§ Q2. Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Royal Commission to examine the problems of caring for the disabled.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 14th October.— [Vol. 788, c. 200–1.]
§ Mr. BakerHas the Prime Minister seen an Answer given to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) earlier this week in which it was stated that the unemployment rate of the disabled had risen from 7.6 per cent. in November, 1964 to 10.9 per cent. in November, 1969, an increase of nearly 50 per cent.? That is a most distressing increase. I should like to know what the Prime Minister has in mind to improve job opportunities for the disabled.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that the Royal Commission suggested by the hon. Member would provide the assistance required over the wide field which perhaps the hon. Member has in mind. He will be aware of what has been done to provide new alternative jobs for the disabled. There is the problem which is of great concern to all of us to get people scheduled as disabled and to deal with the young disabled. The hon. Member will have welcomed the statement made by the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, yesterday about what we are doing in the matter of allowances for the disabled.
§ Mr. AshleyIs my right hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the Government's proposals, they will help less than 5 per cent. of the disabled? I think it 1544 quite wrong to delay the establishment of a Royal Commission. Is not the case for a penetrating analysis into the longterm problems of the disabled clearly established? Will he look at this problem again and reconsider his decision?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend will be aware of the replies which I gave on the last occasion and the reply which I gave to his supplementary question. I said then that I did not think that a Royal Commission could do more to establish the facts and that we were collecting the facts. I am now in a position to say that they are mainly in and that we hope to be in a position to publish the first part of the information arising from this survey next month. Once we have all the facts, possibly we can make progress, as my hon. Friend would like us to do.
§ Mr. Gordon CampbellCan the Prime Minister explain why on 24th January last the Government Whips were put on against the Disablement Commission Bill, at that time a Private Member's Bill of mine which was supported on both sides of the House, resulting in a majority of only four?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member knows that on a number of these questions we have had to take the view that, however well-intentioned certain Bills were, they were not drafted in a way most likely to help in those problems. No doubt the hon. Member will have welcomed the fact that a fortnight ago the House gave a Second Reading to, and the Minister gave a welcome to, the extremely good Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). Here again it will be necessary to recommend many changes in individual Clauses. The hon. Member should also give a welcome to what has been done for the disabled as outlined in the statement made this week.
§ Mr. FernyhoughIs not a substantial part of this increase due to the rapid contraction of the coalmining industry, because the coalmining industry carried a bigger percentage of disabled people than any private employer?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. That is why the Labour Government after the war did so much about building the Rem-ploy factories for those disabled in the 1545 coalmining industry, and it is the reason for all we have done to step up the Remploy programme. It is certainly a fact that a considerable number of those thrown out of employment by colliery closures are disabled. The House will have noticed the great contrast between our treatment of those thrown out of employment over the age of 55—[HoN. MEME ERS: "Oh."]—I hope that hon. Members have noted the contrast, because the Tory Party did nothing for miners over 55 who were displaced.
§ Mr. MaudlingIn answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), the Prime Minister appeared to say that the only reason the Government Whips were put on against that Bill was its defective drafting. Why could not this have been dealt with in Committee?
§ The Prime MinisterI should be very glad to look at the facts in relation to the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. That was my impression about that and many other Bills, which are introduced out of real care, concern and compassion but which are not always the right answer to the problem.