House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Dec 1991

Mr. Butterfill : Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read an article in The Spectator which says that one of the directors of the Mirror Group was being seriously considered by the Leader of the Opposition as a future Governor of the Bank of England?

Column 1080

Mr. Shaw : My hon. Friend is right. I am aware of that article in The Spectator today, but I had imposed my own self-censorship because the article refers to a Member of the upper House closely connected with the Labour party, and I have taken great pains to remain in order throughout my speech. I accept--one can say this without criticism--that it would have been very dangerous had that person become Governor of the Bank of England.

It seems that the trustees have failed the pensioners and have much to answer for to the Select Committee on Social Security, which has asked them to attend next Tuesday's meeting. More legislation may be required on trustees. At present, case law operates for trustees, and that case law is not as clear as statute law. That is unfortunate, because, until this case arose, by and large we had few problems with pension funds. The vast majority of such funds in this country are run satisfactorily and properly.

It is equally clear that, particularly in the case of the Mirror group, the merchant banks and the professionals who carefully briefed the City of London to the effect that Maxwell had been separated from control and that Maxwell companies were separated from any influence over the public company and its pension funds utterly failed the pensioners.

More than anything, the Labour party, its contacts and connections failed the 16,000 Mirror Group pensioners and other pensioners who obtained their pensions through Maxwell-connected companies. The Labour party has a lot to answer for in this case.

9.37 pm

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on obtaining a debate on what is undoubtedly an important subject. I have been seeking for some time to get the issue urgently on the parliamentary agenda, but the Secretary of State for Social Security, whom I have already dubbed the invisible man of the Government, has maintained, and is still maintaining, a deafening silence.

I do not know how he justifies his keep in the Cabinet, when an explosive issue of this kind arises, directly within his responsibility, and he says nothing, apart from suggesting that he may bring forward the regulation on self-investment on which he has already been sitting for over 18 months and which, as I shall show, is in any case irrelevant to the Maxwell saga.

Pension funds currently total £300 billion to £400 billion, the largest single block of funds in the City. The degree of regulation at present is the lightest imaginable. It is true--I did not know that it was Speight 1883, but I am sure that that is correct--that pension funds are run by trustees, who are under a legal obligation to manage the funds in the interest of their members, but in practice the discretion that they exercise is virtually unlimited. Moreover, the trustees are generally appointed by the employer and often--not just in the Maxwell case--the chairman of the company is also the chairman of the pension fund. That may well mean, as has already been said, that the funds are used in highly questionable ways.

There is nothing at present to stop trustees investing in the shares of the parent company. There is nothing at present to stop trustees appointing managers from their own group. There is nothing to stop new owners of a business after a takeover winding up the fund and

Column 1081

transferring the pensioners to a new fund and then pocketing the surplus. That is exactly what Hanson tried to do in respect of Imperial Tobacco.

There is nothing to stop employers paying pensioners a miserly 3 per cent. a year increase in their pensions--far below the average rate of inflation of the Thatcher years, which was 9 per cent. a year--while draining off the surplus or taking a unilateral contributions holiday. There is nothing to stop an employer shifting pension fund moneys away from reliable blue chip stock investments into much more risky and speculative gambles. All these things have happened, and they are by no means confined to Maxwell.

Mr. Butterfill : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher : I shall only give way a few times, because there is limited time.

Mr. Butterfill : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. While we are on the subject, would the hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Maxwell clearly had difficulty in distinguishing between personal and corporate assets, and even greater difficulty, apparently, in distinguishing between personal and pension fund assets? Given that Mr. Maxwell was a major benefactor of the Labour party, both corporately and personally, and given that not just the Labour party but perhaps the private offices of some Labour party Front- Bench spokesmen may have benefited, and therefore, quite unwittingly perhaps, benefited from moneys which were tainted and not properly available to be given to them, can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking tonight that the Labour party will forthwith undertake to repay all those moneys just in case they may have been tainted?

Mr. Meacher : I must say that I find it nauseating hypocrisy for Tory party Members who have for years received hundreds of thousands of pounds from people like Mr. Asil Nadir, the Hong Kong tycoon whose name I cannot remember, and Mr. Latsis, who had a close relationship with the Greek colonels, to seek to lambast the Labour party for receiving money from rich men. It is an utterly disreputable and contemptible attempt to divert a serious debate by those lurid charges.

Mr. Rogers : My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the Tory party has been the recipient of moneys over the years from the City and has justified it as perfectly proper. As my hon. Friend has said, their hypocrisy is now evident. I do not know whether the bubbles and the heat are bringing up the sewer rats of the Tory party, but some of the statements that I have heard here tonight have been absolutely appalling.

Tory Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend will point out, have opposed the regulation of the City year after year ; they have opposed any moves towards the declaration of political funds for political parties. They have dithered like this for all these years, and now, just like sewer rats, they bubble up to the surface.

Mr. Butterfill : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member to call Conservative Members who raise legitimate points of interest sewer rats? Is that parliamentary?

Column 1082

Mr. Speaker : That is probably going over the top. I ask the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to withdraw the phrase "sewer rats", which is not parliamentary.

Mr. Rogers : Under your direction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Meacher : There is a yawning gap in pension fund law. That is agreed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Nicholls rose --

Mr. Meacher : I am not giving way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would only perpetuate the low quality of debate which he generally introduces.

Mr. Nicholls : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : That is not unparliamentary.

Mr. Nicholls : That was not the point that I was about the make, Mr. Speaker. I had it in mind that it was a tradition of the House that, if a Front-Bench spokesman deliberately spoke critically of a Back-Bench Member, it was courtesy to give way.

Mr. Speaker : The convention of the House is that, if an hon. Member does not give way, other hon. Members sit down.

Mr. Meacher : As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) rightly said, the superannuation office of the Inland Revenue makes sure that it gets its tax. The occupational pension advisory service makes sure that minimum pension benefits are provided. After that, it is a black hole.

The Government's response has been mind-blowingly complacent. Faced with a national outcry over the Maxwell revelations, the Secretary of State, like the three monkeys, heard nothing, saw nothing and said nothing. Instead, at the end of last night's debate, the Minister of State was wheeled out to mumble a hastily prepared script which purports to be the Government's considered response to a week of angry, blazing headlines. He said :

"but we acknowledge that trustees have a clear duty to act at all times in the interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme. They are required by law to disclose certain facts to their pensioners, the trade unions and the members of their funds. The actuarial valuation of the funds is an important part of that. When we have considered the outcome of the Maxwell situation, we shall consider whether any further changes to the law are needed. I am not prejudging that issue when I say that, if somebody deliberately sets out to commit fraud on a massive scale, there is precious little that the law or regulatory agencies can do to prevent it entirely."

That last sentence takes the biscuit. The Minister says that they cannot stop a deliberate fraudster breaking the law but the Government have not given the regulatory bodies any powers to prevent fraud in the first place. Hon. Members will note that he said : "When we have considered the outcome of the Maxwell situation, we shall consider whether any further changes to the law are needed."--[ Official Report, 11 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 918.]

The Mirror Group Newspapers case is not by a long way the first episode which should have put a shot across the Government's bows. Many well-known companies, including Vauxhall, Decca, Babcock and Wilcox, Imperial Group and Thomas Tilling, have all over the last few years revealed serious flaws in the structure of their occupational pension funds.

Column 1083

Then, of course, there is Hanson. A week ago, I received out of the blue a letter from a person in Stockbridge, Hampshire, whom I have never met. He wrote :

"I should like to remind you of the raid on Courage Brewery pension fund during the short ownership by Lord Hanson prior to the sale to John Elliot of Elders. The business had been rationalised by the Hanson henchmen--staff sacked, businesses sold off, assets transferred, land thought to belong to the sports and social club sold for an industrial estate, then Courages put up for sale. A dispute occurred over a huge cash surplus, £100 million, I think, in the employees' pension fund. This money was to be transferred from the pension fund of Courage employees to a fund in Lord Hanson's control prior to the sale, of course quite legally. The new fund was not to be used for the Courage employees whose contributions made the surplus but lost to the Hanson empire."

I hope Conservative Members will note that it is not by any means only in the case of Maxwell that wrongdoings occur.

Mr. Nicholls rose --

Mr. Hind rose --

Mr. Meacher : I will give way to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who made a much more balanced speech.

Mr. Hind : Clearly, there are problems in the industry generally. I use the Maxwell case as an example because it is horrendous. Would both sides of the House agree about introducing legislation on this matter? If it is felt that legislation should be introduced in the near future, will the hon. Gentleman pledge, on behalf of the Opposition, to support it so that it could be taken through the House quickly?

Mr. Meacher : Indeed. I am glad to give that assurance, and if the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech, he will see that I shall take that line strongly.

In the light of what I regard as cheap party political points made by several hon. Members, I make it clear that Maxwell's actions were inexcusable. But they are not new--such action has been going on for years. Everybody knows that--pensioners, company employees, the media and the public--and everybody wanted action to stop it, except, apparently, the Government.

Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher : No, I shall not give way.

I was interested to read a few days ago an article by Christopher Fildes of the Daily Telegraph, who wrote on 9 December : "The Minister responsible-- Tony Newton, caught with his mouth open, and surely not long for high office--cannot say he was not warned. More than two years ago, I told him here that pensions would blow up in his face".

He then quotes a previous article of his entitled "Bomb in Tony Newton's in -tray", of 31 July 1989.

Why has the Secretary of State failed to act in the past two and a half years? Does he realise that, by sitting on his hands and doing nothing about the matter for the past several years, he bears some responsibility for the losses suffered and for the fact that Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners have been cheated of their pensions? He bears some responsibility for the losses suffered by other pensioners and employees in a string of recent notorious cases because of the lack of a law which would have prevented those dubious and questionable practices from

Column 1084

taking place. By his complacency and by dithering over his response--or rather non-response--to the Maxwell scandal, he is still causing anxiety and apprehension to millions of pensioners who are genuinely very worried about whether their pension fund is secure. I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone, but if the Secretary of State does not come out of hiding soon and come to the Dispatch Box with considered proposals to stop the rape of pension funds, he will have forfeited his right to retain his office and, in my view, he should resign. If he has any doubts about what he should do, I shall tell him.

First, the Secretary of State should enshrine in law the clear principle--I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lancashire, West make the same point-- that the pension fund moneys belong to their members, not to the employers. That is not just the long-held view of the Labour party but was the decision last year of the European Court in the Barber judgment, which declared that men and women should have equal pay. That meant that there should be equal pensions, because pensions are deferred pay.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman should legislate--again, I am wholly in agreement with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West--to provide for an independent chairman who is not to be the chairman of the parent company, or a member of the parent company board. He should require--we may differ a little on this, but I insist on it--that there be a 50 per cent. employee representation, consisting of at least one pensioner representative, on the trust board. Those employee representatives must be independently elected, not chosen by the managers or owners of the parent company.

That is exactly the framework that we proposed during the Committee stage of the Social Security Act 1990, but it received the same negligent and complacent response from the Government then, on 6 March 1990, as it does now. The then junior Minister for Social Security said in response to our proposal :

"We feel that it would be an unnecessary intrusion into the way that pension schemes are run and set up, to give the state the power to require schemes to have member trustees".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 March 1990 ; c. 348.]

It was that folly, due to political dogma--the Government's refusal to require the appointment of 50 per cent. employee representatives to keep a close eye on an errant employer--that led directly to Maxwell's autocratic control of the MGN pension funds and their subsequent misuse.

Thirdly, the Secretary of State should require full and up-to-date disclosure of all relevant information covering the financial state of the pension fund. Every member of that board should be an equal recipient of that information.

Fourthly, the Secretary of State should regulate extremely tightly both self-investment and stock lending--I am surprised that stock lending has not been mentioned more tonight. The 5 per cent. self-investment regulation, which the Secretary of State has already been sitting on for 18 months and has still not introduced, is flawed because it exempts permanently any self-investment in the company's properties, as opposed to shares which exist when the law is finally changed.

More importantly, reference to that much-delayed regulation was the only response made by the Secretary of

Column 1085

State to the Maxwell revelations, and it was irrelevant because Maxwell did not self-invest in the parent company, but drained off the funds to an entirely separate set of private interests. Therefore, even if the Secretary of State's regulation had been in place five years ago, it would still not have stopped Maxwell doing what he did by one iota. We await any Government response that is relevant to preventing what has happened, which we all agree involved misdeeds. Fifthly, the right hon. Gentleman should make statutory provision for the redress of complaints. He should offer recourse to an independent tribunal with enforcement powers--possibly within the industrial tribunal framework- -so that the complaints and grievances of pension fund members can be properly addressed.

Sixthly, and most importantly, we need a statutory trust deed to provide a model for the operation and administrative procedures of pension funds. At present, employers can, idiosyncratically, write their own trust deeds. They do not have to conform to a trust framework that guarantees the protection of the proper rights and interests of employees and pensioners. That standard trust deed should regulate the nature and frequency of trustee meetings, establish minimum standards for disclosure, standardise rules for the actuarial calculation of surpluses, which are gravely lacking at present, and regulate investment procedures.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will note that I think that we should look at European procedures and practice. In particular, we should consider the rules in the Benelux countries, whereby about two thirds of pension fund assets must be invested in cash or fixed-interest stock. We should also look at the provision in Germany of a degree of compulsory insolvency insurance so that pensioners are protected against losses suffered from speculation outside blue chip stock investment. I think that the Select Committee is to do so, which I strongly support.

There must be new rules to regulate the allocation of surpluses. It is simply wrong for employers to siphon off surpluses or take unilateral contributions holidays, which amounts to much the same thing, when pensioners are being fobbed off with a mere average 3 per cent. annual increase in pension to protect them against inflation--especially when the average inflation rate in the Thatcher years was 9 per cent. The first duty of the pension fund must be to provide best quality pensions for its members, including adequate inflation protection, which is currently gravely lacking. I draw attention to the secret protocol to the economic and monetary union treaty which, it was announced today, was signed at Maastricht. In effect, the Prime Minister has signed away equal pension rights between British men and women for the next 40 years, secretly, without warning or consultation, and with dubious constitutional validity because it flies in the face of the Barber judgment of May last year. This is, in effect, the third opt-out from the treaty on economic and monetary union by this outsider Prime Minister.

When that is fully understood, it will cause intense anger among the millions of pensioners and employees who will find that their hopes and expectations of pension

Column 1086

equality in retirement have been abruptly and unceremoniously dashed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. However, it raises two important issues.

First, six months ago the Secretary of State suspended the 5 per cent. limited price indexing regulation on the grounds that it could not be afforded with the overhang of costs from the Barber judgment. If that has now been removed by this protocol--I want an answer from the Under- Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)--will he urgently reinstate the limited price indexing regulation? [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary is worried about time, perhaps she should have had a word with two of her hon. Friends, one of whom spoke for half an hour and one for 25 minutes.

If the LPI regulation is introduced, occupational pensions will be slightly better but still inadequately protected against the ravages of inflation. Will the Secretary of State reintroduce that regulation? Secondly, will he use the latest protocol to ditch the hopes and expectations of equal retirement age and equal pension rights in the state scheme? On that alone, he owes it to millions of people to make clear the Government's position.

If there is one good thing about the Maxwell saga, it is the way in which it has highlighted the flaws and gaps in the control of pension funds so that even this Government can no longer drag their feet and ignore them. Procrastination and delay must stop. We must have a new, effective and comprehensive law on the statute book before the election if it is in six months' time. As I have been asked, I give an assurance that, if the framework of protection that I have spelt out is speedily adopted by the Secretary of State, we shall give such a Bill a fair wind in Parliament. If not, it will be on his head and on that of the Government when millions of pensioners and employees give their verdict on the issue in the forthcoming election. 10.2 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe) : Well, well, well. On the night when we were discussing matters of supreme importance to millions of pensioners, where were the Opposition? On the night when we were discussing the fears and anxieties of employees--past and present--who worked for years for a major Labour newspaper, where were the Opposition? It is worth recording that, for the first three quarters of an hour of this one-and-a-half-hour debate there was no one on the Opposition Back Benches, whereas, on the Conservative Back Benches, interest has been shown not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), whom I congratulate on obtaining the debate and on the eloquent and reasonable way in which he opened it, but by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), for Ipswich, (Mr. Irvine) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). But where was the Labour party?

I find it rather nauseating--I think that that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that he should criticise my right hon. Friend the

Column 1087

Secretary of State for inaction when we have taken consistent action, not just in response to some very large headlines but since the passing of the Social Security Act 1990.

That is only the most recent measure. I could also mention the Financial Services Act 1986 and its importance for this matter, but it is worth recording that the Social Security Act 1990 provided powers enabling restrictions to be based on the extent to which the resources of occupational pension schemes may be invested in the sponsoring employer and --this will interest the hon. Member for Oldham, West--in an associate employer or connected employer. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has rushed in with his mouth open to say that the Act had severe limitations, when in fact we should examine carefully the extent of the Act and make careful judgments on the basis of that.

Mr. Rogers : Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe : In due course. I apologise, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not leave me much time.

Shortly after the passage of this Act the Government commissioned independent consultants--they did not just pass the Act and have done with it--Ernst and Young to report on the extent of such investment and on any problems that could arise in restricting it. We wanted to be sure when we brought in the regulations to follow the Act that they would be sensible and would stand up. That is not inaction : it is sensible action.

Following the report, draft regulations to achieve such restrictions were then referred to the Occupational Pensions Board. That is not inaction either. After consultation with interested bodies, the board reported on the draft towards the end of July. So my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been sitting on this for 18 months ; there was solid action right up to the time when Parliament rose for its summer recess.

Having considered these representations, together with others received subsequently about the need for appropriate provisions to avoid causing unnecessary difficulty to companies and pension funds in respect of existing self-investment, we intend to lay the regulations shortly.

Mr. Rogers : I agree that the Government have, under considerable pressure, introduced legislation. If the legislation, however, is as good as the hon. Lady suggests, why did it not stop Maxwell criminally diverting funds from pension funds?

The hon. Lady invoked the Financial Services Act. I remember Opposition Members frequently suggesting that we should set up a structure to control the City and its financial dealings. Tory Members said that the City can regulate itself. That is the problem--without control of the City of London there will always be these scandals.

Miss Widdecombe : It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman asks why these measures did not stop Mr. Maxwell when, as we have just said, they are about to come into force. They are not retrospective and they would not have bitten on the Maxwell problem.

The protection of pension funds is of importance to the vast majority of people, and the Government have worked consistently to strengthen safeguards for pension funds and to protect scheme members. The bulk of what has

Column 1088

been said tonight notwithstanding, I feel that I cannot comment on problems to do with the Maxwell group of companies' pension funds--

Mr. Rogers : Why not?

Miss Widdecombe : Because at best that would be speculative and at worst it could be seen as prejudicing the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation.

In general, we should first consider the legal basis for the vast majority of pension schemes--in the main, it is trust law. This ensures that a scheme's assets are held separately from the employer's assets. This is a requirement for approval of the scheme for tax purposes. Under trust law, the trustees of the scheme, including those appointed by the employer, have a duty to act at all times in the best interests of all the beneficiaries under the trust, in accordance with the trust deed and the scheme rules.

As we have discussed the independence of trustees tonight, it is worth rehearsing their main duties. They must act in accordance with the trust deed and rules of the scheme within the framework of law. They must act prudently, conscientiously and honestly and with the utmost good faith. They must act in the best interests of beneficiaries and strike a fair balance between the interests of different classes of beneficiaries. They must take advice on technical matters and any other matters which they do not understand and they must invest the funds.

The duties of trustees in relation to investment have most concerned the House tonight. Under the Financial Services Act 1986, it is a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to carry on investment business, and that includes the day-to-day management of pension scheme investments. It is most unusual, therefore, for trustees to seek authorisation under the Act. Instead, trustees mainly delegate the work of detailed investment management to an authorised investment manager. However, they must retain control over broad strategic decisions such as the proportion of the total funds to be invested in particular categories of investment.

Mr. Butterfill : Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the Maxwell case, that work was delegated to Bishopsgate, which is an authorised investment manager--regulated by the Financial Services Act and a member of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, and that there may be a claim against IMRO as a result?

Miss Widdecombe : As I have said, I shall not comment on the details of the Maxwell case, pending the outcome of the specific investigation. It would be prejudicial for me to do so, but I shall take on board my hon. Friend's point.

In stating what the Government have already done, there is no suggestion that we are not interested in other representations. Not least among those representations must surely be the outcome of the Select Committee's deliberations. It would be wrong for us to rush in and take precipitate action without making judgments based on the important representations of the Select Committee and others which we shall receive.

If a trustee carries out some act in relation to the trust which is not authorised by the terms of the trust or a statutory obligation, or fails to do something that he should have done, there is a breach of trust. If that causes a loss to the fund, the trustee is personally liable unless the scheme rules exempt the trustee from liability--for instance, where there is some entirely unintentional error,

Column 1089

which could be something as minor as paying a pension to someone who, upon examination, is not strictly entitled to it. Most pension schemes contain a provision binding the employer to indemnify the trustees against any liability or costs resulting from the proper exercise of their functions, but that would not apply to fraudulent transactions.

The trustee body sets out the procedure for the appointment of trustees and who is eligible. It may include people who are members of the board or senior executives of the company. It may include members of the scheme or the pensioners. The trustee body may be a company with individuals as directors of the compnay and it may include one or more persons with no direct interest in the scheme. It is interesting that there are about 160,000 such schemes, of varying size and complexity and with different memberships. One of the difficulties in taking the sort of action being recommended by Opposition Members and one or two of my hon. Friends is that we have to devise schemes that will not have an adverse impact on genuine operations by smaller companies. It was precisely that sort of consideration which led us into such detailed consultation on the self- investment regulations and which would lead us again, however worthy a proposal might seem at first sight, to investigate the effects thoroughly.

We do not want to lay regulations only to find that we then have a string of amending regulations because, owing to the varying types of schemes, exceptions keep coming to the fore. Membership of those schemes now totals 20 million. It is a serious business. With all due respect to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends, it is not something into which we can rush without full and proper consultation.

To improve understanding of the role and responsibilities of trustees, the Occupational Pensions Board, in its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on protecting pensions, expressed the view that a brief statement of the principles of trusteeship should be prepared and that the disclosure requirements, which have not featured much in tonight's debate but which are important, should be extended to include information on whether each trustee has received a copy of the statement.

My right hon. Friend accepted the board's recommendation--again, action not inaction--invited it to prepare a booklet and undertook to extend the disclosure requirements as soon as it was published, to include information as to whether trustees had access to that booklet. My right hon. Friend will then be in a position to extend the disclosure requirements accordingly.

Trustees are governed not just by trust law in that respect but must comply with legislation enacted by--

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's-- Ruling--[Official Report, 31 January 1983 ; Vol. 36, c. 19]-- the debate was concluded.

Column 1090

Homelessness

10.15 pm

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : The time is 10.15 pm, and all over the United Kingdom people are getting ready for bed--not all in the comfort of their own homes, and certainly not in two, three, or four-star hotels, but in shop doorways, on park benches, and in derelict buildings.

The homeless of the United Kingdom--our country--are men and women of all ages. This evening they are sleeping rough, as they do on many nights, on the streets of this country. That is the United Kingdom of December 1991-- be it in the cities of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, or Bristol. The list is endless.

Those are some of the principal cities of our country, but a survey undertaken in February shows that, even in small towns, people are sleeping rough tonight, as they were at the beginning of the year. The survey revealed that the number of people sleeping rough in Andover was 50 ; in Cambridge, 60 ; in Luton, 50, and in Blackburn, 25. Not half a mile from this building--the mother of

Parliaments--hundreds of people are sleeping rough tonight. Early-day motion 304, "Homeless people sleeping rough in severe weather outside London", was signed by more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have over a long period tabled questions on that issue. I did so in June 1990, February 1991, and November 1991. As long ago as December 1989, I put this written question to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) :

"To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Crisis at Christmas centre in London during Christmas."

She replied :

"I have at present no plans to do so."--[ Official Report, 19 December 1989 ; Vol.164, c. 122. ]

And she did not.

That is the background to the homelessness that stretches throughout the country, but there are other aspects. Official estimates suggest that some 40,000 homeless households in London are in temporary accommodation. Many of those families include young children. The figure for homeless households in the whole of the United Kingdom is estimated at 145,000.

We all know what such accommodation offers : a roof over one's head, but very little more. People must live in a single room with all their belongings. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have visited such accommodation, and seen suitcases and plastic bags piled high on wardrobes or cupboards. There is nowhere for youngsters to play, and what facilities there are bathroom, toilet and kitchen--are shared. Often, the accommodation is some distance from where the occupants have been living, and the move involves a major upheaval.

As I have said, there are 40,000 homeless households in London. In 1979, there were 2,750. Both figures reflect a pattern that is repeated throughout the country.

Why do such conditions exist in 1991? There can be no doubt that the position has worsened every year since the Government came to power in 1979. Since then, however, the country has gained enormous wealth through North sea oil and the sale of state assets. Where have those vast sums gone? How much of the money has been spent on trying to tackle the tragedy of homelessness, which many would describe as not only a tragedy but a national scandal?

Next Section

Home Page