Lords Sitting of 10 April 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

LORD FEATHER
Victor Grayson Hardie Feather, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Feather, of the City of Bradford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Henderson and the Baroness Gaitskell.

NAMIBIA: WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will establish an inquiry regarding the standard of wages and working conditions of Africans employed in the operations of British companies in Namibia (South West Africa).
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, the admirable report on the conditions and wages of African workers in British firms in South Africa was prepared by a Parliamentary sub-committee. It would be for Parliament rather than Her Majesty's Government to decide whether a similar inquiry should be conducted in the case of Namibia.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the report by the exiled Bishop of Damaraland which shows that, bad as wages are in South Africa, they
1218
are much worse in Namibia. In the case of three companies the figures are: in South Africa £33 a month, in Namibia less than £20 a month; in another case, £40 a month in South Africa, £15 in Namibia; and in a third case, miners, £31 a month in South Africa; less than £20 in Namibia. In view of the fact that the United Nations has declared Namibia to be independent of South Africa, is there not a particular reason why this investigation should be made?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly take note of what my noble friend has said. At the moment I cannot identify the publication he mentioned at the beginning of his supplementary question. I shall most certainly study the figures that he has given. As to the need for a separate inquiry into the position of Namibia, your Lordships' House will of course know that this is within the competence of the appropriate Select Committee as set up by Parliament.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these figures have been published in the national Press (in the respectable part of the national Press, so far as there is one now) and that they are serious? Is he also aware that this is not an inquiry relating only to Namibia, but an inquiry relating to companies registered in Britain, operating in Britain, deriving their trade mainly from Britain, and who carry British reputation with them all over the world? It is an appalling state of affairs.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while approving—may I ask whether the noble Lord would prefer to reply first?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me first to answer the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Hale, after which I shall be most glad to listen to the noble Lord. In no way do I deny or challenge the authenticity or correctness of the figures that have been adduced to-day. I said that we shall need to study them, and I shall certainly do so, and I hope to consult my noble friend about the sources and indeed the nature of these figures and their implication.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while approving of Lord

1219
Brockway's benevolent intention, may I ask whether the Minister will represent to this Committee in another place that they had better round the job off and inquire about wages in Russia, in Greece, in Chile and in any other country where the noble Lords dislike parts of the régime?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. The Question was addressed to the position in Namibia, and within the limits of my capacity I tried to answer it.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be useful to have an inquiry into the wage rates being paid by British companies to Africans in independent black African countries so that a useful comparison could be made?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, quite possibly. I must repeat that the Committee set up by Parliament is quite competent. I mean the word "competent" in that it has the power to move, if it so wishes, to inquire into one or other country, region, or territory.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, may I suggest that my noble friend Lord Blyton should put his question, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby? In that way we shall not have this "to and fro" across the table.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question does not talk about Chile or Russia? Does he not consider that wages like this paid to miners in a place in South Africa are really disgraceful? Cannot the Tory Party get up and admit that?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should hope that there would be a general consensus that these conditions would be deprecated by all sections of this House, and indeed by the Parliament and people of this country. I entirely agree with what my noble friend has just said.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his repetition of the assurance that he gave in the House last week, that this is not a matter for Government. Since he has assured the House that it is his intention to recommend an investigation into wages in South-West Africa and therefore expend public funds, can he say to how many other countries in Southern Africa where wages are still lower such an investigation would apply? Overall have we not enough trouble on our hands without causing diplomatic irritation elsewhere?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point the noble Lord has raised, it is not for me to recommend that a certain investigation should be conducted. As I said, it is a Parliamentary rather than a Governmental initiative. Therefore we must await the actions and the decisions of the Expenditure Committee, who may or may not decide to hold such an inquiry as my noble friend suggested. Regarding the second point, at the moment I have not detailed, precise information as to the position in other comparable territories. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question I will do my best to help him.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, referring to my noble friend's first reply to me in which he said that this is a matter for Parliament, may I ask whether he is aware that the Select Committee in another place took the view that Namibia was outside its terms of reference, as the United Nations had declared it to be an independent country? In view of that fact, would Her Majesty's Government raise within the United Nations itself the possibility of this kind of investigation?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have more than once raised the question of Namibia. As my noble friend and your Lordships know, this has been very much a continuing matter, at least since 1920. The legal basis of the Mandate has been constantly discussed, I regret fruitlessly, at more than one international gathering, particularly in the United Nations Organisation. On the question of whether Namibia was ruled out by the Select Committee, that may be so. But there is nothing to prevent them from ruling it back into their consideration.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY FINANCES
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to defer the date by which they must achieve financial self-sufficiency, thus mitigating the heavy cost increases now falling on airlines by virtue of the Authority's increased charges.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, when the Policy Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority was approved by Parliament, it was recognised that if the Authority was to eliminate its deficit by 1977–78 this would involve certain increases in airlines' costs which in turn would have to be passed on to the users. My right honourable friend has to have regard to the interests not only of the users of airlines but also of the taxpayer, and his view is that the target date is still appropriate.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for that reply, which I fear is no more satisfactory than the one I received from the previous Government on the same subject. Is the noble Lord aware that even in the short period since then costs to airlines from sources outside the control of the C.A.A. have continued to rise sharply? Will he therefore see whether he is able to look at this matter again, particularly in relation to licensing charges, which cause as much irritation as anything else?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the whole question is being looked at all the time. There is a very considerable deficit, and although I understand the noble Lord's point of view, which I shared with him when the Bill went through Committee in this House, the fact still remains that, as with the last Government, the intention is to recover by 1977 the whole of the costs that are incurred by the operation of the Civil Aviation Authority's services.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Feather, whom we have been delighted to welcome here this afternoon, is to-day celebrating his birthday, and would the noble Lord agree that we should convey to him our warmest con-gratulations on a double happy event?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if there was anything that would merit a stay of the landing charges it would be the fact that my noble friend Lord Feather is enjoying a birthday. I share, and we all share, in those good wishes.

EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS
2.59 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon they will be able to say what action they intend to take on the recommendations of the Littlewood Report on Experiments on Animals, which was published in April, 1965 [Cmnd. 2641).
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, almost half of the recommendations made by the Littlewood Committee endorse the retention of existing controls, or propose that statutory force should be given to restrictions now imposed administratively; to this extent the Committee's proposals are already in operation. Effect has been given to some of their other recommendations, but the majority of them would require legislation. The Government have no present plans for legislation on this subject.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in view of that not highly satisfactory reply, for which I thank the noble Lord, may I ask whether the Government will be prepared to proceed immediately with the reconstitution of the advisory committee and of its functions which, as the Littlewood Report pointed out, could be done without legislation?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it was the recommendation of the Royal Commission which met from 1906 to 1912 that

1223
there should be an advisory committee. It was laid down very clearly that the nominees should be from learned bodies representing human and veterinary medicine and science, and I believe that the noble Lord was a member of the advisory committee for some years. Having regard to the scientific nature of the work of the advisory committee, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that the requirements which were suggested by the Royal Commission have been met and they see no reason at all for reconstituting the committee.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there is a great deal of disquiet on this subject, and a great deal of feeling that a committee which consists wholly of medical and veterinary scientists, and which is chaired by a distinguished lawyer, is not entirely suitable for considering the position on animal experiments as it exists at the present time?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that the function of the advisory committee, as we understand it, is to advise on matters which are essentially scientific, and the members of the advisory committee are in a position to do precisely that.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there are any women sitting on this committee? I asked the question earlier and was given an answer in the negative. I hope that the position has since improved.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope I am right in saying to the noble Baroness that one member of the advisory committee is a woman, and I believe that one of the inspectors is also a woman. If I am wrong about that, I shall be only too pleased to write to the noble Baroness and say so.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as a member of the Littlewood Committee for a short while, my recollection is that one of the recommendations was that the number of inspectors should be substantially increased. Is my noble friend able to tell us how many more inspectors there are to-day than there were in 1965?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are now 14 inspectors in post, including the chief inspector and two superintendent inspectors. I believe I am right in saying that when the Littlewood Committee made its recommendation there were 8 inspectors, and when the Committee was set up there were only 6. To-day there are 14.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will the Minister agree that since 1965 there has been a tremendous increase in the number of experiments on living animals, and that there is increasing concern about the number of animals that are used for purely cosmetic experiments—I do not use that term in a scientific sense: I mean experiments connected with the production of cosmetics, as distinct from the saving of human life? Also, will the Minister agree that although in 1965 there were 12 inspectors there are now 13 or 14, which is an increase of 2, and that this grave concern which is felt about the enormous increase in experiments on living animals should be reflected in some legislation?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I would say that between 1965 and 1971 the total number of experiments increased by about 850,000, but the figure for 1972 showed a reduction of more than 250,000. In 1972, the inspectors made over 4,000 visits to registered laboratories, mostly without prior notice, and my information is that at the present moment the 14 inspectors can deal adequately with the demands made on them.

FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will consider providing funds for the major political Parties so as to decrease their moral and financial dependence on money obtained from other sources.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the gracious Speech

1225
made it clear that the Government will consider the provision of financial assistance to enable Opposition Parties to fulfill their Parliamentary functions more effectively.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very satisfactory reply. May I ask him whether he realises that I have a Motion on the Order Paper to ask the Government to consider other matters which may help in the increased efficiency of our democratic system?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, did the Minister say that the Government might provide money for the Opposition? Why only the Opposition?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think these proposals were put forward in the gracious Speech because Opposition Parties inevitably find themselves in substantially greater difficulties than when in Government. That is why it was felt appropriate to have this matter considered as early as possible.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House very much welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's seeking to find ways of providing financial assistance for Opposition Parties. We hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in consultation with noble Lords on the Liberal Benches and with the Front Bench on this side of the House, will find some ways of strengthening the facilities which are available to us while we are in Opposition.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while associating myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has just said, may I ask whether the Government intend to provide funds in proportion to the number of votes which each Party received at the last General Election?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, this is one of the many interesting questions which can be considered when these talks take place.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true to say, considering all the needs and the pressures on this Government, that if there are politicians who cannot withstand moral and financial dependence on other sources, they should
1226
be weeded out? Is it not also true that even if Members of Parliament are not paid as much as, say, Congressmen in America, their salary is not exactly what one would call a peppercorn salary?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, all these questions can be considered when the talks take place.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, are the Government aware that the obscurity of this Question is such that one does not know whether the Government will subsidise political Parties to fight Elections? If that is intended, I presume that if I borrowed £500 from my noble friend Lord Shepherd to put 500 mavericks into Parliament and got 50 of them in, I could claim this aid. If this proposal means that any Opposition Members will get help and the same inside knowledge to be able to ask constructive questions and to know what is going on in the Government, then I am for it. Nevertheless, nothing could more encourage damned intellectualism than a damned silly proposition like this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will advise me later whether that was in fact a question. I suggest that we now proceed to the next business.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before we pass on to the next business may I say that I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the grievous consequences to democracy that might ensue if grants from public funds should be given to what are called "Parties", for that will strengthen immeasurably the power of the Whips which, if I may say so with great respect to both sides, will not work for the efficiency of the House. Will the Government, before they start giving money to Parties, provide sufficient facilities in this House to enable any noble Lords who want to take this place seriously, and not as a place for the dead who remain unburied, to do their job efficiently?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will take careful note of what my noble friend has said. I do not think that the latter part of his question arises on the Question before the House, but I will take note of his comments.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the possibility of a proliferation of Opposition Parties if it is known that the Government are ready to finance them through the taxpayers? What is to be the criterion? Is it to be determined by numbers or by electoral votes? Is this not, after all, a cockeyed idea?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did suggest that we should move to the next Business. In view of the interest of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, this might be a matter upon which we could have a short debate. Then other noble Lords apart from the Leaders of the political Parties, might have an opportunity of expressing their views on this topical subject.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on mortgage rates. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that light refreshments will be available to-night.
CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for the prohibition of new feuduties and other periodical payments from land; for the right to redeem feuduties and other such perpetual payments on a term day; for the redemption by law of feuduties and
1228
other such payments on transfer of land for valuable consideration; for limitations on the residential use of property subject to long lease and other rights of occupancy; for the variation of heritable securities in the event of residential use of the security subjects; for restrictions on certain rights of reversion, redemption and pre-emption; for limitation of the right to raise an action of irritancy for non-payment of feuduty; for abolition of the right to create leasehold casualties for the recognition of interposed leases; for amendment of the law relating to registration of leases; for abolition of the registration and recording of documents in the Office of Chancery; and for related matters. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

SMALL AUTHORITIES (LOTTERIES) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to empower small authorities to raise funds by lottery and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event of the National Insurance Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the First and Second Readings of the Bill on Tuesday April 30.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I will do so briefly. The terms of the Motion are identical to that which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when Leader of the House, moved for setting up a Scrutiny Committee for European Instruments. The House will be pleased to know that the Committee of Selection will be meeting on May 1 to consider the names of noble Lords who should serve on this important Committee. I hope that the meeting of the House of Lords Offices Committee this afternoon will agree the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of Committees, whose principal duty will be to chair this particular Committee.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the Committee and any sub-committees have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records; and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
1230
That the Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a significant Motion. It is the second time that it has been introduced into your Lordships' House, and it is a matter of some satisfaction to the House as a whole—not just to noble Lords on this side of the House—that the Government have been able to come forward with a Motion establishing the European Communities Committee with identical terms of reference to those which were agreed by the House before the Dissolution of Parliament in February. It is clearly the wish of the House that the terms of reference should be those which were proposed by the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and which were endorsed by a well-attended meeting of the Procedure Committee. It is I think unfortunate that the General Election should have delayed the setting up of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House by some weeks, but we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who was himself an active member of Lord Maybray-King's Committee, is determined to press on with its establishment and to get it working as soon as possible. So this Motion is extremely welcome to noble Lords on this side of the House and indeed I know, having myself moved the previous Motion at that Dispatch Box, to the House as a whole.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I approve this Motion most heartily. I think it is correct to say that it is an important Committee and we wish it well in its work. Is there any indication as to how soon "soon" will be?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, before the Motion is approved, may I ask my noble friend a question? Is he aware that I do not propose to oppose the Motion, although I do not think it will be of the slightest use?—but that is another matter. I wish to ask a question that should have been asked when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on behalf of the then Government and now leading for the Opposition, had the previous Motion down on the Order Paper. The

1231
question relates to the proposed activities of the Committee and sub-committees. I notice that they have power "to adjourn from place to place". This is somewhat ambiguous. If it is not ambiguous, it is rather too comprehensive. Can my noble friend say what that means? Does it mean that the Committees can go for joyrides to Strasbourg, Bonn, Brussels or Paris, and even further afield? What is to be the criterion? What is to be the actual geographical latitude? We ought to know about that before we approve the Order.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and in some respects to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, for the welcome they have given to the Motion. To the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who asked how soon the Committee will be set up, I hope that it will be in the first week after the Easter Recess, when I hope to move a Motion appointing the Deputy Chairman; and then of course the Members will be appointed and the Committee should be able to start work immediately. Therefore I am thinking very much of the short term.
In regard to my noble friend's view as to the use of the Committee, I fear that, as on a number of other matters, I do not agree with him. I think it will be a useful Committee and may well prove to have a significant effect on procedure and attitudes in your Lordships' House. As to the words "adjourn from place to place", my understanding is that in your Lordships' House we like to have as much latitude as possible in our terms of reference and this clearly gives an opportunity for this Committee, if it so wished, to move from here perhaps to the old Middlesex Hall; or, if necessary, it could go to Brussels if it felt that it had a special reason to go there. But what we have sought here is to ensure that the Committee shall have the fullest freedom and flexibility to perform its undoubtedly important work.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am inclined to oppose this Motion because of what my noble friend has just said. I can understand if there is a limit to the geographical activities of this Committee and its sub-committees—that is one
1232
thing. But it is another story if they are permitted to go abroad.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, surely no noble Lord is allowed to speak more than once.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is entirely true. I have sought to explain to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that if he disagrees with the Motion of course he knows that he has the opportunity so to do. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, clearly a noble Lord may speak for a second time only with the leave of the House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in point of fact I only asked a question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can I not oppose the Motion?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I move that the leave of the House be given to my noble friend to speak a second time.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry, my Lords; I have been here quite a long time, and I have never yet known that one noble Lord could speak on behalf of the whole House. We have debated this matter and I do not think I have anything further to say on the point the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has raised. I think, therefore, that we ought to proceed.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I fancied I raised a legitimate point—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, am I out of order?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: I am out of order, am I?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with great respect, to whom am I to speak? I do not advise you to provoke me too much.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel we are getting into difficulties. I think the view of your Lordships' House is quite clear, and though I hate having to

1233
say it to my noble friend, because I know how strongly he feels on this matter, I think he is pressing the House rather too far and I hope that he will not go any further.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very glad to get a little support from the Front Bench, but if Members of your Lordships' House think they are going to shout me down they are making a terrible mistake. I do not stand for that.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: Do not start that business, you on the Opposition Benches. You will not stop me from speaking if I want to speak. It is better to speak more than once than not to speak at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: Do not shout me down, because if you start that business some of you will be shouted down: understand that! I will not have it from you or anybody else.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: You will not stop me from speaking. I will respond to my noble friend, but not to you.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take what is the sense of this House. This House is generous. We stray from time to time, but we have now gone so far that one has to draw the line and say that we should now put the Motion to the House for a vote if it is necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3.24 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Hylton-Foster be appointed to the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Strang.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE, PEOPLE BILL
3.25 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill and, I trust, a non-controversial one. It has a single purpose; that is, to raise the limits on candidates' expenses at local government elections in England and Wales and in Scotland.
Towards the end of the last Parliament, as the noble Lord who preceded me in my present Office is aware, following a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, legislation was passed to raise the limits of candidates' expenses at a Parliamentary election to the equivalent in present purchasing power of the limits set in 1969. Owing to the shortage of time and the absence of opportunity for consultation with the local authority associations and political Parties, that legislation did not include the raising of the limits for local elections. This Bill is the outcome of full consultation. Its timing is dictated by the forthcoming London borough elections and the elections to the new local authorities in Scotland.
The limits fixed in 1969 for all local government elections in Great Britain, with the exception of G.L.C. elections, were £30, plus 5p for every six electors. For the G.L.C. elections the limit was £200, plus 5p for every four electors, and this figure is still considered adequate and is not touched by the Bill. The limit for the other elections is to be raised to £45, plus 1p for each elector. This will help candidates to meet rising costs, such as printing and postage costs. In actual money terms it means that in a ward with 1,200 electors the limit rises from £40 to £57. In award with 6,000 electors the increase is from £80 to £105. It may be said that these limits are not high enough, given the great increase in printing costs and the recently increased postal charges. The increases in the Bill are strictly proportionate to those made last February for Parliamentary elections and I do not think that further increases can be justified. I believe that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it was the very last day of the last Parliament when we were considering the brother Bill about Parliamentary elections. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has fully explained this one. I have no objection whatever to this Bill, and I do not think that anybody on this side of the House would have any objection. I noticed that my honourable friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made one rather interesting point, about two notional different sets of municipal elections, which seems to me to warrant some further thought, though not obviously for the purposes of this Bill. There must now be a growing collection of items to do with representation of the people in the hands of the Home Office which have already been considered by the Speaker's Conference and by others concerned, and perhaps in due course we may have a Bill on this subject where we can actually put down some Amendments. The last two Bills have gone through all their stages on the same day. Perhaps some of your Lordships, interested in local government, would have been inclined to raise matters on this Bill, whereas the previous one affected only Members of another place. Perhaps sooner or later the noble Lord will bring something else forward, or alternatively, if there are individual points that my noble friends or other Members of the House wish to raise on this subject, I am sure that they can write to him and have that matter put on the agenda, if it is not there already. The last remark I should like to make is that I received a mild rebuke from a number of my noble friends for saying 5p and 1p. I therefore make amends by saying 5 pence and one penny.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MOBILITY OF THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the Report on Mobility of Physically Disabled People; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion
1236
standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should first like to express my appreciation to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, many of them at some inconvenience to themselves: my three noble friends (if I may so address them) who are sitting immediately behind Hansard; the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who is making his maiden speech; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who has come specially to the House on this occasion. I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords for the interest they have shown in this subject. Indeed, my Lords, we are victims of our own success. So many noble Lords have volunteered to speak that we are going to have to show how disciplined we are, and set a pattern for the House, by no one taking more than ten minutes to make their speech. Noble Lords will watch to make sure that I do not break my own rule.
My Lords, this is a debate about the Sharp Report, which refers to various details concerning about 359,000 disabled people. It seems to me, my Lords, that this debate falls into three divisions: the Report itself, the history of the Report and the action upon its recommendations. I should like to say immediately that I congratulate the Government on the appointment of a Minister for the Disabled. This is something long overdue; and we all know my right honourable friend who will fill that post to be compassionate, and one who is deeply interested in the subject. I should also like to congratulate the Government on publishing the Sharp Report so quickly after coming into office. In the debate on the Unstarred Question which I asked on February 5, the Minister then replying said that the Report was a very complex matter and had all sorts of financial implications as well as implications of eligibility; that the Government were studying it with great care, and that they would eventually publish the Report. He also told us that the motor industry's research association Reports, which are very relevant to this, were never published. Indeed, he said it would not be advisable for them to be published. Now, my Lords, in just under two months (with a General Election intervening, it is true, and a different Government) we have both these reports available, and so the question is much easier to debate in depth.
The terms of reference, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, herself, were wide-ranging. They covered not only medical problems but housing and mobility in and out of buildings. With such a splendid array of speakers, and with the time factor hanging over me, I have decided to confine myself to one subject. I will not say, my Lords, that I will deal with it "briefly", because I have found that that is quite fatal: anybody who says he will speak briefly is still on his feet two hours later. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, makes the point very well when she says that it was indeed the difficulties into which the vehicle service had run which prompted her inquiry. Indeed, sonic people who wrote or talked to her seemed to think that this was the only matter with which she had to deal. She makes the point that, important as this matter is, it is not the most important. Now I think I should like to differ from her here. I feel that the situation of the disabled driver is one which is not only vitally important but urgent; and we must take the Sharp Report in conjunction with the details of the tests carried out by the motor industry's research establishment and the Report of the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs.
My Lords, I greatly welcome the main conclusions of the Sharp Report. The three-wheeler is condemned as dangerous, noisy, uncomfortable and liable to break down, and it cannot carry a passenger. Lady Sharp herself says—and I quote:
"I soon came to the conclusion that it should be replaced by a small car as and when it is practicable to do so."
A three-wheeler, my Lords—and this is a very telling point—costs more than a car. I would only say that I think it a pity that the Report did not go more deeply into the question of safety, as it would then have come out in a more determined fashion in favour of immediate action. If we look at the analysis of some of the 1,300 letters from disabled drivers which were sent in to the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs—and these were not based on structured questions, but were actual accounts of the drivers' experiences and how they saw the three-wheeled "trike"—we see that some 51 users had actually returned their vehicles to the Department, saying that
1238
they were unsafe and unreliable. When one considers that this meant that these folk were virtually housebound, I think it shows the force of their feeling.
The type of accidents that were there described range from tricycles being blown over to turning over when braking and swerving, doors bursting open, steering wheels collapsing and in severe cases the tricycle actually catching fire. All "trike" drivers, says the Report, were concerned with the fact that they considered the tricycles unreliable and unsafe, not only to themselves but to other road users. Various words were used to describe them. "Death traps", "Coffins on wheels", were some of the expressions used in the Report. Even if we do not place an emphasis on safety, Lady Sharp has accepted that the invalid tricycle should be replaced by a small car. As I have said, my Lords, she has made the very telling point that the "trike" costs more than a car. A car has an obvious advantage socially, and the majority of people would prefer it. The disadvantage of the "trike"—one of many—is that it cannot carry a passenger. Nor, indeed, can the driver receive instruction except from outside the vehicle.
So I was a little disturbed to see my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Services repeating what the previous Minister had said in a debate; namely, that it would not be doing a service to the many contented users to take away something which gave them pleasure and mobility. Indeed, my Lords, one irate lady wrote to me saying that I was going to take away her "trike". Her letter was, of course, anonymous, as most unpleasant letters usually are. But there is no doubt that there is a certain area of confusion here. I should like to ask what kind of driver could handle this very tricky three-wheeled vehicle, but could not handle a car which had been specially adapted? And, if it is unsafe, should it continue to be used? I remember the debate on flammable nightwear, when it was said that children could literally be burnt if they were wearing these highly flammable nightdresses. The argument then put forward was that there are people who like this type of nightdress, which burns quickly. I would suggest that even if people like it, if a thing is unsafe it is

1239
surely not wise that they should continue to use it.
I agree with Lady Sharp that both disabled non-drivers and disabled drivers should be eligible to have a car. Last weekend I met a woman with a completely disabled husband. Equally, I have frequently met husbands with completely disabled wives. In this case, the disabled individual is almost totally housebound. It seems reasonable to suggest that the Government should supply these vehicles; and, indeed, that they should allow some extra grant-aid for petrol costs, and see that all servicing and spare parts are available over a wide area. My Lords, I plead with the Government to-day to take some immediate action on this recommendation of the Sharp Report. It is particularly important at this moment, when the Department is negotiating a contract to purchase more of these three-wheelers for yet another year. My Lords, I would seriously ask what further consultations are needed on this particular point. I appreciate they may need to talk again on the questions of housing, employment and eligibility, possibly, but Lady Sharp has made it clear that the three-wheelet should go—and this after hearing the comments of the people with whom the consultations would take place.
My Lords, let this not be a reason for any dragging of feet. There are estimates of costs given, and there are a number of possible users. But, my Lords—and I do plead here—this is a situation where cost must not be allowed to cloud the argument. The Government must accept the need to stop production of the tricycle. I welcome the statement of intention of the Government to have discussions with the disabled and I recognise the need for such discussions, but that need must not be used as a reason to delay the changeover to cars.
My Lords, I quote the Prime Minister who, in speaking as Leader of the Opposition in October, 1973, said:
"The problem of the invalid tricycle has been too long deferred. Every question, every representation has been shoved off with the excuse that we must wait for Sharp. Even when we get the Sharp Report the responsibility cannot be shoved off again, the reponsibility lies fairly and squarely with the Government."
1240
Exactly. My Lords, I know that the Minister to-day is not going to disappoint me and those brave and energetic people, the disabled drivers, who mounted their own campaign—a splendid exercise in self-help which I consider calls for the Government and all of us to take notice.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on returning once again to this most interesting and important question, and at a very topical moment when the Report has been published. We are delighted to have its author speaking in the debate to-day, and now to have an opportunity to go at the new Government with the same fervour and force as she used to go at us when we were on that side of the House. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, every success in replying to her. He has as one advantage on this occasion the fact that the "mobile Bench" are here at only three-quarter strength. I warn him that usually there are present four rather than three. It is also a very great pleasure to know that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, is to take part in this debate. We know what a tremendous interest he has taken in this subject, and we were aware that he was with us on the last occasion when we debated it.
It is not a habit of mine to re-read my speeches, but I did re-read the speech I made so very recently and from which the noble Baroness has in fact quoted when saying that I called this, "a very complex matter with a number of financial implications". I do not wish in any way to change my words. I think that in ignoring the financial implications the noble Baroness over-simplifies the position. It is indeed extremely complex. In the first instance, although it is true that a car is cheaper to provide than a three-wheeler, the very fact that it is so attractive would mean that a number of extra people who at present do not apply for a three-wheeler would apply for a car. In fact the estimate in the Report is that twice as many people would apply for a car as at present apply for the three-wheeler, and that means at once doubling the cost of provision.
In the second place—and this is also clearly brought out in the Sharp Report

1241
—once you have opted for a car and have agreed to provide a car you no longer have a reason for not providing a car for the disabled who cannot themselves drive. Again you are increasing the number of vehicles you have to provide and increasing the cost of their provision. The noble Baroness in writing her Report obviously saw the logic of this and endeavoured to meet it by producing a set of criteria which would have to be satisfied before a car was issued. These are the criteria in paragraph 48—for getting to work, or to a place of further education or training, or looking after a household. Certainly this proposition is attractive at first sight. Unfortunately its adoption would mean that a number of people who are at present eligible for vehicles would no longer receive them, and of those who at present have a vehicle some 13,500 would lose that vehicle when it was no longer usable. To me this is quite unacceptable. The net result is that the cost of these proposals is really formidable. The proposals suggested by the noble Baroness would cost another £3 million; but if it is unacceptable to leave out others who are at present eligible, then the cost soars to an extra £12 million or more, and we must surely ask ourselves what is the right priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, clearly thinks that the provision of suitably adapted housing is a top priority that falls within the scope of her inquiry, and of course quite outside her inquiry there are a number of other problems in the general field of disablement income. Your Lordships will remember that when we were debating the Social Security Act of 1973 a number of these points were raised—an income for the disabled housewife was one; an income for a person who was devoting her life to looking after a disabled person was another. These are also very well deserving causes and all of them, I feel, must be judged together when we are talking about devoting large sums of money to the improvement of our services for the disabled.
Thanks to an Amendment passed in this House, the 1973 Act put a deadline of October this year for the Government to produce a statement of their plans for future provision for the disabled. The Government have made use of this particular provision to say that they will make their decisions on this Report as
1242
well as on other matters concerning the disabled at that time. We shall be very interested, if they still are the Government, to hear what those proposals are. Where we are critical in general of the Government's social policy to date is in their lack of discrimination and selectivity in benefits. The money that is available for social purposes is extremely limited. Even at the time when we were achieving a growth rate of 5 per cent. we never had enough money to do all we should have liked to do. Money is in very short supply, and it is surely unfair to those people who really need money and financial support if it is wasted on those who do not require assistance; and yet the Government are going ahead with some £500 million of food subsidies and with a rent freeze, all of which will help rich and poor alike.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggests that at least the provision of cars, or cash allowances in lieu of cars, should be subject to a means test. I should like to know whether the Government have made up their mind on this point. I believe the suggestion is right in principle. The noble Baroness points out that there is some difficulty in applying it in the case of cars rather than cash allowances, but I should have thought that a scheme could be devised which would be fair and would mean that people who already have a car and are quite well off would not be subsidised, while those who really needed one would get the benefit.
My Lords, the other question that I would like to ask is whether the Government have given any consideration to the practical implementation of the provision of cars. Would it really be possible to provide 40,000 cars within any reasonable time scale? How quickly could they be provided, and what would happen in the event of switching to cars, to the supply of three-wheelers? Surely it would no longer be economic for producers to continue to manufacture three-wheelers, and we might well find that three-wheelers would go out of use. Although the noble Baroness might like that, because she alleges it is not a safe vehicle, I know of a great many people who depend on the three-wheeler and who very much appreciate it and could not use cars. There are those among the war pensioners who opt for the three-wheeler rather than the car. This proves my point.

1243
My Lords, I have to watch the clock, and as I have one minute to go I will mention briefly the other problems of mobility on which the noble Baroness touches in Part III of her Report. First of all, in the medical field, may I say how very glad I was to see that the initiatives of my right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph in the realm of rehabilitation have been recognised. As part of them, he set in train negotiations on the future of the rehabilitation professions, the physiotherapists, the occupational therapists and the remedial gymnasts. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say anything about the progress which has been made on those discussions. I should be most grateful if he could do so.
Finally, I was very pleased to read the tribute which was paid to ALAcs—the artificial limb and appliance centres. They have come in for a great deal of criticism one way or another in the past, but this Report pays them a tribute which, as I say, I was very pleased to read. Now, my Lords, my time is up. I have a great deal more to say, but I am afraid I ought to stop now.
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SNOWDON: My Lords, since this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, I ask for your usual indulgence. I am, needless to say, extremely honoured to be given the chance to speak here to day on a subject whose problems have concerned me over recent years. The most commendable Report of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has reminded us that there are almost 1¼ million adults in this country whose disabilities severely handicap them. That means that one in every dozen or so households is intimately concerned in their problems, sharing the frustrations of a world not built, and a society not adjusted, to let them be wholly a part of it.
Of course, progress has been made and attitudes are more generous than in the days of Charles Dickens. The recent appointment of a Minister for the Disabled—the first, I believe, in the world with sole responsibility for that part of our community—was a most heartening and enlightened step forward. I hope that this office will endure and that other countries will follow this lead, for obviously
1244
the problems are international as much as national. But there is far to go before the humane ideals which inspired the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970 are adequately met. They demand, and we must still demand, no less than the dignified integration of disabled people into our lives, and us into theirs, whenever and wherever that can be achieved. This means far more than just providing ramps for wheelchairs in our public buildings, more than providing extra accommodation in places of entertainment or quotas of stairless, stepless houses in new housing schemes, or specific proportions of disabled people in every work force. All that and other necessary points dealing with schools, recreation and other services were, of course, covered by the Act; but real needs go much deeper.
How can we assure the acceptance of disabled people, and their needs and rights, by the rest of the community—not merely as a charitable burden but as an unpatronising, unself-conscious, automatic act? When I say "by the rest of the community" I mean by all the rest of us: not the young, whose record in this field these days is better than ever before, but by the adult population; by the sort of unsympathetic managements who, despite the Act, still discriminate against handicapped people and ban wheelchairs from their cinemas, theatres, exhibition halls and stores, using their own unsolved fire precautions as their excuse; by such administrators of our social services as treat the disadvantaged as a nuisance; by those who put disabled people all in a coach together and then well-meaningly label them as though they were a circus act; by anyone who isolates the handicapped in any way or lets them feel that they are less than full members of society or robs them of the right to be anonymous. These, my Lords, are the people who must be taught.
Disabled people have enough problems. They do not wish to complain, or be made exceptions of, or to be granted favours. They need the same facilities to go where they want when they want, and not only in groups on certain days. That is why they have to be met more than halfway, not only by the Government and the Department of Health, but by all of us. We have still, in 1974, in spite of Section 1 of the Act, urgently to

1245
identify the needs of the disabled. We still have not done nearly enough research in consultation with them, as opposed to laying down the law for them. It seems that what is needed for the disabled—as indeed for the aged, too—is an all-out communal effort to discover, again in consultation, what they do not have, so that they may be given it.
This debate is about their mobility. The Department of Health does not even know with any exactness how many people need specialised, as distinct from adapted, cars. We do not know, and neither do all disabled people, what their rights are, what technical aids are available and what financial aid they may claim. Is there not something wrong when disabled people form themselves not just into social clubs or advisory bodies—that is fair enough—but also into pressure groups? I should like to see every regional authority in the country running central local showrooms equipped with all the latest appliances, devices, designs, prototypes and information which make a disabled life easier, whether for the home or for mobility out of doors. These showrooms should ensure a two-way exchange of ideas designed equally for the encouragement of the disabled as for the enlightenment of everyone else.
My Lords, nowhere, to my mind, have the attitudes which must be altered shown themselves to worse advantage than in the matter of invalid motorised tricycles. Their social shortcomings are recognised in Lady Sharp's Report, though, loneliness apart, more might have been made of the medical risks to a disabled person forced to travel solo. Her conclusion that four-wheelers should be substituted for the tricycles seems incontestable. The outstanding question is: when will the phasing-out start? It is also essential that nobody now mobile is made immobile.
Last month the Secretary of State for Health repeated once more that, and I quote:
"… there are no reasons on grounds of safety alone why the three-wheeler should be withdrawn".
The basis for this judgment was the short and entirely inadequate series of MIRA tests last year. In a front impact test the present model burst its petrol tank (mounted over the driver's knees) and buckled at the sides. In the wind gust tests, it slewed from a true course by
1246
twice the recommended amount. Are these grounds for declaring the present production model safe—let alone for giving a clean bill to all 20,000-odd tricycles of all models now on the road, any one of which would have its chassis over-ridden if in collision with virtually any other type of vehicle, with possibly disastrous consequences?
The tricycle is still being produced, and it is made largely of foreign parts—unstable, easily upsettable, unreliable, flimsy, inflammable; still without a jack or spare wheel; without bumpers, without an anti-roll bar; with the petrol tank still just in front of the driver, the interior bristling with sharp levers, its steering column non-collapsible, the internal noise insupportable, and with its perfectly appalling accident record.
My Lords, this is the vehicle for the disabled. They are not given the choice of a safer car. It may be driven by a paraplegic or someone suffering from the progressive deterioration of muscular dystrophy, so of course it matters if it reacts to a cross-wind by an average of 100 per cent. more than it ought to. The direct steering of these trikes is, as your Lordships may know, so sensitive that the tendency is to over-correct any sudden swerve at the best of times. That is bad enough, but the end will be calamitous if, as has often happened, the seat comes adrift without warning and slides violently sideways.
Who can blame the driver if, when that sort of thing happens on a bend, he panics and, voluntarily or involuntarily, brakes hard? This one does by pushing the handlebars downwards. The chances are that the tricycle will turn right over, and with the wind to help such a thing is even easier. The swerving tests at Cranfield last summer were abandoned for fear of an accident. The model 70 can travel as fast as 60 m.p.h. But, my Lords, I have myself turned over in one travelling at less than 20 m.p.h. In my case the petrol tank did not burst, but petrol poured on the ground and I was unable to get out unaided.
Nothing will convince me that this lethal machine is intrinsically suitable for a disabled person, or that its production should be allowed to continue for a moment longer; and, least of all, the argument which I have heard deployed by

1247
the Department of Health, that its instability induces greater caution in the driver and therefore promotes greater safety in its use. A Departmental public relations officer I spoke to had never had time to drive a tricycle; a Departmental engineer claimed to have found it absolutely safe when overtaking lorries in the fast lane of our motorways, and an administrator at the Department advised me to "lay off this safety lark". Another official told me that as I was not disabled I was not qualified to pass judgment on a car designed for the disabled.
It has been stated that the organisations for the disabled are to be consulted before changes are made and that we must hear in mind the report on social security provisions for the disabled next autumn. My Lords, I can already see delay mounting up before the trike is replaced by a real car—before replacement even starts. We know that thousands of small cars are going to be needed, irrespective of how the new criteria for their ownership may be defined, especially if we are changing over to an all-British vehicle. Could not the decision to order them be taken at once, so that by the time we have finished arguing about who is to have them some, at least, will be ready? I thank your Lordships for listening to me so patiently.
4.3 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Earl who has just made an admirable and humane maiden speech; I hope it will be one of many in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, might have been siting on the "mobile Bench" with us in a wheelchair, for the noble Earl has had polio. He gives great encouragement to thousands of disabled people and their helpers, and encourages others to help. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, for this interest.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for instigating this debate. It is such a pity that some noble Lords who would have liked to speak have not been able to do so because of shortage of time. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for having undertaken her mammoth task. The noble Baroness states housing to be the first necessity for the disabled, but for a young person
1248
who becomes a prisoner within a house this might be worse than death. With Chairs of Rehabilitation at Edinburgh and Southampton there is at least hope that rehabilitation in the British Isles may at long last reach a higher status in medicine than it has in the past. Housing and mobility are part of a fully comprehensive rehabilitation programme. This should be the right of all disabled people so that they may have the opportunity to develop to their full potential.
I hope mobility for the disabled will remain under the Department of Health and Social Security, and that the Government will take counsel from all the medical staff in charge of the physically disabled before considering transferring responsibilities. Paragraph 143 of the Report worries me. It reads:
"This could best be provided by empowering officials to decide applications for cars, after review of the personal circumstances."
Disabled people are very often frightened by officials and officialdom. They have often suffered many indignities due to their disabilities. Is this humiliation going to continue for the rest of their lives? If the Government can find a way to supply mobility other than by way of the means test I think it would be much more acceptable. If in regard to the supplying of cars to the disabled, the means test is used, might not the Government be penalising the industrious, decent workers who are worried if they do not have something in the bank to fall back on, yet be rewarding the dodgers?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said that there have not been many complaints about wheelchairs. I would query that statement. May I ask the Government thoroughly to examine this aspect and to consult the disabled users and the medical experts as to which chairs they find most acceptable? As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, it is essential that children's needs are reviewed as they grow. I had the pleasure of opening a lovely special school in Barnsley a few months ago. Some of the children there were acutely disabled. The school had the most excellent facilities. Two physiotherapists were needed to give the children the necessary treatment. It has been impossible to get even one part-time physiotherapist. The physiotherapists are the

1249
people who are most able to make disabled people, children or adult, mobile. Can the Government do something to encourage more of these vitally needed skilled therapists?
For disabled people who cannot drive a car or a tricycle an outside chair is often their last hope of independence. I am delighted to hear the Departments are working on the design of one. When a desperate lady wrote to me from Cardiff saying that she longed for an outside chair I was lucky to find two voluntary societies who raised the money and bought her one. She wrote afterwards to me saying, "I feel like a bird let out of a cage." And at Christmas she wrote again, saying what a wonderful summer she had had of freedom from being housebound. She was ecstatic about all the things she had done.
There does not seem to be an emergency breakdown service at week-ends for people living alone and depending on indoor powered chairs. A community worker told me he found the disabled lady he took out once a week from her high-rise flat dragging along the floor on her hands and knees. The powered chair had broken down; he could find no agency able to repair it. I have also heard from several people that there is a long delay in repairing electric chairs. On Sunday I heard of two in Halifax which had been waiting for six months.
In paragraph 115 of the Report the noble Baroness mentions dropped kerbs—a very important point. I wish the noble Baroness had mentioned the way a door to public conveniences is hinged. I have found very few which I have been able to shut behind me. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the many porters who help disabled people in and out of trains. With the new swinging doors inside the corridors this is not easy. We could not do without this sort of manpower. If turnstiles and turning doors could be discouraged this would help mobility not only for chairs, but for ambulant people walking with crutches who often find them dangerous. I agree with what the noble Baroness says about war pensioners, but I should like their preferential treatment extended to the police.
1250
My Lords, I am pleased the noble Baroness has been in favour of the four-wheeled car as a more satisfactory vehicle for the disabled. I think public opinion was the basis for this Report. The public feel uncomfortable when they see the familiar little blue three-wheelers broken down, pushed into the side of the road, with a stranded, lonely figure inside. Before I had a car, I drove a tricycle, which constantly broke down. I knew only too well all the disadvantages of those vehicles. But all the same, I would rather have a three-wheeler than nothing. What frightens me in what Lady Sharp has said about those who would or would not be eligible for a car is that some people who now have a tricycle would have nothing. The public would not know. The disabled people would be shut away out of sight in their houses. This would be cruelty personified. I hope no Government will ever let that happen. It is a pleasure to allocate something useful, but to tell someone they can no longer have their one bit of freedom, which has almost become a part of them, would be almost as bad as carrying out the death sentence. There still seems to be a place for the tricycle—for those who cannot manage a car, or for those between sixteen and seventeen who are permitted to drive them. Your Lordships will know this to be a most sensitive age, when young people need independence from their parents. They may have to reach work or further education.
My Lords, the disabled passenger also needs assistance. So often he needs more help and seems to get less. This matter is so much more complicated. A mobility grant scheme for them seems to be the most suitable. No disabled person is similar to another, nor are their circumstances the same. But all chairbound people have one thing in common, be they a disabled driver or passenger: they are all hit hard by rising prices, especially of petrol. Their mobility is no luxury; it is an essential of life. When dealing with this vital necessity I hope that the people with mobility problems will not be lumped together as "the disabled", but will be grouped according to their disabilities and their individual needs.

BUILDING SOCIETY MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
4.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in seeking permission of your Lordships' House to repeat a statement, may I join with the noble Baroness in expressing my personal congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on having made his maiden speech. It was a speech of distinguished quality.
My Lords, the Statement is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the subject of mortgages, and I will use his words:
"The Government's immediate objective is to increase the flow of funds available for mortgage lending, while holding the mortgage rate at its present level. The building societies, on the other hand, have argued in recent days that a sufficient net inflow of new savings cannot be assured except by an increase in their investment rate, which in turn would require an increase in the mortgage rate to above, and probably significantly above, the present 11 per cent.
In order to avoid this further damaging increase in housing costs, while yet making more money available for house purchase, the Government have offered to arrange immediate short-term loan facilities for building societies up to £100 million at a rate of 10½ per cent. The Bank of England would make advances at the minimum lending rate, which is currently 12¼ per cent. The cost of meeting the difference—about £150,000 per month at present rates—would be met by my Department's Vote, subject to Parliament's approval. We also undertook to arrange for a further £400 million to be available from the end of April, if circumstances then still required this, at an average rate of £100 million a month.
"This initiative would, in the Government's view, meet the immediate major problem. It would help the societies to lend more money quickly for house purchase without imposing further financial burdens on home owners and home buyers. The Government also believe that the present
1252
difficulties of the societies in attracting an adequate supply of funds will diminish as we succeed in our intention of reducing the level of interest rates generally.
"The Council of the Building Societies Association considered these proposals at a meeting yesterday afternoon. They were not able to agree to accept them without a further discussion with the Government. I have therefore agreed to meet the Association's representatives once again at 5 o'clock this afternoon. Our proposals will, I believe, make a significant contribution towards stabilising both the cost and the flow of mortgage funds. I hope and expect, therefore, that following our further discussion with the Association's representatives, the Council will decide at their next meeting on April 19 to accept the Government's proposals and to recommend no increase in the mortgage rate."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would start by thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement in this House this afternoon, and on behalf of my noble friends behind me to say that we welcome the offer contained in it. I hope that, as a result of the further information and assurances that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State can give to the societies when they meet him a little later this afternoon, it will be possible for the initiative to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Meanwhile, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all home owners in saying that there is an intense sense of relief that the rates of interest are not to rise for the time being.
My Lords, it was a year ago almost to the day when my right honourable friend, Mr. Rippon, had to make similar temporary short-term arrangements with the building societies. There has been widespread expectation and hope since then that the building societies will be able to come forward with further long-term solutions to these problems so that we do not again have to proceed from hand to mouth in this way. I am sure the House would be grateful if the noble Lord could say anything about the development of those long-term solutions.

1253
The House will be glad to note from the Statement that Her Majesty's Government give such high priority to home buyers. One hundred million pounds a month is a lot of money, and this is a welcome expression of the Government's understanding of the importance of the subject. To cast our minds back to the Budget and the policy contained therein, most of it, in so far as it bore on this problem, made the solution more difficult. If the noble Lord could point to any particular aspect of the Budget Statement and indicate how it has actually helped in furthering the Government's policy in this particular respect, I am sure that the House will be grateful to hear it.
4.18 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I think we must all agree that it is very important that there should be an inflow into the building societies to enable them to carry on their proper functions, and that if possible the rate of interest to home buyers should not be increased above the present 11 per cent. With regard to the proposed loan of £100 million at 10½ per cent., and a further possible £400 million, would the noble Lord agree that there are a number of detailed points that require very carefully looking into, as suggested by the Financial Times this morning? To give only one example, the object would be defeated if, as a result of the conditions imposed, there was a net outflow instead of an inflow of savings from other sources.
I have noticed that it is stated in the Press that the Government are angry with the building societies, and some rather uncomplimentary remarks have been made about them. I should have thought that that was not very diplomatic when these discussions were taking place. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can throw any light on that subject. But as a meeting is to take place at 5 o'clock, it would not serve any useful purpose for me to raise other detailed points. I hope the meeting is successful and that a solution will be found.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sand
1254
ford, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the welcome they have given to this Statement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this major problem of the finance of house ownership throughout the country needs a radical look, and certainly it is somehing to which all the major political Parties ought to be paying particular attention. I hope that Lord Sandford will forgive me if I do not follow him in his questioning in regard to the Budget. It is an involved argument balancing one factor against another. All I would say is that, on balance, I believe that the Budget was favourable to the building societies; but I will not pursue the matter any further because of the debate we have before us. In regard to the point that Lord Wade raised about anger with the building societies, all Governments have a sense of frustration and disappointment when their first overtures are repulsed. Sometimes in the media it may appear to be anger, but I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we shall have a satisfactory outcome on April 19.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord please justify his confidence that interest rates will come down? There has been a recent hardening of interest rates in the United States. Secondly, if the interest rates to investors are held down at an artificially low level will this not mean, as The Times said this morning, that investors will be subsidising house owners twice over: once as taxpayers and once by not getting the market rate of return on their interest-bearing money?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the noble Earl's second supplementary question, I think he will find that, as a consequence of the Budget, the net return after tax is now more favourable to the lender to a building society than it was before. If, however, one takes an investment in the building societies—and here one should stress that they are secure; in fact, they are an unrivalled source of investment and income—one finds that the rate of return to a building society investor compares favourably with most secure sources of investment. I would be quite happy to debate other matters with the noble Earl, but I have a feeling that we have already intruded in a most sensitive debate, and

1255
perhaps we should leave the more monetary and statistical matters to another day and return now to the debate on the handicapped.

MOBILITY OF THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
4.23 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on his magnificent maiden speech. He certainly drew great emphasis to the whole of this problem and I recognised many of his points from real life. I also wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing the debate, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her Report—it is a very good advertisement for the advantages of having a committee of one. I welcome greatly the attempt to co-ordinate all aspects of the problem; there are so many sides to it, so many Government Departments responsible.
I also welcome the new Minister for the disabled, and I hope he can do something to piece this jig-saw together. His 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was a great milestone and has frequent reflections in the Sharp Report. I agree with the conclusion that housing is really the first priority. After all, a roof over one's head is a matter of the most immediate concern to everybody, and for the disabled person it can determine whether he or she lives at home or is sent to an institution. I agree that it is not a matter of specially designed housing; it is largely a matter of educating architects of houses and public buildings, and also a matter of the design of wheelchairs for manoeuvring in these houses and buildings.
Again, the Report accurately portrays the link between public and personal transport. Obviously, the more accessible and useful taxis, buses, trains, et cetera can be, the less reliance will have to be placed on cars or three-wheelers. The circular, mentioned in paragraph 117 of the Report, was the result of a bargain with the Government during the passage of the 1970 Bill through this House. I
1256
am glad it seems to be having some effect; at least it has a mention in the Report. All these mobility problems are interrelated, and it seems logical to me that they should all be, so far as possible, the concern of the local authorities, who already have a large number of obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; and this should ultimately, as the Report suggests, include the vehicle service. On the question of the vehicle service, which forms Part II and 70 paragraphs of the Report, I have always realised that this was a complex problem, after attempts to amend the 1970 Act, which I have mentioned, and repeated attempts to secure the same treatment for the disabled passenger as for the disabled driver. I am glad the Report comes down very firmly on this point, because it has been a scandal up till now.
I was most interested to see that a three-wheeler now costs £20 to £25 per annum more to run than a small car. If we could have established this point four years ago I am sure that the three-wheeler would now he seen only in museums. Its dangers and limitations have already been very well dealt with by Lady Phillips and Lord Snowdon. I should like to illustrate a point, perhaps from the other way round, of my own personal experience. I drive about 15,000 or 16,000 miles a year, mostly on my own—and I do not think that that is a reflection on my driving. But one meets most of the problems other drivers meet. Although it might be tempting fate too far if I were to claim, in Wordsworth's words,
"The moving accident is not my trade; To freeze the blood I have no ready arts";
nevertheless, I think I may claim a reasonable record, until I recently ran into trouble, having contracted influenza, I regret to say I think in your Lordships' House. After a few days in bed I unwisely went out topped up with drugs and had what one might call an enjoyable meal, and drove home afterwards. I duly went to sleep when approaching a corner and left the road at about 25 m.p.h. I cleared a ditch, removed 15 yards of hedge, and landed three or four feet down in a field. This was fairly late at night and I was on my own. In fact, the car stayed on all four wheels. I was completely unhurt. I suppose there is nothing particularly

1257
unusual about this; it is the kind of scrape motorists get into. But I am firmly convinced that, if I had been in a three-wheeler, I should have spent, at the best, all night upside down in the ditch and, at the worst, perhaps would not be here to-day at all. That is approaching the problem from the other side.
However, to return to the Report, I was most interested in the proposal to allocate vehicles or grants on grounds of social need, rather than on physical incapacity. The Report recommends a system based on discretion. Obviously, great tact will be essential here. I hope that is a feasible system. One reservation, I think already expressed, is my belief that more than 60 per cent. (which is the figure mentioned in paragraph 77 of the Report) of those eligible at the moment for a vehicle or grant will put up a good case to retain their position; and I should not like to be the person to deprive them. The great problem remains what these vehicles should be, and whether vehicles as such, or mobility grants in lieu, should be offered. For reasons already expressed, I believe that the three-wheeler should be phased out; that is, those in the pipeline should be completed, but the keel, so to speak, should not be laid for any more. I believe—and I am supported in this belief by Mr. Graham Hill, who is in fact here this afternoon—that a production car can be adapted to suit the needs of any disabled driver. Mr. Hill reminded me this morning of the case of a gentleman called Paul Bates who can drive a car with the use only of his fingers, helped by micro-switches, and another gentleman, Mr. Neil Harvey, who can steer with his feet. One personal problem which I encounter is how to drag a wheelchair into a car. At present the three-wheeler is more convenient for this manoeuvre but I do not believe this problem is insoluble for a production car.
Again personally I am happy with the present system of people buying their I believe the system should be extended and everyone who qualifies, regardless of means and simply as a claim on national insurance, should continue to receive the £100. This will cover the conversion to hand controls and all sorts of running repairs at present done by the able-bodied own cars and receiving the £100 per annum grant in lieu of the three-wheeler.
1258
themselves. After that, additional grants should be allocated according to means. Personally I am not put off by the question of a means test; so much is done on that basis nowadays, including the Housing Finance Act, and other measures.
Whether this system, or one of allocating cars as such is adopted, it is widely recognised that the cost of the service will increase. The Report allows for an increase of £3 million per annum. This seems to be modest, particularly when I believe the additional cost can be partially regarded as an investment. In fields such as education, on which we spend so much, these do not yield immediate returns in the purely economic sense. I hope it is not naive to suggest that increased expenditure in this field will create much hope and opportunity and prevent people becoming a burden on the State, and from this we shall all benefit. My final thought is that in wartime we "mobilise" the people. That is the word we use. Let us now, at this precarious moment in the country's fortunes, mobilise a largely untapped source of energy and of national manpower.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have to announce that the time limit for this debate, taking account of the ten minutes spent on the Statement on mortgages, expires at ten minutes past six.
4.34 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am glad to hear that we are allowed "injury time". We have heard two excellent and practical speeches in succession from noble Lords who understand this problem better than the rest of us. I should like to join in the chorus of welcome for the recommendation to replace three-wheelers by ordinary four-wheeled cars. It has seemed to me for some time, when I have thought of these frail three-wheelers with their disabled occupants launching themselves out into the busy traffic, among the juggernauts, that the Department was playing the role of the Witch of the North in Kipling's verse, which runs:
"The kind took off with the sunset—
The fog came up with the tide,
When the Witch of the North took an Egg-shell
With a little Blue Devil inside.
'Sink,' she said, 'or swim,' she said.
'It's all you will get from me.
And that is the finish of him!' she said,
And the Egg-shell went to sea."

1259
I welcome, secondly, the recommendation in the Report that when the time comes for a car to be withdrawn the disabled person shall have an opportunity to purchase it on advantageous terms. I cannot think of many things more haunting to a man than the thought that when his time of employment ends—or whatever it may be—his eligibility for a car, which has been his lifeblood, will cease and he will be stranded without it.
Thirdly, I welcome the recommendation to extend eligibility to non-drivers as well as to the disabled who are able to drive. The Report appears to recommend three possible courses of action in relation to the new class of non-drivers. First, they can have the car itself, provided that a person living with them, or in occasional circumstances a neighbour, can be nominated as the driver. In the alternative it is recommended that they might have a fixed allowance, which is recommended as being £125, towards the cost of running their own car. Thirdly, the Report touches upon car hire and taxis for disabled non-drivers, but I suppose this third course would be about the most expensive way of meeting their needs.
My Lords, the Report is so comprehensive, and seems to have dealt with practically every aspect of the subject which one can think of, that it surprises me to reflect that there is surely quite a large class of disabled non-drivers whose need is not met by any of the three courses of action proposed. It seems to me that many a disabled non-driver must have not one but several friends who from time to time drive him in their own car, and I imagine that the limiting factor is always the reluctance of the disabled person to impose himself upon the generosity of his friends. Why not give this person a mileage allowance, tailored to his own individual needs? If that were done he would be able to go to his friends and not be ashamed to ask for generosity, because it would not be entirely generosity. It would be known that he was in receipt of a mileage allowance and he would be able to make repayment to his friends for the service they had rendered to him. I do not believe that an individual mileage allowance such as this would be difficult to calculate—though I suppose there is an
1260
insurance problem. I suppose that these drivers would be driving people for reward, which might be contrary to their insurance policies. Nevertheless, I imagine that in consultation with the insurance industry this difficulty could be overcome.
With regard to assessing each mileage allowance I suppose one starts with journeys to work, which it is quite easy to calculate. There is no difficulty about that. I suppose there would then be a weekly mileage allowance for leisure purposes, and it could be a fixed mileage allowance applying to each person. Presumably there would also be an annual holiday allowance, which would be a fixed allowance for each person; and, finally, a compassionate allowance for people needing to visit close relatives who perhaps are unable to visit them. I imagine that those four headings would about cover it. Then it would be necessary to decide the range of the mileage allowance, and I suppose it could be in some sort of relationship to the mileage allowance which your Lordships receive, which I think is not exactly munificent. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, tabling a Question, asking what proportion of the cost of running a car was supposed to be covered by the mileage allowance.
I merely put this suggestion forward as a possible course of action which I believe would be better than providing some disabled non-drivers with a car, and which might better fulfill the needs of a great many of them.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for this great solo effort which has taken her a long time and which we are now debating, because this is one of the most important social problems before us to-day. But while the noble Baroness has made a detailed examination, I feel that her terms of reference were restricted. May I remind your Lordships again punt what the terms of reference were:
"To re-examine the limitations imposed upon persons whose mobility is reduced by severe physical disablement, not occasioned by old age …"
In my opinion, this restriction makes the title of the Report Mobility of Physically Disabled People, less than accurate,

1261
because it excludes a large number of people, mentally alert, and who will stay mentally alert for many years but whose mobility is impaired. I believe that the record of the number of disabled people under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 will only be an effective guide to our discussions in the future if the degree of disablement which it describes is associated with all diseases at all ages. I am quite sure that what is known as the "mobile Bench" will know that I have the most profound sympathy with them, and will not criticise me for what I am going to say. In fact, I know them so well that I think they will echo in their hearts what I am going to say.
My Lords, while I have sympathy with those who suffer from paraplegia, with those who suffer from loss of a limb, from poliomyelitis and other major disabilities, nevertheless we must not forget that osteo-arthritis is responsible for a vast amount of suffering and immobility in the population. Yet it seems to me that the housebound arthritic can be outside the terms of reference of this Report. for it is argued that the condition is occasioned by old age. At this stage of our discussions, it is very important that we should ask for a definition of old age in this context, particularly in these days when the expectation of life is growing and where a person who, in the past, would have been regarded really as aged and of little further use to society is now active, alert and playing an important part in our affairs.
I must ask the House to forgive me for putting this medical aspect of this problem, which is closely concerned with medicine, but some degree of osteoarthritis, particularly in large joints, is present in practically 100 per cent. of persons over the age of 50, although fortunately, of course, it does not always cause disability. Arthritis is not uncommon in women at the menopause. In view of the fact that the average expectation of life for a woman is 75 and that she can find her walking ability seriously impaired between the ages of 50 and 60, is she to be excluded from any help with transport on the grounds that osteoarthritis is generally occasioned by old age? That is what I read into these terms of reference, and if this is so, we must readjust our thinking. Similarly
1262
with a man, who develops arthritis in the hip more frequently than does a woman. This frequently occurs in men following a manual occupation, or even doing sedentary work. Is he not to be entitled to help on the grounds that osteoarthritis is associated with age? If osteoarthritis in late middle age can entitle a man or woman to a car, then there will be a great deal of ill-feeling engendered in those denied one in early old age.
My Lords, I am taking an entirely different approach from those who have already spoken on this subject in this debate. It is recommended that a change to a four-wheeled car will enable a disabled person who is unable or who does not want to drive to choose an appropriate person to be the driver. Of course, in consequence it has also been said that the demand for cars will be greatly increased. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, therefore recommends that a test based on physical handicap and on the need to get to a job, to get to a place of further education and to keep the family together, should entitle an individual to a car. Undoubtedly the change from a high-powered, three-wheeled, dangerous vehicle (as we have already heard) to a family car will attract the attention of the public to this new social service. I ask your Lordships to envisage a housebound person who is not entitled to a car under this criterion sitting at his window and seeing a disabled neighbour driven by a son, a daughter or a friend while the onlooker, the sad housebound individual who has been described here in such graphic terms by many speakers, cannot command the same service. Can we really support such a policy? Although apart from the principle on the grounds of expediency, Ministers should recognise that this will cause a great deal of trouble.
I believe, therefore, that if we intend to deal more generously with the physically disabled, we must be guided by one principle and one principle alone; namely, to treat them alike whatever their disabilities or age. I believe the only equitable answer is to give a disablement income as of right. Let the disabled use that income for whatever kind of vehicle or transport they want. I am fortified in my opinion by the decision of the E.E.C. countries who have been debating this matter. A number

1263
of them have agreed that this is the right approach. I was delighted to see that on Friday of last week the British Medical Journal, which looks at these things from a medical point of view, also advises this policy.
My Lords, I would like to add a few words in conclusion on the subject of transport. I feel that the housebound individual is never far removed from transport if that person lives in a town. The roads in our urban areas have now become garages, and given the resources such as I suggest, the housebound individual could pay a neighbour to use his car occasionally, could pay a garage and could have a car just when it is thought necessary. Indeed, this might be the beginning of a most humane transport service. It could become a part of a new service for the aged with which the public could be encouraged to co-operate, because with the vast number of cars that we have at present, which are used little during most of their life, these could supplement the transport of the aged housebound.
4.49 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I may start by generalising for a moment or two on the Report, and in particular refer to the opening comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when speaking of the scope of the Report. Although the Report is supposed to deal with the mobility of the physically disabled, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says in paragraphs 7 and 8 that she considers mobility in and about the house is perhaps more important, she devotes certainly more than half of the Report to mobility by motor vehicles. Indeed, I think I have heard every speech made in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and with the exception of the last moment or two of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, everybody has spoken about motor vehicles and their use. This, of course, illustrates not only the emotive feelings motor cars normally evoke in speeches, but the absolute and vital necessity of this kind of personalised transportation, not only to our economic wellbeing but also to our social wellbeing. So if I do not discuss eligibility for motor vehicles, I am sure that your Lordships will excuse me.
1264
Coming to paragraph 33, which deals with costs, I find it sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was not able to make proper comparisons. I find it odd, to say the least, that reliable figures of the cost of a piece of merchandise which is going to be supplied by Government at the taxpayers' expense cannot be made available. I can understand that the usual answer is that it is not the custom. My own researches indicate to me that a specialist motor car, the Invacar, currently provided, is considerably more expensive than a conventional motor car. While the Report discusses the relative annual running and operating costs to the Government at £155 for a conventional small car, I should have liked to see that backed up with a little more fact, because I would find it very difficult, notwithstanding bulk purchase ability, to buy, allow for depreciation, operate and insure a small motor car for £155 per annum.
My last general point on the report concerns paragraphs 58 and 62, which deal largely with "cash or car"—whether the Department should provide cash or car. I think in the present climate—that is that we do not have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, suggested, disability payment—of provision of certain items to assist mobility, I would come down very much in favour of the provision of a motor vehicle. When I say that, I do not know that I particularly go along with what is inherent in the Report, the provision of a necessarily small motor car, nor indeed the continual reference to a mini-motor car, because there are very many other English-made motor cars which can be equally suitable.
I turn for a moment to paragraph 65, which says:
"The Departments should continue to meet the cost of insurance while the cars remain their property. But the disabled person should be responsible for maintenance which, given an ordinary car, could be carried out at the garage of his choice".
I quarrel with that. In my view, it is far more desirable that the Department maintain some control over the maintenance of the vehicle. If one looks at Appendix F, dealing with mileages, one sees that on balance the bulk of motor cars used now cover a very low mileage per annum. It is an unhappy fact that many motorists think that because they do not go very

1265
far the motor car does not need maintenance. I fear that, unless one prescribes regular maintenance checks and maintenance repairs to a schedule, a cash allowance to undertake maintenance would not effect what we are seeking to achieve. If maintenance is not carried out properly, it may mean that at the end of the period the car is quite worthless. And it can, of course, become increasingly unsafe as time marches on, let alone mileage.
My last special point deals with paragraphs 34 and 35. It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Aberdare that there are many people currently using the three-wheeler who would be quite incapable of using the conventional motor car. I do not believe this to be so. My engineering and motoring experience suggests to me that, given sufficient money, there is no conventional car currently available in the United Kingdom, made perhaps by our European partners, or it may be by British manufacturers, that cannot be successfully adapted for use by the very large majority of disabled persons. This is why I said that I was a little disappointed at the use of the description "small car". One may get a very large man who cannot easily fit into a mini. Nevertheless, adaptations of roofs and doorways can be made to a variety of motor cars so that access can be made quite easy for the largest and some of the most infirm people. Micro-switches, servo-assisted hydraulics can be brought into play, so that there is no question of the people concerned having to lift heavy panels.
It may well be that certain preferences, because of usage, for the three-wheeler may have to be swept away. It may well be that a number of disabled people would, in the fullness of time, if the three-wheeler were removed from service, be deprived of their motor car. While I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, had to say about this, I think the large majority of people would accept that if more disabled people were given mobility in adapted conventional motor cars, and were able to enjoy greater benefits, perhaps those very few who were denied all would forgive them.
4.58 p.m.
BARONESS SHARP: My Lords, I do not intend to say very much in this debate, because I have had my say in the Report. It is not at all a final say; nor did I dream that it could be such a thing. What I hoped when producing the Report was that it would enable decisions to be taken, not necessarily exactly the things I had suggested, but decisions after debates in both Houses of Parliament and discussions with the disabled. The one thing I was quite clear about, as I went on with my inquiry, was that changes are needed, not only changes in the vehicle service, and, as I was quite clear, the replacement of the three-wheeler by the ordinary car, but changes in the whole treatment of the disabled.
The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, whose maiden speech I listened to with very great pleasure and admiration, reminded us that there are 1¼ million people who are sufficiently seriously disabled to be very much restricted in their activity. This is a huge problem, and it is no wonder to me that Ministers, particularly the Minister for the Disabled, feel that they would like to be able to review the whole problem before they take any decisions. The amount of money they will be able to use for the disabled is limited, and clearly they want to make sure that they are using it to the best advantage. The physically disabled whose mobility is severely reduced—the people I was particularly dealing with—number at least half a million, and even for them the vehicle service can help only a few. Whatever is done with the vehicle service it is going to touch only a small part of this number of people, and perhaps all of them need some kind of help. Many of them get some kind of help through wheelchairs and other arrangements, but most of them need a good deal more help than they are getting, particularly with this problem of mobility. So I can sympathise with Ministers who say that they must have a look round the whole business of cash benefits before they can take their decisions on this. Nevertheless, I feel—and here I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that there is an urgency about some decisions to be taken on the vehicle service. That suggests to my mind that

1267
they should be taken in advance of the total review of the cash benefits, and I think that they could be taken.
When I come to the particular problem of the vehicle service, there is one thing that I should like to say first—and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, reminded me of this outside the Chamber; and I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, has said much the same to her—that is that there is an impression among disabled people (I know that they have had letters, and I too have received letters since the Report was published) that there is a possibility that almost any day now some people may be deprived of their three-wheeler cars. Of course there is absolutely no such suggestion in my Report and, I am quite certain, no such idea in the minds of any Minister or any responsible person. It would be a great benefit to the disabled who drive the three-wheelers if the Press and the media could make it clear, perhaps following this debate, that it is not suggested by anybody that anyone is going to lose his three-wheeler, or car, or cash allowance in lieu, in the near future. The question of what may happen in the years to come is something else again—and I hope to say something about that in a moment; but nobody is threatened in the near future.
It seems to me that there are some decisions that could be taken right away. Obviously the first is that in so far as the Government are going to continue in the long run to provide personal transport, or provide the means to purchase personal transport, to physically disabled people, it should be by the car. There has been some reference in to-day's debate to the question of whether there are some disabled people who cannot drive a car. I am quite certain that there are some. There are some who can drive the trike but who cannot drive the car. Once it is a car, however, you have the benefit that you should be able to get somebody to drive it for you. There are a few who will feel deprived if, in the long run, the three-wheeler disappears, but they are very few. We have to remember that out of nearly 10,000 war pensioners who have the choice of car or trike I think that I am right in saying that less than 300 take the trike. It is alleged that some of them say that they take it because they like to
1268
be alone and that they do not want to take their wives around, but I think that that may be rare. I hope so. This is the first decision that could be taken; that cars begin to be provided. But then of course there is the very difficult question—for whom. I have come in for a lot of criticism for suggesting that the condition of eligibility for the car has to be different from that for the trike. It is not only because of the enormously increased cost—increased demand and therefore increased cost—that we should be involved in, if we say let the conditions of eligibility be the same as they are now. That is to say, that it essentially depends on the degree of disability, the virtual inability to walk, which is what entitles anyone to a trike or, being rather less disabled, nevertheless the need of personal transport to do a job. If you extend that eligibility to everybody who can get a car driven for them as well as to all those who now drive the trikes, my calculation—and I am pretty certain it was an underestimate, but it was the best I was able to do with the advice given to me—was that you will have at least three times as many people demanding the car, and probably a good deal more.
This is of course what has held up the Ministry of Health and Social Security all these years. They have known for a long time past that the car ought to replace the trike for a lot of reasons; not only the danger, but the passenger carrying capacity, and the demand of the disabled for the article which was already, a year or two ago, somewhat cheaper than the trike. But they have been completely baffled how to grapple with the size of the demand knowing, as they do—and we come back here to the first point that was made—the huge needs of disabled people of all kinds. And of course it is not only the disabled, but all the people with whom the Ministry of Health and Social Security have to deal. This is undoubtedly a very difficult problem.
One thing I should like to say is that there have been several references in this debate to-day to the unacceptability of withdrawing at any point from anybody the transport which they have had. The awkwardness of the whole affair is that I do not believe myself—but I could be wrong—that you can continue providing the specialised vehicle for the disabled person if you are also giving everybody

1269
the choice of a car, so that you have a very small demand indeed for the invalid vehicle. Nevertheless, if one introduces the car it is my guess that it will be six, seven, or eight years before the three-wheeler finally disappears, always provided that it is not driven off the road by arguments about danger, and what should be done, than perhaps need not be settled now,
I am not going to argue about danger with the very much greater experts on this subject in the House. However, I must say that I think the argument about danger has been exaggerated. I am not saying that the three-wheeler, as it is tested, is not in many ways very dangerous. I am not saying that in some ways it is not dangerous on the road. It is obviously susceptible to side winds. What I am saying is that in all the researches I made I was unable to find that it was very more dangerous in use. It was rather more dangerous in use. There has been some confusion caused by the statistics of accidents. You have to remember that the three-wheeler is repaired without charge by the Departments. Therefore, if the three-wheeler driver has a bump or a scratch and in due course gets this repaired it is reported as an accident, and it is the sort of accident for which most of us ordinary drivers would pay ourselves and is not reported.
I tried to compare serious accidents. There are no statistics. The only statistics that I could get were for fatal accidents, and the number of three-wheelers on the road was rather too small for this to be at all significant. They did show a slightly higher rate of fatal accidents. I was having to try to compare it per mile, because of course accidents per mile is what really matters, and the figures for that were not at all satisfactory. But, on the whole, I did not find that the three-wheeler was significantly more dangerous in use, though I admit that to a considerable extent this is due to the care with which the disabled drove it. The plea I am making here—and, goodness knows! it is no plea to keep the three-wheeler, which I want to see go for a whole lot of reasons—is that, while not claiming to be an expert on safety, I believe that we should not so press the danger argument that the Government feel forced to close down the three-wheeler earlier than would otherwise be necessary.
1270
I really do not believe that that would be in the interests of the disabled, unless we were satisfied that it is too dangerous to keep on the roads even with such modifications as may be under consideration. Therefore, I hope that the Government will first decide that cars should be substituted for three-wheelers.
They will then have the problem of whom to provide them for. I can see that that will be a really difficult problem, and it was the real teaser throughout the whole inquiry. I believe that those whose personal circumstances, as well as the extent of their disability, meant that they have an exceptional need for transport should come first, and I should have thought it was possible for the Government to say, "We will start with the ones who are clear, whether they can drive or not. We should start with drivers and disabled passengers alike, the ones who need transport to do a job or the housewife who needs transport to manage her household and keep it going." A new category which I am extremely anxious to introduce, and which I should like to see included at once, is the student or the person who needs further training, who is not eligible at the moment for any personal transport at all. I met a few cases of this kind and was deeply distressed to think that for them, for whom time is of the essence, the opportunity for getting further education and training is going by. Whether they have a three-wheeler or a car is not very material, so long as they are admitted at once for transport.
There are other cases in regard to which the present rules are plainly too narrow; for example, if you need a car to get to work you can have one if you are able to walk only a certain distance. I forget exactly how many yards it is, but the medical officers of the Department judge whether you can walk that distance which may be about 250 yards. What matters to you is not whether you can walk 250 yards, but whether having walked it you will be able to catch a bus. So I want to suggest that the present rules should be expanded at once to allow regard to be had to the availability of public transport; in other words, to one's need of a car in one's circumstances given the need to get to work. In other respects I thought that the present rules were plainly too narrow and too rigid and could, and should, be widened at

1271
once. So that the plea which I would make to the Department is, "Make a start".
One of my difficulties about estimating how many people would be eligible under different headings was that I was largely having to guess. I had a great deal of help from the Department and from others in the Government service, but at the end of the day it is still largely guesswork to estimate how many people are disabled to a certain degree. Then, of course, it is complete guesswork if you go on to ask, "For what do they need a car? What are their family circumstances? What are their circumstances in relation to the availability of public transport?" If the Department could at least make a start on getting cars and making them available to the clearest, most easily defined categories, they would be getting a certain amount of much-needed information about the size of the problem.
That is really all I want to say now, except that I should like to go back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. Despite all the limelight that has concentrated on the vehicle service, the real problem of the physically disabled, with whom I was particularly concerned, is a much bigger one than can be solved by providing personal transport, however it is done and however widely one goes. One of the main conclusions that I reached in my Report was that the great difficulty of the disabled, at the time I was writing it, was the diffusion of responsibility among a whole variety of agencies for certain aspects of this mobility problem. I believe I said that one point which clearly emerged from my inquiry was that the mobility of the disabled needs the concentrated attention of somebody, somewhere, which at the time I was writing it simply did not get, because responsibility was scattered around a whole lot of agencies. For that reason I should like to add my voice to those of others in your Lordships' House, who have said how much they welcome the appointment of a Minister for the Disabled.
5.16 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would wish me to say how much this
1272
afternoon's short debate has been enhanced by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Also, in declaring my interest as President of the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club, I should like to welcome the noble Baroness's Report as an important contribution towards a better understanding of the total mobility problems of disabled people. She is certainly to be congratulated on the lucid way in which she has presented her case and the closely reasoned arguments in support of her proposals, and I am sure that the Club and all those other disabled people regard her Report as a sure foundation on which we can build a better mobility service for the disabled in the future.
However, many people have been deeply concerned that it would appear that some 40 per cent. of the existing recipients of mobility help would have this help withdrawn if the proposed new criteria of eligibility were accepted. I am particularly reminded of the deep distress felt by many disabled drivers when on a previous occasion it was announced that certain disabled drivers would have their vehicles withdrawn when they gave up work. While I appreciate the administrative problems of preventing abuses, I believe that an alternative and more acceptable arrangement could have been made to close loopholes without distressing those who had established long-term bona fide claims to their vehicles.
I would remind the House that we are dealing with a deeply human problem which cannot be resolved by the sole application of reason and cold logic. The sudden removal of vehicles from those whose lives have become shaped by their use would be an unacceptable deprivation and a lowering of their standard of living. So in this context I am sure that we would particularly welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that is not really intended and is unacceptable to the Government, and that further discussions will take place with the organisations for the disabled.
Naturally, the recommendation that invalid tricycles should be replaced by small cars is one which most people would heartily welcome. It is a long overdue recommendation and is something which should have been implemented years ago. However, the recommendation

1273
lacks the urgency which it certainly merits in the light of other available evidence concerning the safety of invalid tricycles. It is a national disgrace that a vehicle specially designed for physically disabled people should have been continually built—"developed" is certainly not the right word—with such scant regard for drivers' safety, and with such little recognition of pending legislation and the universal trend towards higher standards of automobile safety; indeed, the growing compulsion on both manufacturers and drivers in various directions. After all, disabled drivers are, by definition, suffering from some limitations—perhaps of dexterity, balance, feel or even reflex action.
In the light of this, is there not a moral, if not a legal, duty on all of us to see that special care is taken to ensure drivers' safety, aspects of which are certainly shown to be absent in the design of invalid tricycles? Their continued provision now costs more, not only in financial terms, but in fear, human misery and suffering such as is experienced by so many users of these vehicles. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, referred to the Motor Industry Research Association test reports on the invalid tricycle when it was shown that the steering system failed to meet the required standard. Additionally, the requirement of draft regulations on tire risk were not met. Extensive modifications had to be made to the tricycle before it met the required standards, but none of these modifications have yet been incorporated in the production models. Therefore how much longer have we to go on subjecting disabled drivers to risks which are legally unacceptable in a modern production car?
I am most happy to see here this afternoon many members of disabled organisations, and Graham Hill who has done so much to present the case, but so far as I am aware no manufacturers are present, which is sad. Certainly further evidence confirms the widely reported experiences of disabled drivers about tricycles behaving badly in windy weather. However, there is no relevance to the argument that other vehicles, as well as tricycles, display similar characteristics. The ordinary car buyer has a choice and he can refer to the motoring Press for comment and opinion. He can therefore avoid buying a car whose performance
1274
and road holding is unacceptable. By contrast, the invalid tricycle driver has no such opportunities. It is little wonder that Lady Sharp reports that probably only 50 per cent. of people eligible actually take up vehicles under the present arrangements. Surely the only relevant question seems to be whether or not there is a car at comparable cost that is better than an invalid tricycle, and if so, that should be the minimum standard to be improved upon for disabled drivers.
I must confess that the wind gust tests filled me with horror and I feel that it is only apt to describe them as "mobile accidents looking for somewhere to happen." Faced with this situation a commercial manufacturer of an ordinary vehicle would be obliged to withdraw them for modification, or alternatively to compensate their customers. Therefore, I feel that it would be only right and propel for the Government to make available sufficient resources to offer all users of invalid tricycles the immediate option of a lump sum payment to buy a car in lieu of an invalid tricycle if they so wish. The problem of supply, touched upon by Lady Sharp, is obviously a major drawback if the Government are to accept responsibility for a quick changeover to a car.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare about the question of priorities. We have a Government which gives millions of pounds in subsidies for milk and bread when I feel that the disabled have a much better claim to subsidies right across the board. I suggest that we cannot wait for four or five years, which has been suggested as a reasonable transition period. To-day disabled drivers are at risk. The responsibility for us all is to ensure that this situation is no longer tolerated by any Government alive to its social and moral duties. The situation has become desperate and the remedy requires extraordinary measures. The disabled cannot, and I do not think that we must, wait any longer. I am sorry that we cannot yet say farewell to the three-wheeler; maybe Lady Sharp's Report was its death sentence, but I am sorry that to-day is not its funeral. Road conditions have changed so much and three-wheelers were a tremendous advance in their day but they are now totally unable to keep up with modern traffic and modern mobility.

1275
I feel that it is absolutely essential that, in any changeover to cars, a distinction must be made between the disabled user of a vehicle who is unemployed and a user who works. For the former it is absolutely essential that the Department of Health and Social Security should continue its practice of providing full maintenance, while, on the other hand, it might be reasonable to expect that the latter should be able to bear the full cost of all maintenance. There will obviously have to be some administrative safeguards against abuses, but this aspect should be examined. While we look at the cost of the vehicle service and compare it with other expenditure on social security provisions, it is really a very small part of the total Government support for the disabled, sick and elderly. The average cost of providing a car under present arrangements works out at about £3 a week and I welcome the Government's intentions to look at vehicle service in the context of their plans for a disability income.
I feel very strongly that a completely satisfactory answer to mobility help for disabled people can be found only if there is a mobility element in total disability income. I suggest that this amount should be the equivalent of current Government expenditure at about £3 per week. There is also the problem of licensing which I think at the moment is the question of a refund. This again should be raised as a question of exemption because the exemption tax disc is extremely useful for identifying vehicles of disabled people at places like toll bridges and for tunnel concessions.
In a question earlier this year I raised a point about special car parks in shopping centres. In her Report Lady Sharp makes it quite clear that she has a great deal of sympathy for the scheme of mobility grants and I accept that there is good sense in this. But the setting up of the machinery is obviously going to be complicated. A major difficulty of the car scheme is that people normally have to accept the car that the Department is contracted to buy, with all the attendant risks that this entails. A grant for purchasing spreads this among many manufacturers and it also gives the disabled person a certain amount of choice. Finally may I say how pleased I am that Lady
1276
Sharp has established a principle that mobility help should be given to disabled drivers as well as disabled passengers. I am sure that everyone will accept this as a welcome idea and certainly there can be no disagreement about it.
5.27 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, now that the local government reorganisation has come into effect the overall responsibility for the health and welfare of the disabled, as well as others, rests with five Government Departments—the National Health Service, the Social Service Authority, the Housing Authority, the Department of Health and the Department of Employment. However, the main executive responsibility lies with local authorities under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and extended by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Under Section 1 of the latter Act local authorities have a duty to compile a register of disabled persons in their area. The rate of progress in this varies from one authority to another and I should like to ask the Government when the complete returns will be available. To me this knowledge seems to be a basic requirement to enable authorities to make definite plans. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is a landmark in the concept of caring for the disabled. It has made a real impact, but the pressure must be kept up. If money were unlimited the problem would be much easier to solve, but in our present economic situation care must be taken to ensure that one group among the disabled does not compete with another for inadequate funds.
I agree with the Report that every disabled person should have a home in which he or she can be as independent as possible. But too much attention has been focussed on the provision of specially designed housing. Yes, provision for the disabled should be included in every new housing scheme, but also, bearing in mind the economic situation, much more could be done to adapt available housing. Simple matters like doors being widened to take a wheelchair and ramps being put over steps would not be so costly and would be of enormous benefit.
I have just three points about the vehicle service. First, outdoor mobility should be provided for those too disabled

1277
to drive, that is disabled passengers, equivalent to the help now offered to disabled drivers. The existing discrimination against the more severely disabled is unjust and must be ended.
Secondly, please do not abolish the invalid tricycle altogether, because for many it is a useful and welcome means of outdoor mobility. Some people cannot drive adapted cars and others do not wish to try. Young disabled people can drive invalid tricycles at the age of 16 years, but they are not allowed to drive a car until they are 17. This is an important year in a young person's life, particularly in respect of education and employment. It is also a time when they are anxious to break free and become independent of adults. Mobility outdoors is an essential part of the process of rehabilitation, and equally essential in the socialisation process of young disabled people. Confine them within four walls and you stifle their development and preclude their ever being fully rehabilitated. It is often the stimulus of getting out and about in society that makes disabled people realise what the world has to offer, what they should aim for and what they can achieve. It is a stimulus that makes them want to exploit their abilities and become independent and self-supporting.
Thirdly, motoring is not a luxury for people who cannot walk and cannot use public transport. Action must be taken to ensure that currently disabled passengers and disabled drivers remain mobile in the face of very severe increases in the cost of motoring. Immediate action is also required to remove the requirement for exemption from vehicle excise duty for disabled passengers who have a conspicuously and permanently adapted vehicle. I understand that this would require the amendment of Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971, as amended by Section 128(2) of the Finance Act 1972. People who cannot walk and cannot use public transport should not be subjected to motoring taxes. Such taxes for these people constitute a tax on mobility.
Co-ordination of all the Departments concerned must be achieved to get the best possible results in the matter of mobility for the disabled. There are far too many fragments at present. With a little more thought and money the disabled
1278
would be enabled to live fuller, altogether happier, lives. Even quite a little mobility can make all the difference between independence and dependence.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on his maiden speech I should like to join with him in the concern which he showed that the attitude of society—indeed our own attitude, indeed my own attitude—towards disabled people needs changing. As an example of that, on occasions I have to visit No. 10 Belgrave Square which as your Lordships may know is the headquarters of the Institute of Directors. I do not visit there very often, but there are two very large steps outside. My normal way of tackling this is to get out of my wheelchair and swing my legs up the steps. But they are fairly large ones, they are marble and they are a bit slippery, so I wrote to the Director and said, "Can a simple iron handrail be put up here?" This is the answer I received from him.
"I am terribly sorry but the Grosvenor Estate is extremely sticky on this sort of thing. They demand that every house and every porch in the Square should look exactly the same and they do not allow us to make even minor additions such as the one you suggest."
May I suggest to the owners of the Grosvenor Estate that they should consider the spirit of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The noble Countess, Countess Loudoun, mentioned a moment or two ago the importance of outdoor mobility for disabled people and the stimulus that they get from being able to go out and attend meetings. I should only like to place on record the stimulus I get and am very fortunate to get from attending meetings and debates in your Lordships' House. I should like to say a word in favour of a cash grant rather than the supplying of cars, because people's needs vary and if you gave them a cash grant you would enable them to choose the particular vehicle that was most suited to their needs.
For some people it may be that they need only limited outdoor mobility and a powered outdoor wheelchair might be what they really need. I myself have a rather splendid vehicle which is called a "Gnat" which your Lordships may not have seen before but which has three

1279
wheels and although it is a three-wheeler I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, would feel absolutely happy in it. It has very large squashy tyres, one in the front and two behind, and it will go almost anywhere. I take it into the woods and I plant trees and cut down trees in it. This is the sort of physical exercise that disabled people particularly need. I feel sure that there will be many other people in the same sort of situation and it might be that a vehicle of this kind might suit them even better than a car. I realise that there are considerable difficulties, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned in her Report, in the way of giving cash grants instead of providing a car, but I do not feel that these are insuperable and, as I say, it would enable the particular need of the particular person—and all our needs vary—to be met.
5.36 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Phillips for introducing this debate to-day. I should be less than frank if I did not say to her and to your Lordships that I thought some hours ago that this debate would have served a better purpose in two or three months' time when the Government had had an opportunity of looking at all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. But having listened to the debate to-day, it is quite clear that my noble friend Lady Phillips did quite the right thing because I believe that we have collected a great deal of information to-day which will be of value to Her Majesty's Government.
I assure all speakers that a careful note has been taken of all the points raised. If I do not now deal with each one of them separately, I assure your Lordships that they will be brought to the attention, not only of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but also my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled, with whom I have had a number of discussions quite recently. I say that because if I appear not to give very definite answers to your Lordships on a number of matters that have been raised, it is not due to lack of sympathy on my part.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I tell you that for a long period
1280
I myself was totally paralysed. I have spent a good deal of time in a wheelchair. When I came to your Lordships' House both my legs were in calipers and I was using two sticks. It is an indication of what your Lordships have done for me over the years that I have been able to get rid of my sticks and my calipers. I have certain disabilities which are not apparent—perhaps it gives me an opportunity, having said that, to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for being out of the Chamber for the first two or three minutes of his speech.
May I say, as a number of other noble Lords have said, how pleased we have been to have with us and to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon. It is with some diffidence that I draw attention to the fact that it has taken him thirteen years, I think, to make his maiden speech. Having heard it and knowing of his competence in this field, we hope that he will come here and make speeches regularly in less than thirteen years, because this is a matter which is of concern to everyone in your Lordships' House. My honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has had discussions recently not only with the noble Earl but I believe with Mr. Graham Hill, who is present to-day, and I know how much he has valued the discussions he has had with them.
The noble Earl described the three-wheeler as a lethal machine. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind him that every car on the road is a lethal machine. He referred to the appalling accident rate. The accident rate in the case of three-wheelers is not so bad, I think, as a good many people make out. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, dealt with this aspect perhaps rather more effectively than I can myself, but serious injuries are very few. I am informed there were only thirty-six serious injuries in the last year, and that is serious injuries extending beyond cuts and bruises. There were only five fires in three-wheelers last year, most of which were due to small wiring fires. Then, just over 1 per cent. of three-wheelers—and I do not say this with any pride, because it is a high figure—turned over; but I think this compares reasonably with our own cars, those which we use for war pensioners and for restricted National Health categories.

1281
May I also refer to three specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked me; and perhaps the House ought to know that, with his characteristic kindness, he gave me advance notice of them. The first was: what are the Government's views with regard to the means test, to which reference has been made? Obviously, the noble Lord and those who sit with him on that side of the House will know that the term "means test" is rather anathema to people on this side of the House; but having said that perhaps I may say that, if I have understood the Report correctly. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, supports this in principle but tentatively concludes that it may be impracticable to apply it to the provision of cars.
It is possible that difficulties also arise in applying a means test to a lump sum grant. In either case the Department would be in the position (I would have thought in the invidious position) of having to recover periodical payments, probably monthly, from a substantial number of disabled people. On the other hand, a means test at an effective level would clearly go some way towards limiting the extra costs. But I think we have to face the fact that there is a question of manpower involved here; and, if I may repeat what I have already said, there may also he involved, as far as this side of the House is concerned, a matter of principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also asked whether it would be possible to provide 40,000 cars and, if so, how quickly. I think I must be perfectly frank with him and say that there are discussions going on with motor manufacturers. I think this question is not going to be resolved very quickly. There are a number of matters, as he knows probably better than anyone in your Lordships' House, which have to be taken into account, and I can only say that those negotiations will proceed in order to achieve the best possible arrangement. The noble Lord also asked me what progress has been made in the discussions on the future of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedial gymnasts. I can only say—and it is not a very satisfactory reply, I acknowledge—that these discussions are proceeding, and we hope that something tangible will come out of them. As the noble Lord will know, there is a
1282
great deal of competition on the part of local authorities, who are attracting, I think, an abnormal number of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and others, and I think the general field of medical as well as social work is feeling the effect of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill have raised a number of matters which, if they will forgive me, I do not propose to deal with this afternoon. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised quite an interesting point, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill raised quite a number. I think we must look at them all in some depth. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, does not think it impertinent on my part, I should like to say that we in the Government wish to congratulate her warmly on carrying out a very thorough survey on a subject which is recognised by everyone who knows about it to be a particularly difficult and daunting one. But she has produced a really first-class Report, and while we may not agree with everything the noble Baroness has said, I think we must accept the fact that the clarity of her thought and the precision and style of her writing is an example to most of us in your Lordships' House.
The Report raises a number of complex issues. It deals with many aspects of the mobility of disabled people. The noble Baroness acknowledges that suitable housing, coupled with the means to be mobile inside the house, is a No. 1 priority. On this, my right honourable friend's Department and the Department of the Environment are collaborating on the advice which should be given to housing authorities. The suggestion of the noble Baroness on mobility housing is very constructive, and is one aspect which both Departments are at this present moment considering. It was problems concerning the vehicle service for disabled people, however, which prompted the inquiry, and in consequence the noble Baroness devotes the main part of her Report to that subject. She concluded that the existing three-wheeled invalid vehicles which are issued to disabled people should be replaced by a suitably adapted small car, this conclusion being based mainly on the grounds that the car now represents better value for money and that it would be more acceptable to

1283
disabled people as it would enable them to take their husband or wife and their family with them.
The noble Baroness makes it clear in her Report that her terms of reference required her to have regard to the help in cash or kind which the available resources permit, or could permit, and she consequently recommended a change in the criteria for eligibility so that in effect only those who need a car—and I emphasise that she uses the word "need"—for the support of themselves or their families would qualify. Again, the noble Baroness makes clear the fact that the greater attraction of the car means that to make it available even to her restricted categories of eligible disabled people would substantially increase the potential number of beneficiaries, and that, of course, the cost would be considerably more. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he mentioned something in the region of £22 million being an increase of £12 million on the money spent at the present moment, was not very far wrong; and, whatever a Government may want to do, with the best will in the world one has to take that factor into account.
At the same time, this fact has to be seen against the background of rendering ineligible for a car nearly 14,000 of those who already have a three-wheeler, not to mention future generations of disabled people who, while eligible under the present criteria, would never become eligible under the criteria of the noble Baroness. As my right honourable friend indicated in her Statement on March 25 in another place, the Government consider that any proposal to withdraw a vehicle from those now having the use of one, even with the transitional safeguards proposed, would be quite wrong.
In arriving at this conclusion the Government have in mind the great importance of mobility to relieve the social isolation of disabled people. The Report also raises other complex problems including those of administration, of cost and of supply. For example, the question of determining social need is one of great complexity, as I am sure the noble Baroness herself recognises, and there would need to be much discussion before this could be clarified to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Even then it is
1284
doubtful whether the clarification would meet with everybody's approval.
Another matter which raises difficult problems is the question of retaining the three-wheeler for those disabled people who wish to retain it. We heard a good deal this afternoon about the, shall I say, ineffectiveness of the three-wheeler and its dangers. It may come as a surprise to noble Lords to learn that there are quite a number in this category, most commonly because they could not comfortably drive a car and for whom the provision of a car would not be the answer because they are physically unable to drive it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would think otherwise, but this is the information we have as a result of investigation. It is impossible to forecast what effect a change-over to either cash or cars would have on three-wheeler production. This is another matter which we shall have to consider against the background of the overall review.
It is because of these questions that my right honourable friend has initiated a process of consultation with interested individuals and organisations especially those representing the disabled people themselves and professional bodies. Her Department has already written to a large number of people and organisations inviting views on a variety of questions. Above all my right honourable friend is determined that the process of consultation shall be truly meaningful. Similarly my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will also be carrying out their own consultations.
Noble Lords have referred to the question of safety of the three-wheeler at present issued. Despite statements that have been made in this House and elsewhere about the safety of the invalid three-wheelers, I am most concerned that I should be able to reassure those severely disabled people who rely on these vehicles. Allegations continue to be made that they are intrinsically dangerous and that they should be withdrawn from the roads. I do not think this is really borne out by serious investigations. I cannot do better than reaffirm the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on March 25 when she introduced the

1285
Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that there are no reasons for thinking that this is so. I sincerely hope that the alarm that may well have been created in the minds of those who continue to use these vehicles by the statements that have been made, some of which have been reported in a rather irresponsible and unbalanced manner, will accordingly be dispelled.
I am aware that the investigations made by the Cranfield Institute of Technology last year and the conclusions that have been drawn from their reported results continue to attract a good deal of attention. I think it is important to recognise that they were carried out in a somewhat artificial environment by people who were not necessarily conversant with the special controls and design of the invalid three-wheeler. The experience on the roads of many thousands of users, which is really of more practical significance, over a period of nearly a quarter of a century has certainly not confirmed these opinions. Experience therefore suggests that if these three-wheelers are driven sensibly within the limits of performance that can reasonably be expected of a vehicle of this kind then, except perhaps in appalling weather conditions, they are quite safe. There has been much theoretical philosophising, but no real evidence has been produced to contradict this view. Indeed, quite a considerable number of disabled people have taken the trouble to write to Ministers categorically dissociating themselves from the criticisms which have been published in the Press.
The invalid three-wheeler is, and always will be, a functional vehicle. Indeed, many of the features which have been incorporated specifically to cater for the needs of the most severely disabled are those which have given rise to criticisms by drivers accustomed to more conventional vehicles. It is accepted that it is not perfect and endeavours to improve it will continue to be made. But your Lordships will not lose sight of the fact that for well over 20 years model after model, each an improvement on its predecessor, has given severely disabled people a new dimension in life and I believe a new outlook. Model 70, even before modification, did not in fact behave as badly as certain reports had suggested it might. Indeed, it seems to have done
1286
quite well. The first test was quite reassuring, but it is my right honourable friend's intention during the next few months to withdraw Model 70 three-wheelers from the fleet with a view to altering the mounting of the petrol tank in the way that was done for the third Model 70 test by the Motor Industry Research Association. Future vehicles will of course incorporate this modification.
The view held by the Government about the side wind tests is that, although the Model 70's behaviour was somewhat worse than that of some other comparable vehicles, one must bear in mind that some commercial four-wheeled vehicles also failed to meet the experimental safety criteria in the side wind tests. The short answer is that liberties cannot be taken in driving it which would be permissible with a vehicle having different characteristics. It might also be reassuring to the House to know that although no formal Motor Industry Research Association report was commissioned on the subject, tests of the Model 70 on their pave track have shown that the structure of the vehicle is such that in general it withstands the stress of road use at least as well as the generality of other road vehicles.
I have felt it right to deal at some length with the question of safety of three-wheelers if only in the interests of those who are using them. But having said that, I must add that the Government fully appreciate the force of the comparisons between the three-wheeler and the car which the noble Baroness makes in her Report. She points out that the car is better value for money, that it is less noisy and, more important, that most disabled people prefer it. Regarding the payment of cash grants instead of cars to disabled people with which they could buy cars for themselves rather than the Government providing them, I am aware that this course of action is favoured by some of the organisations representing disabled people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, considered this matter and concluded that the Government should issue cars and not cash, on the grounds that it would not be right to provide grants without ensuring that at least the amount of the grant was spent on a car, while at the same time it would be unattractive to have to follow up every case in order

1287
to find out what in fact had been spent. Moreover, it seems not impossible that payments could have considerable repercussions over the whole field of cash benefits. One has to take into account the whole question of social insurance disablement benefits, which extend not only over a very large area of benefits but involve a large number of people.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, also be aware of the positive advantage in the supply of cars rather than cash grants, in that the Government, by taking advantage of bulk buying, can buy more cheaply than the individual and can also ensure that the disabled person is provided with a vehicle in good condition and one to which proper adaptations have been made. By insuring the car in the name of the disabled driver or anyone else who is nominated to drive, the Government can help to ensure that the car is driven only by the disabled person or for his benefit. I do not wish to prejudge this issue by suggesting that the Government have formed a view on the rightness or otherwise in issuing cars instead of cash, because I am fully aware (as are the Government) of the various arguments both for and against. I would only repeat that this is one of the many matters which the Government and the Ministers concerned will have to go into.
There are a number of other things which I should like to say and which I came here prepared to say, but in view of the time and the fact that my noble friend Lady Phillips will no doubt wish to say a few words at the conclusion of the debate, I should again like to say that if I have not answered, either superficially or in detail, the matters which have been raised this afternoon, they will be recorded in Hansard and I will see that my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, and my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled, are made aware of every word that has been spoken in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Finally, on behalf of the Government, I should like to thank those who have taken part in the debate, because a number of very interesting matters have been brought forward and I think your Lordships will realise that we are faced with a very complicated situation. My final word of thanks is again addressed to the
1288
noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, not only for the very obvious ability reflected in the Report but also for the time and energy which she has devoted to it.
6.3 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this has been a very remarkable debate: it has been very well disciplined, with everyone keeping to time. I was going to say that the Minister was the exception here, but I suppose that my noble friend has certain privileges in such matters. Some noble Lords were moved to poetry, which was quite splendid. I should also like to mention the very moving maiden speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in which he emphasised something that I think we all feel—that in this society of ours we waste not only material, but also people; and any means by which a person who is housebound or immobile can be brought back into the mainstream of society ought to be instantly investigated.
I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister has chosen to read a brief which must, I think, have been prepared for the last Government. I would hardly call that an example of open-mindedness. It seems to me that the Government have prejudged the issues. This I find very disturbing. My brother last week introduced me to somebody as "My sister, the trouble-shooter". I would only say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I shall be sitting very near to him and I shall return to this subject on many occasions because I feel that it will be necessary.
I should like to say a word on safety. When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, finally compiled her Report she herself said that she had not seen the motor industry's research reports because they were not then completed. I would say to my noble friend the Minister, and to all your Lordships, that if those pressure groups who are concerned because the drivers are disabled, feel this matter is sufficiently serious for them, through someone in another place, to take it to the Parliamentary Commissioner—and if they really feel strongly about that—I would suggest there is an element which should be investigated. I wonder whether the Minister would at some stage publish the accident figures in this connection. I have been unable

1289
to find these figures. Indeed a very curious aspect of the matter is the great gap which seems to exist in the information available—in other words, the fact that we have no record concerning disabled people. This is curious to me because, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act actually came into effect four years ago. The noble Baroness said that she had no idea of the size of the problem. I would ask the Minister to accept my word for the fact that, just as he can produce statistics, so can many of us. The vehicle is unsafe. It may not always give rise to accidents, but to say that the accidents which occur are the fault of the driver is less than fair. I am sorry that that suggestion was again voiced.
One thing has come out very loud and clear from the speeches of many of your Lordships, and that is that the three-wheeler should be phased out. Two noble Lords, speaking with expertise from different angles, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, pointed out that the car can be adapted to suit any driver. Also, I think a case for the non-driver has been strongly made. The practical suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale were, as always, very valuable. This is a problem which must not be allowed to be shelved. I know only too well from my own small experience in Government that anything a Government wish to do they can do, and anything they do not wish to do they can delay by calling in aid committees, Royal Commissions and consultations of various kinds.
Finally, I would say that there are areas on which the last word on consultation has been spoken and we now ask for action.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if your Lordships would allow me just to say this, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lady Phillips that I was not dealing with a brief that was prepared for the last Government. I should also like her to know that part of that brief was of my own creation, because I happen to be very interested in this subject. The original brief, in case anyone is interested, has been altered in various places and I should not like your Lordships
1290
to feel that we were working on information that had been collected some months ago.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am of course delighted to hear that. If I were to use a colloquial expression, I would have said, "You could have fooled me"; but, naturally, I would not use such an expression in your Lordships' House. There is one point I should have dealt with earlier, but I do not wish to be deluged and therefore I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRESS FREEDOM AND CENSORSHIP BY WORKERS
6.9 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to draw attention to the desirability of an official inquiry or a Royal Commission to examine the manner in which people working in the Press are increasingly exercising censorship on the content of advertisements, comments and news, and to the effect that this has on the freedom of the Press; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity, in the last debate before the Easter Recess, to draw attention to something which is very precious in this House and in our country; and that is the freedom of the Press and the part it plays in our democracy.
I feel that our newspaper industry is sick at a time when democracy, if not sick, is certainly strained and ailing in important quarters. In a true democracy we take the freedom of the Press very seriously indeed, and I should like to draw attention to one element of this which I believe is being eroded and which should be publicised—that is, the increasing tendency for a few of those working in printing to exercise their power over the content of advertisements, caricatures, news and comment. The Prime Minister has said that he might appoint an inquiry to look into the ownership of the Press. That is a view, incidentally, shared by the Left Wing trade union leader, Mr. Briginshaw of NATSOPA. I am sure it is not for that reason that the Prime Minister has expressed this desire. The Leader of the

1291
Opposition has urged him also to look at the economic factors now besetting the Press. Everyone of your Lordships will agree that certainly the economics are currently very alarming.
The very steep rise in the cost of newsprint has highlighted the crisis which is developing. The newsprint bill will jump from £140 million to £210 million for the "nationals" this year. This is an enormous increase and burden for the newspapers to carry. I think it is also recognised—and the Economist Intelligence Unit published a report on this in 1966—that pay in the newspaper industry is on the generous side compared with almost every other industry. The figure of £100 a week is not unusual; I think some of the more highly specialised operatives in the Financial Times might be earning £200 a week.
It is also true to say that the Economist Intelligence Unit was right when it drew attention to the degree of over-manning; it reckoned that 50 per cent. more men were employed in the machine rooms above what was strictly necessary, and 50 per cent. more men were employed in the process department above what was necessary; there was also 30 per cent. over-manning in the foundry. Also there is a need to look at the training and entry into the industry. In some areas there has been very little recruitment over many years, and one knows of people of a very extreme age still being employed. There was a recent case of one person who was aged 90 and still working. I am sure that that was exceptional; but certainly the retirement age is not rigidly adhered to as it is in so many other industries.
Also, it is a pity when the finances of our newspapers are under severe strain that there has been almost a Luddite approach to the more modern machinery and modem ways of type-setting on newspapers; the computer type-setting techniques which are used widely in other countries, even in Eastern European countries—Czechoslovakia uses them extensively—have not been adopted here. I believe the Evening Standard tried it for a period of two years but eventually had to call it off. They were not allowed to state that this was due to union difficulties; but I believe that the pay structure was one of the great objections
1292
to the introduction of this new, labour-saving technique.
In Holland and Canada one finds women typists operating computer typesetting machines. I have a feeling that unless something is done in this country we shall not get women typists operating and setting our Press in this century. I also noticed, as will your Lordships, that although we now have laws against discrimination in our country it is strange that whenever you ring up a newspaper you always speak to a male telephone operator. I know there is a good excuse, that is, that they are ready to take shorthand notes, but I have never found the female sex either slow in operating telephone switchboards or slow in taking accurate shorthand notes. Most of us have had to live with private secretaries—I am sorry, my Lords, perhaps I should re-phrase that remark!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, many of us have had wide experience of dictating hundreds of letters to outstanding and understanding women secretaries who help us deal with our Parliamentay correspondence.
One of the greatest difficulties for our newspapers is that they are so desperately vulnerable to stoppages; this is particularly so when the first edition is coming up and has to catch trains to all parts of the country. If a newspaper does not catch the distribution network, it is a perishable article which is no use at all the following day. We in industry can try to make up time if we have stoppages and difficulties; we can try to accelerate the production time so that we can catch up and meet the needs of our customers particularly our export customers. But that is not possible with newspapers. If you miss the connection, all the money is wasted, and very often an immense sum of money is involved.
On March 30, the Scottish Daily Express ceased printing in Glasgow. This was sad, and one understands the anxieties locally where unemployment is relatively high. If you look at the stoppages which that newspaper has had to cope with in the last 13 months—and I have a list in my hand—there were no less than 56 in a period of just over a year. Forty of these were truly damaging and only 16 less damaging. How

1293
impossible it must be to build up a reputation in a newspaper for punctuality and delivery of communication which so many breakfast tables depend on when you have that degree of stoppage and disorganisation! It is interesting to see that this compares with no stoppages in 12 years at the Daily Express office in Manchester. You have the same newspaper, one in Glasgow with 56 stoppages in a year and at another printing centre, Manchester, no stoppages in 12 years. This is a very marked difference which cannot be entirely through management's fault; there must be a whole host of other reasons as well. I notice that management readily accepts that some of the responsibility rests with them.
On the last edition of the Scottish Daily Express the self-styled Action Committee took a news story off the front page (and I also have an example of this) after this page had been passed by the editor for publication. They inserted their own news. This is surely an unwarranted interference with the liberty and management of that paper. The story they put in said that they were promised considerable Government support if they set up their own newspaper. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell us that that is not a fully justified statement. This was the latest action in union censorship which came about long after I put down this particular Motion for debate in your Lordships' House.
I want to take a few examples which have affected both our national and provincial newspapers over the past years. In the past four years there have been a growing number of instances in which printing union workers have either prevented the publication of material with which they disagree or have allowed its publication only with disclaimers which have to be printed alongside. On May 3, 1970, the Observer published a long report on conditions in the newspaper industry. This was fairly unusual, because newspapers do not normally report very extensively on their own misgivings, anxieties and difficulties.
In the following week the newspaper published a lengthy reply from the father of the branch of SOGAT, which stands for the Society of Graphical and Allied Trade Unions. The Observer received a letter from a printer describing himself as, "a
1294
not very proud member of the silent majority who seemed to be content to watch papers bleed and die." The Observer decided to print this anony-mously, as the man wished. He did not want to risk his trade union membership by being identified. While the early editions were being printed, four union leaders demanded that his name and address should be printed, or the letter should be removed instantly. Later workers stopped all production. The editor finally gave way to the unions and the letter was withdrawn. The editor said he did not feel very proud of the action he had been forced to take.
On December 9, 1971, Jak, that well-known Evening Standard cartoonist, drew up a cartoon referring to the power workers' strike. The cartoon appeared in the first edition of that paper. The Federated House Chapel voted to stop production immediately. After negotiation, the editor agreed to a disclaimer from the unions being published. This contained the words:
"The Chapel most strongly deprecates the cartoon and feels it goes above and beyond the bounds of humour and fair comment."
I will now give an example of a provincial paper. In January, 1971, the Bristol Evening Post planned to publish a report of a rally which was held by NATSOPA members to protest against the Industrial Relations Bill. The NATSOPA members objected to this report and refused to produce the paper's last edition. Here is another case of disruptive action.
In October, 1971, the Daily Express was involved in an incident, the first, I think, when journalists supported the stoppage on account of editorial content. The father of the chapel of the N.U.J. objected to a cartoon by Cummings which linked the supply of I.R.A.'s arms and bombs to the U.S.S.R. The journalists voted for the cartoon to be changed. Later, engineers and technicians stopped work, and over 350,000 copies of the paper were lost. The key figure in so many of these is Mr. Richard Briginshaw, who is the General Secretary of NATSOPA. He is acknowledged to be a militant Left-Wing extremist. There were two instances of censorship which involved him personally.
In November, 1970, the Observer published an article concerning the efforts of a small group in NATSOPA to prevent

1295
the break-up of SOGAT in which their union then constituted a Division, known as Division 1. Briginshaw threatened to stop publication of the Observer forthwith if the article was published. His action was partially successful, since the article was held back. More recently, Mr. Briginshaw's expression of wrath prevented the Evening Standard from publishing the news that he is a director of an agency through which all clerical vacancies in NATSOPA are recruited. Fortunately this news was printed by a paper which your Lordships will probably study most assiduously, Private Eye, and later in the Spectator. Private Eye of July 13, 1973, reported that when Mr. Jeremy Deeds, of the Evening Standard, referred this to Mr. Briginshaw he got the reply:
"Mr. Deeds, I would not like to put you into a position whereby the production of your newspaper this evening could be affected."
The journalist asked if this was threatening industrial action on the Evening Standard, when Mr. Briginshaw repeated the threat in the same terms.
I notice, my Lords, that he is due to retire shortly, and David Wilson, of the Observer, discovered from him that he would not spurn a peerage if it was offered to him. He went on to explain that one attraction was that he could fight for the abolition of the House of Lords from within this Chamber. I hope that we shall civilise him (shall I say?) if he does appear among us and point out how much we value the newspaper industry and freedom in our democracy.
I now turn to what instigated my action, and that was an advertisement which I have in my hand and which appeared in The Times, on Friday, the 27th. Your Lordships may have seen it under the heading."Banned—The Threat to Press Freedom." That was an advertisement sponsored by Aims of Industry. This organisation was convinced that in most cases the difficulties they met in placing this advertisement arose from the print unions. They met their first difficulty over an advertisement attacking the extreme Left of the trade union movement. This came in the Sunday Express where there was difficulty with the workers, and where the paper was forced to carry a notice from them
1296
disclaiming the advertisement. The paper also offered free advertising space the following Sunday to Mr. Ray Buckton, the Left Wing Leader of ASLEF. He did not, in fact, take it up.
Then there was also an effort to publish advertisements in the Daily Mirror. Later on the I.P.C. announced that all Aims of Industry advertisements were banned in that paper, both the anti-extremist ones and those attacking Labour's nationalisation plans. There were two sets of advertisements. One was attacking the extreme Left Wing of the unions, and the other was attacking the nationalisation plans by the trade unions—
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that the Daily Mirror announced this?
LORD ORR-EWING: No, my Lords. If I said that, I did not mean it: I was speaking very carefully. Initially the Daily Mirror published advertisements, but later the I.P.C. announced to Aims of Industry, as I understand it, that Aims' advertisements were banned. They had a very healthy response from those advertisements. I think that 17,000 of the very large readership of the Daily Mirror wrote, and a great majority of these letters approved the tone of the advertisements. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is going to speak next in this debate. Since he is one of our great experts in this House in this field with a great deal of experience, I am sure he will throw light on this particular subject.
The Sunday Times accepted their anti-extremist advertisement. But when it appeared, so did another, on the opposite page, from the joint NATSOPA chapels. This attacked the Conservative Government and carried pictures of Mr. Heath and all the other Tory Leaders. I do not know whether the pictures were flattering or not, or whether during a General Election campaign the Representation of the People Act was near being broken. Aims of Industry then decided to try to press for a Royal Commission on the freedom of the Press and on broadcasting, and it took full page advertisements in The Times and The Guardian to say so. I will show noble Lords that advertisement. The Times

1297
lost production while a disclaimer was being agreed. This disclaimer said:
"The night printing workers of The Times, while disagreeing with the content of the Aims of Industry advertisement on page 11, are proving their belief in the freedom of the Press by printing this advertisement."
Well, my Lords, I do not think we object to that. But if it is always a condition that you stop the Press while you are organising a disclaimer, it is certainly an interference, and it is certainly damaging financially to the Press affected.
It is sad when I think that in the last two decades we have lost many newspapers with a hundred years of tradition. The News Chronicle has gone; The Star has gone; the Daily Sketch has gone; Reynold's News and others have gone. The Prime Minister has said that there might be an Inquiry into ownership, I think your Lordships will agree there is certainly a need for an examination into the economics of our national papers and our local papers. I hope that this Inquiry will be broadened to look also into the organisation of those who make their career in our newspaper industry. We in this House must be especially vigilant whenever democracy is at risk. I feel that if urgent action is not taken, there is imminent danger of some of our national newspapers collapsing. This would be enormously harmful to the whole fabric of our democracy.
My Lords, if these words are not printed fully, and without a disclaimer at the side, in tomorrow's newspapers, you must draw your own conclusions, and I would hope that my own case for an Inquiry covering all these aspects would be fully made out. I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for introducing this important subject. He and I have taken part in most of the debates on communications in recent years, and we have always shared a good deal of common ground. He has taken the debate today rather more widely than I had expected from the Order Paper. He has gone into the economics of the industry, which is extremely relevant, but I will not follow him into those paths today. I think that we should have a debate on that aspect of newspapers in the near future.
1298
I have always shared a certain amount of common ground with the noble Lord, and I do so today. I hope the noble Lord will not be disappointed—I am sure he will not be surprised—if I also express sharp differences from him. First of all, let me emphasise our ground of agreement. What we both believe is that it is wrong, and dangerous, for the staffs of newspapers to censor their content. This is not just a personal view that I personally am expressing. My union, the National Union of Journalists, is opposed to all newspaper censorship, whether it is imposed from outside the newspaper office or inside a newspaper office by one of the Chapels, that is by the trade unions inside that office. Another organisation to which I am proud to belong, the International Press Institute, is equally adamant in its belief that an editor's freedom to edit must not be shackled by the staff, or indeed by anybody. After several incidents—including the incident which the noble Lord has recounted this afternoon, incidents in which newspaper production had been impeded or threatened by the staff because they found something in the newspaper which they were producing was unacceptable—I myself took part in a deputation from the British Committee of the Institute which discussed these problems with the Newspaper Publishers' Association. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, presided at that meeting and I regret that he is not here to participate in the debate this afternoon. The threat to the production from—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We listen to him with the greatest interest and respect on subjects of this kind, but it would help to clear my mind, and perhaps the minds of other noble Lords, if he could just declare his interest. We know what his interest is. Particularly since one or two of the newspapers with which he is connected have been mentioned in the debate already, it would be helpful to have it on the Record at this stage.
LORD ARDWICK: Of course, my Lords; certainly. I was coming to that but I was reserving it until I came to the particular point of criticism of the newspapers which I serve. But it is as well to say that I work for the Mirror

1299
newspapers, one of the groups of newspapers which the noble Lord has criticised, although he has criticised that group, I think, rather gently.
As I was saying, threats to the production from newspaper staffs are a fairly recent development. There were dim memories in the industry of something terrible that had happened from the compositors of the Daily Mail during the General Strike, but there was no repetition of this kind of conduct until quite recently—at least, I never heard of it. Well, what has happened? What has changed? There are several interlocking causes. First is the sharpening of the industrial climate in an age of demoralising inflation; next is the contemporary passion for instant, direct action when you have a grievance; and the third is the new candour. In the newspaper industry we used prudently to report our own internal industrial troubles briefly and formally, preferably taking a kind of non-partisan, rather uninformative, formal paragraph from the Press Association. Then the young men in the industry, particularly the young journalists, began to accuse us of cowardice and suppression, and this became a rather fashionable thing to do. But now, of course, whenever a newspaper reports the troubles of its own industry as zealously as it does the troubles of other industries it is always open to the charge that management is using it as an organ of propaganda in the struggle. That is how I think one of the incidents of which the noble Lord has spoken this afternoon began.
Certainly, editors and newspaper managements have given a lot of thought to this problem over the last year or two, and I think there is now a kind of consensus, although there is no formal agreement, about what should be done in these circumstances. If the staff rightly object to an item as inaccurate I think the general feeling is that it should be corrected, just as one would correct any other inaccuracy in the paper. Sometimes a compositor comes to you and says: "Look. I live there. You've got the name of that place wrong"; and you correct it. In the same way, if there is an obvious factual inaccuracy in something you are dealing with, you put it right. If they object, however, that the side of
1300
their case is inadequately presented, then I think the general belief, the consensus, is that they should be invited to state it and to print it as soon as possible in a responsible way, which is probably in the next issue. But what editors and management must never do is to withhold an item at the request of the staff simply because they dislike it and they threaten to stop production. Editors and management must be prepared to risk a stoppage rather than to submit to this kind of shop floor censorship. So I think we are agreed so far on this matter.
I come now to a different but related problem: the problem of political advertising. The editorial view was put sharply ail succinctly by the Guardian in dealing with the Aims of Industry problem. On October 19 the Guardian said:
"Unless political advertisements are factually inaccurate or are misleading, we do not refuse or censor them. It would be wrong to do so. Freedom of the press applies as much to advertisers as to editors."
Well, of course it does not really, but, still, it was a rather useful general statement to make. It gives a broad picture of the position. But what is "inaccurate" in political advertising? What is misleading? What indeed, as Pilate asked, is the Truth? One of the dilemmas in this matter is that some aspects of politics are not mere matters of opinion; they are also matters of moral conviction and so they are not arguable; they are absolute. I would myself refuse any political advertising with a racial content, even if it were within the law. I would not have accepted, as The Times did, after very deep and anxious thought about it, I believe, an advertisement which pleaded for a change in the law relating to drugs.
Another dilemma is that an editor must always take care not to outrage his readers. One of his constant preoccupations is the tone of his newspaper. His readers are unique. They are special to him. They are his readers; they are nobody else's readers and he cannot be bound by the rules that guide other editors with other readers. For example, frank and vernacular accounts of sexual experience, which may delight the readers of my old paper the Guardian, or of the Sunday Times, might well horrify the readers of a popular newspaper. Certainly they would not be allowed to appear in any of the popular newspapers for which

1301
I have worked. Or an editor who has a powerful cartoonist on his staff may find it necessary to reject, perhaps two or three times a year, a cartoon because it goes beyond the bounds of acceptability. It would outrage too many readers. It would outrage common sense and decency. Cartoonists are like that. They are very brave men. They see things in black and white. And every cartoonist sometimes, once or twice a year perhaps, has to be held back by the most liberal of editors. Sensibility to the tone of his paper, and feeling for the susceptibilities of his readers, is an important aspect of an editor's qualification for his task.
So an editor is under no obligation to print every advertisement which comes to him, even if he cannot fault it as inaccurate or as misleading. He may think it morally indefensible or that it will outrage his readers. I would not expect, for example, the editor of the Catholic Herald to print those lively, provocative advertisements on birth control and venereal disease put out by the Health Education Council. There is a further dilemma, although it is a pretty rare one. What are the effects of the things he is going to print likely to be on the behaviour of readers? Words may restrain or words may incite; they may heal or they may inflame, and their power will depend upon the prevailing public mood.
Now I come to the advertisements devised by the Aims of Industry. Do not let us think of this as a kind of high-minded body which is concerned solely with the political education of the citizens of this country. These, my Lords, were not pieces of well reasoned political philosophy. They have even got that pompous pretence of seriousness that you get in what is now called prestige advertising. Some of them were as arresting and as shocking in their way as are the advertisements of the Health Education Council. They were in fact the most sensational political advertisements ever put out in this country in my recollection. And they were not just a flash in the pan. It was not just a question of the odd advertisement being put in the odd newspaper. They were part of a great and powerful campaign. Aims of Industry collected half a million pounds—so it was said in the newspapers, and it was never contradicted—to buy
1302
newspaper space, to print posters and to distribute "literature" on two main themes: the perils of nationalisation and the perils of allowing extremists to take over the British trade union movement.
These themes were the precursors of what were to be two of the main themes in the election campaign of the Party opposite and for that reason—and that reason alone—they were chosen. It was part of a political campaign. One of the advertisements was headed: "Don't be fooled out of your freedom", and it showed a picture of that tyrant and that man of blood who has (thank God!) been dead for twenty years—the late Joseph Stalin. Of course he was denounced by his successors. But this advertisement said, "The Communists who figured so openly in recent industrial disputes are making no secret of their real intentions: they want to destroy the system under which we live. This is their reason—the only reason"—I repeat, my Lords "the only reason"—"for causing dislocation in industry and the maximum of hardship for everybody".
Surely I am not being absurd when I draw the implication from that advertisement that the Aims of Industry were trying to put forward the idea that all recent disputes were caused by Communists; that they were not really industrial disputes, but were part of a revolutionary attack to destroy the system. These advertisements seem to me, and I think to many other people—at least on my side of politics—to make all militants look like Communists and all strikes to look like political strikes. It reminds me of a story about the McCarthyite days in the United States of America, when a little man got up at a meeting and said: "Look, I hate Marx, I loathe Lenin, I detest Trotsky and Stalin and the whole Communist Party, but I must say that I think we are paying too much rent". I think that is the situation that one gets into if one does not watch out. If you take this kind of thing too seriously everybody with a grievance looks like a militant and every militant looks like a Red.
I should like to give two more examples. First, "Are there Reds under the bed?" This was one more of the advertisements in the series. "Is there a plan to wreck our economy in order to change our political system? Does the

1303
Communist Party plan to take over the trade unions in order to dominate the Labour Party? We believe the answer is 'Yes'." So do I, my Lords. They have been trying to do this all my life. This is why we have been proscribing their front organisations; this is why we have denied them access to our political Party. Of course they have not succeeded, and they will not succeed. Of course the militants have a field day at the moment when inflation is raging as it never has done before. Inflation raged under the last Government and then of course the rank and file became desperate and reckless and very susceptible to the propaganda of the militants. But the remedy is not a subscription to the Aims of Industry; it is not an advertising campaign; it is a successful counter-inflationary policy, and let us hope to God that this Government manage to find one. As the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, inflation is inconsistent with the continuance of our democratic system. That is the enemy; that is the villain. Indeed, the campaign of the Party opposite during the Election died on their lips round about February 15 and when, a day or so later, Mr. Barber appeared on television with a programme rather in the mood of the Aims of Industry advertisements, the nation, and quite a number of the members of the Party opposite, were horrified because he had totally misjudged the mood of the nation, which was much more serious, and more concerned with deeper things than those which Mr. Barber chose to speak about in his programme.
The course of the Daily Mirror—the paper I work for—is well known in this matter. The Daily Mirror published one of the Aims of Industry advertisements before the industrial situation had become so tense. I think the first publication was on December 29, which was when the three-day week was nominally operating but did not appear to be operating because we were still covered by the Christmas and the New Year holiday. Later the Daily Mirror refused advertisements on the grounds that at a time of national emergency they were tendentious and divisive. It does not mean anything to us and it is not regarded as criticism, at least in the Daily Mirror office, that certain newspapers, such as The Times and the New Statesman, printed those advertisements
1304
which we did not think suitable. It depends upon your readership. The Times is not the favourite newspaper among members of the National Union of Mineworkers, and, so far as I know, it is not handed eagerly from hand to hand in the factories at Dagenham. But later on the Daily Mirror, when approached by the director of Aims of Industry, did publish an advertisement which was felt to be less divisive, less contentious, though quite a bold and brave and forthcoming advertisement which dealt with nationalisation. Mr. Michael Ivens, the Director of Aims of Industry, has publicly admitted that the Daily Mirror never excused itself for its action on the grounds that its workers would not print the advertisements. They were rejected for what was considered to be good editorial reasons at that particular moment in British history.
Perhaps an inquiry is needed but not, I think, into the freedom of the Press; rather into the freedom of quasi-political organisations which try to spend half a million pounds just before and during a General Election campaign in the hope of securing the defeat of one Party. There is no suggestion that Aims of Industry went outside the law or defied the law. The object of the inquiry (if ever there is one) should be whether the law of elections is in need of amendment. What that body aimed to do, the way in which it was operating and the money it was using, was against the spirit of British election law, that vast wealth should not be used to distort the electoral process.
6.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what interested me about the first two speeches—I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced this debate to-day, and we have listened with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has said—was that there was an underlying agreement on the basic point of what my noble friend was saying. If I took down correctly what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said, it was that it was wrong and dangerous for staffs of newspapers to censor their content. I think this is the acre of the whole thing. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, accused my noble friend of going a little wide—and my noble friend did so, I think quite rightly, in opening. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, also went a

1305
little wide towards the end of his speech because he was speaking about the responsibilities of an editor and where an editor would be justified in accepting or refusing an advertisement. Nobody would dispute an editor's entire right to accept or reject any article, any report that he received from any of his journalists, any comment that he received in the form of a letter or any advertisement. Nobody doubts that this is entirely the responsibility of the editor, but surely the point is that the editor is trained to exercise this responsibility. He knows how to do it. He wants to keep his paper open to various expressions of opinion and he does that through his columns. He judges news on what is newsworthy—or I suggest he should do so, but that is a point I shall come to a little later—and he accepts advertisements in general because they add to his revenue. But he is free to reject any advertisement, indeed he is required to reject them when they do not conform with the Code of Advertising Practice.
Here perhaps I should declare an interest, as I am the Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. This is splendid. No one can criticise in any way an editor for not accepting an advertisement. I would not criticise the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, or the Daily Mirror, or anyone else for not choosing to accept particular kinds of advertisement. I think myself the noble Lord went a little far in criticising the manner in which Aims of Industry seeks to get its views known. After all, what other manner is there in which it can get its views known? The noble Lord may say, "But there was an Election in the offing", but to all intents and purposes that Election might not have been in the offing for 18 months, so it would not have been fair to say that Aims of Industry tried to get its views known when an Election was on the way.
My Lords, surely it is right that all shades of opinion and all types of views should be able to be made known. The other essential point we have to face is that we have all known of instances where it is not a case of the staff saying, "You cannot print that", but it is a case of a general fear (and we have heard of this in many instances) that if certain facts were printed it would cause offence to readers, or would be to the disadvantage of the staff and so would not be
1306
acceptable to them. This is one of the underlying fears that exist. There is on the one hand pressure that arises through industrial action not to print an advertisement, not to print a letter, or not to print an article, and so on, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is the underlying fear that if such-and-such a story were printed, it would cause an adverse reaction from the readers' point of view, or it might provoke the staff.
One hears examples of stories not printed. One even hears it said: "It is no use our trying to print that story. We would never get it through." We also hear it said by journalists," If I were to print that story, I would never get any further information from the trades unions." We have heard these things said. This is the sort of censorship or fear of censorship that exists in many quarters.
My Lords, I believe that truth has many aspects. Equally, I believe it is entirely wrong for me or for anyone else to insist on only the facet of truth that I wish should be printed, and nothing else. If the facet of truth that I would want to print if I were editor differs from what others wish to see printed, than I would be happy for my part that the others should express their opinions too. But I cannot accept the intolerance that is exemplified in the kind of industrial action which prevents stories, letters, or even advertisements from being printed. I support my noble friend in this. This is something which ought to be included in any kind of inquiry carried out if we are really going to maintain the freedom of our Press. I do not know how others view this, but I think I might end this short speech by quoting the very well-known words of Robert Burns:
"Here's freedom to them that wad read;
Here's freedom to them that wad write.
There's nane ever feared that the truth should be heard
But them wham the truth would indict."
6.58 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has assisted the House by introducing this debate, because it enables us to air some matters which have needed to be publicly aired. I think we are not wrong if we take the debate a little outside the terms of the Motion, as

1307
most noble Lords have done so far, because there are a number of matters which interlock. I am intervening in order to make two points—rather distinct ones. I have already apologised to the noble Lords who will be summing up for the fact that I may find it impossible to stay to the end. I apologise also to the House, although at the rate we are going at present I may be able to stay to the end.
My Lords, I thought my speech was not going to be controversial. In terms of the proposer of the Motion and the attitude which the major Parties will take, what I have to say is not controversial, but I find myself with very great timidity crossing swords with someone as experienced and knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. I have been a journalist of a kind for some time. I have had quite a lot to do with editing small magazines, never anything other than small magazines, and compared with the noble Lord my experience is virtually nothing. But at an early stage of my career I came to the conclusion that there was something like an absolute duty to publish any advertisement. I think the Guardian was right in what it said, as quoted by the noble Lord. I do not think it has an absolute right. To begin with it has an absolute duty. It is governed by the law and it is governed, I accept, by the Code of the advertising industry, but I do not think it is governed by the fact that advertisements will not necessarily be liked by its readership.
My Lords, I take the view—and I accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—that one's readership is an entity with whom one is carrying on a dialogue. One has a particular kind of people in mind. Obviously the editor is the person who decides what should go into the paper in the ordinary editorial space. Access to the general public is limited. Access to anyone or anybody who wishes to talk to the general public is very limited in this country. If they are to be denied paid access to some of these media because their views are popular or too bluntly put, this is not right. Everyone should have the right to publish advertisements which are not inaccurate, against the law or against the Code of Advertising. Of course, I can think of extreme examples. I did some thinking about whether I, as an editor, would
1308
refuse advertisements. I think the New Statesman was quite right to accept the Aims of Industry advertisement. I think it was quite right some time ago to accept the advertisements from South Africa House, which very much annoyed many of its readers. I think the papers who do this are right on the whole, and that wherever there is a question of doubt, it should be resolved in favour of access to the media.
My Lords, some of the more cynical of your Lordships may say that that is a very convenient doctrine for a newspaper owner or editor, or for someone who wishes his paper to make a lot of money to take, that "We all like to get as much money as we can and, to hell with the moles!". But it does not always work quite like that. One of the points implied by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick (and he will correct me if I am wrong), was that in fact one may well suffer financially by putting in advertisements which are not liked by the readership. Certainly when I had a small magazine called New Christian, which I know one or two of your Lordships have read, the kind of advertisement for the marriage bureaux and those to do with mental health, and so on, which we accepted on the back page were disliked by many of our readers.
I have never been able to weigh up whether or not we gained more revenue from the adverts than we lost in subscriptions, but it must have been a fairly near thing; so it is not always just a matter of it paying. I think that point is in fact one that should be more widely accepted in the newspaper industry than it is: this duty, in a civilisation where we do not offer all that much access to the public, of taking advertisements wherever it is possible. I entirely agree that I dislike a society where a body like Aims of Industry can collect half a million pounds to produce this, and (as I heard from murmurings behind me) if it is said the trade union can produce the same amount to advertise, in fact big business has more money than the trade unions have. I do not like the kind of society where people with the big purses, whether trade unions or big business, can have access to advertising denied to other people. But that is another matter, a matter of the kind of society we live in, and it is not a matter for an editor or newspaper owners.

1309
I move to the second point. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was absolutely right to bring into the question of overmanning and the economics of the newspaper industry, the question of—I will not say overpaying, because we should all wish everyone to have as much pay as they can have, but the relative overpaying of people in the newspaper world. I myself would not think that this is at the moment very important at all, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, initiated this debate because he fears it is something which must grow, and if it did grow then it would become important. I think part of the reason why it could become dangerous is this basic problem of the monopoly position of unions in a small industry, where, it has been said, they can do much harm very quickly if they should so judge. This is the reason why the industry is overmanned; this is the reason why the industry is overpaid; this is the reason why, if the unions decided they wanted to start exercising editorial control or control over advertising, it would take great courage and great stamina from the papers to stand up to them. This is the reason why papers are going broke.
I think we must get down to the basic problem. I beg your Lordships not just to write it off as an opportunity for me to plug what is a bit of my own Party's deeply-felt industrial policy if I say that the only way I see of solving this problem is through an examination into the ownership of the newspaper industry, and, incidentally, through an application of the ideals of co-ownership and co-partnership. I do not want to replace the irresponsibility of the Press Lords—and, thank goodness! these days they are, most of them, extremely responsible; I mean irresponsibility in a technical sense—by the irresponsibility of a workers' co-operative, which may be just as irresponsible.
I should like to see a framework for all industry, but I think it is particularly important in the industry of the media—where there is a co-ownership, co-partnership of capital and labour—so that the industry is not threatening to cut its own throat, as it is at the moment and so that there could be a working together for the good of all. I believe that if we solved the financial problems of the
1310
industry and if we managed to tackle some of the more fundamental problems in regard to the unions in the newspaper industry, then much of what we have been talking about would drop into place, would not rear its head so much, would not increase.
This would be a way of tackling many of the ills at their very roots. I think there is no easy way round the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Part of his analysis I think we all accept. Except by changing the whole atmosphere in this particular industry and revolutionising it, if any noble Lord can find a better method than the one which I have outlined, which is deeply rooted in my Party's philosophy, I would be glad to hear it. But so far it is the best idea I can think of.
7.6 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing, for allowing us to discuss this very topical matter. Unlike most noble Lords who have spoken, I have no connections of any kind with the newspaper industry. I speak very much as a greenhorn here, one who is an avid reader of newspapers, but with, I must confess, little knowledge of the background of newspaper organisation. But I think anybody who has taken part in election campaigns—and I have spoken in some five election campaigns—will perhaps have been conscious of the fact that the reports in some of the newspapers of what goes on in the constituencies may well vary from what one has found, leaving aside one's own political beliefs. This is perhaps why there is a certain scepticism now towards the communications media.
After the recent Election campaign I think almost everybody, politicians and all others, tended to say "Well, we have had enough of politics on the media. Let us get back, for Heaven's sake, to normal viewing". And yet, taking the Motion a little wide for the moment, one has also to accept the fact that there are a number of disabled people and elderly people who cannot get out to the hustings, and must therefore obtain their political information from the media, from television, radio or the newspapers. I join with others in deploring the fact that some of our longstanding newspapers are

1311
no longer in existence. My noble friend mentioned the News Chronicle, a paper which, to my mind, epitomised all that is best in journalism, reporting which struck me as being absolutely fair, even when I and others perhaps disagreed with their views. But we are in an age where takeovers are in evidence, and we must perhaps expect certain newspapers and other communication media to go to the wall.
This is where I believe local newspapers play a very vital part. Where I live in Surrey we are fortunate in having a high standard of local journalism, although sometimes one sees in the correspondence column an editor's comment that "this correspondence is now closed". If this is on a national issue this may be justified, but if it is on a local issue then one wonders whether perhaps the editor has not taken rather too much power into his own hands, because there are certain local issues, particularly in any rural part of the country, where newspapers have a very vital role to play.
We all recall the thalidomide tragedy. As one who has particular interest, though not a financial one in the National Health Service, I followed, as did ether noble Lords, the articles and pictures in the Sunday Times on this matter. I believe that the Sunday Times did an admirable job in getting over the publicity on this dreadful matter. I am not a lawyer, and it may well be that legally they were threatening to overstep the bounds. If this is the case, and if it is the law of the land, then it may well be that there had to be some curbing of what they said. But I hope that if a Royal Commission, or any other body, is set up, it will look into such vital matters as the thalidomide tragedy, or any future tragedy of that magnitude, should it by some misfortune occur, so that the maximum publicity can be given, provided that it comes from responsible journalism, without undue censorship taking place for legal reasons.
The position of mental hospitals and other such places is a difficult one when it comes to journalism, because there is a tendency among some newspapers to exaggerate conditions in these places and to give the public outside the impression that the staff are behaving inhumanely. I am sure that this is unintentional, but
1312
it gives the wrong idea, particularly to relatives of people in these places. This is another matter that I think comes within the ambit of this Question, and would clearly have to be looked into by any review body.
The question involved here is one of enormous difficulty. The problem with the terms of reference of a Royal Commission, as I see it, would be to give them teeth that would bite without giving too much power. An inquiry may well be needed into the more blatant forms of malpractice, such as deliberate misquoting. But having said that, and when one looks at the newspaper industry in many other countries (and they have their problems), with all the faults of our industry it is surmounting many of its problems most ably.
7.14 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I too rise to support to the fullest possible degree the Motion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I have attended this debate not only with the purpose of speaking but in order to listen, because we have been hearing about the activities of trade unions in the Press, and the vital work that a Royal Commission or any official inquiry would do would be to bring to light some of the dangers which exist in the trade union movement. I, for one, am longing to hear something good about trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has given us some encouraging words about this matter. I speak from a layman's point of view, and I speak also as a worker. I have a form of trade union, a staff association, and I have seen it work with very favourable and happy results in obtaining cordial relationships between management and employees. The stories that we read in the Press, see on television, or hear on radio, are such that hardly a day goes by without us hearing of some trouble being stirred up somewhere. So much so that we begin to believe that the two words "trade union" mean only one thing, "trouble". I repeat, I want to hear something good about trade unions, and I am sure that I am not alone in saying this.
One hundred years ago there were virtually no trade unions at all. An employer had such power that it came to be almost a matter of life and death over his workers. The originators of the

1313
trade unions were very brave and courageous men. Workers trying to form a trade union, advocating its formation, or considering joining one, were regarded with the gravest suspicion, as if they were people who might undermine all society, just as some of the militant trade unionists we hear about now are regarded. But the courage of those men was rewarded. They won against great odds. They transformed for the better the way of life of this country. Nowadays, even the most hard-hearted, grasping employer would not try to recreate any of those old conditions. Even if he had the power, he would not dare to do so.
Trade unionists won one very great victory, and a lasting one, but it looks as though they are still trying to fight the battle. Trade unions to-day are applying to certain industries such pressures that somebody who employs anybody else must sometimes think that he is committing a crime. If one believes all that the public are allowed to see on television or read in newspapers, or hear on the radio, one wonders whether an employer is really such a terrible person that he has to be fought until he has to give way to what are referred to as "pressures", but in some cases come down virtually to outrageous blackmail.
Are we living in a world that is madder than it really needs to be? Are these pressures being applied against a section of the community, or to the nation as a whole? Do workers really expect to get more money for less work? Do they really think like that? I certainly sincerely hope not. If there should be any truth in that then there must be lurking somewhere in the background a very sinister, ominous force. With more pressures being applied to employers by the employees, not only will the employers be ruined but the workers will be throwing away their jobs and their incomes, and, more important, the very heritage of the British worker.
We all know the phrase, "Workers of the world, unite!", but there now seems to be going up the cry, "Workers, cut each other's throats! Every man for himself! Never mind where the money comes from so long as we get it! "Are these the conditions for which the early trade unionists struggled and gave up so much to bring about'? One feels that if
1314
the situation gets any worse there will be a rumbling in the ground as of earthquakes, caused by those pioneers' revolving at high speed in their graves. Where does this sinister power exist? It seems to be in some secret centralised place.
Here I come to another aspect of the subject, which is centralisation. The cry by unions, local government and industry is for autonomy; and yet there is more centralisation. It will not be too much away from the point if I give a couple of examples. First, I now find that when I want to renew my driving licence I do not have to go to the local office, but have to send away for it to somewhere in Wales. Secondly, for the first time for many years I was recently off work for several days which entitled me to sickness benefit, but instead of going to my local office I had to send for it to a place in Aldershot.
There is centralisation of the Press and the unions, which is natural because Fleet Street is the great centre. But, alas! the newspapers are using very old-fashioned methods which is why the question of over-staffing has arisen. In other counties, type-setting can be done by women working on a typewriter connected with a computer. I do not know much about the working of this sort of machinery, but if it can do the job properly it can bring about great efficiency. Our main newspapers are making slow progress towards becoming more efficient and trade unionists, through ignorance more than malevolence, are the cause.
If the number of main dailies is to be reduced, is it possible to turn to the country's local newspapers for an enjoyable variety of reading? The local newspapers have lower costs and smaller staffs; they use smaller print, do not go in for big headlines and can print more stories. Some of them are even going ahead with national type-setting. Transport is getting faster and in a short time a London morning edition can be on newsagents' counters hundreds of miles away. Is it possible to reverse the process and let some of the local papers come to London? I should very much enjoy reading the world news or the local news in papers printed in places where I have lived, worked or visited. My boyhood was spent in the region of Darlington and I should love to get a regular supply of the good old Northern Echo.

1315
Many millions of people who now live and work in London would also, I am sure, welcome seeing some of their old newspapers again.
Let us try this evening to give a lead to the trade unions, and let our message be, quite simply, "Watch it, or you will ruin your jobs, and one day you may wake up to find, all too late, that the power and freedom you had is in the hands of other people, who will limit that power and freedom so much that there will be hardly any left."So let us have our official Inquiry, and may all connected with the Press—editorial staff as well as workers—come forward without fear to air their grievances and tell of their successes for the benefit not only of the Government or Parliament but also of the public, who want to know, as is their right, the true facts.
7.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Press and the media arouse very mixed feelings among ordinary people. This seems to be reflected in the twin reactions of, first, no sympathy whatsoever for politicians, of whatever Party, who claim that they have been hard done by, and, secondly, the whacking great libel damages which are given by juries. I am sure that this debate will be even less reported than are most of the debates in your Lordships' House. One gentleman in the Press Gallery has been gazing fixedly at a stained glass window. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Press, which is quite understandable, to report its own facts. There also seems to be an agreement between the media that they should not report their faults either, because if one started to report the faults of the other we might get the true situation. There is a strong element of, "Dog must not go anywhere near any other dog and eat it."
Before I came to your Lordships' House this afternoon, I wanted to get myself informed upon this subject so I called upon two senior and very able journalists, who said, "For heaven's sake! don't say which paper we come from." One added, "I shall get 'the chop'", while the other said, "All my copy will be blacked." They even said, "Don't say whether we are from an evening paper, a daily paper or a Sunday
1316
paper." I should like to give your Lordships some of the salient facts which they produced for me and which I hope will be of some interest. Before I do so, however, let me make it clear that I do not mean to say, and do not want to be interpreted in any way as saying, that nobody should not be paid the maximum amount possible. Presumably that is what everybody works for. But within the print unions there seems to have been a certain desire to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs. This happened in the United States, especially in New York where there used to be three daily papers and today there is only one, all because of the demands for money which simply could not be met out of revenue.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will obviously correct my figures if I am wrong, but I have been lead to believe that a Linotype operator gets between £120 and £180 a week for a four-day week, with seven weeks' annual holiday. A lady wrote to one of the papers to which I have referred, and which I am not allowed to say is an evening paper, a daily paper or a Sunday paper, to complain that her husband was unemployed and that next door there lived a gentleman who worked for a national newspaper and was earning £120 a week for a four-day week and drove a lorry for the rest of the time. She said, "This is not fair." I know that it is not fair, but the paper would not publish that letter.
The firing and hiring of workers in the print room is totally under the control of the unions concerned. They have manning scales which, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, are anything up to three times bigger than they need be. If those manning scales are not fully met, the wages of the men who are not there are split between the men who are there, up to a third of whom can be hanging about doing nothing. It is a waste of talent, time and money. Then there is the system of the "Blow", which I believe, if I have it right, is known as the rest period. It can be organised so much that a print worker can work up to, say, 11.30 on the Daily Express and from 11.30 to the end of the production period of another daily newspaper at the same rates of pay. In an overmanned industry, this cannot possibly be right. The Economist Intelligence Unit also commented on the fact that workers'

1317
standards slipped badly from 11 o'clock to about 12.30 or 1 a.m. This may not be completely unconnected with the fact that pub closing times are about 11 o'clock.
Then there is the difficulty we can foresee coming of the journalists' and print unions' differentials. The journalists have been saying, "We do a more skilled job and we want more money because the print unions are getting too much". So there have been work-to-rules and labour stoppages by journalists. What happens if journalists get their money? It is the old, old story of differentials. The print unions will say, "We used to get more than the journalists and we now want more differentials established again". My Lords, this cannot be right.
The present troubles of the Daily Telegraph are due to the fact that when the paper was increasing the number of pages it wanted printed it agreed to pay print workers more money for more pages printed: the greater the number of pages, the higher the wage went up. Now, because the paper is reducing the number of pages it is printing, the unions say, "We will not accept a cut in our money rate". This, in my view, is an element of "wanting to have your cake and eat it". But I suppose we all want to do that. However, what we have not seen is any report in any newspaper as to why this wages/labour interruption is going on. If the coal mines or the shipbuilding industry were concerned, there would be investigation teams producing full details about them. But, as I said before, the Press, completely understandably, are saying absolutely nothing about their current problem. On the radio this morning I heard, "You will not get your copy of the Daily Telegraph in London because there has been a printing dispute".
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, spoke, as we should expect, very clearly. When he attacked the Aims of Industry advertisements, saying that they were divisive, one is entitled to draw his attention to the headline of the Daily Mirror on Election Day, 1951, saying, "Whose finger is on the trigger?". I do not think that showed the balm of human kindness and love of your opponent: That is "putting the boot in" as hard as you can; and that, I assume, is what the noble Lord would call "divisive".
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will forgive me for intervening. I think that Sir Winston Churchill's lawyers "put the boot in" on us and we had to pay considerable damages. I may be wrong, I speak only from memory, as I was not there at the time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I was being perhaps a little selective and was not saying that Sir Winston Churchill's lawyers did "put the boot in" and did get damages, as I knew perfectly well they had done, but there still was an element of divisiveness in this; and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, does not deny that.
He also spoke correctly about the fundamental freedom of an editor, which we must all uphold. But I thought, with the greatest respect to him, that he was ducking the issue of censorship by the print workers' union. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made the point that Aims of Industry were only trying to do what the T.U.C. were trying to do; and surely this is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It would be wrong to say that one can do it and that the other cannot. It is essential that the trade unions should have their freedom to support which Party they like, just as it is essential and fundamental to all of us that other groups should have the same freedom. This seems to be an unnecessary thing to say, but as we are having a debate on censorship perhaps it ought to be underlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that some of our newspapers had carried out marvellous investigatory journalism. But if this investigative journalism is to go on, what will happen if censorship, of which we have had several instances to-day, affects some of their interests so that much of this investigatory journalism cannot go on? This must be worrying to people who believe in freedom. After all, we have in this country, I think, some very good newspapers. One could say that The Times, the Guardian, and even the Daily Mirror, are papers of which any country could be proud. I think Voltaire summed it up best when he said:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That seems to me what freedom is about. It is what we are discussing at the

1319
moment, and it is on this that we ought to concentrate our attention.
7.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, towards the end of this extremely interesting debate on my noble friend's Motion, most of the things that could be said on the subject, and quite a few things off the subject, have already been said, but it would be right for me to set out briefly the views of the Opposition. We believe, as most noble Lords have expressed their beliefs, that it is extremely important that the editor should be the final arbiter as to the content of his newspaper. His is the responsibility, and his must be the judgment, very finely balanced at times, as to what is right to include or to exclude, both in the way of editorial and advertisement.
These are the sort of decisions that must be taken by one man; they could never be taken adequately by a committee and the editor should not be unduly influenced from either side. I think that most responsible managements in Fleet Street realise this. Admittedly the management appoints the editor in the first place and presumably when they do so they choose a man who could be expected to carry out his responsibilities in a particular way. The noble Lord, the late Lord Beaverbrook, used to claim that he never influenced his newspaper."But it is remarkable," he said, "how frequently my editors' views coincide with my own". Admittedly the Press has been dominated by great ruling families, each perhaps with their own idiosyncracies. This system has many faults, but they are newspaper people through and through. They are prepared to stand up against commercial or political pressures and what influence they bring to bear on their papers is brought by people with the interests of the newspaper world primarily at heart. I think that most of their employees, both journalists and technicians, recognise that fact.
If it should be felt by some people that a particular union might have as much right as a particular management to influence the content of a newspaper, it should be remembered that instances, such as have been described in your Lordships' House this afternoon, have been prompted by completely outside interests, political or personal, having no connection
1320
with the Press at all. This, we are all agreed, is wrong.
My noble friend suggests a Royal Commission as the means of clearing this problem up, but I do not go so far as that with him. I feel that all such an inquiry could do would be to establish that newspapers are in a perilous financial situation; that they are very highly over manned; that managements leave a certain amount to be desired; and that unions exercise a certain amount of undue pressure, all of which facts we know already. I think that by far the better solution for these abuses is that they should be brought out into the open so that the influence of public opinion and public disapproval can be brought to hear, and in this particular direction my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has made a very valuable start this afternoon.
7.41 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on at least one of his propositions and I think that every single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken this evening has agreed on this proposition; that is, that I, like them, am opposed to censorship in any form. I do not believe that it should be exercised over the content of advertisements, over comment, or over news. However, I must confess that I am a little puzzled about why the anxiety the noble Lord expressed this evening appeared to be, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, rather selective. I understand entirely the views of those who say that they are against censorship of any form, imposed by anyone. But the noble Lord's position is rather different. By the terms of his Motion he wants not some form of inquiry into the general question of censorship, but only that practised by, to quote the Motion, "people working in the Press".
It is, I should have thought, a rather curious limitation to impose on any inquiry—an inquiry, if I may say so, for which there seems to be a high degree of enthusiasm, although the noble Lord who preceded me did not go so far as to commit himself or his Party to this, because both Aims of Industry and Mr. Briginshaw are calling for an inquiry or Royal Commission or something of that sort, and as the House is aware, the

1321
Prime Minister has indicated in another place that the Government are now considering this proposal very seriously So far as the noble Lord is concerned, the inquiry which he seeks is, apparently, to be asked to investigate the threat of censorship, but only if it can be shown to be directed to people working from within the Press. As I hope to show, the issues he has raised are rather more fundamental than that.
Before I go any further, perhaps I might briefly mention two issues. First, is the current situation in the newspaper industry to which a large number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate have alluded No one in the House can fail to be aware of the serious problem now confronting the industry. The Scottish Daily Express has closed its printing plant in Glasgow and the Evening Citizen has gone out of business altogether. Only London now has two evening newspapers; and many other newspapers in this country are facing significant financial difficulties. One noble Lord referred to the difficulties in New York which followed the industrial disputes in the newspaper industry there, and indeed there were massive closures which threw many people, both journalists and printing workers, out of work. I hope that the example of New York will be considered very carefully by everybody in the newspaper industry in this country. In my view and in that of the Government, the type of situation that now confronts the industry is of such crucial importance that unnecessary industrial disputes should be avoided in the industry. Nothing could more gravely jeopardise the future of several newspapers. It is a time when everyone who cares about the future of the British Press should exercise the maximum degree of restraint.
Secondly, there is an altogether different issue. The noble Lord this afternoon referred to the refusal by some newspapers to publish advertisements from Aims of Industry. I think it is not going too far to say that he implied that this was an act of almost unique wickedness on the part of those newspapers. But I must tell him that this is simply not so. Let me give him two examples. I should like to draw his attention to the Order Paper of another place where in January a number of my
1322
honourable friends tabled the following Motion:
"That this House being mindful that freedom of the Press is freedom for the public to obtain full information on all issues of public concern, deplores the refusal of the Western Mail, the South Wales Echo and the South Wales Argus to publish an official advertisement from the National Union of Mineworkers and calls on the newspaper concerned to exercise greater fairness in their presentation of the miners' case."
What the noble Lord cited today therefore was by no means an isolated example. But there is a further example of what I am saying, and that is the case of the Evening Star in Ipswich which refused to publish an advertisement from a trade union, A.S.T.M.S. In their adjudication the Press Council said that the newspaper appeared to accept a firm booking by giving the union a proof on April 23, 1971, without any suggestion that the advertisement was subsequently going to be refused or rejected for any reason. The function being advertised was to be held on April 29, 1971, and the complainant was relying on publicity, said the Council, in the newspaper of April 28. I must emphasise this particular point to the noble Lord. The Press Council said that a newspaper is entitled to refuse an advertisement. However, on this occasion they said that it was unfair of this particular newspaper to tell the union on the afternoon of April 27, the day before the intended publication, that the advertisement would not be inserted. In the circumstances, the complaint against the Evening Star was upheld. So here are two cases where trade unions were making precisely the same complaint as the noble Lord did this afternoon. If, like A.S.T.M.S., Aims of Industry feel aggrieved and I have no doubt that they feel aggrieved—and feel that they were unjustly treated, they should take their case to the Press Council in precisely the same way as anybody else does.
I now return to the general question of censorship. Anyone, like my noble friend Lord Ardwick—whose experience in the industry is extremely substantial—and me whose experience is of a far briefer duration until I arrived rather suddenly in your Lordships' House—have had in our careers, I am sure, the experience of attempted censorship of newspapers. That is the lot of anybody who works in the industry. Very rarely, however, I must tell the noble Lord and others who have

1323
spoken in this debate, does this come from people in the printing unions—the precise point that was made. So far as my own experience is concerned I have never had personal knowledge of this, though I do not in any way deny that the episodes of which the noble Lord complained, and I entirely agree with him in the complaint he made on this particular point, took place. Sometimes, from time to time, the pressures come—and I have known of it myself—from advertisers. And if a newspaper is in any sort of financial difficulties and there is pressure from an advertiser, and that pressure is supported by the management of the newspaper concerned, frankly it is difficult to resist and sometimes it succeeds. I do not say it happens day after day in national and provincial newspapers, but it is not unknown and is extremely damaging and dangerous to the industry when it occurs.
There are other examples of attempted censorship. My former editor, who was a Member of this House, the late Lord Francis-Williams, tells in his biography of the habit of Sir Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister during the war, of reading all the newspapers before going to bed. It is from personal experience an extremely bad thing to do, particularly if one reads anything disagreeable about oneself just before going to bed. But this was his habit, and sometimes when he did not like what he read he would complain bitterly to his Minister of Information, Brendan Bracken, also later a Member of this House. And when he could not get hold of Lord Bracken he would telephone the Ministry of Information. When he did so, Lord Francis-Williams said, the conversation would invariably be the same: "I understand you are Controller of Censorship, Mr. Williams," Sir Winston would say. When Lord Francis-Williams admitted the charge, Sir Winston would continue, "Then can you explain to me, Mr. Williams, why you are allowing the Daily Mirror"—I regret to inform my noble friend Lord Ardwick that it was normally the Daily Mirror although Lord Francis-Williams adds sometimes it was the Daily Mail or the Daily Herald, of which my noble friend also has some personal experience—"to criticise the Government in unbridled terms tomorrow? Am I to assume", said
1324
Sir Winston, "that you agree with these grave charges?" Lord Francis-Williams said he would explain to the Prime Minister that censorship was confined to facts and had no control over opinion, but this Sir Winston would never believe. "If I told him that under the powers of censorship bestowed by Parliament it was impossible to stop what he wanted to be stopped, he would say, 'Impossible! Impossible! I have no patience with the impossible. You talk like a bureaucrat, Mr. Williams '. Or", said Lord Francis-Williams, "if he was in a sunnier mood he would say, 'Nonsense, Mr. Williams. You are a man of influence. Pray use it!'".
There are, of course, other examples, not all of which took place during the war. One of the more notable (this came out in the debate in another place on the Royal Commission's Report on the Press) was given to a reporter on a Northcliffe newspaper in Newcastle in 1931. The instruction was a very clear one:
"Every line you write must be aimed at strengthening Mr. Ramsay Macdonald's candidature at Seaham and increasing his majority. Nothing which can adversely affect Mr. Macdonald's candidature is to be allowed."
I think it is only fair to say, as a member of the working Press, that I think we have moved some substantial distance since then. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Shinwell himself corrected the matter only four years later.
Sixteen years later the position had not improved a great deal, although, as I say, it has done now. As the House may recall, there was a critical by-election in the Gravesend Division of Kent in November, 1947. The contest took place at the nadir of the then Labour Government's fortunes. It was sharp, and it was bitter. By this time the Royal Commission was sitting, and in its Report it analysed the coverage of the campaign by the Press, in particular the degree of selective censorship that had been experienced on this occasion (and I think the noble Lord would agree by his definition) by people working "within the Press" against their political opponents.
The Royal Commission's conclusions upon the matter may be of some interest to your Lordships. They said:
"(i) With the possible exception of The Times. there could be no doubt in the reader's

1325
mind as to which side different newspapers supported.
"(ii) News and comment were inextricably mixed in the `news' reports and special articles on the campaign.
"(iii) In reporting election meetings it was general for each newspaper to suggest that the speakers belonging to the party which it supported were received either in awed silence or with thunderous cheers, whereas the opposing speakers were constantly heckled and booed.
"(iv) There was little attempt, in the majority of newspapers, to give an adequate presentation of the views of the party to which the particular newspaper was opposed.
"(v) In the Gravesend election"—
and I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will have some personal experience of this particular problem—
"where there was no Liberal candidate, the newspapers on both sides attempted to suggest that the Liberals supported the Party which the newspaper favoured."
It may be that the House may take the unflattering view that the influence of the journalist in the reporting of news or in the writing of editorials is not all that significant, and they may agree with Humbert Wolfe that:
"There's no reason to bribe or twist
The honest British journalist.
But seeing what unhribed he'll do,
There's really no occasion to."
Certainly one has to admit that some of our most powerful newspapers have got things wrong with a degree of regularity which would have driven any politician in a democracy out of office. To take one example, just as the submarine war was getting under way in late 1939 the Daily Express published the following truly remarkable editorial:
"The public should revolt against the food rationing system, that dreadful and terrible iniquity which some of the Ministers want to adopt. There is no necessity for the trouble and expense of rationing merely because there may be a shortage of this or that inessential commodity. It is admitted everywhere now that butter is plentiful, and full supplies are coming in, and the sinking of ships in the North Sea will not interfere with them seriously. The shortage of bacon will only be temporary."
Of course the Daily Express also assured its readers that there would be no war in 1939. It told them later that Mr. Nehru would be quite incapable of running India, and that the Egyptians would not be able to pilot ships through the Suez Canal. On almost every single political issue of the last 40 years, not only has the Daily Express been on the wrong side but every one of its central campaigning
1326
issues has ended in disastrous failure.
It may be said that the Daily Express is in a class by itself; that the influence of the rest of the Press is powerful, and that in a difficult industrial situation such as that experienced recently it is understandable, if regrettable, that people in the industry should take action if they believe that that power is being unfairly or grossly misused. I think that on this matter the trouble is that the nearer people are to newspapers the more they tend to accept newspapers' sometimes inflated view of their own political importance. There is no evidence from either side of the Atlantic that newspapers wield this degree of power. In 1932 the overwhelming majority of the American Press supported Mr. Hoover and opposed Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt won decisively. In 1936, after four years of the New Deal, the American Press were even more bitterly opposed to Mr. Roosevelt. He won by a landslide. In 1948 Mr. Truman had less Press support than any President in living memory. He was written off. Yet he won. And in the recent General Election the Labour Party received less backing from the Press than in any Election since the war. Yet my right honourable friend is now Prime Minister.
But, of course, it is impossible to go to the opposite extreme from this and to argue that newspapers are totally without influence. Over a prolonged period they can certainly influence public attitudes on a wide range of issues, including politics. Yes, restricted though the power of the Press may be, it is clearly right that they should accept the same legal limitations over their conduct as the rest of us during a General Election campaign—and of course they do. Any advertisement aimed at securing the return to Parliament of a particular candidate has to be authorised by that candidate's agent, and only then will the newspaper accept it. And the agent, of course, has to include the cost of that advertisement in his return of Election expenses.
But on the occasion of the recent General Election (and if the noble Lord who introduced this Motion to-day will forgive me for saying so, he tended rather to skate over this particular problem) something of a very different character occurred. One large and powerful organisation, Aims of Industry,

1327
decided to flout the spirit and the intention of the law. They decided to exploit a loophole caused by the Tronoh Mines case of 1952. In that case, as the House may recall, brought by the then Attorney-General, the company was accused of publishing a political advertisement in The Times during the course of the 1951 General Election without the authority of the Conservative agent for the Cities of London and Westminster. The only reason why this constituency was chosen was because The Times was published within it. The court held that because the advertisement could not be said to have been exclusively directed towards securing the return of this particular candidate the charge would have to be dismissed. Since then the law has remained uncertain. The intention has certainly been clear, and both major political Parties have accepted that they must behave strictly within the intention of the law.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I cannot let this go by. I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's verbal pyrotechnics and red herrings that he has dragged so attractively across the trail; no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will deal with them. But when we come to this question of the Representation of the People Act and the Tronoh Mines case (and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening on this without my notes, because I had not realised that this matter would be raised) I had to deal with this to a very large degree during the last General Election. He will remember—and it may be that he has the judgments on this and related cases with him—that the judges tended in these cases to say that Parliament could never possibly have intended the kind of thing that he is saying they did intend. The judgments are very clear on this; the law is not uncertain. The fact that it has suited the Conservative and Labour Parties to say that it is uncertain, and therefore not to allow general advertisements or themselves to produce general advertisements in the papers, is another matter. The law is perfectly certain since the Tronoh Mines case, and the judgments on these matters are extremely clear.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can understand, if I may say so, the sensitivity of the noble Lord, because the Liberal Party, in whose General Election campaign he took a leading part, unlike the Labour and Conservative Parties, continued a political advertising campaign during the General Election. So I am sure he would be particularly eager to have this point explored on a future occasion, as I think it must be. But I repeat that since the war both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party national poster and Press advertising campaigns have ended as promptly as possible after the announcement of a General Election. So far as the Conservative Party are concerned, that is exactly what they did on the last occasion. Therefore when, on February 7, the right honourable gentleman, the now Leader of the Opposition, announced the General Election, the Conservative and the Labour Parties behaved as before. National advertising was stopped and local poster sites became the responsibility of the local agents and had to be charged against Election expenses. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, he referred to the Aims of Industry campaign as having been introduced with an Election in the offing. But if one looks at the trend of their advertising campaign and the sort of advertisements which have been discussed in this debate this afternoon, one sees there was an enormous growth of Aims of Industry advertising as soon as the General Election was announced. Their campaign, far from being cooled off, was intensified: large display advertisements appeared in a number of national newspapers from February 11 to 27. The copy was of course carefully prepared. They did not include the name of any candidate. If one had been included of course he would have been unseated by an Election Petition.
I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made no reference to this aspect of the problem which he identified in his speech this evening. Is there not to be a single word of reproach for the men who decided to behave in this way? I must tell the noble Lord quite bluntly that although the Government are totally opposed—I repeat, totally opposed—to any industrial action directed against the content of newspapers in any

1329
circumstances whatever, it is hardly surprising, in the feverish atmosphere of an Election campaign, that the behaviour of Aims of Industry caused serious trouble in some newspaper offices. It was not just one small and unimportant campaign. On their national campaign alone, I understand that Aims of Industry spent, after the announcement that there would be an Election on February 28, a sum of money equivalent to the maximum expenses allowed to no less than 40 Conservative candidates in the last General Election, and their total resources, as my noble friend said, were far greater than that. Everyone involved in British politics, including, if I may say so, the Liberal Party which on this occasion also engaged in a national advertising campaign, has a clear interest in maintaining the tightest control over expenditure in our campaigns. We have only to look at the recent history of the United States to see what happens when there is inadequate control over political campaign expenses. Having myself spent six months in the United States in 1972 studying their system of Presidential Primaries, I know how much the overwhelming majority of members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives respect our system of tight legal controls over the expenses of candidates. In the recent General Election in Britain, for the first time in our modern political history a deliberate attempt was made to run a large political campaign outside the strict controls imposed by the Representation of the People Act. It failed in its objective.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Not outside the controls; inside the controls as established in the courts and the law of this land.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can understand why the noble Lord takes a keen interest in this matter. I do not in any way use the point over-greatly against him. He had a leading part presumably, in the decision of the Liberal Party to behave as it did, and I am saying that that behaviour, and also the behaviour of the Aims of Industry, in my view makes it necessary to review matters very carefully in the future. That is what the Government propose to do. I think it is highly desirable that in these circumstances the Government and all political Parties should review the matter. The present state of the law
1330
and its imprecise character, if the noble Lord will forgive me, in my view requires review.
8.5 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who stayed back from their Easter Recess to take part in this debate and make it a very useful one. Good views have been expressed from all parts of the House. We all very much enjoyed the Minister's wind-up speech, particularly the early part. I enjoyed the reminiscences of the wartime very much, but I think we all recognise that many freedoms do have to be given up to win a war. I do not think that those freedoms we gave up were in any way wasted, and we tried—in fact I think we succeeded—in the ten years that followed to restore all those freedoms which we jeopardised in order to win the war.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to what he believes is a need for some reform in the electoral laws. If this is so, his Party, his Government, were in power from 1964 to 1970—in fact they could have gone on until 1971 if they had wanted to. They had seven years to put this right if they believed there was an injustice. Still a belated conversion is better than no conversion at all. I was very glad to learn, before the noble Lord sat down, that they are now going to examine this matter among other matters. I particularly drew attention to the fact that over the last four years there has been an increasing number of examples, which I quoted, where I thought there had been some form of censorship by those working in the newspaper industry. If there has been a similar number of examples on the trade union side then I welcome this inquiry. I am not seeking to make it one-sided at all.
I just feel that it is not right that there should be a form of censorship which is not outwardly known in our democracy. If there is any form of banning then perhaps the inquiry will look into this and evolve some solution to the problem. I would point out that two wrongs do not make a right. The noble Lord quoted trade unions; I quoted other organisations with another viewpoint. I am delighted to learn that the Government are going to examine this and I

1331
hope that they will take into account all the matters which have been raised in this debate. It is no good curing this small anxiety, and I think an emerging anxiety, if the economic conditions and the conditions under which people work in our Press drive them all into bankruptcy. We shall be wasting our time. I am glad that the inquiry will be more widely based as a result of our deliberations. I am delighted he has accepted the idea which will include this particular aspect of the problem. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
RENFREW COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (CON- TROL OF PARKING, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (MIS- CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Janner.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to use this opportunity to correct a slight mistake that I made during the Second Reading debate on this Bill in the last Parliament, and I apologise to the noble Lord for rising at this time. As a Fellow of the Zoological Society, the Secretary asked me whether I would take this opportunity to put the matter right, and this is what I hope to do now. During the debate on Second Reading, I stated that the London Zoo had received a subsidy of £2 million in the course of the last two or three years. I was incorrect in giving that figure. The London Zoo has received a grant of £650,000. They also had a loan of £250,000, repayment of which has been waived, and they have also been promised £700,000. I only hope that that promise will be carried out.
That is all I have to say, except to express the hope, now that this Bill is leaving your Lordships' House and going to another place, that the sponsors will try to consult the owners of zoological gardens as to the Bill's contents and its progress, because in the past I feel there has been too little consultation of this kind.
May I also say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said during the Committee stage: that zoology is the science of life. I am rather disappointed in this Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, its object, first and foremost, is the promotion of the wellbeing of the animals in captivity—but the only animals protected by this Bill are those in zoological gardens open to the public—and of course there are many other private zoological gardens which are not open to the public. Many private individuals have exotic animals in captivity, and therefore I would hope that the law might ultimately embrace all those animals. If that does not happen this Bill, certainly as regards animals, is illogical.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may, I should like very briefly to say something that I had intended to say at Committee stage regarding an Amendment which we had expected to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene

1333
and Ferrard. However, the Committee stage ended rather quickly, and I should like now to take this opportunity of making the point which I had originally intended to make earlier.
During the Second Reading debate, I said that the attitude of the Government to the principle of the Bill was one of neutrality but that we were content to leave it to your Lordships' House to decide whether it should proceed. That remains the position to-day. If, as seems to be the case, it is your Lordships' wish that the Bill should pass, the Government are content that this should be so. However, perhaps I may be allowed to mention one or two points to which I drew attention on Second Reading. I tried then to illustrate the fact that the Bill imposes a very tight timetable for doing all the things that need to be done between the Bill's enactment and the appointed day, 12 months later, when the provisions will become fully operative.
My noble friend Lord Janner, in replying to the Second Reading debate, told us that he was confident that if the Bill became law zoos would be content to pay the fees required of them. This, however, was not quite the point that was troubling me then and it is for that reason I have intervened this evening. My concern is not so much that zoos will be unwilling to pay the fees, but as to whether, within the time limit imposed by the Bill, it will have been possible for the Council to have been appointed, to recruit its staff and to set up the necessary registers and administrative structure so that it is ready to receive the fees and to make the necessary registrations before the appointed day. If, through any unforeseen circumstances and no fault of its own it has failed to do so, the inevitable effect of Clause 3(1) of the Bill, as I understand it, will be that after the appointed day no zoo would be able to charge an entrance fee.
It is that matter with which the Government are mainly concerned. Perhaps the sponsors may wish to reflect on this and consider whether it would be appropriate, if the Bill makes progress in another place, to explore the possibility of including some provision which would allow greater flexibility in determining the appointed day, rather than to leave it as now specified in Clause 13, as being 12
1334
months after the Bill has passed. I hope that suggestion will prove helpful.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I say at once that we were very anxious all the way through to see that those who were connected with Government offices should have every opportunity of going very carefully into the proposals made. While I appreciate the point raised by my noble friend, which will certainly be given consideration, the important thing is that time has been going on. For years we have been prevented from bringing this Bill to fruition, and really it is a little too much to ask of the sponsors that they should continue to allow very much further time for the Bill to become an Act. Ample opportunity has been given throughout, and Members of both Houses know exactly what is in the Bill. These matters have been before this House three times; and they were brought before the other House on one occasion. Therefore, I hope that we shall have every assistance in getting the Bill through as speedily at possible. I shall certainly give consideration to the point made by my noble friend and I hope we shall be assisted to get the Bill through speedily so that the animals may be protected. I am sure that would be the wish of anyone who is honestly concerned about the matter.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE CONCORDE PROJECT
8.18 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON LORD KINGS NORTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that a number of relevant considerations do not yet appear to have been adequately presented to the public, they will undertake not to make a decision on Concorde before Parliament has had a sufficient opportunity to debate the matter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe we are all waiting, some of us with some anxiety, to hear from the Government what their policy on Concorde is to be. But while we have this anxiety to hear from the Government something definitive on this vital matter, I think we do not want them to form their conclusions until after

1335
the most careful and deliberate consideration. My chief object in asking this Unstarred Question, is to urge the Government to treat the matter urgently, but still to take every relevant factor into account. The matter is complex; the Government have not been long in Office, and they must take the time necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the necessary detail and to balance all the factors.
My Lords, Concorde has been part of our lives in this country and in France for a long time. Basic research began as long ago as 1956: feasibility and design studies started in 1959. Discussions between the British Air Corporation and Sud Aviation started in 1961 and the British and French Governments signed a collaboration agreement in November, 1962. Perhaps this is the date which we should take as the real starting point. If we do, then we have been on the job together for eleven years. Some 21,000 people are at work in this country on the Concorde programme, many parts for the 16 aircraft already authorised exist, and material has been ordered for six more. Six aircraft have flown. The project is the most imaginative and important to develop in European technology since the jet engine, and despite what has been said about the cost of the programme, I am convinced that Concorde can prove to be a major national asset to Britain and to France.
In view of all this, I cannot believe that cancellation of the project is in the mind of either Government, and I only mention cancellation because it was one of the five options presented by Mr. Wedgwood Benn in his Statement in another place on March 18. These options were presented solely in terms of cost, and perhaps the last four can legitimately be considered on this basis. Cancellation however is an option of an altogether different kind and quite apart from the national issue of abdicating from a leading position in technology, of casting away a national asset, to accept it is to accept a redeployment problem of a most serious kind. Although he was not writing about Concorde, the appalling difficulty of redeployment and the effect it would have on morale are clear from a perceptive article which the noble
1336
Lord, Lord Beswick, publicshed in Flight International in January, 1972.
I feel therefore that this option must have been included by Mr. Benn just for completeness: had it not been included, someone would have asked for it: but it is not really possible, and if it were attempted the social damage would far outweigh the monetary savings. But when we look at the other options solely in terms of cost, I feel we are on a more practical and sensible and more readily calculable basis. But—and here I make a most serious plea—I believe that the way all these Concorde figures are presented is utterly misleading. Always we are given the cumulative figures, and never the annual costs.
I know that Mr. Benn's figures have been criticised. I have no special knowledge which leads me to question them and until appraisal of them produces new ones, I accept them. But consider the development cost, put at £535 million at January, 1974, prices, of which so far £405 million has been spent. Taking the 1962 starting date this is an average of about £35 million per annum. Surely, for the most important advance in civil aviation since the jet engine revolution, this is not an unacceptable figure. All the other figures in Mr. Wedgwood Benn's table in Hansard for March 18 should be translated in a similar way to give annual expenditure, actual and projected.
While on this subject of cost there is the matter of running costs. It is reported that British Airways have said that operating Concorde could significantly worsen their financial results by some millions of pounds a year. Even £26 million has been mentioned. These are presumably estimates in which the price of kerosene figures largely. But at a time when alternative fuels in other fields than aviation are being sought, and when we shall shortly be able to influence oil prices with our own oil supplies, it is surely premature to be pessimistic about future prices. My personal belief is that in a few years the situation of hydrocarbon fuels will be vastly different.
Moreover, I understand that these figures refer to the whole overseas fleet, including the Concordes. But surely the important figures are those relating to running a "Concorde only" fleet. This is what must be of interest to prospective customers. My understanding of the

1337
manufacturers' calculations is that even with kerosene at 60 cents per U.S. gallon (it was 13 cents last year) Concorde breaks even with a load factor less than 50 per cent. But I think we must be very careful in considering the running cost figures available to us. I believe that, in an effort to be realistic we can be too pessimistic. I can never forget that B.O.A.C. estimated that the VC 10 would not pay. But they could not foresee its immense appeal to the travelling public, and it proved to be one of their great economic successes. It would be a bold prophet who assessed the appeal of Concorde at less than that of the VC 10.
I am prepared to believe, my Lords, that cool appraisal, in the light of prevailing circumstances in Britain and in France, could reasonably lead to some adjustment of the pace at which the programme proceeds, and I would not be too worried which of the options B C D and E was chosen at this stage. But while in the short term it is not unreasonable to decide on the basis of estimated annual expenditure, in the long term, much broader considerations must surely apply. By this I mean that in an age when economic prosperity depends utterly on technological advance, an age when the economic race is to the technologically strong, Concorde can make a major contribution to the prosperity of both nations. The United States has tremendous benefit from its Apollo programme. The Russians, too, have great prestige from their space programme and, let it be admitted straight away, despite the Paris Air Show disaster, from their TU 144. France and Britain, in this heavyweight championship, have the Concorde, and to falter in its development and production would sadly damage our technological status and our economy.
I feel that many people do not understand the ancillary advantages of a programme of this kind. We all understand the direct advantage—travel at unprecedented speed to the far corners of the earth. But the impact of the achievement of this aeronautical objective on other technologies—on electronics, on structural engineering, on metallurgical development, on communications techniques, on more mundane areas of technology—is enormous. Those who have studied how aeronautical progress has impinged on
1338
engineering industries outside aerospace will understand this. Concorde is the spearhead of a great technological forward thrust, a forward thrust which surely must be sustained, a forward thrust which must inevitably redound to the great benefit of the United Kingdom and France.
If indeed money supply is the major difficulty, even on the basis of the modest figures that derive from an annual cost presentation, then we must keep the project moving forward on a more parsimonious basis until better times permit a more vigorous policy. And if we are to believe—and I do believe—that in only a very few years we shall be in a much more prosperous phase, because of our indigenous oil and gas supplies, then if we must go slower for a while, it need not be for long. And we can do some very valuable work in the next two years. If noble Lords will hear with me for two minutes, I will be specific.
It is likely that a Special Category certificate of airworthiness will be granted to Concordes 3 and 4 in February, 1975. This will permit these aircraft to do the manufacturer's endurance flying trials, and, when these have been completed by the middle of 1975, will permit the granting of a full certificate of airworthiness to the operational type. The operator's route flying will then be done, and it should be possible, from the technical point of view, to bring the aircraft into service late in 1975.
According to present plans, British Airways and Air France will each have three aircraft, the minimum number required to mount a scheduled operation satisfactorily, by April, 1976. But I understand that a total of four production aircraft could be available considerably earlier, so that British Airways and Air France could mount a combined scheduled operation towards the end of 1975. According to Mr. Donne, of the Financial Times, this has already been canvassed, and I strongly urge that it should be reconsidered. We should then have the earliest possible demonstration of the appeal or otherwise which a transatlantic supersonic scheduled service would have, and our subsequent programme could be tailored accordingly.
My Lords, there are many people in the United States and the Soviet Union who

1339
hope that our Concorde programme will fizzle out. All those behind the United States' supersonic project, cancelled at enormous expense you will recall would like to have another go, which is only likely if Concorde falters. The Russians would love to have the chance of establishing a transatlantic service. If they did, my Lords, and Concorde was not there already, what would happen? America would revive its supersonic project and a few years later, British Airways and Air France would be buying, at enormous expense, and with shocking effects on our balance of payments, American or Russian aircraft, no doubt respectively justifying the expenditure, as we justified the expenditure on the Boeing 707 after the cancellation of the V.1000, on the grounds that no suitable British or French aircraft was available. It is an unpleasant picture, my Lords. So I submit that to falter now would be a madness, and that we should go forward at the briskest pace consistent with our present means, firm in the faith, my Lords, that Concorde is the vehicle which the world of the eighties will inevitably demand.
8.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, although our numbers have somewhat dwindled in the House, it gives me very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and to congratulate him and to support him on the important issue he raised tonight on Concorde. My Lords, there have been many occasions in the past, and I hope there will be many occasions in the future, when the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has addressed the House on aviation matters. On all occasions his wide experience, drawn from his distinguished career, offers the House, if I may say so, a quality of thought and wisdom which enriches our debates. My Lords, all those who care about British aviation, both in and outside the House, I am sure will be very grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has expressed with great clarity the value of Concorde both to the British industry and to the country.
My Lords, I put down my name tonight in support of the noble Lord for one simple reason. I believe in Concorde and I believe in its long-term future. I believe there are very good grounds for supporting it. It was interesting for
1340
me to read from a recent opinion poll that a great majority of people in the country supported Concorde, although you would think from many occasions from the vocal minority and some of the recent Press reports, that the opposite was the case. My Lords, many, I believe, support Concorde because it has become a tangible part of the British flag despite development cost problems. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, described, a great national asset; it stands as a shining proof of our advance technological capabilities. It is poised on the threshold of a vast and exciting new chapter of civil air transport; namely, supersonic flights.
My Lords, with all of these encouraging thoughts, it is perhaps tragic that at this very moment, when it is about to leave the nest, Concorde is surrounded by a massive choking cloud of uncertainty, an uncertainty based on criticisms most of which can never be proved or disproved until it goes into service; an uncertainty which, while it exists, can only damage and sap the morale and impetus of all those involved in this great project; an uncertainty which needs to be lifted as quickly as possible. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would agree with that since I believe he wrote that in his very perceptive article in Flight last January.
My Lords, in saying this I do not blame the Government wishing to review the whole of the Concorde programme on taking office. The development has reached a very vital stage and it has many problems to be faced, not least the production line and the acceptance at international airports. But my Lords, I question the Government's handling of their review, in particular the value of publishing an official D.T.I. Statement, a Statement hardly helpful to negotiations with any would-be purchasers, and a Statement which was promptly challenged on fact and queried on interpretation by the British manufacturers, B.A.C. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could tell us later whether the Minister consulted our French partners before publishing the Statement; and why, in view of the importance of that Statement, no prior consultation took place, apparently, with B.A.C.?
My Lords, that Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, sets

1341
out five options which the Government felt that they were faced with. One of these, of course, was cancellation. In view of the seriousness of this course of action, as the noble Lord has already said, would the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, consider—if clearly this option is not to be proceeded with, but other options need to be examined in depth and time with our French partners—an early announcement which could help to remove the speculation of cancellation? My Lords, while we are on the question of cancellation, and in view of the very wide gulf between the D.T.I. Statement and the B.A.C. subsequent statement, can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also undertake to publish at an early date an agreed statement covering all the factors of cancellation including the likely unemployment in Bristol?
My Lords, when one challenges critics of Concorde as to why they think the costs of Concorde have escalated over the last twelve years, almost always one finds that the blame goes entirely on irresponsible estimating of the manufacturers. The facts, of course, do not bear this out at all. The facts as I am informed, are that over the past 12 years 37 per cent. of the increase has lain at the door of inflation; 31 per cent. has been due to the change in specifications; and only some 20 per cent. on new technology. I think that that is a very remarkable figure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could confirm those figures.
The second point that critics of Concorde often argue is that no airline wants Concorde. This again I believe to be far from the truth, and in the case of British Airways I am of the view, although I am not of course quoting anyone, that every single member of the board of British Airways is pro-Concorde. But at this moment British Airways is faced with a dichotomy of interests. It has a clear financial duty laid down by Parliament to look after the commercial interests. So of course have many of the other—in fact, all the other—independent airlines, Concorde must therefore be available on the right terms, particularly when airlines are faced with the staggering recent increases in fuel.
My Lords, what are the right terms? I believe the terms are very clear. They are not the present terms being offered,
1342
particularly when one sees as a background the present short-term financial problems facing the whole of the airlines, and also when one recognises that Concorde is essentially a long-term investment. The right terms, I submit to the House, are to lease Concorde to the airlines. This would give a most valuable flexibility on funding and a much needed injection of confidence to the airlines. Leasing would I believe ensure a reasonable number of Concordes going into service, which is the only way in which many of the present imponderables vexing those involved with the present Government review can be settled. Leasing would also show the world that the British and French Governments regard Concorde as a long-term investment—an investment which, given time, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, will surely encourage America and other countries to become partners. My Lords, I believe that the fate of Concorde rests now in the Government's having the will to see it through. To its critics we know it resembles a white elephant. To its supporters it represents the obvious future of civil air transport. I hope that the supporters win, for cancellation at this stage could bring, I believe, irreparable harm both to the short-term and long-term interests of our aviation industry.
8.42 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I welcome very much the opportunity created by my noble friend Lord Kings Norton for an examination of the current pros and cons of Concorde, but I beg to question whether this is not the wrong time altogether to attempt to take anything but a holding opinion on this great project. In my view, it would be totally wrong to cancel the project at this stage and to end up with nothing at all to show for the multi-million pounds that, in good faith, we have spent on this unique development. I submit that we have suffered too much in the past by dropping aircraft projects before they have been really disproved or proved. Take for example the Princess flying boats, the burly Brabazon, the Vickers 1000, particularly the TSR2, and especially half the programme for the now well proven and highly successful VC10.
I submit that if we run out of courage on Concorde to-day we invite being looked upon as global commercial

1343
cowards—a reputation that ill becomes those who were once the leading merchant adventurers of the world. I sometimes wonder, as an engineer and an airline operator, whether we have in our civil servants and our Treasury officials and the like, a proponderance of brilliant academic ability but perhaps a lack of technical and mechanical sympathy and enthusiasm. Let us review what in fact we have in Concorde to-day. We have the design and prototype-making of a very, very fast aeroplane that handles well, does the speed for which it was designed, has shown in considerably long tests no obvious fundamental structural or aerodynamic faults. True, it has cost a lot of money and is going to cost more. But it is not the cost of the Concorde that has escalated; it is the value of money that has gone down.
Our partners in France are going ahead. Russia seems undaunted by the tragic crash at the Paris Air Show when super-abundance of enthusiasm in the cockpit exceeded the caution needed at the controls of such a sensitive flying machine. In contrast, our Concorde, the Anglo-French version, embodies a control system that sternly and automatically prevents any overloading of stresses on the structure in a manoeuvre, no matter how exuberant the pilot may be. That is a fundamental difference. And so commercially I contend that to-day we simply do not know what are the true costs versus the ultimate earning ability of the Concorde project as a whole. True, the recent rise in fuel prices is a sombre problem, but so it is to all forms of turbine transport. No one knows yet, until all the tests are finished, what the true cost per seat mile or per tonne kilometre for cargo makeweight will be on the Concorde. No one really knows how much more money will be required to get the engines acceptable to airport and environmental authorities as regards pollution by noise and particle emission. But, as in other areas of development, the major moneys on solving these problems have already been spent. To carry on with the development is not throwing good money after bad; it is using more money to make good money even better.
We all know that there has not been immediate response from the airline markets of the world to Concorde in its
1344
present form. But let us not forget that a modest nine have in fact been ordered, which means that when six of them, as my noble friend Lord Kings Norton has said, are operational, British and French national airlines can begin scheduled services. Only then shall we know the real cost benefits of the job, and in the interim period between now and then we clearly, to my mind, must go on building slowly the rest of the 16 aircraft for which parts and components have already been made and in effect paid for. True again, we should during that interim period clear our minds of any highfalutin' ideas that very high employment and mass or continuous line production can be justified at this point of time. We have to be satisfied now with batch production, which may be not the most economical method in the long flight, but we must trim the wings of Concorde to the prevailing economic air; and above all, my Lords, not let it stall and fall.
8.48 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it was, I suppose, about 34 years ago that I went to work at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and at that time at the Ministry of Aircraft Production there was a director called Roxbee Cox. We learnt at the Royal Aircraft Establishment that Roxbee Cox was a very shrewd man. I am glad to see that he is here in another form this evening with us—and he remains as shrewd as he was then. My Lords, this problem of aircraft is an extremely difficult and complicated one. It is very easy to make a ship exactly like the previous ship—occasionally it has to be towed to Bermuda. One finds that it is not difficult to make a locomotive which is not very different from the previous locomotive. But when you move to making aircraft, and make something which is quite different from what has been done before, you are faced with an entirely different problem.
I have been appalled over the last few years to read the illiterate nonsense which has appeared in the Observer, in particular. It is so stupid, so ill-informed that it is incredible, telling us that the Concorde is no good. They told us first that it would not fly. When it flew, then they had to switch round and find some other excuse. They then found that an American with the best motives

1345
in the world—it is true that the Americans had recently cancelled their supersonic programme, but that does not matter—found that there were extreme dangers in supersonic flight. He happened to be a physical chemist, as I am. I am no engineer. My only connection with this problem of aircraft is that I spent three years of the war at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. This physical chemist did some very careful calculations and found that at a height, 10,000 feet higher than Concorde would fly, there would be an effect upon the ozone concentration. Of course the Observer immediately said, "Ah, well, of course this means that the ozone concentration will be affected and consequently the amount of photo-chemical radiation which comes through to ground level will be vastly increased by Concorde." Abolutcly untrue; absolutely and totally untrue because the calculations had been done for 10,000 feet higher. The man who did the calculations never claimed that those calculations were other than preliminary ones, but even accepting them the whole of that environmental argument was irrelevant to Concorde. But the Observer blew this up as a matter of major importance. The Observer, which from the time of Garvin has been wrong on almost every subject under the sun, today wants to be wrong also on every subject concerned with aircraft.
When we look at this matter we have to ask ourselves: what is this cost of Concorde? The Observer talks about a thousand million pounds and then splits it between France and this country. But this money has never been spent on building aircraft; it has been spent on investigating supersonic flight, which is quite a different matter. It is an important matter; it is a highly important matter. This money has been spent and we have learnt what are the problems of supersonic flight. Some of your Lordships may have been to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and seen what they have done. What have they done? They have had a whole team at work for years studying the effects of radiation upon aircraft at high altitudes.
To call this the cost of building Concorde is absurd. It is important that these effects should be found out, and it is essential that we should do it if we are ever going to fly at high altitudes.
1346
I do not know whether we are, but if we are we must surely know in advance what are the risks involved.
If Concorde is flown commercially, it will be the best tested aircraft ever flown in human experience. This is what I find so extraordinary: on the one hand people say, "Look at the appalling environmental risks you take"; but on the other hand if you set about trying to investigate these environmental risks they say, "But you are being grossly extravagant". They cannot have it both ways. You are either going to say that you ignore the environment or you study the environment. The study of the environment for Concorde has been the most careful and thorough ever done in human experience, and when one talks about a thousand million pounds, the Observer and all their satellites are talking absolute bunk when they say that this money has been wasted. It has not been wasted. Every bit of this money has gone towards producing something of importance and significance in human knowledge.
I am one of these ridiculous people called pure scientists. I am not an engineer; I know nothing about the construction of these things. What I do know is this: knowledge is extremely important and significant for the future of mankind, and unless we have knowledge we grope in the dark, and what has been spent so far on Concorde has been of immense value and significance to the future of mankind. So that even if we had never built a single aeroplane that flew supersonically I would regard what has been spent so far as money well spent.
The question then arises as to what do we do in the future. That is a different matter. I do not know; I am unable to say. I am neither an economist (thank God!) nor am I a technologist. I do not know the answer to these questions. But what I would say is this. Surely from this point on, having reached this stage, we now go ahead on straight matters of assessment of the economic advantage, neglecting entirely what has been done in the past, because that has been a contribution to our basic understanding. It has not built a single Concorde that will fly in service.
What do we do next? We are now faced with a totally different problem.

1347
If we decide that we do not go on with the development of Concorde then we have to recognise that—what is it?22,000 people will be thrown out of work. All right, this may be a thing that we can do. We should be a little careful (should we not?) if we threw the same percentage of miners out of work from the mining industry? I merely illustrate that we are dealing with an industry.
If we scrap Concorde, do not imagine that these 22,000 people can be switched to building houses. This is the great fallacy of the present time. People imagine that if you are spending £10 million or £100 million on building aircraft, you can magically switch that over to finding the same amount of money for doctors. But you know, my Lords, they are not the same people. The people who have been trained as aerodynamicists or as builders of aircraft are not also people who can be technicians in hospitals or who can be doctors. Nor can they build houses—well, perhaps they can build houses but they would be damned inefficient at it and it would be a highly extravagant way of using skilled manpower to turn them over to doing something else.
I am not saying that necessarily we should go ahead with this, but I say that the Government must pay very careful attention to how the people who have been trained to build aircraft are going to be used. If they say that we should stop Concorde, then everyone in the Bristol area has the right to say: "What is happening to my job? Where am I going to go?" I know that this argument can be carried too far, and that it would mean that one never closed down a dying industry. But do we regard the aircraft industry as a dying industry? If not, then it seems to me we have to pay a great deal of attention to the argument that we must continue building advanced aircraft. I do not know the answer, but I am sure that the Government (who I know are a very wise Government; the wisest we have ever had) will pay every attention to this.
9.1 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such a fascinating, and I can only say scintillating, speech such as the one we have been privileged to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. I felt rather sorry for the noble
1348
Lord, Lord Kings Norton, because he has introduced a debate on a very important subject with a remarkably thin House. But one of the quirks of your Lordships' House is that the importance of the subject is not necessarily reflected in the attendance within the Chamber.
My Lords, I have indeed much sympathy with the Government over this problem, as I did with the last, because we are dealing with a huge gamble. The stakes are high, the prizes are high; or they may be low—they may even be a minus quantity. But the fact is that the stakes are high. The difficulty, of course, is that not all the prizes can be measured in financial terms. My noble friend Lord Thomas was right when he said that it was impossible to know the cost. How does one quantify in money terms the value of spin-off, or the value to this entity or another of research, or the breaking up of design teams, or the effect. whether physical or emotional, of unemployment, or the dropping (if drop we do) of one sphere in which we are overall leaders in the world? These facts cannot be measured in money terms, yet they have a direct bearing on any decision which is taken.
There are many who say that Concorde should be allowed to progress only if it can be shown to pay its way, and that a strict balance sheet should be drawn up to see whether Concorde is viable. Of course it is entirely right to draw up a balance sheet, but with the best will in the world such a balance sheet cannot be accurate. If anyone had known when the project was first mooted that the most accurate figures which could then be produced of the actual cost would be as we know them to-day, I do not suppose the concept would ever have got off the ground. But, equally, when to-day people try to evaluate whether Concorde will be financially viable when put into service, there are so many imponderables that it is impossible to calculate with even a modicum of a degree of accuracy what the result will be. Even the original estimate of British Airways varied between a plus of £6 million and a minus of £26 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, was entirely right when he said that this is not the value of Concorde, but an estimate of the likely effect of Concorde's operations on the airlines' total financial

1349
result. That is a very different thing. But how can any figure be more accurate when there is not, even now, one route yet agreed in the whole world, when one does not know whether one can fly to Tokyo via Russia, or whether the Americans will allow Concorde even to land at Kennedy Airport?—or if they do what fare structure they will be prepared to agree for a transatlantic flight. Nor can it be accurately forecast what would be the effect on the passenger complement of the aircraft if all the first-class passengers were siphoned off from a subsonic aircraft and put into Concorde. That would be fine for Concorde, but damaging for other aircraft which might well be flown by the same airline. Again, over what period of years should an aircraft be depreciated? The normal is to depreciate aircraft over 14 years, but when they are operating, as Concorde does, with a skin temperature of 120 degrees Centigrade I find this quite frightening. As someone said the other day, rather succinctly, "Fried chicken"! But when you are operating with figures of this kind, figures which are totally unknown, how can one get any reasonable degree of accuracy from a depreciation figure? We are therefore operating a very big gamble.
My Lords, the prospect of Concorde is an exciting challenge. I think that everyone who has spoken this evening has indicated that this is an exciting challenge, one in which at the moment we are leaders of the world. One thing that is satisfying to know is that it is an issue which rises above Party politics, because people in all Parties are in favour or against Concorde. But the important thing is that the decision, when taken, should be as near the right decision as we can hope to get it. I think the Government were entirely right to review the whole project of Concorde. I would only recall (and I do this in no sense of criticism but in a sense of historical fact) that one of my noble friends behind me referred to the TSR 2 which was cancelled some years ago because of its tremendous cost. I know that many people went through a lot of heart-searching over this decision. In fact the TSR 2 was cancelled because the F111 was cheaper. But, in the event, the F111 proved an unserviceable aircraft, and we had to pay out £48 million in compensation in order not to have the F111.
1350
Yet we did not have the TSR 2 either, and the design teams were broken up. It is easy to cancel a thing at a stroke, my Lords, but he who does so bears a heavy responsibility for the summary execution of the years of research that have gone before.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I sympathise with him and with his Government in the decision they have to make. I hope that he will permit me to make a criticism over the way in which this matter has been handled. I do not make any criticism of the fact that the Secretary of State considered it right to go into all the facts and the figures and to try to come to a decision. But I do criticise his presentation of the case. I am bound to say that I doubted the wisdom of giving all the details and the figures for public scrutiny. Certainly it is right that the taxpayer should know how much money is involved in this, and what his stake is. But there comes a point where commercial considerations have to be taken into account; and in any business where there is risk the total divulgence of the nature of the risk merely vastly increases the risk and makes the chance of the bird's coming home to roost even more slender. I think the figures which the noble Lord's right honourable friend gave were the figures of the Department of Trade and Industry, and, as I understand it, there was no consultation between the Department and the British Aircraft Corporation, who are in large part the manufacturers of this aircraft. That seems to me extraordinary, because when one is trying to get at precise figures one would have thought one would have consultation with the manufacturers in advance of publishing those figures.
Then the presentation of those figures was such as forced British Airways to issue its statement in regard to what it considered the operating costs of Concorde. Your Lordships will remember that it was said that it was likely to be at the lower end of the scale of plus £6 million to minus £26 million. Of course, that is very damaging to Concorde. That would have been fine and justifiable if the decision had been taken to cancel, but if that comes out in advance of a decision, and if the decision is not to cancel, then you are presented with the task of having to try to sell an aircraft of which all the

1351
bad points have been elicited in public in advance. I should have thought that was unfortunate. Of course, in this respect British Airways are not renowned for their generosity of anticipation of results. As the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton said, when the VC10 was being considered they said, "This is going to be a terribly expensive aircraft to run; it will not be commercially viable." Yet in fact when the aircraft came into operation it was commercially viable and proved a financial success. The trouble then was that we could not sell any VC10s abroad.
After all, my Lords, the Concorde is in essence a partnership; and one must share with one's partner the successes, the failures, the problems and the difficulties. I was surprised that the noble Lord's right honourable friend did not see his French counterpart before announcing these figures. In fact, he announced the figures, and then went down and saw the people at Bristol; and it was only after that that he went and saw his French counterpart. I do not say this in an offensive way, and I hope the noble Lord will not take it as being in an offensive way. But I thought, if I may say so, that this was a method of presentation which could have been improved upon.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may intervene on that point, in fact the French were told before the publication of the figures.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am glad to have that information, which I did not know, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving it to me.
My Lords, the Government have a great responsibility over Concorde. If it is cancelled we drop our lead in one sphere of the world's activities in which we are years ahead of other countries. I have never been one for approving huge prestige projects just because they are prestige projects. One hopes that a prestige project will have something other than prestige and will be a useful and viable entity as well.
I hope that the noble Lord's Government, when they come to make their decision, will take very carefully indeed into account one other factor, and that is the possible cost of damages in compensation. The other day, in a supplementary question, I asked the noble Lord,
1352
Lord Beswick, what in fact was the assessment of damages to the French Government, and he said that was a hypothetical question. I do not think it is a hypothetical question. I accept that the answer may not be known and it may not be possible to know it, because if you cancel you either have discussions with the Government or you are taken to court; you do not know the results. But an assessment must surely be made, because upon the level of compensation which may have to be paid could well depend whether the act of cancellation would become more expensive than the act of continuing with the Concorde. Even the British Aircraft Corporation have said that in their view the difference between cancellation and continuation is only a matter of £35 million, without taking into account any damages which might have to be paid to the French Government.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, one final question. He knows more about this plane, I suppose, than almost anyone else in this House, and I have frequently seen him wearing the Concorde tie. Whatever the financial arguments may be, I have a sneaking feeling that he himself would be sorry to see this aircraft cancelled. One accepts that when one is in Government one is obliged to accept decisions which are unpalatable, but I hope that he will be able to give the House the assurance that on Concorde the Government will not take a decision with the French Government until after the new French Government comes into power following the new Presidential Election. Clearly any decision of such a nature as this should be taken with the wholehearted consent of a Government. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me the assurance for which I ask. It seems such an elementary and na¿ve question to ask that I hardly dare ask it, but in some odd way I thought it might be desirable to ask it, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me an affirmative reply.
9.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to all the opinions expressed. I, with others, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for giving your Lordships the opportunity of expressing your views. I

1353
am particularly grateful to him for saying that he does not expect me, on this occasion, to give definitive answers to all the questions that have been raised. My approach to this issue, as is that of my right honourable friend and indeed the whole Government, is that we want to get at the truth. That is the reason why those figures were published. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have suggested that the manner of publication was mistaken, and I appreciate why they make that charge. But I would say that before we took office such was the weight of pressure built up for cancellation that the publication of these figures has given us a valuable opportunity to review the situation properly. In my judgment publication has been justified.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? Would he agree that while it is obviously vital to publish figures, one should get them right? The charge that we are making is that they were not right.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the figures which were published were figures which had been prepared before we took office. It would have been wrong if we had tampered with them in any way. We thought that it was right to say, "These are the figures. Now let us look at what has been said," and that is what we are doing. We now want to get at the truth; but the truth in this matter, as in quite a number of other human affairs, is many sided. Nothing could be more complex than the economics of Concorde, and nothing could be more mistaken than to consider them only in the short term. My duty, I conceive, tonight is to put some aspects which ought, in my view, as a member of the Government with some responsibility for looking at these matters, to be considered as well as those bare figures put forward in the Statement by my right honourable friend.
First, about the aircraft itself, as others have said, we are not here talking of some airy-fairy project which might or might not do what is claimed for it. We are talking of an aeroplane which is actually flying and which, on the basis of flight measurements and assessments made to date, shows every prospect of meeting the contractual guarantees to British Airways.
1354
As to costs, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, put them, I thought, in the proper perspective when he said £35 million a year so far. There are some people who talk of expensive white elephants. No doubt, if one looks at these things from a certain standpoint, the wonderful St. Paul's Cathedral could be called an expensive white elephant. Certainly the seat/mile costs of worshipping God could have been brought down if Christopher Wren had designed a tin-roofed mission hut. But he took a wider and more hopeful view of mankind's future.
In my view, mankind in the future will want to travel, safely and comfortably, at more than the speed of sound. We shall not be able to stop that. It is the proper development of that facility with which we should now be concerned. If we cancel Concorde Britain will have no influence whatsoever in this important aspect of mankind's future activity. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the longer-term view and the longer-term market must be borne in mind. Moreover, if we are assessing sales and profitability let us remember the markets generated in the years ahead for spares by an aircraft sold now. Britain's exports are now profiting by sales of spares for aircraft types sold 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
Much has been made of the British Airways' estimate of the effect on their finances of the Concorde operation—and I choose those words deliberately. They did not say anything about a loss; they talked about the effect on their finances. Each airline must do its own sums and British Airways are looking again at their assessments, but there are other aspects of those original figures which, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, should be borne in mind.
A significant proportion of the British Airways' figures which have been bandied about relate not to the failure of Concorde but to its success. It is an assessment of the unsuccessful way in which other services would lose first-class passengers to the Concorde service. One survey suggests that from 65 per cent. to 90 per cent. of first-class passengers would prefer to pay a first-class fare plus a 10 per cent. surcharge and travel by Concorde. Even more interesting was the

1355
number of economy passengers who, given something worth while extra in terms of speed, would also pay that surcharge. Some 35 per cent. to 60 per cent. depending upon the route, said that they were interested. Incidentally, one may well reflect upon the hypothetical situation if British Airways did not operate Concorde and Air France did. The British, the American and the other services would still lose their first-class passengers to the Concorde service—and it would be a quite unqualified loss in that case.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about the prizes to be won. I am reminded of the evidence which was given to the Congressional Committee on Science and Aeronautics on February 22, 1974, when one expert witness said that if supersonic aircraft are operated but not by the Americans from now to 1985 that will represent a potential loss of revenue to United States' airlines of up to 30 billion dollars through the loss of their first-class passengers to the supersonic services. There is one other point to be made if one is considering operating costs, before we condemn a particular aeroplane because an airline is making out a case for financial assistance as British Airways are doing. Both Pan Am and TWA are now making a case to the American Government for subsidies wholly on the basis of 747 operations—not Concorde operations.
Noble Lords have asked about cancellation costs. The figure of £80 million which we found had been reached is the best estimate of strict contractual liability, plus statutory redundancy payments and unemployment benefits. They are being re-examined and no adjustment has as yet been made, but there would undoubtedly be additional indirect costs and social dis-benefits. The Lord Mayor of Bristol, when he led a deputation to the Prime Minister, referred to calculations made by the Bristol Polytechnic which estimated £67 million as the cost in the Bristol area alone in income tax, social security benefits et cetera and the consequent multiplier effect, all in addition to the strict contractual cost. Moreover, as the noble Earl said, various figures have been used in the TSR.2 case as to the cancellation costs, but one must bear in mind the consequential losses
1356
from the subsequent purchase and then cancellation of the F.111 aircraft. I agree with what the noble Earl said about that.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke of ancillary benefits, and he had the courage to use the term "spin-off". It is now a little old-fashioned to talk about spin-off, but there has been a very real one. If I may mention it, I had it brought home to me when I travelled up to Stockport last year on British Railways' high-speed train. At 125 m.p.h. someone threw a brick at the cab window and in the ordinary way that window would have been smashed, the driver would probably have been severely injured, and there may have been tragedy on the train. In fact, the cabin window withstood that impact. They did not know who I was and I inquired about the material. I was delighted to be told that it was a material developed for the Concorde aircraft.
My Lords, I want to say something about pollution. I am second to none in wanting a cleaner world and a more pleasing environment. But I wish some of those who spend so much time and money in frightening people about, for example, the effect on the upper atmosphere ozone content of Concorde would spend more time in picking up empty Coca-Cola tins from the street. Moreover, my admiration for the high-minded attitude of the anti-Concorde project is decidedly lessened when I read in their latest expensive advertisement that we should hand over our share of the Concorde to the French for nothing. Apparently all their doubts about the environmental damage dissolve if they are caused by the French and not by the British.
The various options open to us are to be considered in depth, I assure noble Lords opposite, in the light of the quite remarkable number of representations which have been made to us directly and indirectly and, of course, in the light of what has been said here this evening. I will not confirm or deny the figures which the noble Earl gave. I will simply say that they are being studied, but that before a decision is reached the latest figures can be offered. These options must also be considered with our French partners. Talks are taking place at official level, but the examination at Ministerial level is delayed by the French

1357
Presidential Election. I cannot give a precise date when my right honourable friend will have his next meeting with French partners, but I can say that there will be no decision until that examination has taken place. I hope that gives the noble Earl the assurance for which he has asked.
I have listened now to many delegations, mostly of trade unionists, who are proud of Concorde and want to see it in service and selling to the airlines. They all stress, however, that it is not simply a matter of retaining jobs. It is not a matter of empty pride or prestige. It is more to do with the basic confidence of the British people to keep abreast of technical developments and to maintain our place in the world. Many underdeveloped countries are looking forward to getting a better living from higher commodity prices. Countries hitherto dependent on peasant economies are developing their secondary industries. If there is any scope left for us in the world and if we are to pay our way we shall need to concentrate more and more on science-based sophisticated production. I hope that it will be against that background that we shall make the eventual decision on Concorde.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Representation of the People (No. 2) Act.
Ayr County Council Order Confirmation Act.
St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act.
Renfrew County Council Order Confirmation Act.
Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act.
Glasgow Corporation (Control of Parking &c.) Order Confirmation Act.
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act.
Zetland County Council Act.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.