purpose to accuse the Government of excessive meanness. I fully understand the innumerable demands made on our aid programme. But perhaps I could first explain, for the benefit of other noble Lords—and I am sure the noble Baroness knows all about it—how UNRWA's finances are assembled. Quite unlike the UNHCR, it is funded by special contributions which are announced at an annual pledging conference of donor countries in New York. Its budget for last year amounted to 156 million dollars. The United States is, as one would expect, far and away the largest donor, contributing nearly half the total. There are some rather moving token contributions from small places remote from the Middle East-1,000 dollars, for example, from Burma, and 500 dollars from Panama. There is a growing generous and most welcome contribution from Japan, making that country the second largest donor at a figure of 14½ million dollars.
From all the Arab states added together, UNRWA receives a mere 3½ million dollars. Although the historical reasons for this modesty are easy to understand, I have to confess that I sometimes wistfully wish that those who finance the PLO would divert one-tenth of those funds to UNRWA. It would solve UNRWA's problems overnight, and some may agree with me that it would do more to help the Palestinians than any number of Kalashnikovs and Katynshas. From the list of donors there are some notable absentees. Not a single kopeck comes from the USSR or the Eastern bloc.
Now, what of the United Kingdom? If you add to our national contribution our share of the contribution made by the European Community, we just squeeze ahead of Norway and Sweden into third place. We seem to have got stuck. I think it is six years since we made any increase in our pledge. This means that as a percentage of the total it is going down, since UNRWA is as subject to inflation as anybody else. I said I was not accusing the Government of excessive meanness and I repeat that, but I do wonder whether possibly 1987 might be the year in which we consider an upward revision of our national contribution. If that is ruled impossible, perhaps the Government might consider funding or helping to fund one of the special projects for which UNRWA from time to time has to make special appeals.
I could have made a whole speech about the appalling difficulties being experienced in the Lebanon—the destruction of installations and the death of many of devoted employees. There has been a special appeal for reconstruction work in the Lebanon.
In conclusion, I was heartened to see a letter from an official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which said that the ODA was in touch with UNRWA about contributing to one of its special appeals. If the noble Baroness could tell me that such contact is heading for a happy ending, then, when I go out to face
598
the rigours of the outside world tonight, I shall be a happier man than when I came here this morning.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, some of you may have seen a recent television programme which showed and interpreted a gathering of the World Wildlife Fund at Assisi. It was presided over by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and it was held at Assisi because of the special relationship which St. Francis had to animals and his care for them. What made this gathering so unusual and remarkable was that the World Wildlife Fund had succeeded in bringing to the gathering representatives of all the larger Christian Churches from all the continents, together with leaders of the other main world religions.
One commentator, the son of an Anglican clergyman who had been much involved in arranging the conference, said rightly that the Churches themselves would not have initiated or achieved such a gathering. In the future, as Christian ecumenism and interfaith dialogue progress, the Churches may do so, but here was a voluntary secular organisation leading international Churches and faiths in producing world unity around a shared concern.
That recent event, along with other considerations, stirs my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for introducing this timely debate. By contrast, a letter to the Guardian of 31st December 1986 referred to a disturbing situation. Among the signatories were the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and other Members of this House. The letter drew attention to the damage being done by the Heritage Foundation of the United States of America to the United Nations Organisation and its specialised agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has given us some of the facts contained in that letter, and so I shall not repeat what he said or quote from it.
It is a sad reflection that from one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world there should be concerted and sustained attacks on the very organisations which seek to promote co-operation, mutual respect and peace. Thus, there is all the more reason that Britain's commitment to the United Nations Organisation and its specialised agencies should be seen to be firm and strong.
In the complex world in which we live today, it is essential that there be organised international fora where nations, large and small, can meet to exchange ideas and share problems and difficulties. No one nation can expect, nor should it expect, that its policies which affect others should go unchallenged. Sadly, it is this very challenging of the stronger by the weaker which has led in some instances to a lessening of commitment by the more powerful nations.
In the early days of international organisations, most of which date from the 1940s, there was a more clublike atmosphere. Large numbers of nations had as yet to gain independence, and the idea of inter-independence was much less generally accepted than it is today.
It is a temptation to think that it is only the threat and fear of nuclear warfare that keeps nations communicating with each other. While that threat and fear may be real, there are many more positive and

599
hopeful reasons for nations to meet and work together, such as cultural exchange, travel, which widens mental horizons and opens eyes to common hopes and aspirations, and the sharing of skills, experience and resources, which happens particularly through the specialised international agencies. One thinks immediately of those which deal with famine and disasters and the exchange of educational and scientific knowledge in a search for fuller human development. Many more reasons could be mentioned, but there are areas of international cooperation in which the Christian Churches are particularly active.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McNair, I find myself having to be selective in material in such a widely drawn Motion. First, there is the co-operation of the Churches on an international basis. The Church of England, like the Church of Scotland and the major evangelical Free Churches of this country, is a founder member of the World Council of Churches. In that organisation our role has changed and modified over the years in ways not unlike Britain's in the secular sphere.
From having had in the early days a more dominant role in a smaller more compact organisation, we have had to learn, not always with ease, that smaller Churches and Churches from different traditions may have very different but equally valid perspectives on topics of common importance. Sometimes, rather strong conflicting opinions are held, but the importance of being in dialogue is always paramount and when resolution is achieved, as it often is, we have found that trust and mutual respect are strengthened.
The basis of all this is that men and women of whatever race or colour are our brothers and sisters. Their experience and their views can be as valid as our own. Belonging with them to a universal society is bound to impose restraint on any infallible nationalism. The Roman Catholic Church is the most effective symbol that there is of world unity. All its parts depend on one another and learn from one another.
I want to pay tribute to the difficult and painstaking work done by the department of the World Council of Churches dealing with international affairs, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, work on peace and disarmament, defending human rights and religious liberty and playing a part, often off the record, in the resolution of conflicts. One Church alone could not undertake these activities, nor hope to have the variety of perspectives required, but an international Christian agency, informed by and accountable to its member Churches, can do this on behalf of all.
Alongside the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, each group of Christians has its own international organisation. Methodism has worldwide links; Lutherans and Presbyterians have world federations; the Churches of England, Wales and Ireland and the Scottish Episcopal Church have the Anglican Consultative Council, which gives a world expression of Anglicanism between the Lambeth conferences of Bishops which are held every 10 years. The next will be held in 18 months' time and its
600
membership will be more diverse in race and language even than in 1978.
Obviously these smaller bodies have a more familiar and family atmosphere because each group has its historic roots. However, even in this atmosphere there are areas which lend themselves to disagreement and take time, understanding and patience to resolve. Anglicans in the Falkland Islands and in the Argentine still have need to speak a word of reconciliation to one another and to us.
Within all international Christian gatherings one of the dominant issues today is that of South Africa. Anglicans are particularly proud that one of the leading and most outspoken critics of apartheid is the Archbishop of the Anglican Province of South Africa, the Most Reverend Desmond Tutu. I am sure that many of your Lordships would want to join me in honouring this great leader for justice, whose patience, long suffering and recognition of the Christian faith of his opponents is so remarkable.
Reference to Archbishop Tuto leads me to the second area of international co-operation on which I want to speak briefly; namely, the Commonwealth. Here I am bound to repeat some of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has already said. It was with the profoundest regret and sorrow that the Churches in this country witnessed the inability of Her Majesty's Government to accept and implement the findings of the Eminent Persons Group set up at Nassau because the Government could not accept the proposals of the other Commonwealth members. It is sad that our country should be the one to reject the bulk of such a distinguished Commonwealth report. The Commonwealth is a family institution. All its members share a common language and much common history. The very uniqueness of it makes it essential that Britain encourages and enables all its work and plays a positive and active role in its life.
In closing let me say how much I earnestly hope that this country will increase its commitment to all international organisations, be they the Commonwealth or the United Nations Organisation and its agencies. Let us be seen as a nation which listens sensitively, acts wisely and works for the benefit of all humanity. That is the way of true greatness for this generation.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I appreciate the dispensation to speak from the Privy Council Benches not as a Front Bench spokesman but in a personal capacity as Chairman of the United Nations Association. That is an all-party body of which my noble friend Lord Caradon and the noble Baroness Lady Elliot—who was here until a few moments ago—are our honorary presidents. I too thank my noble friend Lord Hatch for opening the debate this evening.
In a few minutes I can do no more than sketch the outlines of a speech. Let me, perhaps strangely, begin with my conclusion. Britain is a medium-sized European power with far less influence in the world than we had when the UN was created 41 years ago. That is clear and obvious. I believe that we are today faced with the same challenge that was put to us a

601
generation ago by Dean Acheson when he was then Secretary of State for the United States. He referred to Britain as a nation which had lost an empire and seemed unable to find a role for itself in the world. I believe that we have much to offer that is unique.
In the first place there is no other country which is a member of the Commonwealth, the EC, and the United Nations, as well as all but one of its specialised agencies. We are therefore in a unique position of influence. Secondly, I believe that the diplomatic expertise resulting from our colonial past and from the process of decolonisation, as well as our role in the world today, provides us with an opportunity for service. Thirdly, the technical advisers in many fields of expertise who have been able to visit almost every country in the world under the auspices of the UN and its agencies is again a fairly unique service which we can and do provide.
Fourthly, in Britain we have a network of voluntary organisations such as Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, Christian Aid, Voluntary Service Overseas, the World Disarmament Campaign and indeed the United Nations Association which is itself involved in creating support for the United Nations and at this time is involved in a major fund-raising campaign for refugees, through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and especially for the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and for the refugees in Sudan. We are part of a world-wide network, as is the Church, with United Nations Associations in just under 80 countries of the world working through the World Federation of United Nations Associations.
Fifthly, there is a wllingness of the public to respond when they see human misery. I was reminded of this earlier today when I was at the Sudanese Embassy. The British public responds when it sees an urgent need. Sixthly, we have the universites and colleges which are ready to take in students from around the world and enable them to gain experience which can help us and them.
I believe that our historic role is through our skills, experience, energy and resources to promote a better and more peaceful world. How are we responding to this challenge? First, our aid programme, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is not increasing but decreasing. Secondly, we have placed financial obstacles in the way of Britain being the centre for overseas students. I believe that is both to their great disadvantage and to ours. Thirdly, we have isolated ourselves in the Commonwealth by our attitude to South Africa. Fourthly, our influence in the United Nations—since the days when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was our spokesman there—has diminished in a variety of ways.
Our voting record on the great issues of disarmament has been in too many respects negative. Only three of the 159 member states of the United Nations supported Britain in the UN's plea both to Britain and to the new government of the Argentine to enter into negotiations about the future of the Falkland Islands and the waters of the South Atlantic. Three countries decided to support us. We were in a very small minority in supporting the United States bombing of Libya. We have greatly angered our friends by our unilateral decision to withdraw from UNESCO, thus breaking the principle of universality
602
and reducing our influence for good in improving UNESCO's performance—a task that much needed to be done and for which I welcomed much that the Government were seeking to do. Thus we have failed to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty which we played such an important role in drafting.
In my last three criticisms we seem to have almost slavishly followed the lead of the United States, although there was no reciprocity when it came to the vote in the United Nations Assembly on the Falkland Islands when the United States voted against us. We have set a lead in recent times in what seems to be a concentrated locking of doors by the Western powers in general to refugees from the third world. This is a new and very disturbing element, and seems to include even refugees from Afghanistan.
Those are all criticisms. I could give a balanced list of actions in which the Government have supported the United Nations. It is no part of my case this evening to suggest that the United Kingdom does not give its support to the UN or does not believe in the UN. I am certain that we see this in every Queen's Speech and every manifesto. I have heard moving speeches by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in support of the United Nations.
I will say also that we are regular payers unlike sometimes the Soviet Union, which is regular, but has made virtually no contribution except to UNIFIL for the peace-making forces provided by the United Nations. Then, regarding the United States, I was horrified to read what the Guardian said yesterday:
"The United States said yesterday it withheld its 1986 contribution to the World Health Organisation because it was short of funds for international bodies and gave priority to those in most serious financial trouble. The US delegate, Mr. Neil Boyer, was explaining to the WHO's executive board in Geneva why Washington did not pay its $62·8 million share of the United Nations agency's 1968 budget of $247·4 million".
It said that it did not have enough to pay its share for all the UN agencies. That is not the case so far as Britain is concerned.
My simple thesis is this. Britain's greatest contribution to world peace—and indeed I believe to our own interests—does not lie in pretending that we are a great power in the sense that the United Nations and the USSR are great powers. It is true that, by history, we are one of the five permanent members of the Security Council and we should use that fact to maximise our influence in the United Nations.
I am especially concerned by some United States attitudes, and reference has been made—which I need not repeat—to the Heritage Foundation, which seems to be putting pressure on the United States Government and, I believe, on Britain too precisely at a time when the USSR seems to be putting more influence on the value of the United Nations. I found this on a recent visit in a delegation to the Soviet Union. When discussing Afghanistan they made it clear that they had great hopes that they would be able to achieve some settlement through the negotiations in the United Nations.
In conclusion, I believe that there are tremendous opportunities for Britain using its links with Europe and with the Commonwealth to establish a position of great influence in the world by far greater commitment to the United Nations.

603
The United Nations Association with its branches in all parts of the country will warmly welcome and support a more dynamic role in the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government.
Britain's greatness will never again lie in its military might but in its leaderhip, its statesmanship and its experience in helping, through the United Nations, to create a better, fairer and safer world with far greater emphasis on human rights and equal opportunities.
It may be trite to say that the world is crying out for such leadership, whatever party is in power in Britain, but I honestly believe that this is true.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said in the debate so far, which is quite an unusual sensation, at least for me, and, perhaps, for most of your Lordships. I do have to relate that fact to the regrettable fact that there is not a single Conservative speaker tabled to speak in the debate with the exception of the unfortunate Minister who has to wind up. This is one of the areas of politics in which the present Government stand a little bit apart from all other strands of opinion in the country at present.
Intergovernmental aid from the industrialised world to the third world has dropped by one-quarter in the past 20 years, and it now stands at 0·36 of 1 per cent. of the GNP of the industrialised countries. This is a pretty indicative figure, and I start my speech with it because aid is really very largely what the United Nations is about. Between crises, what it does is to transfer wealth and skills from the developed world to the developing world. In the 10 years to 1982 arms expenditure in the third world rose from £7 billion to £100 billion. That fact also speaks for itself. Those two figures together are a measure of what has to be done.
Now: how to do it. The United Nations at present gives us a choice of friends. The two super powers approach the United Nations, each in a manner that I believe we should only find quite unsatisfactory. We and other countries like us stand in the UN between a bigoted and profoundly unprincipled administration in the United States, and a Soviet Union which, though it is becoming more UN-minded, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just pointed out, is yet still profoundly skinfint. It pays hardly a penny of what it ought to pay towards third world development.
In this position we could have taken a great opportunity of sticking with the UN and doing the right thing, of taking a lead—the way we all love to talk about taking a lead still—of some sort, particularly with our fellow members of the EC, in being principled, in not being bigoted, in paying up, in having bright ideas. The record is not all black. There have been success stories. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would agree with me that the United Nations Children's Fund can perhaps count as one of the success stories.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I used to work for it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it has just published an annual report and has marked the 40th year of its existence by making it a bumper issue. It is in itself a
604
remarkable achievement as a report. It is excellently presented and sets out clearly both what has been done and what remains to do.
This is one organisation in which the United States is not defaulting on its natural role. It pays 26 per cent. of the governmental contributions, which perhaps we could agree is not far from what it should be. This country pays 3.7 per cent., which is not all that brilliant, but perhaps it is not too far from what we should pay. It is at any rate better than West Germany, which pays 2.2 per cent., France, which pays 1.4 per cent., and of course far better than the Soviet Union, which pays 0.3 of 1 per cent. of the governmental contributions. Let us give credit to our Government where credit is due, and this is one place where we can.
In earlier days the industrial world delighted in finding super-sophisticated solutions to the problems of the third world, and then in just throwing money at the third world countries as if they were indistinguishable from us in everything except capital resources. The result is the familiar sight of hi-tech installations abandoned and of vast schemes misused. Meanwhile throughout the third world millionaire politicians live in luxury and ex-politicians have emigrated and live on Swiss bank accounts.
Our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, and his teams have chronicled that phase of the developed world's aid policies with a sometimes justifiable glee, and they have pointed out that the best way to help the poor is to help them make themselves richer. If we can help them to make and sell competitively with the rest of us then we shall have done the best we can for suffering humanity. That is now the conventional wisdom.
The director of the IMF has recently spoken of third world countries' difficulties in producing goods which are competitive on the world markets. He has spoken of education and health as particular obstacles to their doing so. That is the new conventional wisdom enshrined by the highest authority. But today Western follies are being committed in the third world equal to any committed in that earlier phase. They are being committed precisely in the name of competition in the world markets, in the name of the new wisdom.
Let us consider drug crops. What could be more competitive? The developed world introduced into the third world the idea of cash crops, and drug crops are the most paying cash crops of all. We call it a crime. The American Army have gone into Bolivia to suppress the production of drug crops; but besides being a crime, it is the purest of free competition.
Let us also consider the arms trade, taking Brazil as an example. For a long time now Brazil has been making military aircraft. It is now making cluster bombs for export to other third world countries. It has developed tactical ballistic missiles. Argentina is still well on the road towards obtaining an independent nuclear weapons capacity if it wishes to to do. Argentina is proliferating.
I dare say that the UN family of organisations and the World Bank and the IMF do not directly and knowingly finance the huge and virtiginously growing third world arms production, but they certainly do so indirectly. They take no precautions against liberating by their own loans and grants the capital resources in the recipient countries which can then go to build up these arms industries.

605
The constitutions of the World Bank and the IMF are often said to preclude any kind of control of what is done in the industries of the third world: for example, by precluding the making of grants, loans and transfers conditional on the adoption of certain industrial policies in the third world. I have combed through these constitutions. I find that that of the World Bank says that its operations must be based on economic considerations. All right, they are based on economic considerations and let them continue to be based on economic considerations. It does not say that they shall not also be based on political considerations or security considerations. Indeed, I submit that that which is not forbidden is permitted.
The articles of association of the IMF recite many positive aims. They do not say that anything shall not be done. I can find nothing restrictive in those articles either. If the IMF were to see fit to make their loans and transfers—in the context of the exchanges, balances and payments where they operate—conditional on the adoption of certain other aims besides economic ones, I cannot see that it would offend against their articles of association.
Is not the present situation parallel in two ways with what existed in the 19th century? In the industrialising countries in the Victorian age the wealthy preached virtue to the poor. They went to them with the Bible in one hand and cheap gin in the other hand, and made little attempt, beyond preaching, to prevent its consumption. In the third world now the wealthy countries proceed in the same manner. However, it is not gin now, but arms and drug production, to the great harm of the whole world.
In the 19th century in the industrialised countries the poor managed to get rich by joining together to withhold what the rich wanted of them: namely, their strong arms, their labour in trade union movements. In the 20th century the poor countries could get together and withhold the few things that the rich world wants from them—once again their strong arms for labour, but also their raw materials. They could do that in the interests of attaining power in world councils in the same way as the working classes attained power in national councils 150 years ago.
When we look at the world in that way I think we see that countries such as ours have not only the right but possibly also the duty to exert certain political and moral pressures on the third world for the good of all humanity.
Let us consider the question of Swiss banks. It is now well known that crooked rulers throughout the world can look forward with perfect equanimity to an ill-earned and luxurious repose by salting away in the Swiss banks a little of their gains as they go along. What influence is brought to bear on the Government of Switzerland to cease being a repository of hot and dirty money for the whole world? It does no credit to the Swiss people. It is hard to believe that they would withstand pressure for very long.
It seems therefore that what British, French, West German and other similar governments ought to do is to carve out a position of their own in these matters largely through the IMF, the World Bank, and the aid sector of the UN family of organisations. They ought to be a little bolder about using these potentially very beneficial mechanisms to get rid of some of the great
606
evils which haunt the world at the moment. They ought to get rid of the matters which I have mentioned; not only third world arms production but the self-bankrupting of terribly poor economies by the purchase and making of arms. They ought to get rid of the drug crops and the dumping on the third world of pharmaceuticals which we now prohibit our own peoples from using because they are so unhealthy. They ought to get rid of the dumping on the third world of industrial processes which are too polluting to be any longer permitted in our own countries.
It is time for a concerted European move, perhaps concerted with Japan and with the more stable Arab governments, as we are inclined to call them, and other like-minded countries, to turn the world not into a Friedmanite/Bauerite paradise of uncontrolled competition and devil take the hindmost nation—devil take the hindmost people—but into a world where conscious effort is able to be applied to the cause of common improvement.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. When I decided to take part in it I wondered how to approach the subject. I finally decided to share with your Lordships my views on the world as I see it and this country's place in it and perhaps show where we have failed to measure up to our responsibilities.
As I see it, the world is not only divided between East and West, it is also divided between North and South, rich and poor, black and white. Those are all serious divisions. Overhanging us all is the threat of nuclear holocaust.
This country is well placed to make a good contribution to bridging these gaps. We are in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has developed as a result of the British Empire. Therefore, we are in a position where we should have influence in what is nearly one-third of the United Nations.
The Commonwealth is a microcosm of the world in the sense that there are rich or fairly rich, nations; there are poor nations, very poor; there are nations in between in terms of their development. There are black nations and white nations. Therefore, it is a forum in which the issues I have raised could in fact be dealt with.
We also had an additional advantage because, having joined the European Community, we had another 11 important developed nations over which we could have some influence. We were and are a permanent member of the Security Council. We are a member of NATO; and we are closely allied to the United States of America which is the most powerful country in the Western world.
With these advantages this country ought to be able to have influence in all the fields that I have mentioned, but we have not. The reason why we have no such influence is that for the last few years we have elected merely to be the closest possible ally of the United States and have been prepared to play second fiddle to the United States in almost everything.
As a consequence of that we have not used the advantages we have had in the Commonwealth. They

607
take second place to what the United States is interested in. We have not used our place in Europe. Even that takes second place to what the United States wants. Thus we have not been able to influence events.
Mention has been made already of the fact that this country, which ought to have the most influence in the Commonwealth, is in fact isolated in the Commonwealth. Nothing was more revealing to me of the isolation of this country than the vote in the United Nations on the Falklands. Argentina's claim is a colonialist claim and we ought to be able to rebut a colonialist claim within our Commonwealth.
When I put my anti-Argentina case to my Commonwealth friends they all understand it. We do not do that. We answer Argentina's colonialist claim with a colonialist claim of our own. Therefore, what our friends in the Commonwealth are presented with at the United Nations is a choice of two colonialist claims. It is not a choice of progress along the lines of self-determination and the friendships of people living in an area, which ought to be what we put forward. We are quite right to reject Argentina's claim. It is colonialist. We are not right merely to answer it with a colonialist claim of our own.
There is also the sad situation in South Africa, which is the touchstone. Within the Commonwealth we ought to have been able to develop a policy aimed at dealing with what was the biggest challenge to whether or not the world can live together—people of different races can live together in equality and friendship with respect for each other. It is the rejection of that by South Africa which ought to be understood by everyone and rejected by everyone.
We seem to have set ourselves a secondary role, not only that we should be subservient to the United States but that we should protect South Africa at all times. The consequence of setting ourselves these rules means that we have lost status all round. We ought never to have been in that position. We ought to have been in the position where our stand on these issues is respected by all, including those in South Africa who are thinking and recognising the position in which they stand. Therefore, I am hoping that when the Minister replies she will be able to tell me that the Government are beginning to rethink some of these policies.
This subservience to the United States has led us into supporting policies within the IMF which are not in the best interests of bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. They are policies which prolong and worsen the division between rich and poor. We have influence and votes there and should be able to use that influence to get policies geared to reducing the gap. We should not put nations in a position where all they can do is produce enough to pay part of the interest on a debt and are never to be able to repay the debt itself. They have to go on with their families, with their citizens, living at poverty or below poverty level in order to do that. These are the consequences of the policies that we are using internationally.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that some of the Third World countries make it worse by the policies they themselves adopt. That is exactly what I meant when I said that within the Commonwealth we ought to have been able to work out policies which would deal with both issues, because we have poor
608
nations as well as wealthy nations within the Commonwealth. Within that setting we ought to be able to work out real policies geared to bridging that gap. Then we rush because the United States has come out of UNESCO.
We began by saying we wanted to see some changes in UNESCO. Attempts were made to make changes. They may not have been fast enough. But is it not a better policy to try to get the changes we want in UNESCO through working there rather than just following the bad example of the United States and pulling out? These are the ways in which we have not just not used our position to advantage but have used it negatively.
I think now of our position in the EC. We dragged our feet the most in the EC as regards the grant to the Lomé territories. It is we more than anybody else who are responsible for the fact that the funds are so low. We ought never to be doing that. The majority of countries in Lomé are from the Commonwealth. Therefore, far from wanting grants to be lower we should be trying to maximise them. By doing so we should be using our position in Europe to get some of the other European countries to help in financing the development of these territories, which are—shall we say?—our cousins. They are territories which are part of our Commonwealth.
This is very sad. The way in which Lomé has been negotiated and agreed holds out a useful method of dealing with the problem of the rich and poor and bridging that gap. There are a lot of developments within the Lomé agreement that would help greatly in bridging that gap. But you cannot do that sort of thing if the funds are so limited.
Unless you are able to make the contributions that are required, you cannot get the objective that you have in mind. Therefore, it has been sad that this Government have been dragging their feet on Lomé and not encouraging the sort of contribution which would have enabled us to bridge that gap between the developing countries and the developed ones.
There is not the slightest doubt that one of the things that all these countries need most is assured markets at assured prices. That is one of the good things within the Lomé agreement. If the funds in Lomé were ever enough, I personally think that Lomé could make a real contribution towards bridging the gap between the APC countries and the European countries with which they are dealing.
This is one thing on which I hope the noble Baroness will tell me that the Government will have a rethink, because although the Lomé agreement is already made there is nothing to prevent an agreement to add more funds to it. Therefore I hope that this is an issue that the Government will be prepared to look at.
The Government have to try to repair certain damages. The damages are in the Commonwealth and in fact mainly in the Commonwealth. The Government need to repair those damages. If they can repair the damages in the Commonwealth they can use their newly-found position to change their status and position within the UN. Britain is best able to get the influence it needs in the UN through being almost a spokesman for the Commonwealth—I am not suggesting just as a spokesman for the Common-

609
wealth, but by being such an accepted leader in the Commonwealth one should get the support in the UN for the policies that are required.
Therefore as I said at the beginning, I am pleased to have had this opportunity of sharing my thoughts, my worries and my fears with your Lordships. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to give me some reassuring answers.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch has enabled us to debate a subject of importance and interest, and has also delivered a wide-ranging speech. Successive governments have affirmed and reaffirmed their commitment to the international institutions of which the United Kingdom is a member. Looking at the performance of other countries, I think I can say that this country on the whole has as good a record as any in the world in its continuing membership, and loyalty to principle, from the early days of the International Court of Justice and the League of Nations. I have some reservations, and I shall make these as I proceed, but that is my general view.
Today we are members of four international organisations: namely, the European Community; the Commonwealth; the United Nations, and NATO. I do not propose to deal with the latter in this debate. The House will recall the excellent debate initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 29th October 1985 when he examined our record as a member of the United Nations and its varied organisations on the 40th anniversary of that great institution. My noble friend Lord Ennals, the chairman of the United Kingdom Association of the United Nations, spoke in that debate, and has spoken again with his usual authority and knowledge today.
The general tendency in the debate initiated by the most reverend Primate was that the United Nations is a good institution but that it is less effective than it might be. Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who is a world expert on the subject, has said:
"Hardly anyone has much time for the United Nations."
But I hasten to add that Mr. O'Brien also said:
"The United Nations is the most important international institution that has ever existed and its survival is bound up with the survival of the human race."
I hope that this is a sentiment that both President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev subscribe to.
I realise that in this debate we are more concerned with our own contribution, but we also know that the ultimate success of the United Nations depends on the constructive membership of the two great powers. We recall the cut in size of the Soviet Union's mission to the United Nations recently, and we can be relieved that the consequences of that were not as serious as might have been the case.
The United Nations is as important to the Soviet Union as it is to any other country. I also believe, as I have ventured to say here in other debates, that Mr. Gorbachev is a new man with new ideas. He is a communist, and a Russian patriot, but he also knows the consequences of war, and I think he wants to raise standards in his country. The United Nations provides Mr. Gorbachev with opportunities for co-operation
610
with other countries in several fields. The General Assembly and the Security Council are both crucial forums for the reduction of tension.
My noble friend has referred to some of the agencies of the United Nations, and other noble Lords have followed him. The central worry here is that they are under-funded. This was made plain in the fourth report of the all-party Foreign Affairs Committee of another place which dealt with the ODA programme mentioned by my noble friend, and with the BBC external services and the British Council as well. The report underlines the most serious and progressive under-financing of these agencies.
If we turn to the United Nations agencies, which were dealt with by a number of noble Lords, here again we see the same unfortunate tendency. I do not propose to go into all of the details of the UNESCO affair tonight; but as the Motion in fact refers to Britain's influence in these matters, I think I should quote from the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place—and the Committee had a majority of Conservative Members—and they made some very relevant remarks. I hope the House will allow me to quote from page xxi, paragraph 63, where they say:
We have concluded

(i) that continued membership of UNESCO is an objective which should be pursued in the interests of British scientific, cultural and educational interests;

(ii) that the withdrawal of UK membership of UNESCO is likely to have detrimental effects on the United Kingdom's relations with other friendly countries, particularly in the Commonwealth;

(iii) that the withdrawal of UK membership of UNESCO is likely to advance Soviet-bloc interests in the Third World; and

(iv) that a breach by the United Kingdom of the principle of universality in the United Nations and its Agencies could have long-term, and damaging, consequences for those organisations, and not merely for UNESCO alone.

That is an extremely serious comment on these affairs. So far as UNESCO is concerned, as I have said before, no member should leave a church if he does not like the incumbent minister. He should wait in the church until a new minister comes along. That is what the United Kingdom should have done in the case of UNESCO.
I am sure that the noble Baroness was as impressed as I was by the interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on UNRWA and its financial problems. I feel sure the noble Baroness will wish to consider this again. I thought also that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made some very important remarks about the IMF and the World Bank in relation to the build-up of armaments in the Third World. Here is something which the noble Baroness may think is worth reporting to her right honourable and learned friend, as a matter which might be taken up in the United Nations itself in due course.
Noble Lords have also referred to certain resolutions of the United Nations where the United Kingdom's reactions have seemed less than enthusiastic. One of these is Resolution 435 on Namibia, which was mentioned in the House yesterday. I am bound to say that the lack of progress here is frightening and we should be doing all in our power to achieve a settlement based on free elections.

611
It would also be helpful if the noble Baroness could comment briefly on the progress made by FAO on the Falklands fishing problems. The Government declared a unilateral zone and we had exchanges in the House about that; but she then said that any FAO recommendations would be very carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say what progress has been made, as we do not want to be seen to be acting against the FAO, which seems to me to be one of the most useful of all the United Nations agencies.
I should like also most warmly to support what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said about the significant contribution of the World Council of Churches and his tribute to Archbishop Tutu. The right reverend Prelate, together with my noble friend and my noble friend Lord Pitt, spoke about the Commonwealth. There is a tendency by some on occasion to belittle the Commonwealth and to say that it is of little consequence. That is a grave mistake.
The Commonwealth is a unique organisation, and it deserves to survive because it brings a diverse group of nations with an historic relationship together to discuss matters of common interest. I cannot conceive that it could do harm, but it certainly could do a lot of good. Twenty-nine Commonwealth countries have small or very small populations, but membership of the Commonwealth gives them an opportunity to put their case to the international community, and it also provides backing where necessary. Let me give one example in passing: there are others. Belize would probably not exist today if it were not for Commonwealth support in the United Nations and in other ways.
The Commonwealth provides an important international forum, support in the international community and technical assistance in education, health, science, agriculture, industry and public administration. The chief beneficiaries of all this assistance have been the smaller countries of the Commonwealth. My own view therefore is that it would be an immense mistake to undervalue the importance of the Commonwealth.
As my noble friend Lord Pitt in particular said, the Commonwealth went through a critical phase last summer and there were those who said it would not survive or indeed that it would not matter a great deal if it did not survive. That was a foolish and shortsighted attitude. Things were said by Commonwealth leaders which reflected the tension, due to the Government's attitude towards the South African crisis. But the remarkable thing is that the Commonwealth proved to be tougher and more cohesive than most people at the time thought possible. I am sorry to say that I think our own influence in fact diminished, at least temporarily, at that time, but the Commonwealth emerged stronger and more confident than ever before. The noble Baroness's department will no doubt be studying the full implications of this development and, I trust, drawing sensible conclusions from it.
Finally, our relatively short membership of the European Community, to which my noble friend Lord
612
Ennals referred, is in some ways the most important of all, certainly in financial, commercial and industrial terms. Here again, as may be expected, there are periodic strains and stresses as exemplified by attitudes towards South Africa and towards the treatment of terrorism. We have noted, for example, the current tension between the United States and the European Community on the question of selected exports to the United States following the cessation of grain exports to Spain from the United States. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been talking to Mr. Shultz about this, and perhaps we can be told what is developing between the Community and America. The last thing we want is a trade war with the United States.
My noble friend Lord Pitt spoke movingly of the dangerous divisions in the world today. The fact is that all these organisations which have been mentioned in the debate provide opportunities for us to bridge divisions—opportunities which were unthinkable 40 or 50 years ago. It is for us and other countries, including the Soviet Union and Comecon countries, to use our membership of these organisations constructively and with the utmost goodwill. That should be the objective of our foreign policy.
7.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing the short debate today and I should like to say at once that I think we have had a quite extraordinarily wide-ranging discussion. I do not think that in the time available I shall be able to answer all the many and varied points that have arisen, but I shall try to concentrate on the most important of them and certainly study the report of the debate with interest when there is the opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow.
Today international organisations exist in profusion and few people realise how they affect our daily lives. For example, the Universal Postal Union has 168 member countries and works out the rules for international postal services, from which we all benefit. The International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation has enabled us to telephone friends and relatives overseas. The international institutions even impinge directly upon your Lordships' House. Extracts from your Lordships' debates are broadcast to all parts of the world by the World Service, under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union, another specialised United Nations agency with 160 members.
There are of course many other international organisations in which the United Kingdom plays an active if not a leading part; and of course there is the large United Nations family of organisations. But before turning to those organisations I should like to say a few words about some of the other international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member.
Since 1949 NATO, the alliance of 16 free and democratic Western nations has defended us and

613
preserved peace in Europe. Membership of NATO is the cornerstone of our security policy. Our contribution to NATO is substantial, constructive and widely appreciated. We fully support the NATO policy, based on the twin approach of sound defence and efforts to reduce tension between East and West through the negotiations of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements. We are members of the European Community, which gives Western Europe a framework for progress, and prosperity that is historically unprecedented. I think it is generally accepted that we have had a successful six months in our office of President of the Council of Ministers. Then there is the Commonwealth—49 nations, rich and poor, who share a common heritage and choose to work together, usually far from the limelight, seeking solutions to a host of practical problems.
Your Lordships have also referred to the world's trading and financial institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which belong to the United Nations family. Then there is the GATT and the OECD. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, in a most interesting speech, referred to the international organisation of the World Council of Churches and the work that the churches do throughout the world.
These international organisations and institutions vary enormously. But their existence testifies to the respect that their members have for basic principles of co-operation and bargaining, rather than confrontation or unilateral gestures. They contribute security, predictability and good order to international affairs—all crucial for international law itself.
The United Kingdom is a nation which historically has worldwide trading and political interests, and so we are well placed to appreciate the value of international structures and we are experienced in their operation. Our basic attitude to international organisations comprises three simple and straightforward principles. We support them if we agree with their aims; we expect them to stick to those aims and carry them out effectively; and last, but not least, we expect them to be run impartially and efficiently. Most international bodies meet these criteria and continue with valuable work.
This evening I should like to concentrate on two important international bodies which we wholeheartedly support: one very complex institution, the United Nations, and that unique association of countries, the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom played a central part in setting up the UN. This was formally recognised by the fact that we have a veto: the charter cannot be amended without our consent. Thus we have a special responsibility towards the UN and its ideals and we have made an energetic contribution to it.
This is not a theoretical contribution. We pay our way. Our financial commitment to the UN system is some £140 million each year. What is more, we always pay in full and on time. I was interested in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made on that. We believe in the United Nations system and we work hard within it to get results.
614
Let me give some positive examples. We pull our weight in UN peacekeeping operations and work hard behind the scenes to help the UN Secretary-General's peacekeeping initiatives. I was disappointed to hear very little from your Lordships tonight on this. But we support UNIFIL's role in South Lebanon and favour the renewal of its mandate. We are a major financial contributor. We spent £5·5 million in 1985–86. We consider that UNICYP continues to play a vital role in Cyprus. Our commitment to UNICYP is demonstrated by the fact that ours is the largest contingent in the force.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked about other areas. We have noted suggestions for an international peacekeeping force in Mozambique. Those concerned must discuss this further. But we are committed under Security Council Resolution 435 to the setting up of the UN transitional assistance group to supervise the establishment of a peacekeeping force in Namibia to bring about independence.
We press hard to enhance the UN machinery for countering abuses of human rights. We are actively involved in UN programmes to counter the international drugs menace. Indeed, we have just increased by 50 per cent. our unearmarked contribution to the UN fund for drug abuse control. We contribute to many specialised or less well-known UN agencies and programmes. Only last June we announced an increase in our voluntary contribution to the UN environmental programme. And we fully support the work of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. On that matter, during the current financial year we have spent £33 million, mostly channelled through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Of course, so far as Afghanistan is concerned, where 5 million people have now fled the country—that is, over 8,000 a month—since the beginning of the war we have contributed £40 million to the refugees since 1980.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked me why we felt unable to sign the Law of the Sea Convention. In part it is because it aimed to set up a most unattractive regime for deep sea mining, including an over-elaborate international seabed authority with excessive regulatory powers. This authority would be excessively large, bureaucratic and costly to maintain. What is more, some of its activities would harm the industry it was supposed to oversee. Indeed, it could stop that industry ever developing. In other words, our decision on the Law of the Sea Convention did not signify the start of a general retreat from fundamental notions of peaceful international co-operation. Rather we applied the three principles that I mentioned earlier.
I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said in referring to what I thought was a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who spoke with such great personal knowledge of the work of UNRWA and, if I may say so, with very great sincerity. Thirty-six years have passed since the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East began its work on behalf of Palestinian refugees. The agency has brought, and continues to bring, vital

615
humanitarian assistance to those in its care, now numbering over 2 million. I am glad to pay tribute to UNRWA and its staff who work with limited resources often in dangerous circumstances.
UNRWA has long suffered from insufficient funding for its activities, and its funding base remains dangerously narrow. The noble Lord gave us some figures on that point. The United Kingdom remains one of the largest contributors to UNRWA. We make a bilateral contribution of £5 million each year and pay one-fifth of the European Community's contribution of £13·8 million. Others, particularly the United States, have given generously. But I hope that all who profess concern for the Palestinians will join us in contributing to UNRWA's work.
There is also an urgent need to improve the economic and social conditions of the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, not as a substitute for a political settlement but to complement the negotiations that we should like to see. The Community decided last October as a result of a British initiative to rationalise and increase its aid programme to the territories and to slash tariffs on imports from the territories. We announced last December a substantial increase in our own aid programme for the territories to £1 million a year, half of which will be disbursed via Jordanian institutions.
At the end of his speech, the noble Lord asked me a specific question but I am afraid that I shall have to write to him on that point. This central role in the UN's working is guaranteed by our retention of one of five permanent seats on the UN Security Council. This gives us a strong position of international influence. In short, the United Kingdom's record of commitment to the UN system has been good.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a specific question about the Falkland Islands conservation zone and the FAO. I can assure him that the establishment of the FICZ does not undermine or detract from the value of the FAO's report on the South-West Atlantic fishery. It was essential to set up a FICZ, which, as the noble Lord will recall from when we debated this matter, is an interim measure to meet a conservation need which we must do for the fishing season which starts this February. The FAO report was not ready and the interim action that we have taken was the only sensible course open to us. But the FAO study will be an important document when it is issued. We continue to believe that a multilateral regime is the best way to manage the fishery, and we remain in close touch with the FAO.
If the United Nations is to make a worthwhile impact on global problems, it must be respected and it must make sure that its own house is in order. That is why the United Kingdom welcomed the outcome of recent negotiations on the UN's own budget. A combination of delayed payments, waste and inefficiency had been bringing the UN towards bankruptcy. Now member states will take an earlier and tighter grip on the UN's budget and its programme priorities. The fact that the UN Charter contains great ideals does not excuse the UN itself from an obligation to be a good housekeeper.
616
All this shows that international institutions are not endowed with magical properties. They can fall prey to wastefulness and mismanagement, sometimes even abandoning their aims and ideals. This is what we believe happened to UNESCO. That matter was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Ennals and Lord Hatch.
We were a founder member of that organisation and committed to the principle guiding its initial remit. It was clearly desirable to establish a multilateral forum to work in educational, scientific and cultural fields. For many years we worked with it. We tried hard, within the organisation, to eradicate the problems from which it suffered: the poor administration, wastefulness, lack of proper priorities and excessive and damaging politicisation. It was with considerable regret that we decided to withdraw. We decided that taxpayers' money could be better used in a wide range or areas such as scholarships and other fields for which UNESCO was responsible.
UNESCO is merely one well-known example of a worrying trend towards wrongly politicising international institutions. There are many international fora for arguing about, for example, the political problems of Southern Africa and the Middle East. But some nations try to carry these arguments over into specialist international bodies. This wastes time and money; and, much worse, it threatens the effectiveness of these bodies and so risks causing immense practical damage.
I repeat again that we value international institutions and we want them to work. International institutions which are working well and helping the international community must not be side-tracked or distorted. Political pressure to this end is unhelpful and damaging. We shall continue to resist such pressures strongly.
I turn now to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a unique and free association of 49 independent countries representing one-quarter of the world's population. To read the press you would think that the Commonwealth consisted of nothing but periodic Heads of Government meetings. Therefore, perhaps it is not surprising that some people find it fashionable to argue that the Commonwealth is anachronistic, pointless or even harmful to Britain. This is not the Government's view.
I shall turn to consider a number of things which we have done within the Commonwealth. However, perhaps I may first answer the point that was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and also the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, concerning the Eminent Persons Group. The Eminent Persons Group made a valiant contribution. The negotiating concept remains a valid basis for negotiations in the difficult situation in South Africa. The group showed the way towards achieving dialogue and a suspension of violence on all sides through the principle of matching commitments. We gave the Eminent Persons Group our full support and we deeply regret that it did not achieve a breakthrough. The refusal of the South African Government to respond positively is in our view shortsighted.

617
Perhaps it will be helpful if I quote in full what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in a speech to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in September of last year. She referred to our attitude to South Africa and the question of sanctions:
"As free and independent sovereign states we have a legitimate right to our own views, and the right too to hold those views without our motives being questioned. That is the essence of tolerance, so important to the Commonwealth. As one of our great parliamentarians said: 'Tolerance is good for all or it is good for none'".
Within the Commonwealth there are many different federations and associations—over 200 in all—all dedicated to practical work and allowing thousands of ordinary citizens from Commonwealth countries to pool ideas, share experiences and strike up new friendships. The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind sponsors the world's largest programme for restoring lost eyesight. The Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation oversees a pioneer scheme for the interchange of much-needed technical experts between developing countries. The Commonwealth Foundation supports 32 different professional associations and promotes many research, training and exchange programmes.
We greatly value the practical work of the Commonwealth's different agencies in setting up development projects, educational exchanges, meetings of technicians and experts and conferences of lawyers and parliamentarians. Today we are the largest contributor to the budgets of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. We also give £2½ million per year to support the Commonwealth Institute in London.
All in all, last year we gave some £14 million to Commonwealth activities. In addition, in 1985 we gave around £60 million to support Commonwealth students. This represented 75 per cent. of our total scholarship budget. In 1985 we gave £443 million in aid to Commonwealth countries, or 65 per cent. of our total bilateral aid programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in the course of his remarks about the Commonwealth and our commitment to it asked about the Lomé Convention and our contribution to it. Of the 66 countries benefiting from special aid and trade links under the convention, 35 are in the Commonwealth. In the period up to 1990 some £5.3 billion will be available from this source. Some £90 million is also available from the European Investment Bank. In practice, the financial benefits from the highly preferential trading arrangements are considerably greater than this. In 1984 (the latest figures which are available) some 38 per cent. of the United Kingdom's multilateral aid for developing countries—that is, £202.69 million—was spent in Commonwealth countries. The estimate for 1985 again gives 33.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's multilateral aid to be spent in Commonwealth countries.
Therefore, I believe that we contribute fully to the Commonwealth and our close links with
618
Commonwealth countries bring the United Kingdom very great benefits. Our exports to Commonwealth countries are running at about £9 billion per year. And it is not as well known as it should be that 40 per cent. of our total revenue from overseas investments come from Commonwealth countries.
In short, the Government believe that the Commonwealth is an effective, realistic and practical organisation and are fully committed to it. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs addressed the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference last September. He emphasised the Government's commitment to effective international institutions:
"We of all countries are not in the business of a retreat from multilateralism. Quite the reverse. Almost 30 per cent, of expenditure for which I am responsible as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, including aid, is directly related to multilateral organisations".
That is the measure of our commitment. There is no question of retreating from it.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has participated in this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness who has made such an extensive conclusion on behalf of the Government. Of course I do not agree with all she has said. I particularly disagree with her analysis of the decision to leave UNESCO, and I was interested to note that she did not take up the issue of Heritage, which has been mentioned several times tonight. That is an organisation which I believe received a congratulatory telegram from the Prime Minister in October 1983 on its tenth unniversay.
The noble Baroness would not expect me to agree with her analysis of the Government's view on sanctions. I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Pitt had to say about the damage that has been done within the Commonwealth by the British attitude ever since the Nassau meeting. On the other hand, I was encouraged by the earlier reference of the noble Baroness to at least considering the possibility of initiating or suggesting further United Nations peacekeeping forces, particularly in Mozambique. I hope she will pursue that idea.
Throughout the debate there has been one theme from all sides, though one has to say again that the Conservative Party has not been represented except by the Minister. That one theme has been that the influence of Britain is diminished by every action which weakens an international institution. We have spread ourselves widely among these international institutions. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned UNICEF. I remind the House that UNICEF's excellent work is also of benefit to this country. I understand that we receive in orders more from UNICEF than is contributed in capital to it.
I endorse entirely what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby had to say about our admiration for Bishop Desmond Tutu. I am sure he would add to that. Desmond Tutu's friends, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and their wives. I was glad, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned the United

619
Nations Association. Those of us who believe in the United Nations have a duty not just to participate in the work of the United Nations Association but to bring young people into it at the earliest possible moment and to ensure that every school has an opportuntiy to listen to United Nations spokesmen and to join in the work at that stage. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred to UNRRA. He probably knows that I was also associated with its work for some time.
This whole debate can be summed up in the words written by John Paul Sartre in his introduction to the book The Wretched of the Earth. This is what Sartre wrote:
"And when one day our human kind becomes full grown, it will not define itself as the sum total of the whole world's inhabitants, but as the infinite unity of their mutual needs".
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Bill [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in committee accordingly.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Removal of restrictions on times during which intoxicating liquor may be served with meals in restaurants,
etc. ]:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 1.
Leave out Clause I and insert the following new clause:
("Relaxation of day-time restrictions on hours during which intoxicating liquor may be served with meals in restaurants, etc.

1.—(1) In section 68 of the Licensing Act 1964 (extension of permitted hours in restaurants, etc.) in subsection (1)(a) for the words from "(if any)" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "between the first and second parts of the general licensing hours;".

(2) In section 95 of that Act (permitted hours in premises for which restaurant or residential and restaurant licence is in force)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "afternoon break" there shall be substituted the words "start of the second part of the general licensing hours"; and

(b) in subsection (3), for the words "afternoon break" there shall be substituted the words "second part of the general licensing hours".").

The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I made some general remarks about the series of amendments before us since they are all consequential, one upon the other.
The Committee will recall that during the debate at Second Reading both my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, expressed concern about the fact that the Bill as originally drafted would enable restaurants to serve alcohol throughout the night if they so chose. These amendments have been prepared in response to that suggestion. The idea is to replace the proposed system of complete deregulation with a much more limited measure which merely lengthens the existing daytime extension of licensing hours available to restaurants by virtue of Section 68(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 1964. The intention is to cover the so-called dry period during the afternoon or, as the 1964 Act calls it, the afternoon break.
The Minister remarked at Second Reading that it was not unreasonable for someone dining at, say, three or four o'clock in the afternoon to be able to have a drink with a meal. The Bill in its new form would be solely confined to such cases. As before, the Bill makes no attempt to tamper with the existing concept of a "table meal" which is contained in the 1964 Act. Moreover, the Bill will make no change in the system of control presently exercised by the licensing justices or, in the case of registered clubs, by a magistrates' court.
Accordingly, in order for a, restaurant to be entitled to the benefit of the extended hours in the daytime, the justices must be satisfied,
"that the premises arc structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, substantial refreshment to which the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor is ancillary".
That is taken from Section 68(3) of the 1964 Act.
I turn for a moment to Clause 2. It may seem rather surprising that I should be proposing that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. I do so because the original Clause 2, assuming that we pass Clause I, is entirely consequential on the original Clause 1. So, with the new Clause 1 as proposed in Amendment No. 1, Clause 2 would not be required at all. That is why it is proposed that it should no longer stand part of the Bill.
The transitional provisions in Clause 3, as amended, will ensure that, on commencement of the Bill, restaurants to which Section 68(1)(a) of the 1964 Act already applies would be able to take advantage of the extension in hours provided for by the Bill. Clause 3 will also ensure that conditions imposed under Section 95 which limits the permitted hours in the case of certain restaurants to the daytime or the evening will apply by reference to the new system of opening hours.
Finally, the change in the Title is merely to bring the Title into line with the general thrust of what we agreed at Second Reading about the Bill in general—the fact that there was cause for modification but that there were certain reservations. As the Committee will have seen from what I have said—and I hope I have given a satisfactory explanation—the intention is to close the gap in the afternoon but not to provide total deregulation. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will be able to agree the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for putting forward these amendments to his original Bill. He put them forward partly, I think, through the suggestion I made, and indeed the Minister made, at Second Reading. Therefore he no longer proposes that licensed premises should be allowed to be open for 24 hours a day, which was his original intention. This makes a very great difference to the first proposal and goes a long way towards quietening the anxieties I expressed at Second Reading which had been passed on to me by certain organisations concerned with our licensing laws.
The proposals now made by the noble Viscount should content restaurant owners. After all, I understand that they were complaining that latecomers at lunchtime, both foreigners and British people, found it frustrating that they could have a nice lunch but were not allowed to have a drink with it. Therefore I think that the Bill as drafted afresh by the noble Viscount is certainly a great deal more satisfactory and I certainly agree with its intentions.
However, as the noble Viscount is dealing with all these amendments together and therefore spoke in a general way about his new Bill—which is really what it is—perhaps I may briefly make two comments and ask questions that go with the comments. These are addressed to the noble Viscount, but there is one question I have for the Minister.
First, I feel that the Title of the Bill is a little misleading in that it would appear from it that the Bill only affects restaurants, whereas in the body of the Bill it is clear that other establishments are included. The word "et cetera" can only mean public houses in one case. Therefore I feel that possibly the Title of the Bill could be seen as a misnomer. I do not know how the noble Viscount could rectify that, but I feel that one should either be talking about restaurants or about restaurants and public houses. That should be made much clearer in the Title than it is at present.
My second point concerns the right of appeal, because I am not sure whether that is included in the Bill. For example, people could be inconvenienced by a licensed establishment in their neighbourhood and their objections could subsequently be overruled. My understanding is that the 1964 Act includes a right of appeal to a Crown Court for people who feel they are inconvenienced, but it is not clear whether objectors would still have that right under this Bill.
I raise that point because I feel strongly about it. I live in a small Chelsea street which is entirely residential except for a successful and crowded restaurant at one end of it. The residents in the street are undoubtedly very much inconvenienced by the noise, the lack of parking facilities, piles of litter and so on. I should like to think that the residents would be able to object and that if those objections are overruled by the local authorities they would be able to appeal to a Crown Court. I ask that question simply because I think it is important for residents to know the position.
Finally, I put forward a final point to the Minister and perhaps he can help me on this matter. I believe that there are two major anomalies which arise through the interaction of this Bill and the Bill put
622
forward by Mr. Allan Stewart in another place. I know that we are only addressing ourselves to this Bill, but if both Bills find their way onto the statute book there would be an interaction and anomalies which I believe exist between them.
The first concerns Sundays. Here I believe there is a direct contradiction between the two Bills. Mr. Stewart's Bill does not appear to apply to Sundays. Indeed, I heard Mr. Stewart on a television programme saying that he intends to leave opening hours on Sundays exactly as they are now. On the other hand, as I understand it the noble Viscount's Bill would permit restaurants—which could encompass public houses with restaurants included—to open throughout Sunday afternoons in the same way as on weekdays. Therefore if the two Bills both become law who would win with regard to Sunday opening? Quite clearly one Bill states that Sunday afternoons would be the same as weekdays, while Mr. Stewart said on television that his Bill does not tamper with Sundays and that the situation would remain as it is.
The second disparity between the two Bills is reflected by the fact that Mr. Stewart's Bill includes the need to apply for a variation order, thus involving the local licensing committee with all that that implies, whereas such a requirement is absent in the Bill now before us. Does not the Minister agree that if it is thought that the best way of revising our licensing legislation is by introducing two separate Bills simultaneously the best hope of that succeeding would be to make them match in essential detail?
Those are the two slight anxieties that I have. As I have said, I agree with the intention of the Bill as now drafted by the noble Viscount. It will be useful for our tourist trade and for the convenience of customers in restaurants. Therefore, I support the Bill in its revised form, but I should be most grateful to have answers to my queries.
Lord Monson: I congratulate the noble Viscount on the skill with which he has thought out and moved this series of amendments. Many of us would, in theory, have preferred total deregulation but one must recognise that whereas no reasonable person could validly object to licensed restaurants or cafes opening throughout the afternoon, support for late-night opening would be rather less than universal.
Many people, including I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, would be worried about the possibility of nuisance from car doors slamming or engines revving at midnight, or even well after that, where restaurants are located in or on the periphery of residential areas. Therefore although the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount represent a compromise with the ideal they are entirely justified if they ensure that this excellent Bill obtains a speedy and smooth passage, not only through your Lordships' tolerant and worldly House but also through the other place, which often tends to be rather more puritanical and restrictive in these matters.
The Viscount of Falkland: I also congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, on what I think is an excellent compromise. Although I

623
did not express at Second Reading quite the reserve that was expressed by the Minister and the noble Baroness, I recognise that the road towards liberalisation and towards more responsible drinking in this country has to be gradual. These amendments largely satisfy that requirement. Although it had not struck me before the noble Baroness raised the point that the Title of the Bill is somewhat ambiguous, I myself much prefer that the definition of "restaurant" should be made clear and that no chinks should be left whereby unscrupulous public houses or other outlets could take advantage of this Bill.
Having said that, I think that should the Bill succeed we shall not in any way aggravate the problem of alcohol abuse in this country, which, as I said at Second Reading, is becoming a greater problem, mainly owing to intoxication among young people, with all the ensuing social problems in terms of violence, destruction of property and so on. However, an extension such as we see in this Bill can only add to the quality of life in terms of civilised drinking when eating a meal, with obvious benefits to the tourist trade and others. I hope that this Bill will lead to a greater recognition of the fact that the problem of alcohol abuse and the way with which it is dealt is a matter that is quite separate from normal eating and drinking.
We have to recognise that the consumption of alcohol is not a practice that will just go away. Alcohol is a commodity that has to be treated correctly and with prudence. If this Bill goes through I hope it will ultimately lead to a recognition that alcohol abuse is something which we have to deal with as seriously as we deal with drug abuse. One hopes that the present and successive governments will find a way of dealing with it.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps at the outset I may express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein for tabling his amendments. In the course of the Second Reading debate I expressed the Government's reservations on this Bill on two counts. These were that the Bill approaches licensing reform from too narrow an interest, dealing only with restaurants, and, secondly, that by removing all controls over the hours during which alcohol may be served with meals, the Bill went too far.
Understandably, the amendments we are discussing this evening do not tackle our first concern; they do, however, meet the second, in that they limit the effects of the Bill so as to extend the licensing hours for certain restaurants solely during the afternoon period. We are no longer faced with the prospect of restaurants serving drinks with meals late into the night, or even 24 hours a day, without any safeguards against noise, nuisance and the general disorder which, unfortunately, is all too often associated with alcohol. I am, therefore, grateful to my noble friend for his ready willingness to limit the scope of the Bill and in return I can say that the Government look upon his Bill with benevolent neutrality.
My noble friend has explained the effects of the amended Clause 1. I should perhaps emphasise that
624
his Bill is not directed at all premises serving food and alcohol. We are dealing at Clause 1(1) with those premises, or parts of premises, whose main function is the supply of substantial refreshment to customers sitting down to a meal and which serve alcohol as an ancillary to that meal. These are the premises which operate under the terms of a full on-licence, a restaurant licence or a club registration certificate and which are now able to serve drinks with meals until three o'clock in the afternoon, when others are required to close at 2.30 p.m. or 2 p.m. on Sundays. The criteria which must now be met for those extensions will apply equally under my noble friend's proposals. Their effect will be, however, that instead of ceasing to serve drinks with meals at 3 p.m., eligible premises can continue throughout the afternoon without a break.
There are, however, restaurants which, because they are open for meals only at midday or only in the evenings, are subject to a condition imposed on their licence restricting the supply of drinks with meals to the midday licensing hours, until 3 p.m. or to the evening period. My noble friend has explained that it is reasonable to allow those restaurants now subject to a cut-off time of 3 p.m. to continue to serve drinks with meals throughout the afternoon until the start of the evening licensing hours. The proposed new Clause 1(2) has this effect and enables licensed restaurants which are open only during the day to benefit from the Bill's provisions in the same way as other eligible premises. The only difference is that, at the start of the evening licensing hours, normally 5.30 p.m. or 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. on Sundays, such restaurants could no longer serve drinks unless the proprietor successfully applied to the justices to vary the restrictions on hours imposed on the licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me a hypothetical legal question about two Private Members' Bills emanating in different Houses of Parliament. She asked what would happen if they both became law. I do not think I can answer her at this stage because they are Private Members' Bills and therefore not the responsibility of the Government. I am sure that if it were a government Bill we should have tied up the loose ends for her, but I think we should wait and see what happens to the Bills as they proceed through Parliament.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness concerning the Title, it appears from the work that we have done on this Bill that it covers the point adequately and will not lead to the misunderstandings to which the noble Baroness quite rightly referred, at which we should have looked and indeed have done so already.
I do not dissent from my noble friend's wish to harmonise the licensing hours for all licensed restaurants. Indeed, he reminded the Committee of something that I said during the Second Reading, in that it is not so unreasonable for someone dining at four o'clock in the afternoon to want to have a drink with his meal. For these reasons I am happy to support the amended Clause 1 and the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Perhaps I may just thank those who have taken part in this debate. I am very grateful for the support that I have received from all quarters of the Committee. Perhaps I may also mention that I had a telephone message from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to say that had he been here—and he is very sorry not to be here—he also would have supported these amendments.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that I do not think that it would be entirely appropriate for me to enter into a detailed debate about the definition of "et cetera". That is an issue which we ought perhaps to deal with another time. I am not sure that the addition of the word "et cetera" to the Title would add anything whatsoever to the Bill. Personally, I think it is in place where it is in the text because the definitions of all these matters and the definitions of all the different types of establishment have not in fact been altered and have been taken directly from the 1964 Act where they are spelt out in very considerable detail in Section 201. I think that, if she cares to refer to that particular passage of the 1964 Act, she will find the explanations given in quite considerable detail.
Regarding the second question of the noble Baroness, I am very happy to concur entirely with my noble friend Lord Caithness when he said that of course this Chamber is the House of Lords and the House of Commons is another place and no doubt they will deal with matters as is appropriate.
It seems to me that this Bill stands in its own right. We in this Chamber have put forward the Bill and I hope that it will go forward as it stands or rather as it has been amended, because it seems to me to be worthwhile in its own right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minor and consequential amendments 1):
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I have already spoken about this clause and argued that it should be deleted from the Bill. Therefore I think I shall be voting "Not-Content".
Clause 2 negatived.
Clause 3 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following Clause:
("Transitional provisions.
3. On the commencement of this Act—

(a) section 68(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 1964, as amended by section 1(1) above, shall apply (subject to section 69 of that Act) to any premises to which that paragraph applied immediately before the commencement of this Act; and

(b) any condition in force immediately before the commencement of this Act under section 95 of the said Act of 1964 shall take effect as a condition restricting the permitted hours in the premises so as to exclude any time after the start of the second part of the general licensing hours (within the meaning of that Act), or any time before it, as the case requires.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
In the Title:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 3:
Line 1, leave out ("remove the") and insert ("relax the daytime").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  LOUGH BEG RAMSAR SITE: DRAINAGE WORKS
  LOUGH BEG RAMSAR SITE: DRAINAGE WORKS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: ROAD TRANSPORT
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: ROAD TRANSPORT
  MoD POLICE: SPECIAL CONSTABULARY SCHEME
  MoD POLICE: SPECIAL CONSTABULARY SCHEME
  BLOWPIPE MISSILES IN AFGHANISTAN
  BLOWPIPE MISSILES IN AFGHANISTAN
  ROAD SIGNS: DEFACEMENT
  ROAD SIGNS: DEFACEMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURE
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURE
  GREY SEALS: RESEARCH
  GREY SEALS: RESEARCH