Lords Sitting of 24 June 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro

B.O.A.C. FARES
2.35 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the supplementary question put on Tuesday, May 12, in relation to the fares on some services of B.O.A.C. and others, has been subject to correction for the bound volume of Hansard, and if so, whether they can now give the corrected version, in order that the noble Earl, Lord Gosford's answer may be understood in relation to the question in its correct form.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Yes, my Lords, in. agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, the supplementary question which was put to me on May 12 in relation to fares on some services of B.O.A.C. and others has been subject to correction in the bound volume of Hansard which now reads as follows:
"LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that B.O.A.C. and other airlines would wish to reduce the fares on some of the international services but are prevented from doing so by the decisions of I.A.T.A.? B.O.A.C. is actually anxious to reduce some of the fares."
This was as I heard the question, and my answer thereto, which was:
"I understand that that is in fact so"
remains unaltered.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, which clarifies the position.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Earl the Leader of the House at some time to make a short statement showing what Members should do in reference to Reports in Hansard? The reporting is
178
excellent, but sometimes there is a mishearing and one wishes to make a slight correction. What is the correct and accepted procedure for Members to follow?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I should like to examine that, if I may, and communicate with the noble Viscount at a later date.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on the subject of the original Question, could the noble Earl say what the present position is with reference to fares across the Pacific? Can B.O.A.C. now charge for passengers?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that, as I had no notice of this supplementary question, I have not the information for which the noble Lord asks. He can, however, put down a further Question, or I will give him an Answer in writing, whichever he prefers.

DRINK AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state when the report from the Medical Research Council regarding drink and road accidents will be published and when the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to scientific tests will be announced.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, a paper summarising the results of the experiments on the effect of alcohol on a skill resembling driving, which were conducted under the auspices of the Medical Research Council, was published in the British Medical Journal on October 28, 1958, and as soon as Professor Drew has completed his revision of the form of presentation with full details of the methods used and of the data collected in this experiment, the Medical Research Council intend to publish it in one of their series of memoranda.
I much regret the delay, but Professor Drew assures me that he has in substance

179
completed the work, and that he should be in a position to place it in the hands of the Medical Research Council by the end of next month. The Medical Research Council would then arrange to publish the document at the earliest possible moment, and, subject to any difficulties in printing, it should be in the hands of the public within three months of the receipt of the document.
With regard to the second part of the Question, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has asked me to say that as this report is based on experiments conducted entirely under particular laboratory conditions, it does not, in his view, in itself provide a basis on which proposals could be framed to extend the use of scientific tests to determine whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol. He is, however, continuing discussions on the general issue with the Medical Research Council.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, first of all, whether it is the intention that the Paper will be published by the Government and not by an outside body. We do not want to be referred to an outside body for the information contained in this Report. The noble Viscount is aware that this matter has been under examination for a very considerable time. Has nothing been done in the way of ascertaining the experience of the many other countries where tests of a definite kind have been found most useful?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the Question as I have repeatedly explained to the noble Lord, this document relates to a piece of research sponsored by the Medical Research Council, and it will he published in exactly the same way as all other pieces of research sponsored by the Medical Research Council are published. It may, for a particular reason, he printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but it is the Medical Research Council's research which will be so published. As regards the second part of the Question, inquiries are under foot but, as the noble Lord knows, they did not, in fact, form part of the research the report of which he is asking for.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that further
180
answer, but he must be aware of the urgency of this matter and the necessity for coming to some conclusions about it. I want to assure him definitely that what is looked for is a statement on behalf of the Government in order that it may be demonstrated what action is being taken to deal with this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think, with respect, that the noble Lord is confusing two separate issues. The first question related to the publication of the results of a particular piece of scientific research. That is one issue, and I have dealt with it. If the noble Lord wants to press me on the general issue, as to whether it is desirable to introduce legislation altering the tests for determining the effect of alcohol on drivers, I think that that had better be discussed out of the context of this particular piece of research. But, as I told the noble Lord, discussions between the Medical Research Council, for which I am departmentally responsible in this House, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation are still going on.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, what is the purpose of research if it is not to improve public safety? My noble friend is asking whether measures will be taken to make this research available in such a form as to reduce the number of motor accidents.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am responsible for scientific research, the purpose of which is to discover what the truth of the matter is. The noble Viscount cannot have studied the numerous questions and answers which have related to this subject if he thinks that this was other than a perfectly normal piece of scientific research undertaken by the Medical Research Council. It will no doubt have a bearing on the particular practical problem which interests the noble Viscount. But the Question I was asked to answer related to the publication of a piece of medical research.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, my noble friend asked; Do the Government consider this question one of urgency? It is common knowledge that this matter of deaths on the road is getting more and more serious and certainly merits more consideration than it seems to be getting at the present time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that this matter of deaths on the road was discussed at great length in this House in the last few days. It is altogether outside the scope of the Question I was asked and was trying to answer.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it not well known that my noble friend has repeatedly asked this Question, with a view to saving the lives of men, women and children on the roads? What is the good, therefore, of the Lord President saying that this is general research? It is applied research that is needed to reduce the death roll.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can still answer only the Question I am asked. If the noble Lord will ask another Question he will get another Answer.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, what I have been striving to get is a Government statement of facts and of their intentions; whether such a statement will be published, and when.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask whether we can be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not begin to make up their minds on the matter until they have all the information they require?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Viscount has read the very illuminating letter which appeared in The Times newspaper two or three days ago on the subject?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I ask whether it would not clear the issue if the noble Viscount could tell the House how Members can obtain the reports of the Medical Research Council. I have had long association with that Council, but I have for some years been out of touch, and I can never get hold of their reports.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the answer is that it can be bought at any bookstall if it is asked for by name. If the noble Lord finds any difficulty in getting these reports through the trade or through the Stationery Office, I would ensure that he got them. But it is news to me that they cannot be bought like any other publication.
LORD TAYLOR: Cannot they be obtained at the Printed Paper Office by saying that it is a report required for the purposes of one's Parliamentary work?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should have thought so. I thought the noble Lord's question related to possession, not only by Members of this House, but by those outside this House who might not be able to obtain them so cheaply.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that we can get only Stationery Office publications and not others?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I should need notice of that question. I do not want to answer ill-advisedly, although I think the noble Lord could get this Report. Certainly it is my intention in this particular case to use my authority to get it printed by the Stationery Office. But that might not normally be so. I am doing that for reasons which may be obvious in this particular case.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.

FINSBURY SQUARE DEVELOPMENT
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Royal Fine Art Commission has given any advice to the Finsbury Borough Council or Her Majesty's Government regarding the buildings and development proposed by the Finsbury Square Bill; and, if such advice has been given, whether they will state what it was.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I understand that the Finsbury Borough Council consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission on their proposals for Finsbury Square and that the Commission, in February last, reiterated an earlier recommendation that the petrol-filling stations should be placed at a lower level.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me why their recommendation is not to be carried out?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, so far as I know, the Finsbury Borough Council are considering this recommendation, with, no doubt, many other recommendations that they have received.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, while Finsbury Borough Council, like everyone else, would like to have the petrol stations underground, the suggestion that that should be done because it is more artistic is wholly impracticable, because the London County Council will not allow it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, shall we have the decision of the Finsbury Borough Council before the debate on the Third Reading of the Finsbury Square Bill takes place to-morrow? Otherwise many of us will be in a position of great difficulty.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, that is nothing to do with my right honourable friend; it is entirely to do with the sponsors of this Private Bill. No doubt we shall hear a great deal to-morrow.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that this particular issue and advice from the Fine Art Council are nothing to do with the Bill to-morrow, and that any questions of that kind can be discussed after the Bill has gone through Parliament.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am certain that my right honourable friend is aware of that.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if he will convey to whichever Minister contemplates intervening in to-morrow's debate that some of the House may think these matters most relevant?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am quite certain that whatever Minister is replying in to-morow's debate will consider what the noble Lord has said. But I want to make it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning is not responsible in this matter in any way unless there should be disagreement between the London County Council, the Finsbury Borough Council or the Church Commissioners; and then, under the Act of 1957, he is the final arbiter.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a statement at approximately 3.45 p.m. on the recent talks in Geneva.

EMPLOYMENT FOR DISABLED WORKERS
2.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to call attention to the increasing difficulty experienced by Workshops for the Blind, Reemploy, and other disabled workers' organisations, in finding employment for disabled workers, and to urge Her Majesty's Government to modify present arrangements so that the priority suppliers receive a larger proportion of Government contracts; and to move for Papers. The noble Lords said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and first I should like to say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have indicated their intention of speaking in this debate, because the subject is one of very great concern to thousands of people who really need and deserve our help. I had hoped this afternoon to be immediately followed by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who has, of course, experience in this subject which is unequalled. Unfortunately, he has to be many miles away, but he has kindly written to me to say:
"There would have been nothing I would like better to do than support you in the debate on June 24."
My object in moving this Motion is solely to secure your Lordships' support and, I hope, the Government's approval for a policy of providing work and, indeed, full employment for blind and other badly disabled people, and to increase the amount of work available to the inmates of Her Majesty's prisons. My interest in the subject springs from a thirty years' association with blind workers. There are some 106,000 blind persons of all ages in this country, of whom 6,000 are in open employment;

185
they need nothing from us except sympathetic understanding and a continuance and perhaps development of our blind welfare services, which are the best in the world. But there are 4,000 blind workers in sheltered employment and their need is work—work for their hands to do.
My father's brother was blinded at the age of 30. He was a great, strong chap and a craftsman. He neither asked for nor received help, public or private. Always he ignored his handicap; it was "I saw so-and-so yesterday". When anything was mislaid he knew exactly where to find it. He saw through his great, strong hands and with them supported himself and his family. I am a member of the Joint Industrial Council for the Basketmaking Industry. On the employers' side sit mainly managers of blind workshops; on the employees' side mainly members of the National League of the Blind. One of them was Chairman quite recently and for some weeks I was a member with him of a committee which was appointed to revise wages. He sat there making holes in a Braille block recording the complicated calculations and "keeping tabs" on the rest of us. And often "blind Fred" would pull us up; his fingers had detected errors that our eyes had overlooked. I mention these things to emphasise what I think is true of all blind and badly disabled people: they want neither charity nor pity; all they ask is the right to work and the chance to earn their living and live their lives the same as everyone else. We have come a long way from the day when it seemed a natural thing to call a blind workshop an asylum for the blind, a place to hide.
It is the same with severely disabled people who are registered in Section II of the Disabled Persons Register. Many thousands are in open employment; of the remaining 10,000 6,000 are working in Remploy, one of the noble enterprises which grew out of the last war. But more than 4,000 are not working at all, chiefly because Remploy has no work for them. I am not overlooking the 1,500-odd disabled people employed by such fine voluntary organisations as Lord Roberts' Memorial Workshops and the Princess Louise and many others, but they are covered by the term "priority suppliers" which I have used in my Motion, and both their position and their interests are
186
identical with those of larger organisations. Without exception, they are all having the greatest difficulty in getting enough work to keep their people employed.
I know of blind workshops working two or three days a week or one week in and one week out; another workshop where they bought a lot of timber for the people to cut for firewood in order to give them something to do. In the badly disabled field all over the country one can quote examples. In Scotland, for example, there are 423 Section II disabled, according to the last count, of whom 300 live sufficiently near to Remploy factories to be employed if there were work for them. At the Coventry Remploy they cannot take on local disabled even to replace wastage. They have a total capacity of eighty-five and only fifty-nine are employed, and that in an area of intense employment. They have not enough work for those badly disabled people. In the country as a whole out of that 4,000 it is estimated that 3,000 at least 'live sufficiently near to Remploy factories to be employed if there were work for them.
Of course, it is not for the want of trying. In the last complete year Remploy increased their sales and warehouse staff by some 10 per cent. By this means, and of course at considerable cost, they achieved record sales of £3¾ million. But this was despite the fact that orders from Government Departments have dropped in this one single year by 16 per cent. to less than £1 million. May I quote briefly from the report of the chairman of Remploy, Sir Alec Zealley on this particular point. He says:
"Our sales would have been even more satisfactory if the orders we expected from Government Departments had materialised. I cannot stress too strongly the desirability of receiving the maximum possible quantity of Government contracts. Despite the increase in sales our net deficit"—
and this is important to all of us—
"shows an increase of £105,714 over last year."
It is a sobering thought that but for this special sales effort to sell in ordinary competitive conditions two-thirds of Remploy's badly disabled would have been on what is called "standing time"; that means, paid but unemployed.
I agree with the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour that it would be a mistake to create what he

187
called "work created" orders all the time for Remploy alone. I do not ask for that. But I do want them to get a fairer share of the orders that are there. I also agree with the Minister that the most satisfactory thing is for Remploy to obtain commercial orders and Government orders. They trouble is that while they are getting more commercial orders they are getting fewer Government ones, and thus they have no chance at all at present of employing the many seriously disabled people out of work.
Then, again, the sixty-nine blind workshops in the country also maintain each their independent and expensive selling organisation. But, despite this and the sympathetic efforts of many friendly firms and people, they still cannot get enough work for their people to do. It may be argued that this is all part of the general trade recession, but I do not accept that. Unemployment and short-time working among badly disabled is as high in some places as 25 per cent. compared with the national average of 2·2 per cent. Do not let us pretend for one moment that this is all part of a general thing. I want to emphasise that it is infinitely worse, in every possible way, for a badly disabled person to be out of work and have the hopeless feeling of never being in work again than for the able person. Many of these people once thought that they would never work again. They sat at home, lonely, thinking, their minds unhappily busy and their hands unhappily still. Then Remploy came and worked a miracle. Can they be blamed if they fear that temporary idleness may again become permanent? It need not and it must not be allowed to happen.
In my view, it can be easily prevented if the Government will say the word. If we look at the problem in a realistic way it is a relatively small one. If you add the 4,000 blind to the 6,000 in Remploy, and add on the 4,000 severely disabled who are unemployed and another 1,000 for the smaller organisations, you get a total of 15,000 blind and severely disabled workers for whom sheltered employment is necessary. My experience leads me to suggest—I know that many others with experience in this field will agree—that the output of three of these workers is equal to that of one able-bodied worker in the same occupa-
188
tion. In effect, therefore, we have only to provide work for the equivalent of 5,000 able-bodied workers in certain trades as compared with a total of 20 million employed persons.
Again, to make another comparison, these blind and disabled organisations are turning out some £6 million worth of goods, compared with the £18,000 million worth of our national product—one three-thousandth part, a drop in the ocean. But how important a drop it is to these people I would mention also that we, as taxpayers, pay every week an average of £3 to each blind worker in augmentation of his earnings. We also pay every year £2½ million to Remploy to cover the deficiency of £8 per week per man. No money could be better spent: none of us would grudge a single penny of it. But we do want to see all the workers, including the unemployed, fully employed; and I say that they could be brought into the same overall £3 million cost if Government policy did not impose on them, as in my view it does, the need to maintain expensive selling organisations and also involve them in unnecessary and costly warfare with each other and with private industry.
I have not made any allowance in my figures for the work required in Her Majesty's prisons, because it is useless to do so until Her Majesty's Government decide whether they have any serious intention—I say that deliberately —to provide work for the prisons. Last year more than 10,000 prisoners were engaged in manufacturing industries, yet the value of their production was less than £800,000—about 30s. worth per week per man. This compares with the 6,000 badly disabled in Remploy, who, as I have said, can turn out one-third of the output of an ordinary man. The 6,000 in Remploy produced goods worth £3¾ million, approximately £12 per man per week, eight times as much as the prison output per man. Government Departments took 90 per cent. of prison output, and nearly half of this total was the deplorable job of making mailbags for the Post Office. Compared with the need and what could be given the total of Government orders to prisons is derisory.
New prison workshops are building, as the noble and learned Viscount the

189
Lord Chancellor told us in the course of a debate a few weeks ago. Possibly he is the only one in the House to-day who is congratulating himself that I am speaking in this heat, and that he has at last some mental relief from the important labours that he has been enduring of late. But these prison workshops, though of course we want them, are going to stay empty unless the Government search the indent lists for simple light engineering products, and similar goods for which there is a steady need, and equip the prison workshops with the necessary plant required for their production. If the Government do this, and if, so far as possible, they avoid those trades which are most suitable for disabled workers, the prison workshops will be able to supply an increasing flow of orders, and we may eventually reach the position where most of our prisoners will be able to work for real wages, pay for their keep and help to support their dependants.
I speak with some knowledge on these things. Since 1932 I have been President of the employers' federation of the basket industry. Its membership comprises ordinary commercial firms and all the blind workshops in the country. They were desperate days in 1932, when I was appointed—days of grave unemployment; and in the scramble for scarce orders the competition of blind workshops was a serious factor. Despite these difficulties, complete trust and under-standing has been built up, and the special conditions of blind workers have been recognised to the extent that in Government contracts they have had the field more or less to themselves. Unfortunately, the Government, which should father them and sponsor them in this respect, are not prepared to accord the same preferential treatment as private firms, who might be thought to be their bitterest rivals.
The situation is somewhat similar with Remploy, which is operating the sponsorship scheme with considerable success. Under this scheme, Remploy provide the factory space and the workers, and the private sponsors provide the materials, the know-how, the orders and the machinery. The country gains in increased production; badly disabled persons get guaranteed employment and a good wage packet, and there is a saving to the taxpayer, because there are no
190
expensive selling costs and not much capital outlay. Private firms are willing to sponsor Remploy, but the Government are not, at any rate in the same way. I am quite sure that the fault is not one of intention but of method, and I certainly exclude the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour from any criticism.
The trouble lies in the lack of co-operation by other Government Departments and, of course, in obstruction by the Treasury. As a result, they have failed to implement the decision of the Tomlinson Committee, which was that employment for disabled persons:
"should be provided, as far as possible, through the production of articles which are in regular demand for Government and other public purposes and which lend themselves to small-scale manufacturing processes"
These words were made to fit the needs of the blind and Remploy. The blind make brushes, baskets, mats and matting, knitwear and mattresses. Remploy make all these things, and furniture, boxes, metal goods and many other things. They could both extend into other lines if they were assured of orders.
The Service Departments alone each have inventories amounting to the staggering figure of 700,000 items, on most of which they are ordering each year or ordering frequently. Their annual buying is enormous. They could place orders sufficient for 5,000 workers without either the Departments or private industry noticing it. Yet Government orders placed last year with all priority suppliers, including the prisons, totalled less than £3 million—less than the amount that we taxpayers provided to keep the disabled organisations going. Could anything be more absurd than that? I urge the Government to solve this work problem by adopting the principle that available Government orders, in the lines they can make, shall be given first to the priority suppliers up to the limit of their capacity to supply, and only when that point is reached shall small private firms be asked to tender for the supply of additional requirements. There is nothing novel in this idea. It is the system in other countries, including South Africa, which some of us regard as reactionary in some respects.
It is also the system which might already be employed here, according to one interpretation of the Treasury circular on this subject. In October, 1950, the Treasury sought to ensure that a due proportion of Government contracts should be placed with disabled workers' organisations and the prisons. They set up a list of so-called priority suppliers to whom, in certain conditions, preference should be given in the placing of Government orders. This circular achieved much for the disabled, and I should like to thank the Government purchasing officers for the understanding way that they have administered it. Unfortunately, it contains contradictions and ambiguities which have led to differences of policy between the Departments, and to unnecessary and damaging competition between different organisations of disabled workers. Paragraph 4 of the circular, for instance, after saying that priority suppliers will be given a contract for the full quantity that they are able to supply, and that they will not be required to compete in price with other tenderers, adds
"on occasion they may be asked to submit prices and if their price does not secure the order competitively, the contract will be offered on the lowest tender or on the basis of a fair price."
I ask your Lordships to note the contradiction between these two methods—first, that they will not have to tender, and then that they will, and also the mention of a "fair price", but with no definition of what a "fair price" means.
In practice only the second alternative is used and almost all contracts are put out to tender, both to priority suppliers and private firms. Later, the blind or disabled persons' organisation gets a telephone call from the contracts department and are told, "You have put in a price of £5 each for this article. We can get it for £4 and you can have the contract, or part of it, at the lower price." The blind workshop may know that their cost for the article is £5, but they have to take the contract at the lower price in order to keep their people going. It seems to me that some Departments appear to regard the lowest tender as inevitably the fair price, but under this system, in fact, the price frequently has no relation to the cost. There are many occasions when the priority suppliers are
192
quoting against each other, and the organisation which is prepared to take the greatest loss gets the contract. That was never intended, of course. The taxpayers will have to make good the losses occasioned through these uneconomic prices in any case, so that there is no saving of public money.
If a formula for a fair price is settled, all these troubles will disappear. There will be no need for priority suppliers to tender because the contracts will be apportioned among them at a fair price, which will obviate the unseemly scramble between Remploy and the blind and remove the objections to the present ridiculous price system employed by the Prison Commissioners, whereby they altogether disregard wages in their costs and just add a percentage to the material cost—sometimes only 10 per cent. That is why we shall never overcome trade union objection to prison-made goods—because always and inevitably by this system the fair wages clause is violated. But a fair price will remove these objections because it will include provision for fair wages, whether or not they are paid to prisoners.
I would submit formally that their fair price should be the wages paid in open industry, disregarding subventions, plus the cost of materials, with an appropriate addition for overheads. The overhead allowance need not present any difficulty because it can be a notional allowance which will apply to Remploy and the blind, or to Her Majesty's prisons where there are no such overheads. In most cases it will mean that the price will be below the level at which open industry can tender, and at the same time the fair wages clause is safeguarded because open industry wages are allowed for and the priority suppliers will avoid an actual factory loss. Government policy would then be in line with the recommendations of the Piercy Committee "to extend the practice of costing contracts" and to restrict open competitive tendering.
To sum up—and these are the points on which I hope the noble Earl will reply, because I believe that if they are accepted this problem will be solved—these are the four things which I would submit have to be done and should be done if disabled workers' organisations and Her Majesty's prisons are to get a sufficiency of work to keep them fully

193
or properly employed. First of all, widen the field of Government work available. This can be done by active discussions in the Joint Priority Suppliers and Government Departments Committee which was set up last October; and it is to be hoped that they will work thoroughly through the inventories with good will and good intention on both sides. Secondly, give priority suppliers all the work where they are capable of supplying all the requirements in a certain field. Where they cannot supply the full demands, they should be awarded contracts up to their capacity.
Thirdly, agreed machinery should be created for fixing a fair price for priority suppliers, so that tendering and competition between them can be abandoned. Fourthly, apportion contracts between the blind, Remploy and other priority suppliers according to their capacity and current need. The same Priority Suppliers' Joint Committee could assist the Departments both in fixing fair prices in accordance with the formula and in the apportionment of contracts. If this system is applied it will confer the added advantage that in slack times they will be able to make up a certain amount of stock of standard goods and thus give continuity of employment and better delivery when the time comes. This cannot be done at present because there is no certainty that specialised goods will eventually be taken.
Some time ago the Ministry of Labour and priority suppliers worked on a scheme for "shelf production", the idea being that goods could be put on the shelf in anticipation of requirements. The Government, however, refused to fix a price in advance of ordering the goods, and thus the scheme was unworkable, because suppliers dared not make goods up without knowing whether or not they could be sold. The formula for fixing fair prices would get over this difficulty. Your Lordships may be thinking that there is something wrong or immoral about not tendering, even with the safeguard of a fair price. If anyone is to complain of that suggestion I would be the first to do so, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, and as the head of an industry which will suffer most by this suggestion—because if this suggestion is applied we shall not get any
194
Government contracts in that industry. I would say with certainty that we shall get no complaints from trade unions or employers, because able-bodied men do not fight double amputees, spastics or men who cannot see; and in most cases in my experience, the fair prices produced by the formula will be less than those which could be quoted by private industry.
Let us face, it, however: there will be some cases where, for a variety of reasons, open industry is cheaper. Cannot we face this difference in price as a subsidy, concealed if you like, but known about, which will be more than compensated by the great savings that the disabled organisations can make on their selling costs, reducing the cost to Government Departments on other Votes? I am confident that if Remploy could be assured of a really good flow of Government orders, the cost per man would fall from £8 per week to less than £6. If there is one thing on which I would congratulate Her Majesty's Government it is their generous treatment of the disabled; and no one has worked harder in that cause than the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary. I believe they must agree with the views I have put forward, and their natural ally is the Home Secretary, Mr. Butler. He is anxious to increase the volume of work available in Her Majesty's prisons. I hope we are all with him in this; but unless the overall field of work is enlarged and steps taken to agree on fair prices the position of the disabled organisations is likely to become very serious indeed.
Where they are asked to compete with the prisons their position is usually hopeless. If the overall field remains static or shrinks and the prisons maintain or enlarge their share our high hopes for the blind and disabled will be wrecked, and in the resultant outcry the hoped-for reforms in Her Majesty's prisons will be wrecked, also. This would indeed be a tragedy and must not be allowed to happen. I ask the noble Earl, in the name of thousands of brave handicapped workers, to say, when he comes to reply, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, that the work is there for the asking and that the disabled are going to get it; and that the Government will make the necessary changes and thus ensure that every

195
badly-disabled worker will have the chance of full, useful employment and of a full, busy life—the same fundamental right to work which is enjoyed by all the able-bodied people in this country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I believe we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for putting down this Motion for debate this afternoon; and before I say a few words I should like to associate myself with him in regretting that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, cannot be in his place to-day, because he has enormous experience of this subject and we should have liked to hear what he had to say.
One point which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, put forward very well was that it is most important, from all points of view, that a person who is disabled, no matter from what cause, and who can work in some kind of way should be able to work—even though his working day may need to be rather shorter than normal. I am quite sure, from what one has seen going on, that it saves a great deal of money, trouble and misery in the long run if a person can work; because if people cannot work they tend to decay, mentally and physically, which means that they have finally to be cared for in some institution or hospital—which is very much more expensive than finding some means of employing them where they can contribute something to the country's production.
When one considers the matter in that way, there can be no question of doing it from a charitable point of view. That does not come into the picture at all, because most of these disabled persons—I was going to say all of them—given work within their capacity, can turn out as good work as can their younger or more fit contemporaries. That, I think, is a very important point.
I have a certain knowledge of Remploy—very little indeed of the blind organizations—and I think the work that Remploy and various other bodies do in re-employing and re-training people who become disabled is very good indeed. I was rather disturbed at what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, that there was not enough work available for some of the people who
196
could be trained by Remploy; so I trust the Government will do everything they possibly can to encourage these bodies by means of placing contracts and finding any money necessary to enable these factories to work at full capacity, because the work is very good and the benefit to mental and physical health is enormous.
I remember seeing one place shortly after the war, run by somebody for people so disabled that they were not fit to be on the disabled persons' register for employment. He found out that one simple repetitive job they could do was to make teddy-bear dolls. Apparently there is an enormous demand for teddy-bear dolls. Production does not have to be regular; so long as a certain number of teddy-bear dolls are turned out it does not matter whether in one week fifty are made and in another five, because the demand is there. He found that by training these people they were able to get employment and do something, and were able to fill a market which was wanted. I think that that is where some of the voluntary schemes for employment of disabled persons have gone wrong: they have not found out what can be sold. There was one scheme I came across shortly after the war (I think it was in Wales, but I am not quite sure) and it was for miners who were totally disabled. They were trained to make carpets. They made extremely good hand-made carpets, but the price at which those carpets had to be sold was such that it was not possible to continue. It was sad, but that scheme went wrong because no one had gone into it carefully enough.
One of my concerns, as some of your Lordships may know, is the care of the elderly of all types and descriptions, and these people, I think, when they retire might well be classed in the category of disabled persons. They are not disabled in the true sense of the word but they cannot do as much as they could; their working capacity is not as it was when they were young or middle-aged. Their plight is just as serious as that of the younger people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred. They get in a great state of depression when they come to retire. The shock of retirement and of leaving a job where they are well paid, when they are the head of the family—they retire on a retirement pension and

197
find they are no longer head of the family—can have a very profound effect on them. This has now been realised by quite a number of firms and, indeed, I have a list here which shows about ten or twelve big firms in the country who are definitely arranging for work for their retired employees. It is not just the simple work of ordinary labouring or light work, but skilful work which is made just a little easier. They do not start work until half an hour after the normal time and they therefore miss some rush-hour travelling; they leave half an hour early; but they are paid the normal standard wage and they turn out as good material as if they were fully employed. That is something that should be encouraged, because it will save a lot of money, since these people will not become sick or mentally distressed, and they will be making money and will not need to be kept in a public institution.
I should like to assure your Lordships that there is some truth in what I say. I cannot give many proofs, but I can say that a certain amount of this work has been done for old people, not by industrial employers but by local authorities. One place comes to mind which, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, knows very well. One of the London boroughs has a very good scheme of employment for retired persons. They began with a few, 30 or 40, and the number is now something like 150 or 160. These were people who were all on pension. They were thought to be going downhill physically or mentally. The local authority was interested in their trouble. The borough where they live had a lot of tiny industries, and it was found that there were certain trades that these people could do perfectly well. Some work in the morning and some in the afternoon and they are paid a token wage of, I think, 10s. a week. The result has been that these people, who would have become a liability in some kind of way, are now working and contributing, though not very much, towards the country's production; they are paid a certain amount of money and they have become extremely contented and happy. One or two have gone back to full employment as a result of the training they have received there. Although this matter is not quite on the lines of the noble Lord's Motion, I hope
198
your Lordships will not mind my bringing up that point, because I think it walks very much along with it.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of prisons, and I think he got on to a very good point indeed. I am sure it would be a great advantage to prisoners and to the country if proper work could be done by them. I have seen it done only once, when I went to China in 1947 as a Member of your Lordships' House in a Parliamentary delegation to the fallen Government of General Chiang Kai-shek. Most of what we saw was very peculiar and deplorable, but we went to a modern prison in Shanghai and found it was quite a nice new building and the prisoners there, so far as one could so (I was speaking through an interpreter) were making clothes and tailoring. They were paid the full rate, whatever the Shanghai rate for tailoring was at the time. They were paid that full rate and the garments were put into the market. The money was kept for them and when they came out of prison they received a sum of money to start them again in life outside. If that can be done in China, in the days of Chiang Kai-shek, I think it can be done in Britain in the days not of Chiang Kai-shek. With those few works, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his Motion.
3.28 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having raised this question. I have been a member of the Council of St. Dunstan's for a considerable time, and so naturally I am very interested in the blind. I understand that the Minister who is to reply is going to refer to the speech which has been handed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and that he will go into a detailed description of the situation, which I am unable to do because the noble Lord covered a great deal of ground which, so far as St. Dunstan's is concerned, does not affect us. What I am particularly interested in is the fact that, so far as the members of St. Dunstan's are concerned, we have no difficulty whatever in placing them in satisfactory jobs. They are all men who are trained in whatever seems to suit them, and they have abilities in almost any direction. As a result, we do not find any difficulty in enabling these men to carry on in various walks of life.

199
We are in close touch with the National Institute for the Blind, and I was rather surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there is all this (as I suppose I could quite properly describe it) unemployment among the members of the National Institute for the Blind. I am sure it must exist, or the noble Lord would not have said so. All I can say is that from my experience around where I live, and when I go to the meetings of St. Dunstan's, I have no evidence of the sort of situation to which Lord Stonham has referred. The great thing about the blind is to provide training. They must have every facility for being trained by the most competent teachers; and it is amazing how quickly they pick it up. I am wondering whether they have the necessary facilities and opportunities. I do not think the noble Lord touched on that point. There is no question about charity or pity—though, of course one is bound to have pity. With regard to charity, if you are going to include training in the word "charity", then I would agree. I am sure, from what the noble Lord says, that if there is any fault anywhere, it is due to the fact that the training is not so good as it might be.
From my connection with the Government's work for the blind (which now runs into many, many years) I feel absolutely certain that they will do, are doing, and have been doing everything possible to assist these unfortunate people. Government interest in the subject is intense. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very much for his most informative speech, which I would have been able to deal with much better if I had seen it beforehand, because it roamed over a very wide area. But as my noble friend who is to reply has seen it, no doubt he will be able to supply the answers to some of the questions which the noble Lord raised.
With regard to the share of work, I do not know that I can give your Lordships any definite instances; but in my business connections I find quite definitely that there are many blind men, who are not St. Dunstaners, who are employed in industry generally: and I hope that perhaps in the enthusiasm of putting his case, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has a little bit exaggerated the situation. Anyway, I am quite certain in my own
200
mind, from my own experience in regard to trying to help the blind, that the present Government, and also the last Government or two, have done and will always do everything they can to help these unfortunate people. I support the noble Lord's Motion because I am quite certain that he is absolutely genuine in his ideas and is only trying to help a great many people who he thinks (no doubt rightly, although I think perhaps he stressed it a little more than is necessary) need it, and to bring about better conditions for them.
3.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House, and particularly to the noble Earl who is to reply and wind up the debate, for having to leave soon after I finish my speech. I have to perform what is called, I suppose by a euphemism, "a social duty" in an ancient university city—a duty with which the noble Earl the Leader of the House will be in complete sympathy, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in partial sympathy. But I am glad to be allowed to intervene on behalf of this side of the House—I have no doubt I am speaking for many others; but, on this side of the House, from our noble and revered Leader downwards—if only to pay tribute to the moving and comprehensive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has expressed, in masterly fashion, the fruits of many years' work and sacrifice on behalf of these unfortunate people.
I should like in a few minutes (I know that a statement will be forthcoming shortly) to touch on one aspect only of the problem, and that is the prison aspect; and I shall not detain the House very long on that. As we are all aware—indeed, I referred to it when we had our crime debate not very long ago—the position as regards work in our prisons is very bad. We are told in the White Paper published this year that in the local prisons (and the House will remember that the vast majority of our prisoners are in local prisons) the situation has long been bad and is deteriorating. There are not enough workshops; the working hours are too short; there is not enough work to fill even those hours sufficiently; and too much of the work is of low industrial quality. That is the official assessment, with which I

201
certainly do not quarrel, contained in the Government's White Paper this year.
According to the latest news, twenty-four new workshops are being constructed during the present financial year; and it is hoped by the Prison Commissioners that this will enable the prisons to obtain and fulfil a considerably larger number of orders than hitherto. We applaud anything of that kind, because in this way one of the great impediments to this work will be removed. Another great impediment, the shortage of prison staff, we have discussed several times in this House, and I will not try to deal with that this afternoon. But there remains the question of orders available to prisons; the sphere of permitted competition; the conditions of permitted competition; the method of awarding contracts; and the other matters touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
I strongly endorse, as I am sure do many other noble Lords, the general principle laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham: that available Government orders—and these were his words; I took them down—in the lines they can make, should be given first to the priority suppliers up to the limit of their capacity to supply. Now that principle, if it is reasonably interpreted, and unless it is actually qualified out of existence, can increase considerably the total work and orders available for the priority suppliers. That, I take it, is the object of the noble Lord; and it is one which I certainly strongly support. I am bound to say that, unless it did achieve a considerable increase in the orders going to priority suppliers, and if the total remained, using the noble Lord's word, "static", his formula for a fair price, with which I am not quarrelling, might actually diminish the amount of work going to prisons. That is the view, certainly, of some people associated with prisons: because, if the total work going to priority suppliers remained fixed, it might be that a smaller amount than at present would go to prisons and a larger amount to other priority suppliers. That is a point which I know the noble Lord, with his very deep concern for prisoners, will be bearing very much in mind. But, as I say, the whole assumption of the noble Lord's argument, which I accept, is that a much larger total of orders will be available
202
to priority suppliers; and so, whether prisons get a larger or a smaller proportion, they will in fact get a lot more work—and that, as I say, I accept.
I intervene only to give strong general support to the ideas which my noble friend is putting forward, whilst issuing that one caveat: that, with prison work as it is, we cannot afford to run any risk of its being reduced any further. We must remember that the prisons depend on Government orders for 90 per cent. of their work. Some of the priority suppliers depend on Government orders for only something like 30 per cent. of their work, but this is absolutely vital to our prisons. I hope that on another occasion we shall be able to address ourselves to many other aspects of work in prisons.
I hope and believe that my noble friend Lord Stonham will agree that we shall never make a major impression on these problems until the prisons are allowed to compete much more strongly in, and with, the outside world, as to-day they are more or less prohibited from doing, or at any rate greatly restricted in doing. As I have ventured to suggest more than once in your Lordships' House, the problem is to persuade the employers and trade unions to co-operate and share responsibility for this. In our last debate on prisons, I made the suggestion of an advisory body representing employers and trade unions, and I venture to repeat that suggestion to-day. I do not believe that we shall ever get very far until we draw the employers and trade unions in with us to try to find work, instead of trying to wheedle them along from outside.
There is also, in a very important sense, the question of efficiency. It is easy to talk about running prisons like factories, and some of us may indulge in this in a rather facile way. Of course, in practice there are enormous difficulties in doing any such thing. The figures given by my noble friend, according to which Reemploy workers produce eight times as much per man as prisoners, are very striking. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in the way well-equipped Ministers sometimes can, may somewhat modify that comparison; but as it stands I am afraid that it throws a very murky light on the efficiency of the organisation of work in prisons. I am sure that the day will come, and

203
may it come soon! when proper wages will be paid for prison work and when in every prison we shall find work being done under qualified factory managers. Prison governors, with all their merits, are not trained with that particular end in view. But these are issues which we must discuss some other time. Without their settlement, there is little hope of any serious advance in prison reform. To-day, I have risen, with the support of my colleagues, to pay tribute to the earnestness, devotion and skill with which my noble friend Lord Stonham has presented his case and to say that I hope it will receive a very favourable answer from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.

FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE AT GENEVA
3.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will make a statement that has just been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. For your Lordships' convenience, I will make the statement in the words of the Foreign Secretary.
"As the House knows, the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva began on May 11. It recessed on June 20 and will reconvene on July 13. The first phase of the Conference was devoted to the discussion of problems affecting Germany and European security in general. The Western Foreign Ministers tabled the Western peace plan which was a phased plan for German reunification and European security. The Soviet Foreign Minister tabled the Soviet draft peace treaty with Germany which had already been published. They were both, in fact, package deals including in them attempts to solve a wide variety of questions. Mr. Gromyko went so far as to say that there were some acceptable ideas in our proposals. I would also say that in his draft peace treaty there are certain elements with which we would not quarrel. At the end of this phase of the discussion, however, it was still quite obvious that there was a wide gulf between the two
204
sides. It was also obvious that more time must elapse before there is the chance of a comprehensive agreement.
"At that point Mr. Dulles' much regretted death took place, and there was a brief intermission whilst the Ministers went to Washington.
"After our return from Washington, our attention was really centred upon the problems of Berlin. It is not the view of the British Government that we should seek to stay in Berlin for military, propaganda or intelligence reasons. We are there to maintain the right of 2¼ million West Berliners to choose their own way of life and to protect them from being forced or gradually squeezed into submission to a régime which they reject. An essential element in this is the right of free access for all forms of traffic between West Berlin and what Mr. Gromyko himself described as the outside world. The Soviet Government have also declared their willingness for the West Berliners to remain free to choose their way of life. To that extent both sides have had a declared common purpose in these discussions.
"The proposals which we put forward on June 16 suggested modification of the existing situation in certain respects. We offered to set a ceiling on the level of our forces in West Berlin and to continue only to arm them with conventional weapons. We were prepared on a reciprocal basis to try to ensure that activities should not take place in either part of Berlin which might disturb public order, affect the rights and interests of others, or amount to interference in the internal affairs of others. We wished to reach a new agreement that free and unrestricted access to West Berlin of all sorts should continue, that the existing procedures should remain applicable but that they could, where it is not already the case, be carried out by German personnel provided that it was without prejudice to the existing basic responsibilities.
"Mr. Gromyko said that he could not accept this Western plan for Berlin. For his part he suggested an interim status for West Berlin, including reduction of the Western Occupation Forces to symbolic contingents, the termination of what he described as subversive activities in West Berlin

205
against the D.D.R. and other Socialist States, and the "non-location" in West Berlin of atomic and rocket weapons. He suggested that a time limit of eighteen months should be set to that interim status, during which an all-German committee composed of representatives of the Federal Republic and the D.D.R. on a basis of parity should operate. This committee should promote contacts between the two Germanies and discuss measures for reunification and the preparation of a Peace Treaty. At the same time as Mr. Gromyko put forward these proposals, Mr. Khrushchev was making a speech in Moscow, stating that if agreement was not reached at the end of this period of eighteen months, all Western rights in Berlin would be extinguished. In other words he was indicating what seemed to be a reversion to the method of ultimatum. This was disappointing.
"We judged the time had come for a recess. In every negotiation there comes a moment when emotions are being roused, misunderstandings are temporarily increasing, and everyone is the better for a brief interval to take stock and decide what the other side has really been saying, or, perhaps more important, been meaning. I felt very strongly that that was the situation on Friday afternoon.
"I do not regard the Conference in any sense as having broken down. We go back a fortnight next Monday to resume our efforts to negotiate some agreement. Failure to reach agreement so far is of course disappointing, but I intend to go on trying to the best of my ability. If we are able to get an agreement On Berlin, it should open the way for agreements on wider problems. But we must not delude ourselves that these agreements can be easily or quickly negotiated. For agreement, patience and allied unity are both extremely important.
"With regard to a Summit Conference, I repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is also my hope that our resumed Conference will lead to a meeting of Heads of Governments.
"Although the various proposals and statements have in fact been published, I think it would he for the convenience of the House if I were to lay a White
206
Paper, putting them together in a single document. That I propose to do. The White Paper will be printed as rapidly as is practicable."
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships in all parts of the House will be grateful for the statement made to-day by the Foreign Secretary and repeated in this House. This subject matter of the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva is of such vast importance—it becomes the worry as well as the daily deep interest of the majority of the whole world—that this preliminary statement is timely. We are glad to know from the end of the statement that the Government are to issue as soon as may be a White Paper which can be examined in more detail; it will he useful to your Lordships in all parts of the House if we have later to debate the question. I therefore do not propose this afternoon to put any question on the details of the statement, but hope that the House will permit me to say one or two brief words upon it.
I think that, as a whole, this is a good statement; and reading it through, and casting one's mind back over the last few weeks, I would say that rarely, perhaps, has a Conference of this importance been subject to such unfortunate interruptions and happenings. Perhaps it is well that we have come to the situation reached on June 20, when there is time for an adjournment and for a reconsideration of some of the matters interrupted by the death of Mr. Dulles and getting down to what is really necessary. I welcome, first of all, the emphasis which the statement makes upon the great necessity of unity between the Western Powers in dealing with the future stages of this Conference. I am also glad to see that the Foreign Secretary has again emphasised the importance that we over here, right through the country, attach to the maintenance of the independent and democratic rights of the 2¼ million people in Berlin.
We welcome, on the other hand, in spite of the unfortunate situation last week, which finally led to the postponement of the Conference until July 13, the fact that there have been indications of advances in some directions, here and there, in the attitude of Moscow. Certainly it seems to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation representatives have not been sitting back and

207
making no offers at all; there have been offers made of alteration and amendment. I am very hopeful, therefore, that the resumption of the Conference on July 13 will even yet lead to a situation in which all parties in the Western alliance will be willing to support, and support in unity, the idea of a Summit Conference. The Prime Minister put it, I thought, quite rightly and usefully yesterday; and so far as I am concerned—and I am sure I speak for my colleagues—I hope that that termination will nevertheless be as happy as that for this Conference.
I have great sympathy with those who have to represent us on such an occasion—I do not forget my period of just over a year at the Paris Peace Conference in 1946. There is no doubt that the negotiations are going on in a difficult atmosphere; but if we could go from stage to stage, with perhaps a little less interruption from outside the Conference—such as we have had from Mr. Khrushchev, for example, although I recognise that he has in the middle of his last statement extended the time—it would make things very much easier for all sides. It should be understood that this is a free Conference, met to consider objectively the agreement that we want to have, and not one that should be all the time under the threat of a kind of ultimatum. I am greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for this statement.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for the manner in which he has received the statement it has been my privilege to make.

EMPLOYMENT FOR DISABLED WORKERS
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I could not help admiring the clarity and the economy with which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, developed this subject this afternoon, and I am grateful to him for welcoming my small contribution on the matter. For a long time now I have been treasurer, a member of the governing body and a member of some of the committees of the Royal Normal College
208
for the Blind. To make what I say clear, I ought to explain to your Lordships what the activities of that College are. We take children of all ages, of both sexes, who are blind and we train them for life; and we also take older people who are going blind in order to teach them how to be blind. We are very fortunate, because we have two quite separate schools at no great distance apart which enables us to keep the boys and the girls separate. That is more important for blind children than it is for normal children, because your Lordships will understand that blind children never see a human face and the ordinary magnetic contacts are through touch; and wherever you go in the school you see children holding hands or with their arms round each others shoulders, which is the only way they can really see one another.
Most of our trainees go out into the world either as piano-tuners or as stenographers. Anybody who visits the school will get a new idea of the meaning of music in human life if he sees the way that these children enjoy their music. But the point I want to make this afternoon is that both these categories belong to the 6,000 whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, discarded at the beginning of his speech; and while in the case of the piano-tuners they get the usual augmentation that is given to the blind, in the case of the stenographers they do not. Stenographers, of course, get work for the normal wages of the profession, and I suppose that that is the reason why the Government have always hitherto withheld an augmentation from these typists.
If your Lordships will consider the matter, you will appreciate that they need it just as much as anybody else. A blind typist has to get to her work; she has to pay somebody to take her to the station; she then gets her train; she has to pay somebody to take her from the station to her work, and if she fails to secure somebody to do this she has to take a taxi. It is very rare for blind people to use buses in the normal way. It is very difficult for them and, therefore, your blind stenographer is compelled to pay a great deal of what she earns in getting to and from her work. If the ordinary stenographer who lives a long way from his or her work were to ask for an augmentation of any kind,

209
he or she would be told, "But you need not go so far a field for your work. There is plenty of employment nearer home." I should like to point out that in the case of a blind typist that is not so. Places have to be found, and if a stenographer gives up a job in order to find one nearer home she is unlikely to be successful.
While I am on this point of placing, I should like to take this occasion to express our gratitude to the Treasury and other Government offices for the way in which they help to place our girls. They are wonderful friends and helpers, and they realise what excellent work a blind typist can perform. But it is difficult to place these girls. There is another point, and it is this. Blind people sometimes suffer from other disabilities. For example, a girl we wanted to place the other day suffers from such ill-health that she can take only half-time work. It is going to be very difficult to find a place for that girl at an ordinary wage on which she can live. If she were to receive the usual augmentation we could find a place for her on half-time work, and she would be all right. That is the kind of difficulty which is apt to arise.
Now I want to say a word to show your Lordships our difficulties and our advantages. I think a blind stenographer is a wonderful asset to an office. She has one great quality, which is that because she cannot correct mistakes she has learned not to make them. To have a typist in your office who does not make mistakes is a wonderful asset. There is another great advantage you have with blind people, and it is one of which my noble kinsman Lord Fraser of Lonsdale could perhaps have given your Lordships a better description than I can. In a way I am glad he is not here, because I can give it to your Lordships much better that he would, and it is this. Anybody with any imagination has only to think for one minute to reflect that anybody who has been blind for six months has learned courage in a very hard school. Every step he takes is an act of faith. My experience is that courage is one of the two qualities which make people universally liked. Therefore it is an enormous asset to any office which can manage to dispose of the work so as to employ a blind stenographer, because with courage goes loyalty, and to have somebody who is liked and who is
210
absolutely loyal in an office is a great asset to the business.
There is the difficulty that of course blind typists cannot do copying work. They can do stenography and letters from dictation or from a dictaphone arid they can take letters down in shorthand. Their shorthand is very good, but they cannot do the copying. Therefore you must have an office big enough so that when copying is to be done you do not have to call upon your blind typist. But in every other respect these blind typists are a wonderful asset to every office.
I have explained to your Lordships the difficulties they lie under and the great pity it is that they alone among the employed blind should be denied this augmentation. I have not given the noble Earl notice of this question, but I do not really want an answer this afternoon. I know he will consider what I have said and consider what can be done about it, and perhaps we may get something done. In conclusion, I would say that I have to go North this evening and I have to do certain things before I go to my early train. I hope the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will excuse me if perhaps I do not wait until the end of the debate.
4.6 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, several noble Lords have already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for initiating this debate, and from this side of the House I have no hesitation in adding mine. It is a Motion of the utmost importance, and my main qualification for taking part in this debate is that I am a relatively recent member of the British Legion.
First of all, I should like to say a few words about the work which the British Legion is doing in relation to this subject. Where I work, at Lloyds, every Christmas we hold a sale of goods made by the Remploy factory at Llandrindod Wells in Breconshire, consisting mainly of rugs, scarves and woven materials which are made primarily by disabled ex-Service people. There are also articles such as soap and basketry made by the blind. Our average profit on these sales is something between £800 and £900, which goes to the welfare of these people.
I have here a letter from the British Legion headquarters which raises one

211
point of great importance, and I hope the noble Earl who is to reply—and to whom I must apologise for not having given notice because I received the letter only to-day—may be able to give some information about it in due course. The letter says:
"The problem of the home-bound disabled person is the most difficult to solve. Local authorities have been given powers to set up workshops and schemes of training, but the amount done varies very much from one locality to another. This homework scheme is a way in which employment can be provided for many people who would otherwise be unable to make any contribution at all to the work of the nation—something essential to the building up of the morale of a man or a woman condemned to a life at home."
I think this would apply particularly to provincial areas, areas like, say, Lancashire or Yorkshire, or highly industrialised areas where the results are going to be subject to considerable competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned the fact that unemployment among blind people was perhaps not as great as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had said. But only today I received another letter from the National Association of Workshops for the Blind, and with your Lordships' permission I will quote just one paragraph. The letter is from the Secretary. It says:
"The workshops for the blind of my Association represent all the blind workshops throughout the British Isles, and these are desperately"—
and I underline that word—
"short of work just now; indeed there is unemployment among some of them. It is generally felt that if so inclined the Government and local authorities could place sufficient orders with the priority suppliers to keep all their workers, and their overall numbers are relatively few, fully employed."
Only two days ago I paid a visit to the London Blind Factory in the Waterloo Road, a very brief visit, but I saw some most inspiring sights. I saw brushes being made, cane mats, chairs being re-caned and so on. We hear a great deal these days about shoddy workmanship in British goods, cars, toys and so forth. Some of these allegations are probably justified; others are not. But I was shown an order contract for 466 brushes which were supplied to an ordnance depôt in Northern Command. Of those only six were proved to be in any way defective, and of those six three needed only very minor alterations. I
212
think that that proves that any doubt as to the quality of the workmanship of the blind and disabled can be absolutely dispelled. I saw these men at work. They were happy, contented and conscientious, and I went away feeling eminently satisfied with what I had seen. But I did say that I would raise these points in your Lordships' House and I make no apologies for doing so.
Two days earlier I visited the Leather-head School for the Blind, just two miles from where I live, on Saturday morning when the actual workers are not operating, but I was shown the living quarters, the workshops, and some of the finished products. With your Lordships' permission, I will just show one article which was made in these workshops, a very simple tea cosy, something which is used in most homes. I saw many other things—ladies dresses, baskets, and things of tremendous use. This school was founded in 1799. During the war the military took it over, and it was only in October, 1958, that Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Kent reopened the residential quarters. Prior to that a private grant from private subscriptions of £50,000 had been given to this school. Here again, we hear a great deal of talk these days about misuse and economy, but every single halfpenny of that money had been put to good use. Most of the school had been thoroughly redecorated. I saw the cubicles and the kitchens, which were spotlessly clean, and the food which was served; I saw the very devoted service given by those who look after these blind people.
They have both sexes there, from 16 years of age upwards, and their welfare is uncommonly well looked after. The place is bright. Some of the people there are partly sighted; others have other misfortunes apart from being blind. Some are deaf and dumb and some are epileptics but all are blind or partially blind. The motto is Lux in Tenebris, Light in Darkness. I can only say that what I saw was light. This is a completely voluntary school with no Government grant. Some of the work which they do is for local schools, the producing of uniforms or parts of uniforms such as socks and stockings. There is one point about which the noble Earl might inform me: that is, how many of the State schools are in a position to place orders with blind and disabled

213
organisations. Because the clothing made by these people is of quite outstanding quality.
Everything which can be done must be done for these people. Obviously, the Government cannot be expected to do everything, but perhaps some kind of national advertising campaign could be carried out to encourage people to buy more commodities made by blind and disabled persons. The cost of this campaign would be justified by the happiness and contentment given to these people who, through no fault of their own, live a life of total or partial darkness.
I would say a word about prisons. I was told at the London factory by the foreman that there is considerable concern at the competition with prisons in the manufacture of such articles as brushes. This is a serious situation. Nobody would deny that prisoners need work to rehabilitate them, but it seems to me that work which suits blind people, who, as I say, through no fault of their own have this handicap, should he given as far as possible exclusively to them. There must be jobs for prisoners which can rehabilitate them other than this particular type of work which blind and disabled people do so well, and I feel that here again the Government might issue some kind of statement on the matter. I have, as a young person who is quite able in sight and body, felt honoured to take part in the debate on this Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has so ably moved.
4.20 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the axiom of your Lordships' debates, that we should not take part in them unless we know what we are talking about, has been beautifully illustrated by the speeches we have heard this afternoon, not least by that of the noble Lord. Lord Auckland, who has gone out and seen for himself what is happening, has investigated and has drawn valuable conclusions. Particularly would one like to support him in his final point—the importance of bearing in mind that the final priority in the selection of work should be the disability of the worker; that blindness, or whatever it is, shall receive the top priority in the selection of jobs, and that we shall avoid competition on behalf of prisoners and others
214
who can do work which unsighted persons cannot do, and thus make sure that the blind get the work that they must have.
Shortly before he came to your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Stonham introduced into another place, and saw through on to the Statute Book, a small measure—but a most important one—on behalf of blind people. It was called the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958. Your Lordships may remember that it was brought to this House by my noble friend Lord Chorley. That Act dealt with a small but most unpleasant abuse of disabled people which my noble friend was able to unearth and bring to light because he is a basketmaker. He has been a basket-maker for many years and is chairman of the Basketrnakers' Association, to which all blind organisations engaged in this work belong. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is how he has come to take this special interest in disabled people, and particularly in blind people.
That measure concerned false trading representations by persons who claimed that goods were made by the blind or other disabled people when, in fact, the blind or disabled workers took only a tiny part in the packing process, the result being, of course, that their output was being exploited for private profit. When my noble friend raised this question at official level he was told that nothing could be done. He was not satisfied, and, like a terrier, went on burrowing until he found out how it could be done. The result was that he obtained the support of the Government and, with great difficulty, got this Bill passed into law.
I think that in this debate this afternoon there has been complete unanimity of purpose. We all want to see the blind and the severely disabled receiving a complete priority in work rather than a monetary subsidy. Yet, just having a pious want of it will not achieve it. It is a matter of getting down to technical detail. That is what my noble friend Lord Stonham was doing in his speech and has tried to do in his Motion. He has tracked this thing down as far as he can: he has, if I may say so, nagged and nagged away at it—and quite rightly, too! He has nagged at the Ministry of

215
Labour and at the Treasury, until the Treasury have given a general directive. But their circular contains, as he said, certain ambiguities, and it is these ambiguities that have caused things to go wrong.
The first ambiguity, if I may reiterate his point, is that the Treasury say that the priority suppliers shall have priorities in Government orders provided that a fair price is charged, but that in certain circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the Department needs the goods, it must go out to contract. It is making a nonsense of the thing if the purchasing departments have to go out to contract and invite the organisations for the disabled and the blind to compete with sighted persons. As I understand it, that is the key to the situation as my noble friend has unearthed it.
What is needed is an alteration in the Treasury circular. It means that the Government purchasing agencies should receive a firm directive that they have got to give priority to the priority suppliers, even though sometimes the prices will be higher than they would be if they went out to open tender in the open market. Inevitably, they will be higher, as a matter of social justice; because all of us are united in our desire to do right by these folk, and because, if the Government do not do this, they will certainly have to make up to these people in an allowance what they lose in wages. That seems a crazy way of going about it; but it is the kind of thing that can happen, even though everybody has good intentions. I am sure that the Treasury issued their circular with good intentions. I am sure they did not realise that the escape clause, the clause about going out to contract on certain occasions, would seem to bind purchasing officers and that the purchasing officers would feel bound to do this.
The failure to define a fair price is another point to bear in mind. If these things could be put in order I really believe that what my noble friend has set out to do, and what I am sure is the desire of the Government, will, in fact, be achieved. Here we have a generally desired objective, yet to get to it we have to make our way in a very complicated fashion. I am glad that there are people like my noble friend
216
Lord Stonham, who will go on making nuisances of themselves to Government Departments, in order to get to the bottom of problems like this.
May I say how interested I was also in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about the non-augmentation of the pay of blind stenographers. I was not completely aware of this. I wonder whether the blind piano tuners receive their augmentation, because they are part of an organisation and therefore not working as private enterprise operatives. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, could explain that point.
LORD SALTOLN: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a point I do not know about. I am only at the back end.
LORD TAYLOR: Is it a sex differential? Is it that if they are male blind piano tuners they get their pay augmented, but that if they are women blind stenographers they do not? As I understand it, that is what the noble Lord said. I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will look at this matter. One certainly does not expect him to reply to such a point without detailed examination, but I am sure he will look at it and will see what can be done.
My noble friend mentioned the enormous variety of supplies which Her Majesty's Government now require. I would only add to his enormous list of requirements for the Services, the enormous list for the National Health Service, for hospital supplies. One is not here thinking of technical equipment, which may be difficult to manufacture, but of such things as furniture, ward equipment and so on. One thinks, too, of the Ministry of Education—although here, of course, the local authorities will intervene, instead of there being direct Government ordering.
I am not in any sense an expert in these matters, but I am a practising doctor, and one knows the therapeutic value of work. That is essential for all of us. How much more essential it is for the good mental and physical health of those who are disabled! I am sure that we are all united in the purposes behind the Motion. We hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will he able to deal with the detailed administrative points which my noble friend has raised,

217
so that in future work may be guaranteed for those who are disabled, whether in limb, in sight or in any other way.
4.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and all of your Lordships are continually concerned to see not only that blind and disabled persons are helped in every way to receive the treatment which they need but that they should also be helped to do as much useful work as they reasonably can—and which many of them can often do even better than those who are not disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to his uncle who could do many things which others could not; and what he said reminded me of a very old friend and brother-officer of my father, whom I used to know well when I was young—the late Captain Towse. He lost both his eyes in the South African War. For the next 30 years he was a leading figure in national organisations to help the blind in this country. Captain Towse used sometimes to come to stay with my family when I was young, and I remember that on one occasion four of us were playing a game of garden golf, during which all four of our golf balls became lost in the shrubbery. We four, with our eight eyes and eight legs, spent fifteen minutes searching for the lost golf balls, without avail. Captain Towse, with no eyes, came quietly up behind us, knelt down, felt about and recovered all of them in about two minutes.
I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for arranging that we should be able to have what has been, I believe, a very valuable discussion. I myself am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his kindness in letting me know the general outline of what he was going to say. Had he extended the same courtesy to my noble friend Lord Teviot and others of your Lordships, perhaps we might soon reach the position which prevails in the United States Senate, where a Senator can get up, produce a great typewritten manuscript, move that it be printed in the Official Report, and then sit down. I would say to my noble friend Lord Teviot, who seemed to think that I had some advantage over him in the matter, that the
218
effect on my mind was not to make me try harder to refute what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said in his speech, but rather to try to see how far I could agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and all noble Lords who have spoken, are fully informed on the subject of the debate, but perhaps some of your Lordships might like me to give a brief sketch of the present structure for dealing with blind and disabled persons. First, of course, there is Remploy, which is a non-profit making company set up by the Minister of Labour under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts. It is running at the moment about 90 factories, employing some 6,000 people. Then there are the local authorities who have a statutory duty to provide sheltered employment in workshops for the blind. There are now about 70 of those workshops, of which about one third are directly managed by the local authorities, the remainder being managed by agents acting voluntarily on their behalf. These employ altogether about 4,000 blind persons.
Then there are about 40 other workshops run by voluntary bodies, which range from fairly large concerns such as Papworth Industries and the Lord Roberts Workshops down to small workshops employing fewer than a dozen workers. The total number of severely disabled workers employed under all these other arrangements is rather less than 1,000. Altogether, in sheltered employment (as it is called), confined to severely disabled persons registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts, there are about 11,000 persons. In the case of Remploy, all the annual deficits are paid by the Ministry of Labour out of that Ministry's Vote; and loans are also issued from the same source to Remploy for capital expenditure. In the case of other approved workshops the Ministry of Labour contribute by means of a deficiency grant which is limited to a maximum of £150 a year for each approved worker.
The noble Lord's Motion is particularly directed to Government contracts to provide work for these disabled workers. The basis of these arrangements, which were referred to by most speakers, and certainly by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Taylor, is Treasury circular 8/50. That circular

219
recognises the Government's special obligation to make available to nonprofit-making bodies as much work as possible, and gives prisons and sheltered workshops equal status as "priority sup-pliers" The circular does not confer on priority suppliers any preferential treatment in respect of prices. It provides for them to be offered Government contracts either at the lowest tender or at a "fair price" to be fixed on the basis of current market conditions. I shall say a word or two later about what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would like to see as the definition of "fair prices".
Here perhaps I might correct what I feel is a very natural misapprehension, to the effect that there is intended, in the circular, to be some distinction drawn between the lowest tender price and a fair price". I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Taylor, that the circular is in some respects ambiguous and might be better expressed; for having read it myself I feel that it is capable of giving the impression that a "fair price" is intended to be more generous than the lowest tender price. I am afraid that that is not what the circular is intended to mean, and it is not the way in which purchasing Departments interpret it.
It is not really the case that there is a difference in policy between Departments which act on a "fair price" basis and those which act on the basis of the lowest tender price; because Departments which do not ask for tenders but offer what they regard as a "fair price" are supposed to calculate the "fair price" as being what would have been the lowest tender if the contract had been put out for tender. So I am afraid that it is not intended to be more generous. In fact if the Department in question were to make very tight estimates the price might be even less generous than the lowest tender price would have been had the contract been put out for tender, so it is not really the case that there is a difference of policy between different Departments, although I agree that there is a possible difference of interpretation and perhaps some ambiguity in the wording of the circular.
The sheltered workshops have received a substantial volume of work under these arrangements. I was going to mention some figures to your Lordships, but the
220
noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his speech, gave so many figures so accurately and fairly that perhaps he has relieved me of the necessity of doing so. I do not think he gave any figures which I should want to question on that point. He pointed out what I was going to say: that although only 17 per cent. of Remploy's output was purchased by the Government, and although there had been a reduction in the amount of goods purchased by the Government from Remploy, yet the value of the total output of Remploy had risen in the last four years from a little under £3 million to a little over £4 million. So although the amount of goods taken from Remploy by the Government has been declining, the amount which they have sold in all has very substantially increased. I think that illustrates one point: that while the Government are, as I shall hope to show your Lordships, anxious to do better and to take more from these workshops, they can take only a fairly small proportion, and it is to the non-Government buyers that the workshops must look to a large extent for their continued activities.
Although there has been a considerable decline from 1956 to 1958, for several reasons—partly due to changes in the defence programme—it is not discouraging to see that the downward trend for allocations to sheltered workshops has been halted during the last year, 1958–59. Although there is a small decrease in what is purchased from Remploy, and a small decrease in purchases from workshops for the blind, there is an increase of £100,000 from other undertakings, which makes a slight rise altogether. It looks, therefore, as if the decline has been halted.
But, my Lords, on several occasions since 1950 various attempts have been made by Government Departments to see whether they can improve on the working of this Government circular. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned, last year it was decided to set up a Standing Committee, consisting of representatives of the priority suppliers and the main purchasing Departments, to improve contacts between the two sides. As the noble Lord said, this committee, called the Priority Suppliers Committee, sits under Ministry of Labour chairmanship. Its terms of reference are:
"To provide a regular channel through which priority suppliers can be kept fully

221
informed of present and future requirements of purchasing Departments and the purchasing Departments can be kept fully informed of the nature and quantity of the work which the priority suppliers are able to undertake"
This Committee of suppliers and purchasers is a body whose sole purpose is exchange of information. It has never been expected to bring about a spectacular increase in the volume of contracts awarded; but it does, in the opinion of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, serve a useful purpose.
For the first time it has brought representatives of the two sides together in a formally constituted body; it has made the purchasing Departments more keenly aware of the needs and capacities of the priority suppliers, particularly of the smaller sheltered workshops of whose existence some purchasing Departments had never heard. It has also encouraged the establishment of personal contacts between the people concerned where these have hitherto been lacking or inadequate; and there is no reason why this Committee should not be used, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in his speech, for widening the field of Government work. The initiative in this respect must, of course, rest with the priority suppliers.
With the help of this information-exchanging body, the Departments concerned—that is, the Ministry of Labour, the Treasury, the Prison Commissioners and the purchasing Departments—have been engaged since 1957 on an examination of the question of whether a more satisfactory code, a more satisfactory set of principles, can be set up under which a greater amount of products might be purchased by the Government from priority suppliers. My Lords, I hope that this examination may be finished soon, but it has not been finished yet; it is still in progress. From your Lordships' point of view I think it is probably a good thing that you should have this debate before the examination has been concluded, as what your Lordships have said will no doubt be taken full note of, whereas if you had had the debate after the examination had been finished it might have been too late. But from the point of view of the Minister replying to the debate it is not quite so good, because it means that I cannot give a definite reply to any of the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord
222
Stonham, and other noble Lords have made. I cannot either accept or reject your Lordships' advice.
What I can do is, very briefly, I hope, mention the lines of investigation which are being followed by the Government Departments concerned and indicate one or two of the difficulties. If I stress those difficulties, as I think I ought to do, I hope your Lordships will not think it means that the Government want to use these difficulties as an excuse for not making any improvements in the position. I think it is right to mention the difficulties because your Lordships ought to know about them and your Lordships ought to see that the Departments are not just fiddling about and wasting time by examining imaginary difficulties which they are creating for the purpose.
As to the possible lines of solution, in general the object of the departmental examination is first to establish the precise extent of the problem as indicated by the number and value of contracts which sheltered workshops have had to reject because of the low prices offered. That is to say, they want to find out exactly how far the situation might be changed by the adoption of different methods. Next, if they find the problem is so serious as to require some substantial alteration in the present arrangements, they want to determine what form that alteration might take.
First there is this question of "fair price". I have already mentioned that I am afraid that so far as the circular is concerned it does not mean what some people might think it would mean; but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, according to his speech would like a "fair price" to be taken as wages plus materials with an appropriate allowance for factory overheads, and that the Departments should pay the priority suppliers whatever cost is incurred by them in making the goods. That is not "cost plus" but cost without the plus. Of course, there are a number of grounds on which it would be difficult to proceed on that basis. One is that to pay people according to the cost of production does not encourage economy, and it may not be against the interests of these priority suppliers' workshops that they should have some regard for economy. You are depriving them of the incentive to good economical production if you pay them the cost without

223
any other consideration. From the point of view of the purchasing Departments, they have a duty, other things being equal, to obtain supplies in the cheapest market, and they naturally object to devoting part of the limited funds Parliament has voted them to subsidising a particular group of suppliers on social grounds.
As, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, one difficulty may be to decide whether to give a man a greater allowance or a higher wage. He wants a higher wage; and it all comes from the same source. But there are very great difficulties in doing that when you are dealing with a lot of different Departments. There would be technical objections, too, I think, to their using for this purpose money which Parliament voted for another purpose.
Then there is the question of fair competition, which of course may not affect a very large number of competitors, but may be important to some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very rightly said—and I think he had the sympathy of your Lordships in this—that healthy men do not want to fight with blind and disabled men. Of course they do not: they want to help them, and to help them to get work. But your Lordships must remember that there may be cases of small producers to whom a contract may be a very important thing. The continuance of a small producer's business may depend on it. I do not think it should be taken as an axiom that, because a man is blind or disabled, he should therefore have an inalienable right to take a contract away from another man who is not blind or disabled, but who may be equally deserving. You must think of that aspect of it, too.
Now, my Lords, there is the question of price preference—that is to say, giving a better price to the priority suppliers than you would give in the open market. I need not, I think, go through all the obvious possible objections to that. Clearly, there will always be the objection that, if assistance is going to be given to the priority suppliers from public funds, it would be better to have it in the form of a direct subsidy than in the form of a concealed subsidy in the shape of preferential prices. On the other hand, there is the argument, which I think was
224
implied in what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, that if public funds have to support these disabled people anyhow, and if the question is between giving them a better wage and giving them a greater allowance—between a better wage with plenty of work to do, which they want, and a better allowance with very little work to do, which they do not want, although they get the same amount of money—it is obviously worth trying to find some way of arranging matters so that they can do the work and not be in idleness most of the time. We should like, if we could, to find some solution of that difficulty, possibly by some selective system of preference; but the Departments do want, before recommending a departure of this kind, to make very sure of all their facts, and to ascertain in what cases a preferential price procedure might do a great deal of good and in what cases, or in respect to what commodities, it might do very little good and not have the effect of creating more work among the disabled persons.
Then, in regard to monopolies, the possibility is also being considered that the priority suppliers might be treated as an exclusive source of supply for certain selected items—in the same way as the prisons, for almost a century, have been treated as monopoly suppliers for mail bags. I think I ought to stress, as I said I would, the difficulties; because I do not want to run away from them, and I think your Lordships ought to know them. So far, the examination, or the exploration, by the contracting Departments of the possibilities has seemed to show that the field over which this arrangement could be applied is very limited; and while some slight increase in the volume of orders going to these suppliers might be achieved, it is unlikely that it would be significant. I am informed, too, that the limiting factor in many cases is the lack of capacity in the priority suppliers; and that the suppliers would be prepared to make good this lack of capacity only if they could have an assurance about the level of future orders. This is sometimes an assurance which the Departments are not in a position to give, because total Government purchases not only fluctuate considerably from time to time, but are at present declining. The Service Departments often feel that they need to keep their contacts with outside trade for the

225
sake of the capacity the latter could offer in an emergency. Therefore, it is thought that the present position could probably not be very greatly alleviated by this means; but consideration is being given to whether some development along these lines might be possible.
My Lords, I shall not say much, although it is a very important subject, about the prisons, because your Lordships have very lately had a debate on that subject. In the recent White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society, which was debated at great length by your Lordships only a few weeks ago, emphasis was laid on the need to provide more work of real industrial training value in local prisons; and the building of twenty-four additional workshops at a cost of about £250,000 during the present financial year is one of the steps which is being taken to make it possible to improve the class of industry in the local prisons. The White Paper recognises that there will always be a need for simple work of lower industrial value for prisoners with very short sentences and for those who are physically and mentally handicapped; and it is unlikely that the prisons will he able to do without the long-established prison industries of a comparatively simple kind, many of which are also suitable for disabled workers. I do not want to go into the figures—I did not take a note of those which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave—but the value of orders from Government Departments for the year ended March, 1958, which is the last one we have, was £862,000. It is necessary, also, to take account of the work done in prison workshops in the manufacture of clothing and of equipment for the prisons, which was to the value of about £400,000.
I should like to thank Lord Stonham for the very generous tributes which he paid to my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and also to the Home Secretary. I quite appreciate that his compliments are not intended to be extended to the Treasury. They never are, in any of these debates. The Treasury is always the villain of the piece. I would only suggest to the noble Lord that he may have emphasised a little too much the part that the Government could play. I do not think it is quite true to say, or to give the impression, that the
226
Government, by a wave of the hand, can solve this matter, As was said by the Piercy Committee, which was appointed not long ago to deal with this problem:
"…it is doubtful if more than a part of their trade could be expected to come from public contracts, and the Committee believes that priority suppliers should continue to compete in the ordinary commercial market so that the opportunities for taking on work may be as wide as possible."
My Lords, we want to emphasise that the sheltered workshops must be prepared to use their initiative in order to get a substantial proportion of their work from sources other than the Government—as, indeed, many of them, or most of them, already do. But the Government are fully prepared, and are anxious, to play their part. We wish to improve, if we can, the amount of purchases from priority suppliers by the Government, and I hope that it will be possible to find means by which that may be done.
5.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not going to make another speech and so spoil what I think has been an extremely worth-while debate. But before I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Motion, I hope you will allow me to say a word of thanks to those who have made what I regard as extremely valuable contributions. I would thank my noble friend Lord Amulree, who from his vast experience was able to show the therapeutic value of work for the disabled, which not only provides them with happiness but also makes them assets instead of liabilities to the community.
I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who brought into the debate what I might call a breath of the pioneering spirit of the early days of St. Dunstan's, when I was a boy and enjoyed it so much, although this is not quite the same problem, because that great enterprise, as was so rightly said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, sends people out into open employment, whereas to-day we have been considering sheltered employment. Then I would thank my noble friend Lord Pakenham (who informed me that he would not be able to stay until the end of the debate) for his remarks on work for prisons. It is my hope that there will be so much more work that there need not be any fear that the prisons will get less. I

227
would thank the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who also said that he would have to leave early, for putting the case for special efforts to put blind people in open employment. Although this is not part of my Motion, he put his case very well and I hope that the noble Earl will consider it.
I should like next to thank the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, not only for his outstanding speech in this debate but also for the great care which he has taken in doing the field work. I can assure him that I have been informed of his efforts and that his interest has given great encouragement to the institutions he has visited. They are greatly heartened by his interest. What he said seemed to me to put a new aspect on the debate, because he was, as it were, an independent observer, up to date with his information, who was able from his own observations to reinforce the points I have tried to make. I thank him most sincerely.
My noble friend Lord Taylor capably underlined and clarified the points I had tried to make. On the point of augmentation which was raised, I may say that it is always paid to workers who work in or from an institution or association, irrespective of working arrangements, but not if they are working out independently as individual workers.
Finally, my Lords, I would express my gratitude to the noble Earl. Lord Dundee, for the great deal of information he was able to give to your Lordships. He may not have realised it but he gave me more hope than I have ever had previously. So much so, indeed, that I feel there is no difference of opinion between us, or between any Members of your Lordships' House, on the objective to be gained: and it would seem now that there is not much difference in opinion about the method. It is extremely encouraging to know that the problems mentioned by the noble Earl are being investigated, and I am sure that before long a solution will be found. I feel that, no matter where we sit in your Lordships' House, or which Party is in power, we are going to work at this matter to find a solution. I am glad to think that in the future it will not be a case of my noble friend Lord Taylor and I worrying ourselves about
228
this problem; there will be a team of us worrying. And in the hope that we shall worry out a solution together, I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FOG DISPERSAL AT LONDON AIRPORT
5.5 p.m.
LORD BRAYE LORD BRAYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will order some adequate type of fog dispersal unit to be installed at London Airport or some adjacent airport in order considerably to reduce the hazards of landing in foggy weather and to enable air line operators to continue normal service on foggy days; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which I am raising to-day concerns London Airport and adjacent airports under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It has been raised before in your Lordships' House in a debate we had last year on blind landing and it has also been raised on two occasions in another place. If I may, I would quote some figures. From November 1, 1958, until March 24, 1959, there were 52 days in which fog affected landing at London Airport, and 53 days at Gatwick Airport. That is a serious thing for operators, and I am sure that many noble Lords have been among those who have spent many hours, and even days, waiting to get away from London by air.
The fog dispersal unit I am asking for is not the old form that we used to call "F.I.D.O" in the Royal Air Force, which is extremely expensive and would not be practical to install nowadays. I am given to understand that the Ministry have been experimenting, for about a year I believe, with a modified form of F.I.D.O., and, if it is possible, I should be pleased to hear the results of those experiments and whether it will be possible to install this modified form of fog dispersal unit at one or other of the airports. I am quite aware that inventions come along so quickly nowadays, especially in aviation and electronics, that it is perfectly possible that a new form of landing device may be introduced within a year or two, and in view of that I can understand that the Government

229
may think it is a waste of money to put in a fog dispersal unit at the airports. But I can assure your Lordships that any pilot or captain of aircraft would far rather be able to see the ground or feel it than look into a small radar screen, which is the sort of device that I understand is being worked on at the moment.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the conditions of fog laid down at present are 150 yards minimum visibility required for taking off and 400 yards minimum visibility for landing. One may be asking for something which is very expensive, but more and more people are travelling by air and we are reaching the stage when people going on long-distance journeys are travelling almost exclusively by air. The other point I would make is the possibility of using the fog dispersal device for taking off as well as for landing. If long-distance aircraft going to Africa, India and other places could only get off the airport and rise 3,000 to 4,000 feet, they would be in clear sunshine and able to get away on their trip. If we could have a fog dispersal put on for, say, an hour we could probably get all these fogbound machines off. As it is, if the fog comes down and the visibility is less flan 400 yards, no machine can leave London Airport or Gatwick Airport. From what I have heard, the operators would welcome this device; but, I suppose, like many other people, they are not anxious to subscribe to it.
To sum up, if we could have this equipment it would be of great assistance to the operators, the passengers and all concerned, provided it is not too costly. I would only say, in conclusion, that there may be the possibility (I have not seen this new apparatus, and I do not know exactly how it works) of danger in landing, because those nozzles are open fans which disperse the fog, and an aircraft making a bad landing and running off the runway might be endangered. But when we consider the advantages we could have in taking off, even if not entirely in landing—when an aircraft is taking off it is unlikely to skid across the runway—it is well worth considering. I do not intend to keep your Lordships longer, but I hope I have made my point. I beg to move for Papers.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I think we ought to be thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Braye, for raising this important question, because we have come to a time when we have got to make a decision upon this equipment. What is rather curious in the development of aviation is that electronics have gone along pari passu with it, and aviation to-day—at any rate, commercial aviation—would be a poor thing were it not for electronic control. The way the whole traffic control system picks up every aeroplane before it arrives on the coast and tells it what lane it should go down and what height it should maintain is something that we little appreciate but which does conduce very much to our safety.
So far all the resources of the electronic world have failed to produce what was hoped for some years ago—namely, a system of landing under conditions of complete invisibility. That has not occurred. The only thing we have at present is I.L.S., which is coming down on a beam, and G.C.A., which is ground control on a radar screen. Those are fairly satisfactory, but they do not really meet the difficulty of fog. We must remember that modern machines are making flying much more difficult, for the reason that the modern jet will touch down at the horrible speed of over 160 m.p.h; and if you are going to touch down at that speed you at least want to see where you are going or to be pretty certain about your electronic control.
We have curious conditions in this country in relation to fog, because when we have a fog the conditions are calm; there is seldom a fog with a wind. That is quite unlike conditions in Newfoundland, where you have a high wind and a dense fog. So that this particular form of apparatus called F.I.D.O. is efficient in our country, but it would be of no use in places like Newfoundland. Consequently, it means that we need fit up, so to sneak, only one runway and need not fit up runways in every direction varying with the wind.
The question we have to consider is whether or not electronics in the near future will produce an apparatus which will bring us down in conditions of complete invisibility. They will eventually,

231
of course; but how long will that be? Is it worth while spending the money, which is a big figure, on equipping London Airport with F.I.D.O.? The suggestion I should like the Minister to consider is whether F.I.D.O. might not be fitted up at Blackbushe Airport, because there we have already in existence the old-fashioned equipment. The general technique of F.I.D.O. has been greatly improved, but I am sure the initial excavations in the ground, and that sort of thing, are there, and that would save a lot of money. It would not be a great deviation from London Airport to Blackbushe Airport. It is all a question of money and how much the operators are prepared to pay to come down at London Airport. One person who could tell us the economics of it is sitting on my left, the noble Lord the Director of B.E.A., who by the rules of the House is not allowed to tell us anything that we want to know. That is a great pity. However, I should like to know from the noble Earl who is to reply whether we could be given Blackbushe Airport, if we could not be given London Airport.
5.17 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to add my plea to that of the two noble Lords who have spoken in regard to the provision of some sort of fog dispersal equipment at one of our London Airports. My sole purpose in rising is to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether the Government—that is, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—have considered a process which from tests so far carried out in France appears to be satisfactory. The tests were carried out at Orley, and I think they have been quite encouraging in regard to the dispersal of fog. I believe the process involved is that of producing artificial cold. I am advised that this process involves the atomisation of cold-producing liquid consisting of propane and silver iodine. The effect is that when this liquid is atomised into the heart of the fog it lowers the temperature and the fog becomes crystallized; in other words, it forms minute crystals and these crystals, or artificial snow, fall to the around. I am advised that when it was tried out under fog conditions where the visibility was fifty yards, after approxi-
232
mately a quarter of an hour the visibility became 500 yards. It seems to me that this process offers certain advantages, which might well include the advantage that it would not endanger any aircraft coming in to land or taking off, such as may be involved with F.I.D.O., as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Braye.
As I have said, my sole purpose in rising to my feet is to ask the noble Earl whether the Government have considered this process, which has been sponsored by the French Government under the Recherche Scientifique, and which I believe is proving quite promising, in view of the large amounts which are lost through fog. I think that Mr. Hay, the Government spokesman in another place, said on February 4 last that B.E.A. had lost approximately £200,000 recently on account of fog. I believe that Air France consider that it costs them approximately £400 to divert an aircraft from Paris to Lyons. This problem affects a great number of airlines, and that is why we shall all be extremely interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say with regard to Government proposals on this matter.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to join this short debate on this important subject as a fairly frequent user of London Airport, although I must say that I have been lucky so far, in that I have never been stranded by fog. I certainly feel like touching wood, because it was not many days ago that I was boasting that I had travelled with B.O.A.C. to most parts of the world and had never been more than half an hour late. Within hours of making that boast, I was on my way back with one engine stopped.
This is, I believe, a very important subject, and one which will become increasingly more important with the rapid growth of traffic through London. I am told that one of the great objections to F.I.D.O. has been the cost of setting the equipment up and the cost of operation. It is interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—who is, as we know, probably the greatest expert in air matters to-day—that there is a system in existence at Blackbushe. With him, I should like to know how much it would cost to convert that system into practical use to-day. My own feeling

233
is that the real advance will be in the field of electronic equipment. I recall last year reading a report showing that at Farnborough (I think it was) they have designed and produced equipment by which a man on the spot can actually bring the aircraft down without the pilot being at the controls. I was wondering whether the Minister, coming well armed for this debate, has any information about this equipment. I feel that the future for operations in all types of weather will depend upon advancement and development of electronic equipment.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by emphasising that I subscribe wholeheartedly to the contention of my noble friend Lord Braye, and others of your Lordships that 'a means of enabling aircraft to land and take off in foggy weather would certainly be a boon to aircraft operators and to passengers. But it is not so simple a matter as the wording of the Motion, asking Her Majesty's Government to order that some such equipment should be installed at London Airport or any other airports might suggest. To begin with, no fog-dispersal system has yet reached a stage when it could be satisfactorily used for civil aviation; and until that time comes there is no question of Her Majesty's Government making such an order. My noble friend Lord Braye, has said that trials of a modified F.I.D.O.system—that is, modified from the old war-time system—have been taking place at the Royal Air Force Station at Marham.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would elaborate on what he has just said. Apparently it is possible to land a bomber with F.I.D.O., or an improved F.I.D.O. Why, in that case, cannot a civil aircraft be landed in the same way?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: If the noble Earl will allow me, I will come to that later: it is an important point. These trials started at Marham in the spring of 1957, and after all the various difficulties, chiefly due to land acquisition, had been solved, the main installation was completed in the summer of last year. Unfortunately, as soon as these trials had begun troubles of a technical nature occurred, with the result that trial
234
burns had to be put off until this year. Unfortunately, the remedies then suggested were not sufficient to cure these troubles, and certain moditications are now being carried out.
I should emphasise here that the technical difficulties which have occurred could not easily have been foreseen and must be taken as the natural course of events when experimenting in a comparatively unknown field. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, we had this sort of equipment during the war to enable bombers to land. But in those days the system was one of pure petrol being burnt in large and enormously expensive quantities—a system which would be quite unacceptable, not only because of price but because of the danger and the dirt. The modern system, although it is the same basic idea, applies a different system of burning altogether. The result of these setbacks is that at present until such times as these difficulties have been solved, there is no question of installing F.I.D.O. at any commercial airfield.
I turn now from the physical position, that there is no such fully approved system, to the theoretical problem of whether, once a F.I.D.O. system has been developed to the point of being an economical proposition from the commercial aviation point of view, it should be installed at London or any other airport. Let me assume for the moment that the fog dispersal system had, in fact, been developed to this point, and that it would be physically possible and acceptable to install it at a commercial airfield. The next problem to be solved is who should bear the cost of the installation, and whether, in view of possible developments of other techniques, which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, 1have already mentioned, for landing in conditions of low visibility, the cost of this installation would be justified.
I should like to make it clear, first of all, that in spite of appearances a fog dispersal system is not primarily intended for the safety of civil aviation operations. This may seem to your Lordships to be a rather remarkable and extraordinary statement, but I think I can explain it in the following way. At the present time safety is secured by the pilot's observation of weather minima regulations; and

235
operations must be planned accordingly. I admit that the avoidance of diversion to airports other than the scheduled destination by the use of a fog dispersal system would be a great convenience to air passengers and aircraft operators; but I submit that it is a convenience more than a safety operation. It may surprise your Lordships to know that the war-time F.I.D.O. which remained installed at Manston and Blackbushe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already mentioned, was not used by any civil aircraft for an emergency landing, and last year it was decided to let it be discontinued for an emergency landing at either aerodrome. The only time it was used was for a take-off at Blackbushe on one occasion, to take gold bullion which had to be got away by a certain time. I hope that dispels the argument that this is an emergency necessity. It has been used only once by any civil aircraft in all the years since the war, although it has been available.
Your Lordships might argue, "But if it were installed at London Airport it would be used more frequently". I am now talking about the new F.I.D.O. system. But, to my mind, this only reinforces my argument that it is a matter of operational convenience to operators and not a matter of operational safety. There is a further point which I think it, would be as well that I brought to your Lordships' attention, and that is that even F.I.D.O. has its limitations, in that when visibility falls below 50 yards surface transport comes to a standstill, and without further expensive installations aircraft would be unable to taxi to and from the runway and to and from the terminal area.
That brings me to my second problem, and that is who should pay for this system if in fact it is to be installed. I hope that I have shown your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government consider that the installation of F.I.D.O. is one of convenience to aircraft operators. For this reason we consider that it would be more appropriate for civil air operators benefiting from the system to meet the cost. The problem therefore becomes one of whether airline operators who use London Airport would be willing to subscribe to the capital and the operational cost. I do not think there is any question of the civil operators being
236
willing to contribute to the capital cost, and in any case, it would not be easy to parcel this out fairly between the operators who use London Airport. The problem therefore comes down to the installation being paid for in arrear by increasing the present landing fees. It is not easy to present figures to your Lordships, since they are entirely hypothetical. We do know, however, that the basic cost of installation would be not far short of half a million pounds. What we do not know is the amount of money it would be necessary to charge per landing with any hope of coming somewhere near to covering the initial cost of installation and subsequent operation. It obviously must depend on the number of landings and take-offs which take place during the year, and for this we have no real basis to work on.
Let me, however, assume for a moment that it is somewhere in the region of 1,000 landings and 1,000 take-offs. At this rate the fees for its use would be somewhere in the region of £300 per landing and £150 per take-off. These figures have already been put to the aircraft operators at London Airport and they are higher than even those operators who are most keen on a F.I.D.O. being installed would accept. Nevertheless, talks are going on in this matter. Furthermore, in the absence of operational experience of F.I.D.O., most operators when asked had reservations as to the extent to which they might use it even were the fees acceptable to them. Obviously, therefore, it is not possible to come to a decision to under-take this large expenditure of money until we know more as to whether the operators would be willing to use it when installed, and, emerging from that, whether they would be willing to help to pay towards its cost.
We have to consider the other developments for blind landing which those noble Lords who spoke before me have already mentioned, the electronic methods. But I think before I do so, if your Lordships will forgive me I will refer at once to what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned, and that was the experiment which took place and is taking place in France. I understand that the experiments were on a small scale; that a number of propane cylinders were placed round the perimeter tracks and that gas

237
was released under pressure from nozzles some 10 feet above ground. This system was used and enabled General de Gaulle on one occasion to take off in conditions in which he would not otherwise have been able to do so. But unfortunately the system would not work in this country except on a very small number of occasions, because it relies entirely on the fact that the foggy conditions are near or below freezing point, and the occasions on which fog exists in this country at that temperature are in a minority.
Your Lordships have heard of the systems at the B.L.E.U. at Bedford. This is an electronic system and one which I think will be eventually installed in all large transport aircraft of the world. It has not been perfected, by any means, but there is no doubt whatever that it is a development to come, and one can say with certainty that some form of equipment on the lines of the experiment at Bedford will become world wide. If that is installed universally we can expect all commercial aircraft who use main aerodromes to be equipped with these equipments, and we might find ourselves, if we were to install F.I.D.O., in a position where a large amount of money had been spent on a system which shortly after its completion might well be rendered redundant.
I am not advancing this argument as a reason for not installing F.I.D.O.—far from it. This is one of the problems that we must solve when the time comes when a suitable F.I.D.O. system is ready for installation. Nevertheless if, when the technical difficulties of F.I.D.O. have been resolved, it appears that other blind landing systems which I have mentioned are not sufficiently far advanced, and provided that some agreement can be reached
238
with the airline operators about the financial problem, it may be that a decision to install F.I.D.O. at London Airport could be taken. Meanwhile we are pressing on with the experiments at Marham.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion I should like to thank the noble Lords who spoke and also the noble Earl for his reply. I am pleased to hear that experiments are still proceeding and that if a suitable form of F.I.D.O. can be produced it will at some future date be installed at London Airport or some adjacent airport. I think it undoubtedly would be a great help. It may be a long time yet before we get the perfect electronic landing. I believe that ever since flying started men have been trying to invent automatic landing gear, but so far none of them has been a great success. My Lords, with those few words I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported, without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock.