Lords Sitting of 19 February 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

LORD PLURENDEN
Sir Rudy Sternberg, Knight, having been created Baron Plurenden, of Plurenden Manor in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shepherd and the Lord Hoy, and made the solemn Affirmation.
The Lord Brassey of Apethorpe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

STUDENT RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION
2.47 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Question was as follows:
ask Her Majesty's Government what provision they are making for the adequate and reasonable residential accommodation of students at universities and colleges next October.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, the residential places already provided are approximately as follows: Universities in Great Britain, 106,000; colleges of education in England and Wales, 42,000; further education establishments in England and Wales, 16,000. In the universities, a further 7,500 residential places are now being built, and at least 5,000 of these should be ready by October 1975. In polytechnics about 2,300 further residential places are being built, and about 800 of these should be ready by next October.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply and
276
being glad that something is being done, may I ask him whether he is aware of the full magnitude of this problem? Is he aware, to take one example, that of the 11,000 students at the University of Edinburgh fewer than half are in university accommodation or are living with their parents; and the other half have to find their accommodation at the beginning of each term? Is he also aware of the very great increase in the reluctance of owners of property to rent their property to students? Is he further aware that this accommodation is being charged for at greatly increased rent?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am aware of the full magnitude of the problem, although, to put it in its proper perspective, so far as the universities as a whole in Great Britain are concerned, there is accommodation in halls of residence and colleges for 45 per cent. of the student population. So far as the particular consequences of the 1974 Rent Act are concerned, which was behind the second point made by the noble Lord, the Rent Act did not create the housing problem. So far as the students are concerned much of this difficulty has to do with the changing pattern of student demand; but it is true that a U.G.C. survey has shown that many universities are reporting that the Rent Act has had an adverse affect on the availability of privately-rented accommodation. In order to safeguard the possible use of this accommodation for students in the immediate future, the Government are considering a system of registration for student lettings.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that answer about considering registration for student lettings, can he give us some indication of the timetable and whether this registration will be introduced before the next academic year? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that Birmingham University has just issued a news sheet advising married students to leave their families behind before coming to Birmingham University? Does the noble Lord think that this is a desirable thing to do?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, so far as the timetable is concerned, it is hoped that whatever we can do in this area will be ready for the next academic year. Consultations are under

277
way on this problem. So far as the advice from the University of Birmingham is concerned, I was not aware of it and I am not at all sure that that is the desirable thing to do.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, while we appreciate the problem referred to in the Question, can the Minister assure us that priorities will not be given to this problem to the detriment of those who want houses to rent in working-class areas, where building has been reduced for the last four years and the need for housing is now tremendous?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the Government are aware of this problem. It is a question of getting priorities right in this area. That is why there is not, perhaps, on the student accommodation front, the progress that ideally might have been possible. This need has to be weighed against other priorities.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the better a university does in the provision of residential accommodation for students, usually and mainly by the raising of voluntary funds, the greater their difficulties when the current fashion of student rent strikes occurs? Has the noble Lord given any thought to the possibility of linking local authorities' grants to students with their contribution towards their rental payments in order to relieve this very distressing modern feature?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, so far as the latter part of that question is concerned, grants to students are in such a form that they take into account the reasonable rents that students are expected to pay. I was not sure whether there was another implication behind the question of the noble Lord.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: Yes, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his query to me. Is he aware that
278
my point was that here is money being given from public funds, a large part of which comes originally from the Treasury, and in the event students hold up payment of rent when they are engaged in a rent strike? Has the noble Lord given any thought to some way in which there could be a direct payment from the assisting local authority to the funds of the university for the rental element?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the position is that it is for the universities and award-making bodies to consider the action they should take in the situation of a rent strike. They have certain powers in this respect so far as students are concerned.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that students from overseas, particularly postgraduates, are tending increasingly to be married, and that it is precisely this group, especially if they have families, who find it difficult to obtain accommodation at all, and certainly to obtain accommodation which is conducive to serious study?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, we arc aware of that problem.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whereas there are positive advantages for children during school age to be living at home, there arc nevertheless distinct disadvantages if students are encouraged to live at home during their university careers?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, this is a matter which at any rate in part is under study at this moment. From an economic point of view it would obviously be better if more students lived at home, and it would obviate the need for major building programmes. On the other hand, there are educational advantages, as the noble Lord has suggested, in students not being home based during this period. This problem is the subject of study at present.

STEELWORKS CLOSURES REVIEW
2.55 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate was given by the BSC of the increased cost of their ten-year strategy as the result of the Interim Closure Review.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, the British Steel Corporation gave no estimate of increased costs to their ten-year strategy as a result of the Closure Review. Most of the plants given an extended operating life as agreed with the BSC were profitable. Moreover, the steel these plants can now produce will be needed until new development becomes fully effective. There might well be cost penalties if we were to delay the introduction of new plant in order to reprieve older works, but that is not our intention. However, the time taken to bring large new plants into full operation was one of the factors which lead me to recommend deferment of some closure plans.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he give any estimate of the basis upon which the iron and steel consumers have stated that this Review will mean an increase of from 20 per cent. in the price of steel, or say why the official spokesman for the Opposition in another place stated that it is a strategy of holding up the investment programme? Also, can the noble Lord estimate the cost that was incurred when the last Government put a stranglehold on the BSC's development programme while they waited for advice from an American firm which they had employed on this subject?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have no idea at all where the Chairman of the Consumers' Council obtained that figure. I am quite sure that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, from whom I received absolutely uninhibited co-operation and to whom I have paid my thanks and respects, would have given some figure during our discussions if any such figure was in his mind. I
280
am seeing the Chairman of the Consumers' Council about this matter in due course. As to the second part of my noble friend's question, it is a fact that the delay in the original agreement of the ten-year strategy no doubt added to costs.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, shortly after he announced in this House the result of the Interim Closure Review, the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation was reported to have said that it would have been much better for those employed in the outdated steel works to be found more fruitful employment elsewhere?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation made a number of comments. What I have said reflects the views that were given by him during the course of the long discussions we had. I again pay my tribute to him for the co-operation which he is giving us towards finding other jobs for those who will inevitably be displaced.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will my noble friend make it absolutely clear that in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, part of which I had the honour to represent for 25 years, we appreciate the craftsmanship of the workers at the steel works at Shelton Bar; and that by keeping it open we have an economic plant where the workers are of the top type who will not let the Government down but will economically produce steel for the future?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I read criticism, again, that the decision about Shelton was facing backwards and leading to an uneconomic operation; whereas, in fact, the recommendation for a modern electric are furnace, plus the enthusiasm of the workers concerned, will undoubtedly give a most successful and profitable operation.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, my noble friend spoke about closing down profitable plants. Is there any sense in closing down a works such as Shotton which has made a profit all the time I have known it, and which has paid wages and given conditions equal to any in the industry, on the basis of the argument that only coastal plants can

281
be profitable in the future. Will my noble friend indicate whether the coastal plant at Llanwern has ever made a profit in the decade during which it has been in operation, and whether there is any sense in investing more and more money in a plant of that character and closing down a plant like Shotton, where profits have been demonstrably good in the past and, so far as one can see, will be good in the future?
If I may ask a supplementary question, in Germany they obviously have the problem that they do not have any deep water ports for the importation of iron ore. Therefore, they are importing via Amsterdam where they are pelletising. Is it not possibe—
Several Noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I will come to the question; I always do! Is it not possible for a pelletising process to be introduced in this country along the lines of the process introduced in Amsterdam, in order that the social upheaval occasioned by the closing down of these plants may be avoided in this country? If I may add a further supplementary question—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, my difficulty is that if I ask a question in this House to which the Opposition object, they always shout, "Order, order"and pay little attention to the arguments which I am putting forward.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, my noble friend has given me the opportunity to intervene. This is not a time for argument; it is a time for putting Questions. Noble Lords opposite were restive; equally, I think that they might have been restive on an earlier occasion this afternoon. A degree of latitude was then given. Perhaps my noble friend has now gone slightly beyond the latitude that was previously extended to one noble Lord. I wonder whether my noble friend will allow my noble friend Lord Beswick to answer the question. If he thinks it is necessary to do so, he may then put a short supplementary question.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend, with his great experience, is quite right. There have been industrial difficul-
282
ties at Llanwern which have made it impossible to exploit the full potential of that works. As I have stated, the economics of the Shotton operation are now being considered more carefully, and we shall certainly bear in mind what my noble friend has had to say. So far as the direct reduction pelletising plant is concerned, this possibility was in our minds when the British Steel Corporation agreed to the Shelton Bar electric arc furnace. Undoubtedly this furnace will make possible the more economic use of scrap.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I follow the noble Lord's Answer with a supplementary question. I bow always to the directions of the Leader of the House, and if he tells me to do so I shall sit down. According to information which has been supplied by the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, labour relations in the iron and steel industry are deteriorating rapidly. If one had watched what is happening—
Several Noble Lords: Question, Question!
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I shall come to the question. Noble Lords opposite should not jump up too quickly. If noble Lords had watched the television programme last night on what is happening in Ebbw Vale, they would have seen the purport of my question.
Several Noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say to my noble friend that he is going a little too far. May I ask him to put his question in an interrogative form and then my noble friend will be able to answer it.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I shall now put my question very precisely. After the television programme last night on what is happening in Ebbw Vale, is my noble friend aware that much is left to be desired in terms of labour relations in the iron and steel industry?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that improvements can be made. Undoubtedly, in dehumanised large works such as Llanwern, new techniques are

283
necessary, and the British Steel Corporation are trying to develop these techniques. So far as the television programme about Llanwern is concerned, although I did not see it I am told that it was entirely one-sided and did not give a true picture of the situation there.

BANQUETING HALL ADMISSION CHARGES
3.5 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: 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 have now completed the review of the 2½p admission charge for children to the Whitehall Banqueting Hall announced on 4th July 1974, and of other admission charges for children announced on 12th November 1974.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the question of charges for the admission of children to historic buildings and monuments has now been reviewed. School parties are already admitted free and there is no evidence that the charges, which are half-price or less, deter parents from bringing their children. Accordingly, for reasons of both safety and revenue, no change is proposed.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, apart from the £29 per annum which is derived from charging children for entrance to the Banqueting Hall, could the noble Baroness say how much more is derived from this source?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the latest figures which I have for the resources derived from the entry charges of children visiting monuments exceeded £100,000 in 1973. May I take the opportunity to add that we have an arrangement with the Treasury whereby we obtain extra money for the upkeep of our monuments and historic buildings in relationship to the amount of money that we take. Therefore we have to continue these charges.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Banqueting Hall still has to be closed on Mondays?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question without notice. I imagine it is because there is only one custodian, and perhaps it is her day off. However, I will let my noble friend know the answer to his question.

EEC: COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 arrange for the authentic text of Resolutions of the European Community to be published in the United Kingdom immediately they are passed by the Council of Ministers.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the publication of the texts of Council Resolutions, as of other proceedings in the Council, is a matter for the Council itself. However, I have taken steps to ensure that the authentic texts of published Resolutions will in future be made available in the Library of the House as soon as they are received in Whitehall.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he could extend that arrangement to the point that the Printed Paper Office might hold stocks of these Resolutions? For example, it is not easy to discover what happend in the Council of Energy Ministers as far back as 17th September last, because the documents are not available. Could the noble Lord find out whether these documents might be made available through the Printed Paper Office?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will consider the point.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the term "Resolutions"embraces the term "decisions"; namely, whether it embraces decisions taken by Ministers? Is it not constitutionally the position that when decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers they must be referred to

285
the Commission before they can be published in the United Kingdom or in any other part of the European Economic Community?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is so. Resolutions are not decisions; they are not legally binding. They are expressions of opinion as to the consensus, sometimes the interim consensus, which is achieved by Ministers at a certain stage when considering a question.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind, with a Referendum approaching, that it is apparent that the information which is being made available in the House and to the public is constantly tendentious and misleading; that the use of perfectly accurate figures so selected as to be misleading is apparent to me in certain Ministerial Statements; and that what is necessary, even if Ministers have the right to disagree, is that the fullest information should be made available to the House and that that information, must not merely be accurate but basically honest?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the summation which my noble friend gave towards the end of his question, that information should be as full and as prompt and untendentious as possible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the problem which arises is, first of all, that these documents cannot even be found in the Printed Paper Office, despite the fact that they carry an official Brussels index number? Secondly, even though Resolutions arc not binding on the citizen —because they are pretty woolly, anyway—there is no way of knowing what our Ministers are up to in policies of a general kind to which they are committing the country? Therefore it is important to pursue this matter. As I am sure he will realise, I very much appreciate the step which the noble Lord has already taken. Therefore, may I wish him well in doing still better.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have taken full note of what the noble Earl has said in his supplementaries as well as meeting him on the question he put in substantive form.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short statement about tomorrow's business. The House will remember that we cut short the Committee stage of the Children Bill last Thursday because of travel difficulties both for noble Lords and the staff, and I understand that further difficulties are anticipated tomorrow, when we are to take the same Bill again. Your Lordships will know that this is a very important Bill and that the House wants to make good progress. It has therefore been agreed through the usual channels that we should finish the Committee stage tomorrow night. I hope that this prior notice will enable noble Lords who are taking part in the discussion on the Bill to make satisfactory arrangements. I do not anticipate that the House will have to sit very late, but I have arranged for dinners to be available in any case.

MOBILITY OF THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
3.11 p.m.
Baroness SHARP Baroness SHARP rose to call attention to the generally unsatisfactory character of the invalid car and to the uncertainties surrounding the future of the vehicle service for physically disabled people; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It seems that for years now we have been talking about the invalid car, which I will call the "trike"—the car which the Government provide for the severely disabled —but we do not seem to get any further. It is a long time ago since the Department first became very uneasy about the trike. They knew it was not satisfactory and they were getting more and more unhappy about it. What brought things to a head was when it became clear that the ordinary car, adapted to be driven by a disabled person was cheaper than the trike, and most of the drivers of the trikes were clamouring for it. But, there are difficult administrative and financial problems involved in substituting the car for the trike. So nearly three years ago the then Minister asked me if I would look into the whole problem of the mobility of the disabled. What this really meant was the trike.
As your Lordships know, I concluded that the trike had to go, not suddenly overnight, but phased out gradually and replaced by small cars as and when it was practicable to do so. But if the cost of this was to be kept within bounds some very tough decisions had to be taken about who should have the car and on what terms, and these the Government have so far felt quite unable to make. What the Government have done is to decide to provide a mobility allowance of £4 a week for severely disabled people between the ages of 5 and 65. They estimate the number to be about 150,000. This allowance was something I had always hoped to see, but it was beyond my terms of reference. It will be of great value to many disabled people, and I am sure it is warmly welcomed by us all. But it does not solve the problem of the trike. The Government are still stuck with that; partly because they have said that the trike is to be retained for all who prefer it to the £4 allowance, but even more because there are many disabled people who simply must have a vehicle of sorts if they are to live independent lives— people who cannot afford to buy themselves a car, not even with the allowance. If the trike is all they can have, then the trike is what they will have to take, and the trike will be always with us.
This brings us to the question: how bad really is the trike? Is it tolerable that severely disabled people who really do need a vehicle of some kind and cannot afford a car should be provided with this machine? I do not think it is. First, there is the danger involved. We have heard a good deal in the House about this aspect, and there are noble Lords who are much better able to speak on it than I am. But I do not think there is any real doubt that the trike is dangerous. The Government initially took the line that there was not much wrong with the trike, apart perhaps from some minor design faults which could be remedied; but they have been steadily retreating. They have now reached the point where they admit that its safety is "not as good as we would wish"; a meiosis if ever there was one. I am no expert on this, but there really is no doubt about the danger of the trike. Whether, as some would claim, it is the most lethal car on the road, I do not know, but I think it is getting on that way. In a high wind it is
288
obviously a murderous machine; it is more liable to skid and overturn than a four-wheeled car, and it must be very vulnerable to impact. This is the vehicle that we provide for people who cannot walk. Imagine what it must be like to be imprisoned in an overturned car and absolutely helpless to do anything!
So much for the danger. There are other great disadvantages. The trike is uncomfortable; it is very liable to break down; and there is constant difficulty over repair. Perhaps these are faults in design which could be remedied, although presumably this would add to the cost. But nothing really can dispel the unsatisfactory nature of a vehicle which began life as a bath chair, is now propelled by a quite powerful engine and is loosed on roads carrying the traffic they now do.
I should like to say just one word about the repair problem. Trikes, of course, have to be repaired at special garages, approved garages which understand them and which carry spare parts. Necessarily there cannot be many such garages; and disabled drivers tell me, and told me all through my inquiry, that getting repairs done could be a nightmare. I heard often how much the disabled wished that when in trouble they could go to the nearest garage, or to the garage of their choice, as the able-bodied can. But while they are condemned to the trike that is not possible.
Last, but by no means least, there is the loneliness involved. As your Lordships will know, trikes cannot carry a passenger, so that the severely disabled must travel alone. For many I believe this to be the bitterest thing of all. It has the added disadvantage that the trike driver cannot be properly taught to drive and cannot properly be tested because no one can drive with him on the roads. I suspect that many trike drivers set off on their driving career very ill-equipped.
But what are the views of the drivers of the trikes? In spite of all the defects, I think the Government may say that many of the trike drivers like their trikes and beg the Government not to get rid of them. I am sure that some have done so. Some have written to me in these terms. In all the talk about danger, in my report which suggested that the conditions of eligibility for the trike had to be reconsidered, and with the promise of the mobility allowance, many of the

289
trike drivers must be in great doubt about what is to happen to them.
Despite all its defects, of course, the trike has been immensely valuable to people who drive it. It is their only key to mobility, and they must be anxious to make certain that they do not lose it and get nothing in its place. The real question must be: what would be the reaction of the trike drivers if they were offered a small car adapted so that a disabled person could drive it? Is this the question that has been put to them? I do not doubt that if it were there would be a lew who would prefer the trike; a few who would be afraid that they could not drive a car or that a car would be more expensive to run; a few whose disability makes it difficult for them to drive a car or, perhaps, even to get into a car which could be driven by somebody else.
But I do not believe there would be one in ten of the present trike drivers who, if given the choice between trike and car, would choose the trike. Of over 7,000 war pensioners who had the choice, less than 3 per cent chose the trike. It is quite true that there are differences between war disabled and civilian disabled—there are differences of age, of sex and, to some degree, in the type of disability—and I think it is fair to say that these differences probably mean that a rather higher percentage of civilians would choose the trike. But I am still quite sure that only a very small minority of trike drivers prefer it to the car. They prefer it to nothing, but that is a different matter.
Then why do the Government cling to the trike and continue to produce it? I should like to ask the noble Lord how many trikes are to be produced every year. Of course, the reason why the Government stick to the trike is that if cars were provided and the rules about who gets a vehicle remained the same —except that it could no longer be insisted that the vehicle must be driven by the disabled person—then the demand for a vehicle would be enormously increased. The trikes are self-limiting; that is their charm. They must be driven by the disabled person, but a car need not be. On this, at least, I think we are all agreed; if cars are provided, they must be available as much to those who do not drive as to those who do. I should think that would be
290
likely to increase the demand three or four-fold. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this is the only stumbling block in the way of substituting a car for the trike. I hope he will not try to maintain that the trike is not really so very dangerous and that many of the disabled prefer it. As I have said, I do not doubt that there are a few who would prefer it, even given the choice.
My Lords, one of the problems, certainly, is whether it would be practicable to maintain the specialised vehicles for the few. I am doubtful about this, but I am not an expert. It may be part of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the trike, but it is not a reason for forcing the trike on the great majority of disabled people who would prefer a car. After all, there will be those who do not want the car, or who simply cannot manage it, and there will be the allowance. Let us get it quite clear that the only reason for keeping the trike is the size of the demand for cars.
May I remind the House that when the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said that if this were the only reason for keeping the less satisifactory three-wheeler, it would be unacceptable. He said that it would mean rationing, not on the basis of need but on the basis of inferiority. This is exactly what is happening. It is unacceptable but, nevertheless, the problem of cost is a real one and we have to think about it even more now that the Government are committted to about £15 million a year for the mobility allowance. I do not think for a moment that the Government can be expected simply to provide the car in place of the trike, while accepting the disabled passenger as eligible along with the disabled driver.
What, then, should be done? First, I should like to ask the Government whether they really believe in providing a vehicle service at all now that they have the mobility allowance, or are they carrying on with it only because we have it? Do they perhaps hope that given the allowance, and if they can only stick to the unloved trike, it will in time fade out? Or do they accept that there is a good case for helping some severely disabled people to get a vehicle of their own? For my part, I am convinced there is such a good case. We all know that

291
there are some among the severely disabled who can live independent lives if they have their own vehicle, and who cannot if they do not. There will be others speaking in this debate who can give testimony to this. Would we not all agree that we ought to see that these people can have the vehicle they need, even if it means helping some to a greater degree than others.
My Lords, if the Government agree that it is right to provide vehicles for some, that we should envisage this as a permanent part of the provision for the disabled, then they must clearly accept the car sooner or later, and the sooner the better. This means that the Government must determine new priorities. They are committed to the present trike drivers; I think all of us would agree with that. It does not have to be a trike for ever and ever, provided that in one way or the other the existing drivers are kept mobile. But for future applicants there can be new rules limiting eligibility to those whose need is greatest. My suggestion was that those who need a vehicle of their own to do a job, to maintain their families, to maintain their households have the greatest need. I still believe this is the right criterion, given that, unhappily, one has to choose. But if anyone has a better way of making a distinction, I shall be delighted.
Whatever is done the Government may say, even if they bring themselves to make the choice, that the cost is still too high. In my Report I calculated—and, admittedly, it had to be a guess—that, on the suggestions I made, there might be about 50,000 people eligible for the car that I was suggesting, as against something like 35,000 who now take the trike or the allowance in lieu; though there are far more than 35,000 who would be eligible for the trike if they chose to take it. So that, overall, there would be more claiming the car, although one must remember that the car is cheaper.
My Lords, I believe—and I have changed my mind since I wrote my Report—that the right course would be for the Government to provide only such help as a person needs in order to get a car. It might be by way of a loan—and I think there are some countries in Europe
292
who do it in that way—it might have to be a grant towards the cost of the car; or, in some cases, certainly, it would need to be the whole cost of the car, although the Government need not pay all. I suggested that it was the car itself that should be provided; I was anxious to be sure that the disabled were getting a sound car and at the lowest possible price. I have changed my mind on that. I think the help should be provided as the disabled people themselves have always wanted, by some form of cash grant towards what the person needs.
We must realise that there are many among the disabled who simply cannot afford to buy themselves a car, even with the aid of the new allowance, and even if they are earners. The disabled are not, as a rule, very high earners. They must have a sound car. As some of us may do, they must not rush off and buy a secondhand car and hope for the best; they cannot afford to take the risk. They must have a sound car. Many must be helped; otherwise they have to give up any idea of earning their living, of maintaining their independence.
My Lords, if the Government would do both of these things, would change the rules for new applicants and limit help to those whose need is greatest and to what each applicant needs, then I do not believe the future cost of the vehicle service would be very high once the claims of those existing trike drivers, who might not be eligible under the new rules, began to diminish. It is difficult to make an estimate but it would be no higher, I suggest, than the present vehicle service. In short, I do not think cost has to be a bugbear if the Government face the decisions involved.
I am aware that what I have proposed, with its discretionary administration and decision case by case, would raise very great administrative problems involving a case by case judgment. I would make a shrewd guess that my late colleagues in the Civil Service would say, "We cannot do this". But I can tell your Lordships from my experience that once the Government make up their mind about what they want to do, their servants will find a way to do it, and it is worth an enormous effort to get rid of the trike and to solve the problem of the vehicle service once for all. I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—I nearly said "noble Dame"—for having introduced this debate this afternoon on which she is such an expert. It is a matter which is very difficult to resolve. I should also like to start by expressing great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been in action every day this week, hour after hour, with the Children Bill to start with, then yesterday the Social Security Bill; now he is involved with this very difficult question—I shall be "having at him "again later on when we are discussing the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital—all of us demanding in one way or another that the Government should spend more money on our pet causes.
To my mind, the whole question of providing cars in place of three-wheelers is a matter of money. There can, surely, be no doubt at all in anybody's mind that a four-wheeler is safer than a three-wheeler, for very obvious reasons, and that a car has the great additional advantage of allowing a passenger to be carried. That not only helps the disabled person, who can then do a good turn to somebody else by taking them as a passenger, but it also means that a disabled person who is unable to drive has some form of transport. But the trouble is that to make any such very desirable change would cost many millions of pounds, and the question that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has to face up to is whether this extra expense can be justified against the many other needs of the disabled and, indeed, the many other demands on the social services as a whole.
Personally, I do not agree with those who allege that the three-wheeler is so dangerous that it should be taken off the road. I do not believe that such allegations have been proved, and I believe that, if properly used, the three-wheeler gives good service. In fact, I should go further and say that those who are too loud in their condemnation of the three-wheeler do a disservice to many disabled people who have to use them.
I am sure that it is right that disabled drivers with three-wheeled cars should realise that this vehicle—like any other three-wheeler—is not as stable as a four-
294
wheeled car. It needs to be driven with greater care. But I think it wrong to cause panic by suggesting that this vehicle is too dangerous to use on the roads. Were the three-wheeler to be hurriedly withdrawn, considerable hardship would be caused to many disabled drivers who have come to rely on it, and to some who are, in fact, not able to drive cars. It would surely be quite impossible to replace three-wheelers by cars in a short space of time.
So what is the answer? The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, gave one answer in her Report—although she has somewhat modified her approach today— which was to issue cars in future to priority users, broadly defined as those who need them for work or to continue education. But the drawback of that proposal is that there are many categories of people who are at present qualified for an invalid car but who would no longer qualify. Certainly I would find that very hard to accept. I do not think that the Government would accept it. I do not think the disabled have accepted it, and I do not really think it to be practical politics. I also have very considerable doubt about the practicality of the suggestion that she put forward today of each case being considered on its merits. I have grave doubts as to whether this really is a practical way of proceeding, and whether there would not be so many anomalies as to make it unworkable.
The Government have given another answer, and that is to continue to issue the three-wheeler and to give a mobility allowance to all those with restricted walking ability. In many ways this has great attraction, in that it makes the mobility allowance available to those who need help regardless of whether or not they can drive a car. But at £4 a week, this is not likely to enable many people to buy and run their own car. I wondered, as the noble Baroness has also suggested, whether the Government had given any thought to the possibility of providing interest-free loans to those who qualify for this mobility allowance to help them to buy a car over a period. May I ask the noble Lord to confirm that the mobility allowance will be introduced in 1975–76, and, if so. when we may expect the relevant legislation to be ready?

295
Our position—as expressed in the Election Manifesto—was that we thought it a minimum aim to ensure that all those who were qualified for three-wheelers should be able to exchange them for cars if they wished to do so. That was taking the same criterion as exists at present for the issue of a three-wheeler, but allowing a car to be an alternative choice. That was the policy we had in mind. Of course, the situation has now changed and it is likely that a mobility allowance will be introduced. I should think that, once that is done, it would be unthinkable to return to the present system.
In my view, future progress would be more likely to lie in the direction of improvements in the rate and conditions of the new allowance rather than in the direct issue of cars. But, of course, any such improvement would cause a further large demand on national resources, once again raising questions of priorities with regard to other needs. I began by sympathising with the noble Lord who is carrying such a heavy burden of Government work, but I have no sympathy with the Government themselves in facing up to the problem of the provision of cars instead of three-wheelers. They were loud in their protestations at our delay in so doing, and they were the first, when in Opposition to condemn the three-wheeler and demand its replacement. They now sing a different song of £4 a week and keep the three-wheeler. It is one thing to call for increased benefits in Opposition, it is quite another to put them into practice when in Government.
Nor have the Government been very generous with the petrol allowance for those who drive an invalid vehicle. It has been increased to £10 a year from the 1st January last, but how far does that go at the present price of petrol? Can the noble Lord tell us what a three-wheeler does in miles per gallon and therefore how many miles the £10 represents? I wonder whether they have in mind any increase to keep this figure more in line with the tremendous increase in petrol prices. My Lords, there is a great head of steam behind the campaign to replace the three-wheeler by a car, and the Party opposite, in Opposition, added to that pressure. They have only themselves to blame if they are now in danger of causing an explosion.
3.39 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, in addressing this House for the first time may I crave your Lordships' indulgence, the traditional indulgence given to innocent victims like myself making the traditional first speech. However, in some sense, for me it is a reincarnation, because in point of fact on the 16th February 1946, I made my maiden speech in another place, in fact in this Chamber, when your Lordships so generously gave haven to a bombed-out Commons. It was in fact on the occasion of the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill. The theme of the debate in 1946 was the need to assist the less fortunate members of society and to give protection and help to them and their families, and this, I feel, is in fact the underlying theme of the debate this afternoon. May I respectfully congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate such a vital social issue.
For all the limitations and faults of the invalid car, there is no doubt whatever that their issue under the present scheme has provided the great blessing of mobility and access to employment. Mobility by such means in turn gives independence and, indeed a most important factor, a feeling of usefulness to society. While I have admitted the value of the present vehicle, let us face the fact that it tends by its very appearance to classify the disabled person. Many of us have shared the frustration of those who long for a vehicle but marginally are not qualified. Those of us who have represented our people in another place and met them at weekends have known many such cases. Of course there must be rules under which provision is made, but I have often felt, and still feel, that those rules have been too tightly drawn.
On Friday last—and this, my Lords, was the reason for my intervening today in a maiden speech—I was privileged to give a little film show at a club for the handicapped. As your Lordships will have noticed, by far the biggest problem was the collection and dispersal of members; and indeed, but for the invaluable help of the British Red Cross Society, such a gathering would not have been possible. May I say in passing that it was a most exceptionally cheerful afternoon.

297
With the Motion of the noble Baroness in mind, I sounded the opinions of some of the club members on the standard vehicle, and the reaction can be summed up in the words of one lady: "Don't think I'm ungrateful, dear, but a converted Mini would be lovely and comfortable. "I must say that the able-bodied volunteers helping at the club were very forthright in their condemnation of the present vehicle. What many disabled people long for is the means of having their wives or husbands with them, together with their children, and not to have their mobility partially negatived by single isolation. Perhaps there should indeed be a choice, as the noble Baroness has said. One reason why I make this comment is that I have been to a number of football matches, particularly at Carrow Road in Norwich, and have there seen many of the disabled single vehicles around the football pitch; but, of course, if the other vehicle was made a standard issue it would not be possible for those keen followers of football to attend the matches in their present vehicles. Another point which I think is vitally important is that handicapped mothers with children long for the opportunity to take their children to school and to collect them, rather than depending on a neighbour.
My Lords, underlying all this is that longing for independence, which handicapped people want and can have if we give them the means. This is a notable desire and one that we should bear in mind. I am a pedestrian. My family tells me that I do not have an 10 high enough to learn to drive a car, but that is not quite true. However, as a pedestrian and not a motorist, I do not feel qualified to comment on the technical advantages or disadvantages of the present standard vehicle. But many times I have experienced the feelings and frustrations of the handicapped with families, and for them a converted four-wheel car is a dream that does not often come true.
Of course, as the last speaker from the Opposition Front Bench has said, the question of cost arises. Every time one asks for reforms the question of cost arises. I agree, that this is a difficult time to think about incurring additional costs, but I put this to your Lordships' House: is it a case of "cannot afford it or
298
go without"? To me the question is one of human priorities. Some time ago at an international conference in Delhi I said that I would rather solve the problem of world poverty than fly to the moon. This rather disturbed the civil servant in charge of us, representing the Foreign Office, because he thought I would upset the Americans and the Russians. But in this world of ours we have responsibilities one to another, and that sense of priorities, of human values, I submit with respect, applies to our debate today.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, it lies with me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, on his excellent maiden speech. He has illustrated to us his great understanding of the need for mobility and the united family, which I feel is so very important, and I personally was highy delighted to hear him mention the Red Cross, as I am myself a member. I hope we may look forward to his further support in this matter on many other occasions, and hear him speak regularly.
My Lords, I seem to have been speaking in your Lordships' House on several occasions lately and I hope your Lordships will bear with me once more. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on the enormous amount of work he has been able to cope with in the last few weeks. When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked the Starred Question on this subject a short time ago, there was; great interest from all parts of the House; therefore I thank the noble Baroness for her persistence in giving your Lordships yet another chance of discussing this serious matter, and I hope that some of the uncertainties will be made clear today by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
Many disabled people have been greatly worried at the increase in the VAT on petrol and the ever increasing price of petrol, but the Government announced on 21st November last year that £10 a year would be paid to all drivers of petrol-driven three-wheelers and cars supplied by the Health Department. Also, the Government are introducing the £4 a week mobility allowance for those who do not have Ministry vehicles. May I ask the Minister to make absolutely

299
clear who will qualify for this new mobility allowance?
The Government are to be thanked for those allowances, however small they may be. As your Lordships will know, there is great concern on the part of the general public over the continued use of the three-wheel tricycle. The greatest concern among many seems to be the fact that several disabled people drive alone and often cannot get help when the vehicle breaks down, which is a very common occurrence. But abolishing the invalid tricycle overnight and replacing it by a small car would not solve all the problems, though it would help with some of them, as has been so ably stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I should like to ask the Minister why, for those people who qualify for the Government car, the Government have chosen the Mini? I ask this question because I find the Mini a very difficult car to get out of and into a wheelchair. It is too low. When I was a patient in Stoke Mandeville, I observed that many serious road accidents involving neck and back injuries occurred in Minis. My noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth is one such victim. There is little in the front of a Mini for protection, and they can be driven fast round corners.
I must declare a personal interest in this debate as I am Chairman of the Spinal Injuries Association and nearly all our members are greatly concerned over the uncertainties surrounding the future of the vehicle service for physically disabled people, and the rapid deterioration of this service during the past year. My main concern is of the attitude of civil servants at the Department of Health and Social Security at Blackpool to consultants specialising in rehabilitation and to their patients. No Department could have displayed more clearly their bureaucratic stubborness towards the real needs of severely disabled people.
In 1970, the Amelia Harris Report on disabled people stated that the majority were elderely, many suffering from rheumatic and arthritic conditions. The elderly people in our community have generally had many active, full years of youth and they no longer wish to lead strenuous, hard lives, but there is a small and vital group of young disabled people cut off suddenly in the prime of life,
300
or even before they have reached it. I speak now of the severe spastic, the young boy with muscular dystrophy, the severe spinal injury, and others, all so badly paralysed that they have to use a wheelchair 24 hours a day. To rehabilitate these severely disabled people and get them to accept their condition is not an easy job, especially those young people who have lived and loved and have had a traumatic sudden injury. Just what does a young man of 19 feel like when he realises what he has done when he breaks his back? Can you honestly compare him with a grannie of 75 with arthritis? That is exactly what the Department of Health and Social Security is doing.
I quote from a letter received by a consultant from a senior medical officer in Blackpool writing over the supply of wheelchairs to patients:
"It is not the question of one doctor's understandable desire to do the very best for an individual patient but of Department policy in the light of our overall obligations. Such a policy necessarily has to take account of many factors, including the money that can be allocated to a given class of patient, the need to demonstrate equal treatment to all our clients, and the very compelling claims for improving in other directions."
Whatever direction you look in to these severely disabled people a wheelchair is an essential, and if they are working they need two. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, could do anything to speed up the very inadequate repair service for chairs, many people would be saved incredible inconvenience. Unless an experienced consultant can select the wheelchair most suitable for his patient, there will continue to be dissatisfied patients and frustrated doctors. How can patients prepare for living full lives at home if they cannot look forward to having such vehicles and the adaptations needed to make them independent?
While listening to the Second Reading debate of the Social Security Benefits Bill yesterday and hearing of the millions of pounds that the Government are going to spend, I thought of the debate today. How much more satisfactory it would be to make as many disabled people as possible mobile so that they can get out to work and earn a good wage and pay their taxes. To integrate disabled people into the community they must learn to jump a wheelchair up a kerb and up a step. This is common practice in re-

301
habilitation all over the world, but to do this a well-balanced, strong wheelchair must be used. Some physiotherapists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne told me that they had written to Blackpool trying to secure the correct chair for a boy patient, because the 8L Ministry specification which is so inferior and difficult to manipulate was the one supplied. The answer received from Blackpool was that the practice of mounting a kerb was not approved of by them. The physiotherapists' indignation was unfortunately just another example of wasted energy. How can they win when they are dealing with people with closed minds to the needs of individual patients?
Before ending, I should like to mention one more disturbing practice, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether there is anything he can do to help. In some areas such as South London and South Yorkshire, the ambulance men have refused to carry a wheel-chair belonging to a severely disabled patient. To be divided from your own chair is the same as having your artificial legs removed or, if you are a very shortsighted person, much worse that having your glasses taken away. This practice seems totally inhuman, and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could advise me on this.
3.56 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks from practical experience, and I believe that we shall hear of more practical experience in this matter as soon as I sit down. These are the speeches which are so valuable in a debate of this kind. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, whose attractive maiden speech we listened to just now, in not feeling able to comment on the technical shortcomings of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, refers to as the "trike", but I have always thought that Mr. Graham Hill seemed to make good sense when he said. "Give me a wheel at each corner every time."
When this Motion was put down in our Minutes I knew that somewhere I had read of the Government's intentions about a mobility allowance, and I went to our highly efficient Printed Paper Office to ask them whether they could trace the document, but they could not. I managed to establish from the Depart-
302
ment that it had been issued on 13th September, and I felt sure that the relevant back number of The Times would print the reference number to the document, because they nearly always do, but in this case they did not. The Library of another place managed to find me a copy of it; furthermore, they kindly gave me a Xeroxed copy of it, and I am very grateful to them.
Here is a document which is referred to in The Times as a House of Commons Paper, but I should call it virtually a Government White Paper, because it sets out the Government's intentions to be implemented shortly by legislation. It has no reference number printed on it, so far as I know it appears in no index, and so no wonder the Printed Paper Office could not find it. I am not, of course, attacking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but I would say that any Government must make documents of this kind more readily available, and they must not hide their light under a bushel. How can a Parliamentary debate be of full value if the latest document announcing the Government's intentions is so difficult to find?
Coming now to the merits of the document, I am filled with enthusiasm for it. I welcome for instance that the document says that the Government recognise the limitations of the present invalid vehicle in comparison with a car. That is not quite as strong as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, puts it, but the recognition is there. I welcome also the Government's recognition that this new mobility cash grant must be applicable to non-drivers as well as to disabled people who happen to be able to drive. It seems to me that the one great merit of the cash grant is that it introduces elasticity into the means available to the person in receipt of the grant and gets rid. of the conception that Whitehall knows best how to provide in kind for each and every disabled person with his own peculiar personal difficulties.
I would hope that it would be positively fun for disabled people coming into this scheme in the future to plan how to get the best advantage out of their cash mobility grant. There are all sorts of possibilities which are opened up and which are referred to in the Government statement. Coach trips are one

303
of the best valued methods of transportation. These will be available to people out of their cash grant. Others may prefer more occasionally to travel by taxi. There are, of course, powered wheelchairs, and some may prefer to spend their grants in the provision for themselves of one of these. Then there is the possibility of sharing motoring costs with a friend and not feeling dependent on him, but having a grant out of which the disabled person can remunerate his friend and share the cost of his car.
In this connection there is one matter that I suggest the Government should consider rather carefully. I believe the law is that if you carry a passenger for reward—and I would imagine that a disabled person handing over part of his grant would come within this category—you are infringing one of the conditions of your insurance policy. I would hope that before this cash grant arrangement becomes sanctified the Government would take the opportunity of discussing this matter with the insurance companies to try to provide that the carrying of disabled people and receiving part of their grant would not constitute carrying a passenger for reward and breaching the conditions of the insurance policy. I believe that when we had a severe fuel crisis last winter there was a relaxation in this regard, and what could be wrung from the insurance companies over the fuel crisis I would hope could be wrung from them in regard to disabled people sharing other people's cars.
We are told that the intention is that there is to be a flat rate mobility grant of £200. May I briefly examine both those propositions. First of all, why a flat rate? I can see that a flat rate is easy to administer, but does it produce justice? So far as leisure travel is concerned I should be quite happy with a flat rate grant; but if there is to be an element to cover travelling to and from work, surely the flat rate conception fails utterly. I should have thought that a disabled person travelling to and from work ought to receive a grant representing the difference between what it costs him in his present state and what it would cost to travel to and from work if he were an able-bodied person. If he lives in the country and there is no bus service
304
and he has to drive to work, and an able-bodied person would likewise have to drive to work, then the grant would be nil. On the other hand, supposing there is a bus service but the disabled person cannot use it. Surely he is entitled to a grant to represent the difference between the bus fare and what it costs to use whatever form of transport he has to use. I would hope that in respect of travelling to work the flat rate conception would be abandoned.
We are told it is to be £200. If you have a flat rate, why £200? I am not quarrelling with that figure; all I am saying is that, so far as I have been able to discover, the Government have not explained how they have done their sums in order to arrive at £200. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to answer this point this evening, but I hope that if a flat rate grant is to be provided and before the scheme gets statutory approval we shall be told and be able to judge whether £200 is a suitable figure.
My Lords, I welcome the statement that the changes proposed will not interfere with the arrangement which disabled people already have. I would also welcome that even a person with a trike who is happy with his trike and wants to continue with it, and does not want to have to start again working out all his arrangements under a new scheme, should be enabled to continue with something with which he is happy even though other people would not be happy with it.
Finally, there is one matter which is not referred to in the statement. I understand that disabled people running cars are at present excused the vehicle excise duty. I would hope that this concession would continue, and that under the new scheme the vehicle excise licence would not be required of disabled people running cars. With these few observations I welcome the statement of the Government's intention which I found so hard to come by.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: My Lords, much has been said with increasing fervour lately against the invalid tricycle—that it is dangerous, that it singles out disabled people because of its specific design, that it is anti-social because it

305
can carry no passengers, and is useless for a disabled passenger who is too disabled to drive himself. Certainly for me the most welcome aspect of the Report of the noble Baroness was the conclusion that disabled drivers and passengers should be treated alike; that it was absurd that the most severely disabled were excluded from the invalid vehicle service because eligibility depended on the physical ability to drive. I am further delighted to learn today that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has changed her mind in favour of a cash grant rather than supplying cars. I should also like to add my thanks to her for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
I think I should say here that I am a member of the Joint Committee for Mobility for the Disabled on which most organisations concerned with disabled people are represented. The Committee's views embrace the opinions of all its members and are ones which I heartily support. Before we press too hard for the immediate abolition of the three-wheeler, can we for a moment consider the situation of those who stand to lose by its disappearance. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have already mentioned these people. First of all, there are 16-year-olds who, although they will admittedly be phased into the new proposed mobility allowance, are at an age when independence and the need to get out and about and away from their families is very important. I do not think that the £4 a week allowance would give them as much independent mileage as they now enjoy. Some people suggest that a car for 16-year-old disabled drivers would be a possibility, but since the minimum age limit for able-bodied drivers is, in any case, likely to be raised I do not see this as a realistic proposition. Secondly, there are some people who may not be able to pass their driving test in currently available adapted cars, and they value their present independent mobility. Thirdly, there are some who think they are incapable of driving conventional cars, and some do not want to try. These are mainly elderly people without previous motoring experience.
I must rapidly underline that I am not advocating retention of the three-wheeler in its present form. I think it has many faults and drawbacks and the Joint Com-
306
mittee regard research and development into the production of a specialised vehicle as of prime importance, because they believe there will be a continuing need for some form of specialised vehicle for some physically disabled people. It is interesting to note that Sweden, which is a particularly go-ahead country in giving help to the disabled, offers a special vehicle as an alternative to a mobility grant. Many people in the categories I have mentioned would have been denied any form of outdoor mobility if the recommendations in the noble Baroness's Report had been followed. While they will now receive the new mobility allowance—and, incidentally, I hope that the over-65s will be included in this mobility allowance, although it seems at present that they will not be—those who cannot for one reason or another drive currently available adapted cars will be denied the choice between independent mobility and hired transport if there is no specialised vehicle available.
In common with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I see this feature of choice in the proposed mobility allowance as being so very important. The second part of the noble Baroness's Motion calls "attention to the uncertainties surrounding … the vehicle service for physically disabled people ". I do not see "uncertainties"; I see rather the start of a move towards a mature and realistic solution of the out door mobility problems of disabled people. I must stress that it is only a start; the proposed £208 per annum taxable allowance will be worth little more than the value of the £100 per annum private car allowance when it was introduced in 1972.
But there are two enormously important principles contained in the Government's proposals: first, following the lead of the noble Baroness's Report, there is the fact that disabled passengers and drivers should be treated alike; and, secondly, there is the fact that those receiving the grant will be able to spend it on whatever form of mobility they choose. Is that not a breakthrough? We have moved from a vehicle service available only to those who can drive, to a mobility scheme which offers freedom of choice to both disabled drivers and passengers. While mobility allowance as proposed at present will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has already

307
pointed out, in no way assist the less well-off drivers and passengers to buy a car, I see it as a first step forward in the direction of a mobility grant scheme such as the Joint Committee on Mobility have long been advocating.
Let me tell your Lordships what this mobility grant would consist of. First, there would be a five-yearly lump sum sufficient to buy a small car; secondly, a taxable allowance to cover the cost of running and maintaining a car; thirdly, a non-taxable allowance to offset motoring taxes. Given the present difficult financial situation, I feel that the most severely disabled and the least well-off should be given priority. I think that those who can well afford to buy a car should not be helped to buy one. But I must stress that I am not suggesting a supplementary benefit level based type of means test. Buying a car is a large capital outlay, so an income of £2,000 per annum or less would be insufficient to cover an expense of this magnitude. Nevertheless, those who can afford to buy a car should be allowed the taxable allowance for maintenance and repairs, and the non-taxable allowance to offset motoring taxes, because private motoring is not a luxury for disabled drivers and passengers. No public transport system, however expensively adapted and run, will ever be able to suit all types of physically disabled people and provide a realistically door-to-door service for them. Indeed, the existence of the invalid vehicle service, whatever its previous shortcomings, is proof that that is an accepted fact.
Mobility pays off in that it enables disabled people to do a job, pay their taxes, support their families and keep them together, thus avoiding additional burdens on the State. In any case, I do not believe that the numbers involved would be as great as the Department fears, and no survey has ever been carried out to find just what sort of numbers are involved. This mobility grant would at last allow the disabled passenger and driver the freedom which every able-bodied car buyer in this country unthinkingly enjoys—the right to choose the car best suited to himself, his family, his circumstances and his own way of life. We should also bear in mind that there are some disabled pas-
308
sengers and drivers who would prefer the Department to accept responsibility for administering their mobility grant. I therefore believe we should offer a three-fold choice to all who qualify for mobility help, whether or not they are able to drive themselves.
First, there should be a specialised vehicle for those who want it; secondly, a mobility grant enabling people to purchase the car of their choice; thirdly, the few who feel that they cannot cope with the mobility grant should have a small car, suitably adapted for driver or passenger, with the repair and maintenance costs paid by the vehicle service. It is very important that this service should retain its identity and not be swallowed up with other care or cash provisions for disabled people, as the invalid vehicle service involves only a relatively small proportion of those qualifying for other benefits. I firmly believe that this three-fold choice is a realistic plan which would cover the varying needs of all types of disabled people who qualify for mobility assistance, offering them freedom of choice and the chance to act as free, responsible, mature and productive members of the community.
I have one final point, my Lords. I have outlined the longer-term future, as I see it, stemming from the proposed new mobility allowance, but there is an immediate and very pressing need. Disabled passengers at present receive no mobility assistance—except the road tax exemption—and they urgently need help in the face of rapidly rising costs. I wonder whether the overworked and noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell me in his reply whether they will have priority when the mobility allowance is phased in, or whether, in common with disabled drivers who at present choose to buy their own cars, they might receive the £100 per annum private car allowance in the interim period to help them to remain mobile.
4.17 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, outdoor mobility is vital to people who cannot walk at all, or can walk only with great difficulty and cannot make use of public transport. The developments in the socialisation of young disabled people, in their pursuit of further and higher education, employment, marriage

309
and family commitments, all follow from the ability to travel outdoors. Outdoor mobility is equally essential for mature disabled people whose lives would be impoverished were they to be made housebound. That is why I am totally opposed to the abolition of the invalid tricycle.
I am convinced that a not insignificant number of drivers would suffer if the invalid tricycle were to be replaced by a Mini; the 16 to 17 year olds who, by law, are too young to drive a car, but who, nevertheless, need mobility in this very important year of development in their lives; the invalid tricycle drivers, who are physically unable to drive currently available adapted cars; and others who believe they cannot do so and are now reluctant to try. There are some people who now hold a licence to drive an invalid tricycle who might not pass a driving test in an adapted car. Others with provisional licences welcome the mobility they now enjoy in driving invalid tricycles. I know that some drivers find it easier to handle their wheelchairs in invalid tricycles than in cars, that some find the size of the tricycle convenient, while others enjoy the ability to drive and park where cars might be prohibited. I am not advocating the permanent retention of the invalid tricycle as it now exists. I realise there are problems with it, but surely in this technological age an improved vehicle could be produced with more research.
I should also like to see the vehicle service extended to encompass the needs of disabled passengers, and to improve the help now offered to disabled drivers. I believe this can be achieved only by offering disabled people the choice of an invalid tricycle or a mobility grant. But I understand that some disabled drivers and passengers might prefer the Department to accept responsibility for administering their mobility grant, by supplying them with a suitably adapted small car and paying its maintenance and repairs. But all this would involve considerable expenditure, whatever the number of people eligible under the scheme. There seems to be a worrying lack of information on what this number would be and on what people might opt for if presented with this choice. Would it be possible for the Department to undertake a modest survey of disabled driver;, people using wheel chairs and
310
those receiving attendance allowances, to gain some estimate of these unknowns?
My final point is about the recent increase in the cost of motoring—the rise in the basic cost of petrol, of petrol tax and of buying and maintaining a vehicle. These increases are threatening to immobilise many who now enjoy the freedom to travel out of doors. We must not allow this to happen and let us be quite sure, before we take anything away from these people, that we have something very much better—and something which is available—to give them in its place.
4.22 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, it is always rather difficult speaking at the end of a short debate because one does not wish to take up too much time and also because a good many of the things that one might have said have already been said. This is probably particularly so in my own case as I have not the experience of many of the speakers this afternoon. I believe that we are coming to the point where we shall really be getting down to the difficult issues. In the past I think that there may have been some overstatement by the protagonists about getting rid of the trike at any price. They called it extremely dangerous: more dangerous than other vehicles it undoubtedly is, but not so dangerous that sensible people will say that it should be removed from everybody by tomorrow morning. The Government, for their part, have put out a smokescreen to cover their real difficulties. I hope that this afternoon we can face those real difficulties and that the Government will do so.
There is no doubt at all that the trike is by any standards an unsatisfactory vehicle. It may have advantages for certain people, but it is not at all a good vehicle and one wonders why it was ever put on the roads. I do not know which Government were responsible, but I suspect that it was not technological factors that influenced the decision but a puritanical and Scrooge-like attitude which insisted that this was personal transport and that under no circumstances should anybody but the disabled person be allowed to drive or ride in the vehicle.
My Lords, let us examine this attitude for one moment. I have already said that it was puritanical and Scrooge-like.

311
One must remember that, if one is disabled, to have a passenger can be of enormous help and comfort. Indeed, in many cases it is absolutely necessary to have such a passenger in order to be able to get about. There is another angle here as well: again, I speak without experience, but I think that many disabled people who fight their disability are not at all happy at going about in something which is so obviously a C3 vehicle. They want to do their best to show that they are as normal as is possible, though I know there are exceptions. So I believe that it is essential to be able to take a passenger and also, in certain circumstances, to be able to let somebody else drive the car. The disabled person may not be feeling very well and there arises the question of danger on the road, safety and so on. Of course one would not allow such a car to be taken out on joyrides by the family. In any case, we must not forget that today the price of the petrol is quite a deterrent to using a car excessively.
In Holland, we see that an adapted car is provided practically without exception. The only exception is a sort of motorised bathchair which is given in extreme cases. The most usual vehicle is an adapted Daf 44. I am sure that we should and must take a firm decision that the trike must not go on indefinitely. The sensible course is, I believe, to give a choice. A very small number of people—and I think that the evidence is that they will be well under 4 per cent. of the total— will probably take the trike. It is no , good the Government saying, "Oh yes, we will provide a mobility grant to enable you to buy and adapt a car." We must not forget that £200, or whatever the figure may be, does not provide the necessary capital. People must be given the three choices—that is, the trike if they wish to have it, a new adapted vehicle which I hope will be produced or the mobility grant. Following that, the existing tricycles should be phased out in a programme which would still allow those who wish to keep them to do so.
What is the difficulty about this? We know what the trouble is: it is a fear on the part of the Government and, presumably, the Treasury that we would be opening the floodgates whereas at this time one cannot reasonably provide extra
312
funds, however good the purpose. One could have some sympathy with that point of view, but I think that it would be better if the Government said so straight out. What I am saying to them now is that if there are difficulties, if they must keep the total expenditure down to the present level, they must, as the noble Baroness who introduced the debate said, grasp the nettle. There are ways in which that could be done without necessarily applying means tests, and in my opinion that is what must be done.
4.28 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I for one was delighted when I learnt that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, had been successful in the ballot and had been able to arrange the present debate. Much was said during the last debate in April, but there are still things to be said and thought about. I felt overwhelmed by the amount of research which the noble Baroness had conducted single-handed. Her Report contained a list more than five pages long of associations and persons who had given written or oral evidence. However, I wonder whether it is not always wiser to have more than one individual on a commission. Where there is more than one member each helps the others with mutual friendly criticism and a broader band of experience. The noble Baroness did valuable work single-handed and is much to be congratulated.
I should like only to examine a small number of aspects of this matter. There was a Somali boy whom I used frequently to see near the Steamer Point Market when I lived in Aden. He had lost both legs and what remained of his thighs was strapped to a rough wooden board mounted on roller skates. He paddled himself around with his hands, singing and laughing. He had extraordinary gaiety and courage. I mention him to illustrate what seems to me to be the nub of this matter: what he wanted above all was to get about and to talk to people and within his limitations, to live some sort of ordinary life.
My Lords, I am not an expert on invalid carriages or, specifically, Invacars. In the hamlet of Lilling near York, next to the village where I live, there is a Mr. Mason, who has been using invalid carriages for some 22 years. He is crippled in both legs from spinal meningitis. I

313
am grateful to him for a long talk in which he told me some of his problems, some—but not all—of which are mentioned in the Report. He showed me the very useful little handbook for Invacar users. This gives instructions about what to do in the event of a breakdown. One has to flash the lights or hang a white handkerchief out of the window. Last November he broke down during daylight between Wetherby and York and waved his handkerchief. At various intervals no less than five police cars passed him, but not one stopped. Eventually, he was rescued by a tractor driver who was pulling a load of sugar beet. His rescuer went back two miles down the road to telephone for help for him. It has always been easy to criticise the police, but one wonders why not one out of five police curs stopped. Had the police really been told the significance of the white handkerchief? Is the display of a white handkerchief a sufficient signal? It is perhaps something that one would not easily notice.
Mr. Mason told be that a mechanic in a Government-approved repair garage in York suggested a wooden sign with the letter "H" in orange luminous paint, which he could hold out of the car. This seems a useful and simple suggestion. I am told that this garage is most efficient in looking after Invacars. Again, not long ago Mr. Mason had a puncture. The Invacar has no spare wheel or jack or wheelbrace. Even if one wanted to help him, one could not. He had to bump home on a flat tyre. Of course he could not change the tyre himself, but no doubt plenty of other road users would have been happy to help him.
Mr. Mason thinks of this car as his legs: otherwise, he would be housebound. He has a wheelchair indoors and in this way he is able to be completely independent and live by himself. He can do what he likes. He said it would be nice to have a car, particularly if it were cheaper to run. It would be nice to go out in company and not always by himself, but he would not be able to take his wheelchair with him, unless the front passenger seat of the car was removable and a slide made available for his own seat so that he could follow the wheelchair through the doorway. I think, my Lords, that he has drawn attention to a very important point. It is an argument
314
not so much about three-wheeled or four-wheeled vehicles, but about what can be done for the four-wheeled vehicle, so that a man could manage it and get in and out by himself. He says he could manage only sliding doors.
Mr. Mason let me have a good look at the vehicle. I am not surprised that it is draughty, because there is a gap near the front of the door and an even larger gap at the back. I cannot think what on earth these gaps are for—it quite defeats me. I asked him how he was managing as a result of the increased cost of petrol. Recently, he was given an increased allowance for which he is very grateful. I know that it is very hard for the Government to be open-handed with money these days. Invacars consume a mixture of petrol and oil which costs 81p per gallon, which is more expensive than 4-star petrol. I wonder whether the Government could consider relieving Invacar users of VAT altogether? These are some quite simple suggestions. Mr. Mason is very thankful to be able to have an Invacar. He understands very well the problems created by wind. The simple answer I am told is simply not to try to drive too fast, and to watch for the direction of the wind. But one has to do that, of course, with any car. He hopes that the criticisms and suggestions he has made to me may assist the Government to help other users.
4.33 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I was late in handing in my name for the list of speakers and I thought it would be better if I did not let my name stand, but rather intervened only briefly if time allowed. May I first take the opportunity of congratulating an old Parliamentary colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, on an excellent maiden speech. We are fortunate to have in this debate Front Benchers, on both sides of the House, of ability and humanity in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on initiating this debate, on her speech and on the work that she did on the Sharp Report. I believe that the Sharp Report is a landmark in the history of the provision of mobility for the disabled. I speak as a Vice-President of the Disabled Drivers' Association and I would

315
echo and remind your Lordships of some words spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in his maiden speceh in this House on 10th April 1974. He said:
"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?"— [Official Report, 10/4/74; col. 1245.]
My Lords, there ought to be no need for pressure groups for the disabled. The DDA is a pressure group and as long as it remains a pressure group that is wrong.
I remind your Lordships of the fundamental issue of the tricycle versus the motorcar. Again, I pray in aid the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who has made himself an expert in this field, and who described the tricycle in the same debate. He said:
"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 antiroll 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 appailing accident record."—[Official Report, 10/4/74; col. 1264.]
This is the instrument we seek to replace by motorcars.
When the Sharp Report first came out, there were members of the Disabled Drivers' Association—disabled people themselves—who were afraid that they might lose their tricycle before they got a motorcar. There were others who were so accustomed to the invalid tricycle that they even preferred it to the novelty of seeking to learn to drive a motorcar. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has pointed out, in BLESMA practically everybody who has a choice selects the car rather than the tricycle, and I have been asked by the Disabled Drivers' Association to say that it is now firm in its demand for the motorcar as opposed to the tricycle—not only for disabled men; not only for disabled drivers, but, as the noble Baroness pointed out in her Report, for disabled men who need somebody to drive them in such a car.
My Lords, I believe that this debate is one of a number of steps forward in the long history of making adequate provision for the disabled, and especially
316
now, in the field of mobility for the disabled. We may have to move gradually, but I believe that this debate, as are others before it, is helping to create the climate for when those moves will take place. I know that in the Minister who is to reply to the debate we have one who is a friend of the disabled, and I look forward to hearing him.
4.37 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I apologise for rising when my name is not on the list, especially in a short debate. I have timed the speeches so far and we are not bound to finish it before 5.40 p.m.; and I shall be very brief. This has been a very important debate and it was the subject of a great deal of discussion in the Council of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, to which I belong. A short time ago—I think it was in the spring of last year—there was a rally of drivers of three-wheeled invalid vehicles somewhere in the South-East of London—I cannot remember exactly where. I was persuaded by one of the members of the Institute to attend the rally. Previous to that time I had felt very much like my noble friend Lady Sharp about the three-wheeler. I was only too anxious to see it off the roads altogether. But when I went to the rally, I must confess I was tremendously impressed by it. One of the things that impressed me most was the fact that no two of the vehicles are exactly alike. They are all completely tailor-made to the needs of their particular drivers. There was present one pathetic little driver, who could not have been much more than 3 feet 6 inches tall, and the seat of her vehicle had been raised and the controls brought forward so that it was perfectly easy for her to handle her car.
One must remember that these cars have certain features that even an adapted Mini or normal car would not provide. First, most of them—not all of them, but I should say a good 90 per cent. of them—have handlebar steering instead of wheel steering. This is to enable the driver to keep both his hands on the steering and still have the controls under his fingers. That would not be so with a wheel; and, of course, if you were to adapt a handlebar to a four-wheeled car, it would be so heavy that a great many invalid drivers could not handle it.

317
There is also the point that a great many severely handicapped drivers— those who are perhaps very deformed and who do not like to have other people with them too much—prefer to be on their own. I admit that it is quite true that there are many handicapped drivers who want passengers with them and who, perhaps, even need passengers with them. Therefore, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, when she urges the need for a three-fold choice. This I think is absolutely right. There should be a choice according to the degree of disablement. If one is only slightly disabled and strong enough to drive a four-wheeled car, then well and good; but there are many who are not. This car also has been criticised for its lack of stability; but most of them do not do much more than 30 m.p.h. and stability is not really a very great element at that speed. I do not think that any driver would try to round a sharp corner at 30 m.p.h. Therefore, I think that this three-wheeler still has a very necessary place on the market; but I also think, with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that there should be a choice for those who are able to drive something better.
4.41 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, first of all, I should like to express my gratitude to all those who have taken part for their brevity. I say that because I want to take up perhaps a little more time than most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, so that I can discharge a responsibility that the noble Baroness put upon me; that is, to set out in very precise terms Government thinking on this matter. I am grateful to her. She was very persuasive and, if I may say so, very moderate. I came to the Front Bench not expecting her to be so and I wondered whether I should be able to remain moderate. But this has been a very valuable debate and one which has taken place in a low key. Because of the importance of it, because there are so many people in your Lordships' House who are either disabled now or who, in the past, have been very disabled, it is important that we deal with this matter not only with a great deal of sincerity but also with a great deal of
318
knowledge—and I think that has been present this afternoon.
My Lords, I hope that I shall have time to deal with the individual points which Members of your Lordships' House have raised today. Many have specifically asked to be dealt with. But before answering, may I make a general statement on Government policy on mobility for disabled people. I want to stress that our thinking about this matter starts from the point of view of the individual disabled person, for whom everyone in this House wants to do something—not of one section, not of another, but of every disabled person. All those, I think, are the concern of your Lordships. Let us get this quite clear: policy starts with people and not with hardware. That has been our starting point ever since we first grappled with these problems as a Government a year ago.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made her valuable and—and if she will not mind my saying so—closely-reasoned Report which was published in March of last year as one of the first acts of the present Government, the noble Baroness recommended that if a person were otherwise eligible but could not drive, he should have a car if he could nominate a person to drive it for him. The noble Baroness recognised that this would enormously increase the cost and that she had been asked to have regard to the resources available. It may well be that she was perhaps not able—because of the limitations placed upon her—to say exactly what she wanted to say. I do not know. Her recommendation—to keep the costs within bounds—was that eligibility for the future should be restricted to people who needed a car to get to work or to enable them to run a home. As I understand the Report, Government spending and support were to be switched, from people who were too disabled to work or to help support their families, to those (including many less severely-disabled people) who were useful in these ways.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not take this amiss; but we found that criterion quite unacceptable. It is a functional criterion, which divides the disabled people into two groups, the useful and the useless. You cannot have this in a fair society; you cannot even consider it in a fair society. If you have disabled people, then their wants and needs are,

319
to a large extent, identical. You have to provide for them, but to provide a little extra for those who need a little more. The terms of reference of the noble Baroness were clearly set out; and, with respect, she had to work within those terms of reference. The Government firmly rejected that policy of increased help to the economically useful and what amounted to virtually nothing for the rest. I believe that there is widespread support for this view not only among the disabled but among the community.
This means that for all its value as an analysis of the problem and as a source of wise comment on many matters other than road vehicles, the Report does not get us very far on this central problem. This is not a criticism. This is how I see it. We had, I think, to start from scratch. The vehicle scheme benefits only a small proportion of the people who could qualify if the degree of disablement were the only criterion. A very large number cannot drive but would be in a position to nominate a driver, and a further large number can neither drive nor have they anyone they could nominate as a driver. Their position must be very carefully considered. By bringing in one of these excluded groups, the disabled people who cannot drive but who could nominate a driver, we should clearly increase the cost. Neither the Government nor anyone else has the detailed information about disabled people to make precise costings; but the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, estimated in her Report that, even with the age limit at 70, the numbers and cost would be in the region of three times those applicable to National Health Service clients in the present scheme.
Yet even by spending so much more money on vehicles we should still have left out those who cannot drive and are not in a position to nominate a driver. These are the people we believe most at risk of being socially isolated by their difficulties—and this is a matter which concerns us. If a vehicle scheme could be used to help people in this group it would have pushed up the cost still further. But a vehicle cannot help them. This is a fundamental limitation on the "hardware"approach, and this is something we must always have in the forefront of our minds.
320
The Government were firmly resolved not to absorb all the resources which could be made available and still leave out this group whose need of mobility help is arguably the greatest of all. We therefore turned to a cash benefit as the main way of helping severely disabled people to be more mobile. It is estimated that it would bring in about 100,000 more people by 1978–79. I believe the noble Baroness mentioned the figure of 150,000. These figures must be compared with the 50,000 beneficiaries under the vehicle scheme—twice as many on our figure; three times as many on the figure given by the noble Baroness. The estimated cost will be more than double the total spending, cash and vehicles together. I believe that this is far more radical—it is far more expensive and far more radical—than anything that has ever been suggested in the past for disabled people. It is to this mast that the present Government nail their flag and they are not going to bring it down very easily.
The introduction of a cash benefit has been warmly welcomed by representatives of disabled people, but many of them have said: "Why cannot we have a choice of cash or invalid three-wheeler or car?" This is a perfectly reasonable question to put to any Government The objection—let me be quite frank about it; one cannot hide these facts these days—is partly one of cost. Cars for all those eligible who want them, with a cash equivalent for others, would bring the total cost to far more than the Government, indeed any responsible Government, could plan for at the present moment. There are many unmet needs, as your Lordships know, in our social services. We are reminded of them week after week. What the Government tried to do yesterday did not find favour in some parts of your Lordships' House because the benefits did not go far enough. But there is nothing between us on this. We know it. But we have only a certain amount of cloth to deal with, and there are, as I have said, many unmet needs in our social services, including particularly disabled people themselves.
Mobility is very important but it is not the only need of the disabled, and we must keep a proper sense of priorities in this matter. In face of the many

321
pressing and justified claims for improvement, there is necessarily a limit to the amount we can devote to mobility. But we are going to increase that very substantially. If I remember rightly, the recommendation in Lady Sharp's Report said that the provision of cars would cost something like £3 million a year. If there are 100,000 people who are not in the scheme at the present moment but are going to be brought into this scheme and be given a mobility allowance of something like £4 a week, this is going to cost £20 million. If the noble Baroness's figure of 150,000 is right the cost will be £30 million a year—in one case six times as much, or, if the higher figure is right, 10 times as much as was envisaged in Lady Sharp's Report— although it was restricting cars to particular groups.
I want to say something about the invalid three-wheeler which is really the main subject of this debate. I make no apology for first describing the broad policies at some length, because the three-wheeler must be seen in the context of the Government's policy. The Government Statement of 13th September 1974, to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made reference, made it clear that it is the Government's intention to continue to make these vehicles available. It follows therefore (I think this will answer a question put by a noble Lord) that the supply arrangements must stand, including placing contracts for vehicles as and when necessary. There are three main reasons for this. First, many people want them. We must understand that this is so. It is all very well for it to be said that disabled people do not want them. If I had the time I could convince your Lordships that there is a vast army of disabled people who have three-wheelers and want to keep them. Last Friday week I was in Shropshire visiting a training centre for the disabled where there were 160 badly disabled people. Before I left—apropos of nothing at all; the subject had not been mentioned—the medical superintendent said to me: "You are not going to take the three-wheelers away, are you?" I asked why not, and he replied: "You do not know the harm it would do psychologically to the young men and young women I have here if they were not able to propel themselves." Do not let us think that this vehicle is
322
so awful and so bad that the vast majority of the disabled want to "get shot of it". This is not so at all.
Secondly, it appears to us that there are people for whom a specialised invalid vehicle can bring independent mobility which cannot be achieved in any other way. Invalid three-wheelers are used by people with a wide range of disabilities—the person who has completely lost the use of his legs but who otherwise has full normal capabilities; the kind of disabled person critics seem to have mainly in mind in contending that hand controlled cars are the complete answer. But they are not our only clients; they are not society's only disabled people. Indeed, they are not nowadays a majority of all those being provided with vehicles. Many people, for example, have lost their ability to walk by reason of degenerative arthritis affecting hip or knee joints; there is generalised rheumatoid arthritis; there is spondylitis and a whole range of other disabilities. People with these conditions have to some degree lost the ability to bend their joints. Some are quite unable to bend their joints at all. If they are tall they may be quite unable to get into the driving seat of an ordinary car. Three-wheelers are so constructed that people in that position can get in them and drive, not sitting down but virtually standing up. They could not do that with a car.
Quite apart from the fact that to provide the controls on a private car would be considerably more costly, it would be impossible to adapt some private cars to meet the physical conditions of many of our disabled people. Many other users of the vehicles suffer from diseases of the central nervous system, causing marked debility, or slowing down of the reaction times and co-ordination. Some of those who are most severely disabled in these ways could not safely manage a vehicle with the performance of a motor car—and, I would readily admit, not even a vehicle with the performance of the latest model, the Model 70 three-wheeler which is being used at the present moment. However, they can be provided with an electrically-powered version of the three-wheeler.
A further substantial group of users are those who have lost the functions of

323
both legs and one arm as well. Many such people can control perfectly competently a three-wheeler with tiller steering and special controls, but they could not use a steering wheel. For many of these people the choice is quite clear: either an invalid three-wheeler or no driving at all. Whatever may be hypothetically possible, with unlimited financial and technological resources, there is no practicable way of getting them on to the road in an adapted car—at least, not at the present moment, having regard to some of the disabilities. That, I submit, is a powerful reason for keeping the three-wheeler where we can do so much more for them.
There is yet another cogent and important reason. We know that many users value the three-wheeler for its ability to go where cars cannot go. You cannot take a car into a shopping precinct or into a pedestrian precinct, but you may be able to take a three-wheeler there. There are many ways in which a three-wheeler can be used when one cannot use a motor car. This is, of course, an important consideration to people who cannot get out and walk, or whose walking range is very limited, and it is becoming of increasing relevance as restrictions upon vehicle access are extended.
May I make one other thing clear. The Government do not see the provision of cars and the possibility of abandoning the three-wheeler as linked matters. I have stated the Government's reasons for not providing cars. They are concerned with cash being the main benefit. Any question of dropping the three-wheeler would be a quite separate matter. We do see a place for the specialised vehicle. The Government's role in providing it is essentially the same as in the provision of other highly specialised needs of disabled people, such as artificial limbs and wheelchairs. The three-wheeler is an elaborate aid; it is not a car. It is an elaborate aid in the same way as artificial limbs form part of the body to help it to function.
The Motion that we are debating refers to the uncertainty about the future of the vehicle service. I am not quite sure what is meant here, because the Government's Statement last September of their intention to continue to provide three-wheelers
324
was, I think, clear enough. However, if there is any uncertainty, I hope that the amplification of that Statement which I have just given will help to dispel it.
That brings us to the question, what kind of specialised vehicle? Here I must go, just a little, into technical characteristics. Steering is one important problem. The technical requirement here is that it must be possible to move the I steering from lock to lock by means of arm movements which may be limited in both power and range. It must be possible to accomplish this when the driver cannot gain the mechanical advantage of using several turns of the steering wheel. Most invalid three-wheelers, even though they can be fitted with steering wheels— and a small number of them are so fitted —have either handlebars or tillers which are operated by one arm, because these are more suited to the driver's capabilities. Such devices would simply not provide the leverage, to use a technical term in what is probably a hopelessly untechnical way, to operate the steering of a conventional car, with two front wheels carrying about half, or even more, of the total weight of the vehicle.
The technical solution we have is the invalid three-wheeler which is a small, light vehicle, with a single, lightly loaded wheel at the front. With such a vehicle, stability poses unavoidable problems. The Government recognise this. These problems cannot be solved simply by keeping the building of the vehicle low to the ground. As I described it a moment or two ago, many disabled people need a fairly high and upright seating position, and one which will facilitate transfer from a wheel chair. This, and the need to provide for special groups—for example, people who cannot bend at the hips—makes it necessary for the door to be considerably higher than in normal production cars. Because of these two factors—steering requirement and height —a specialised invalid vehicle cannot be made as stable as a four-wheeled car. It can be overturned more easily, and its handling is more affected by cross-winds. These are the unavoidable drawbacks which go with the necessary characteristics of a vehicle which is designed for the special need the Government are seeking to meet.
This does not mean that the Government are complacent in any respect about

325
the safety problems. We realise the difficulties, and we are aware that we must always concentrate on the safety factor. We are producing, and studying jointly with the Department of the Environment, analyses of the accidents to Ministry vehicles—by that I mean cars and three-wheelers—by reference to such factors as the type of vehicle, the type of steering, and the age, the disability and the degree of experience of the driver. We hope that lessons from this study will help us to enable these vehicles to be used in the future with far greater safety. We are not in any sense going to try to keep these figures dark. Let me make that perfectly clear. When this study is complete, the findings will be made available, and the Department will invite representatives of the disabled to discuss the findings with the Department.
At this stage I do not want to say much about the analysis of accidents, because we are in the middle of the exercise. However, the Model 70—which is acknowledged, even by its critics, as being an advance in every way, including handling characteristics relevant to safety, on its predecessors—nevertheless has an apparently greater liability to accidents than the older models. This is something we are looking into. Indeed, the older models have a substantially lower incidence of accidents relative to the number on issue than either the Model 70 or the cars which the Department provides for war pensioners. There is some indication here that a very important part is played by the disabled driver who is new to driving, or to driving the particular vehicle he has, because all the new drivers are being given Model 70s, whereas virtually all the drivers of older three-wheelers are people who are used to them and know how to handle them. The factors to be studied are complex and, as I have already assured the House, when we have concluded our investigation and research, the findings will be made known.
There is one other point I wish to make. The Model 70 is the result of a direct line of development of earlier models, aimed at improving the vehicle in ways which had long been felt to be desirable. It may be that in some ways this was over-simplified. The Department aimed at a vehicle which incorporated automatic transmission to make
326
it very much easier to control, as compared with earlier models, and had better all-round performance. That in itself necessitated the provision of a better and more powerful engine, and brought the vehicle nearer to the standards of performance which people have become accustomed to expect from cars. This has not. only made the vehicle capable of control by those with disabilities which preclude them from driving the earlier model, but has also invited comparisons to the detriment of the three-wheeler. But bearing in mind the special purpose of these vehicles, we now feel that the main emphasis in development should be in making a vehicle capable of safe use by people who, because of their disability, are near the limit of ability to manage even a specialised vehicle. This may well entail deliberate acceptance of limitations on performance, in the sense in which we apply that term to the normal motor car. The Ministers directly responsible are keeping these points in mind in planning for the future. There is a good deal of discussion going on at the moment with various individuals and organisations, to see whether it can be improved still further.
I will try very quickly, if I may have your Lordships' indulgence, to deal with one or two points which have arisen out of the debate. I want to emphasise, as a result of something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the Central Council for the Disabled has set up a Working Party after consultation with the Minister for the Disabled, to consider a vast number of matters relating to the three-wheeler and the mobility allowance which we are bringing in fairly shortly. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who asked whether, when the mobility allowance is payable, the three-wheeler driver will be able to opt for the mobility allowance and give up his three-wheeler. I understand that he will.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his comments and observations, and I suppose it is because I largely agreed with him that I thought it was a most balanced speech. But he brought to this debate this afternoon a tremendous amount of knowledge of the subject—certainly, a great deal more than I myself possess—and he was speaking from knowledge of this matter. I am grateful to him for his support. I should

327
like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany—I am sorry that he has to have my back and not my front, although there are many people who prefer that—and to say how delighted we all are with his maiden speech. It is quite clear that he has considerable experience in the field of social affairs. This is one matter in which we are often not divided but joined, and is very much a function which shows your Lordship' House at its best.
I want to say to my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton that, strangely enough, we are already looking into the question of the repair of wheelchairs, and we will look into the point about ambulance men to see what the situation is. I think she asked why, when we chose a car, we chose a Mini. I hope I am right about this but, first, there is the cost factor— the Mini is cheaper. Also, I think I am right in saying that it is the only British small car available with automatic transmission. If I am wrong about that I will write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised the question of the document. I am grateful to him for having done so, because it gives me an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships—in case you felt that you had been badly dealt with—that the statement was, in fact, made by the Secretary of State for Social Services to the Press on 13th September 1974. It was not a statement made in Parliament; it was made outside as a corollary to a Command White Paper entitled Social Security Provision for the Chronically Sick and Disabled People. We had to publish that rather quickly and I would accept any strictures from the noble Lord. It should have gone into this document. It was our intention to put it in, but the time factor made it impossible and so my right honourable friend made the statement to the Press and my information is that 20 copies of it were sent to the House of Lords. Where they went to I do not know.
The noble Lord raised the position of passengers and asked whether a driver would be in breach of his policy. It so happens that the Department is already in touch with insurance companies and will discuss with them what can be done. The noble Lord also raised the question of the flat rate. The only reply I can
328
give is that we are anxious to avoid introducing anything which appears to be a means test and we feel that the flat rate is perhaps better. With regard to the 4 a week, there is nothing magic about that figure. I think it is a compromise figure which represents an amount which can make a useful contribution, and relates tolerably to cash benefits and payments that one finds in other fields.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, not only for her qualified approval—I think it was qualified approval—of what the Government are doing and of the scheme, but also for her suggestions which I should like to study. I know she is anxious that I should say something about when the mobility allowance is to be introduced. It will be introduced in the forthcoming financial year 1975–76, but it will have to be phased in and obviously we cannot include in that year the whole 150,000. That would be quite impossible. If the noble Baroness asks me what kind of yardstick we are going to apply at this stage, I can say only that it is being discussed with people who are able to advise the Department about who shall come first, second and third. I do not think I can go beyond that at the moment.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, does that mean that we shall be having legislation this Session?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there will be legislation and it should be this Session. For a moment, I thought the noble Lord meant before Easter. The answer to his question is, Yes. I would like to deal with a whole number of other questions, but I think I have gone on long enough. There is another debate and an Unstarred Question, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for dealing only with the Government's attitude towards this subject and for not answering all the questions which have been put.
Baroness SHARP: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships more than a very few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that the Government had decided that the first and most important thing was the mobility allowance, available to a much larger number of people than ever trikes had been. I think we all accept and welcome the allowance. In fact, if it had been operat-

329
ing when I was reporting, it would have enabled me to write a different kind of Report in some ways. But what we are talking about now is the vehicle service which the Government still have, and which apparently they propose to go on with on the present unsatisfactory basis. That is really the issue; and my contention is that the introduction of this welcome allowance gives the Government an opportunity to make a more sensible, rational and, I would say, humane disposition of such resources as they are able to spare for vehicles.
The noble Lord accused me of having in my Report divided the disabled who should get cars into two categories; the economically useful and the useless. It was, as I think he admitted, a fairly offensive way to describe what I said. What I was saying, in fact, was that since one must make the choice—and it is, the Government's responsibility to make choices—it should be between those to whom the vehicle is most useful, and those to whom it is not so useful, although still much desired.
My Lords, what do the Government do? They also divide those who can have vehicles into two groups; those who can drive and those who cannot. Is that humane? This is a great part of what we are talking about; the priorities one should have, trying to be humane, admitting and recognising that one cannot spend much on the vehicle part of the service, and should not—at least not yet. I submit that the present way of doing it is just about as bad a way as one can choose. And the sole reason is that the Government dare not make decisions about the right priorities for the car. It is difficult; but they have the chance now with this mobility allowance. They ought to face this, and not go on as they are.
My Lords, what is the argument advanced? That there are some disabled who cannot drive a car and can only drive a trike. There are a few, but only a few. To test this, let the Government adopt the suggestion made by some speakers—that a choice should be offered of car, trike, or cash. Then they will find out what is the preference for the trike or the car. It is trying to pull the wool over our eyes to say that preference for the trike is a big argument. It is a difficult one. It would
330
be nice to think we could provide a specialised vehicle for the few; maybe it is possible maybe not. But the real point is that most of the disabled are asking for a car, and a car is cheaper. I think the Government will hear more and more about this until something is done. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE BRITISH AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to call attention to the current state of the British aircraft industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, if one was invited to comment on the present system of short debates in this House, which I feel it would be both possibly imprudent and ungracious of me to do, the comment would be that it resembles a popular method once used by students when confronted with an enormous list of unpaid bills. In that case, any aggrieved creditors who indicated by letter their growing impatience would be immediately threatened that unless they changed their tune, their particular bill would not even go into the next month's ballot. I mention this only to illustrate that sometimes the timing of these debates, or subjects under discussion in a short debate, may appear somewhat in the lap of providence. But as is the case with so much of the mystical workings of this House, I believe the timing of this debate on the state of the British aircraft industry to be remarkably fortuitous. I refer, of course, to the one dominating subject of the industry that could influence the whole future structure of the industry, namely, the proposals of the Government to nationalise the airframe industry. For this reason, I am particularly grateful to other noble Lords who have indicated their intention to take part, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, for choosing this debate in which to make his maiden speech. I am sure we are all looking forward to listening to him.
Although the nationalisation issue will be the dominating flavour in this debate, I hope we shall be able to cover all the other current topics that make up the state of the industry—the performance of

331
the industry in comparison with our foreign competitors, the success of the current projects, the plans for future projects, and the policy on continuing international collaboration. In all these matters, and others, I believe we have the opportunity to probe deeply into the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I am sure the House will agree that in the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, we have a Minister who speaks on aviation matters with an accepted authority, a long experience and a well earned reputation in industry.
The Consultative Document published in January, setting out the proposals of the Government to nationalise the airframe industry, is a subject, I suspect, that this House can discuss with a greater degree of detachment than the other place. The issue of nationalisation, whether it concerns the airframe industry or the shipbuilding industry, I believe can be separated into two distinct parts—the political objective and the commercial need. As to the political objective, I am personally totally and fundamentally opposed to it, not only because it strikes at the way of life of our country and the system of our individual effort and choice, but also because I believe that unless this new giant corporation in its early days is organised with extreme dexterity, there is a very real fear that it could fracture the impetus of this industry and become an unwieldy, unmanageable metamorphosis in the same mould as the now limping giant, British Leyland.
As to the commercial need, the frailty of the case put forward in the Consultative Document and, indeed, the unanimous reaction of industry to that document is, I believe, evidence enough to show that no convincing case has been made out to justify the proposals of the Government. Indeed, the priority given to this policy by the Government at a time of acute national economic crisis I find wholly baffling. Is it really in the national interest to seek from the Treasury precious funds in the form of compensation, which could exceed £100 million, to buy out two highly successful companies at a time when the Treasury must be inundated with urgent requests for financial assistance from industrial companies and, indeed, from local authorities with their projects of housing, education
332
and health? Surely these should have priority. I find the timing here most extraordinary. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to clarify for us why the Government have chosen this time to introduce these proposals.
As to the Consultative Document itself, the House will recall that it cites the Plowden Committee Report published in 1965, which looked into the aircraft industry. It cited the Report as recommending—and I quote from the Consultative Document which tends to quote from the Plowden Report:
"That the Government should take a majority shareholding in BAC and in the airframe and guided weapons interests of HawkerSiddeley."
As I am sure other noble Lords have done, I have taken the trouble to re-read the recommendations of the Plowden Committee and the paragraphs referred to in the Consultative Document. Nowhere have I found either the wording or the implication of majority holding or, more bluntly, nationalisation. What the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, recommended, as I understand it, was a Government investment on the lines of BP, a degree of public investment, not a majority holding or nationalisation. It is perhaps a small point in this debate, but I should be grateful, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, comes to reply, if he could advise us where the Plowden Committee recommended nationalisation. If it does not do so, I fear the Consultative Document has inadvertently been misleading.
If one assumes that despite all the political and commercial opposition to the Government's plans to nationalise, nevertheless the Government forge ahead, and that the Aircraft Corporation of Great Britain becomes reality, there are, I believe, a number of points and indeed assurances on which I am sure other noble Lords will wish to press the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, today. I should like to raise with the noble Lord two aspects particularly mentioned in the Consultative Document.
The first aspect is the need for a greater degree of public accountability. I am sure this concept will be welcomed by everyone, but the thinking that only nationalisation improves public accountability really seems illogical. It must,

333
surely, be up to Parliament to legislate what information should be made available both in the public and the private sectors. The noble Lord will know that in America, through the CAB, the public accountability is far ahead of the British system. Detailed information is published every month on such aspects as the punctuality of, for example, the PAN AM service, the depreciation policy for their aircraft, and, indeed, their military charter rates. If a Member of Parliament went to British Airways and asked for similar information, I suspect that he would be told to go and whistle. I find that the present system of public accountability—certainly in the public sector, in the nationalised bodies—is not something of which either the Government or Parliament should be proud. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that the whole matter of public accountability in this area is being reviewed.
The second aspect I would briefly touch en—which again is set out in the Consultative Document—is the future policy on industrial democracy. I say "briefly ", because I am sure other noble Lords whose experience far exceeds mine in this field will be commenting on this matter. I do not believe anyone in his right mind objects to the improvement in industrial democracy, as obviously it can lead only to welcome improvement in industrial relations. But the brief point I wish to put to the noble Lord is this: we have seen his right honourable friend in the last few months freely expressing his new and often radical, and no doubt highly popular, theories, particularly at the Filton Works of BAC. He is floating ideas, based, I presume, on the words of the Consultative Document, on increasing the democratic participation of aircraft workers in decision-making at all levels of the industry. He is floating ideas which have gone on occasion far in excess of this. The criticism one hears—and I think it is valid—is that the noble Lord's right honourable friend tends to float ideas way beyond the practicalities of running a highly advanced aircraft industry. Indeed, some of the ideas would be perhaps more suited to a collective farm. The fear expressed is that the words of the Minister—and he is never short of words—may in time prove wholly mis-
334
leading and could even prove counterproductive to the sensible advancement of industrial democracy.
My Lords, I would ask for one more assurance from the noble Lord on the question of nationalisation. It concerns the many thousands of equipment companies in the aircraft industry. I am sure that he will know that they view their future with a great deal of uncertainty. They fear that the hand of nationalisation will spread to themselves in due course. Such uncertainty, I suggest to the noble Lord, is very harmful, and I hope he will today be able to give an assurance that the Government have no intention of extending their nationalisation plans beyond the airframe industries.
Turning from the nationalisation issue to the industry itself, the impression one forms both of the present state of the industry and of what the future holds seems to add up to what I would suggest is a somewhat conflicting picture. At the present time we have a number of projects in production and close to production, which indicates that the level of the order book over the next five years is very encouraging. We have Concorde, of course—a unique supersonic civil project due to be in service at the end of this year or early next year—which will place our industry and the French industry in a highly competitive position for years. Thank goodness we still have that project! We have the MRCA, a project far larger in financial terms than the Concorde, still under development, but due to go into production in very large numbers. We have Jaguar already in production and in service, and we have Harrier already in production and in service. Indeed we have Harrier in the Royal Air Force and, of course, in the US Marine Corps. We have the Hawk Trainer aircraft under development. And on top of these, we cannot forget the RB211, servicing all the TriStar sales along with the other Rolls-Royce engines. Undoubtedly, all of these add up I believe, to a healthy order book at the present time. To prove this we see the record export figures for 1974 of some £620 million, recently announced by the SBAC. I hope the noble Lord can indicate whether his Department agree with the SBAC figures on this point.
The gloss of all this good news and these figures is, I suggest to your Lordships, temporarily dulled by the news that the French aircraft industry—half our size in manpower—has apparently achieved export figures last year not far short of £550 million. Again, I ask the noble Lord whether he can confirm this from his Department's information. Whereas the immediate future of the industry appears bright, the picture changes when one delves into what is in the pipeline for future projects. Will further Government development support be coming forward for the upgrading of the RB211 engine to meet the 747 Jumbo Jet requirement? Will the upgrading of the Spey engine be coming forward for the possible stretched version of the BAC 1–11? What is the future of the advanced Harrier development? Are we to allow this brilliant concept simply to die or be taken over by the Americans? What are the plans for the research and development programme to be awarded to the MRCA variant, the air defence version, which one understands the RAF are anxious to obtain? And what future collaborative ventures are in the mind of the Government?
I realise that it is not a propitious moment to be seeking a vast research and development programme from the Government. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord knows, unless the seed corn is sown now the harvest in eight to 10 years' time will begin to look a very thin crop. What is the future, as we see it, of new projects? Undoubtedly, the greatest problem is the civil market. Given the civil market with its world recession—the growth of airline businesses having declined—there undoubtedly is on the civil side a rather gloomy picture. But on the military side we have some very hopeful news. We see that BAC have an order book of over £900 million on military sales. This is very encouraging. I hope the Government will be looking in this area particularly for further projects to be supported.
Turning briefly to certain specific projects, I should like to ask the noble Lord what efforts have been made by the Government, and indeed, by the French Government, to encourage the Jaguar to be considered as an alternative replacement to the Starfighter for the four
336
nation order, the four nations, of course, being Sweden, the Netherlands, and so on. One understands that this replacement order could come to something over 500 aircraft, and clearly it is of considerable importance.
I hope the noble Lord will again be able to advise us what is the up to date position on the maritime Harrier for the Royal Navy. Will this matter be dealt with in the next Defence White Paper? I believe this to be a decision very vital to the welfare of Hawker Siddeley. Perhaps the noble Lord will also bring us up to date, briefly, on Concorde, on how that development is going, and tell us when the endurance proving flights are due to start. In moving this Motion, I am very conscious of the fact that the real value of this debate will flow from the speeches of the noble Lords to follow. 1 trust that the debate will prove of value, for the value of the aircraft industry to the nation in both defence and export terms is inestimable. Its record is one of achievement, and nothing politicians do should disturb its future growth. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.41 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I made a brief intervention now on the public ownership issue. With the permission of the House, I then propose replying at the end to the points that the noble Earl himself made outside of that one subject, and I can maybe at the same time answer similar points raised by other noble Lords. May I first say how genuinely indebted I personally am, as I am sure the House is, to the noble Earl for giving us this opportunity of discussing the aircraft industry, and for the manner in which he introduced the debate. As he said, it is timely; the debate can form part of the consultative process, and I agree with him that it is possible to discuss these matters with a degree of detachment somewhat different from another place.
Having said that, I would say that I think the noble Earl went on to exaggerate a little the effect of the transfer of ownership upon our present strained economy. I agree with him that in the transition period there will be extra calls upon management, but there really is no new demand upon national resources stemming simply from the fact of transferring

337
from one set of owners to another. The consultative document has been criticised for its form as well as for its content, but it has stimulated a great deal of valuable comment. I have here a substantial file of comments from employer organisations, and I have a similarly weighty file from some 25 employee organisations. In addition, there have been something over 30 different submissions from individuals, professional organisations and similar informed and authoritative bodies.
It may be no surprise if I say that the employee organisations welcome public ownership, while the employer companies and associations deplore it. I should add, however, that while the CBI, sadly in its present mood, rely more on strength of language than on reasoned argument, the companies immediately concerned with the transfer of ownership, while being quite firm in their opposition of principle, at the same time offer constructive advice and pose pertinent questions which must be carefully considered and, clearly, further discussion with them will be needed.
I have heard it said, and on one occasion I myself suggested some years ago, that the possible solution to the public ownership problem is what one might call the BP type compromise. But the scene has changed, and I think the argument now supports the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to take. It has changed in so far as project costs have increased and the need for Government funding has become even more important. It has changed in so far as collaborative projects have involved more Government-to-Govemment negotiation. The tendency towards consolidation of national resources in this industry and the inability of the domestic civil and military market to support two major producers of airframes or guided weapons have meant that private ownership, even in part, is less easy to justify. A monopoly under any ownership has incipient dangers, but under even part private ownership those dangers surely are increased.
Moreover there is a shift; of opinion in professional management in that ownership of capital is less important than its availability in adequate quantities, granted always—and I shall return to this
338
—that there is a clearly defined responsibility. Then there is the remarkable evidence that the bulk of those who earn their living in this industry feel that outright public ownership offers greater opportunities for a profitable and satisfying future. In addition there is this public accountability argument, but I personally am inclined to agree that this is much less simple than it seems. Of course the CBI, the SBAC, and the noble Earl just now are right when they say that there is accountability today, but it involves checking and monitoring, possible inquests of the Public Accounts Committee, and altogether more negative involvement than is desirable.
I believe the Plowden Committee got nearer to the truth of this issue when they spoke of the need to remove detailed technical and financial control, and to inject the public interest at an earlier stage of decision-making; namely, at board level. It can be argued that with more complete ownership than Plowden envisaged—and I am not seeking to try to suggest that Plowden was suggesting nationalisation—there should be more delegated responsibility. That was their argument in favour of this public participation, and certainly if there is the same apparatus of Government supervision and control as now, superimposed upon a publicly-owned corporation, then we shall have failed. I agree with the noble Earl, too, that proper public accountability must mean more openness of information —to Parliament to those who work in the industry and to the taxpaying public generally. Our proposed system of planning agreements, for industry generally and not only for the aircraft industry, is based on the proposition that open discussion and exchange of views with the Government, in which the work force of the company or corporation can participate, can mean practical economic advantage.
Having said that, I must refer to the criticism made and the fears expressed about the degree of power to be vested in the Secretary of State. It will be seen from what I have already said that this is a matter which must be considered very carefully, though I think the fears are not well based. May I offer two relevant considerations to support this view, and I offer one of them with a degree of modesty, because I see the noble Lord,

339
Lord Nelson of Stafford, chairman of one of the bodies to which I am going to refer, sitting before me. Whereas with most companies the intervention of shareholders is minimal, in the case of BAC, with their most sophisticated corporate shareholders—namely, Vickers and GEC —their powers have been used effectively; and I imagine there is much the same combination of financial discipline and constructive comment from the Hawker-Siddeley Group towards the HSA and HSD. These shareholders will be changing, but it would be a mistake to assume that their intervention will be increasing.
The second point is that a measure of so-called Government intervention is and will be unavoidable. It is absurd to think that projects like the Concorde or the MRCA or SEPECAT, or indeed the HS 146, can be taken independently of economic, social or defence matters in which Her Majesty's Government are so clearly involved. So while I agree that we have to recognise that successful management must mean maximum possible independence and initiative, there are important facts of life which place ultimate responsibility upon the sponsoring Minister. It is this that will be reflected in the legislation.
In this context of Government-corporation relationship, the development of industrial democracy can be significant. The more successful the development of this concept, the more constructive the participation of the workforce, and the more complete the agreement between all categories of workers, then in my view, the less excuse or need there will be for Government intervention. The comments on this section of the Consultative Document on industrial democracy make absolutely fascinating reading. From the far Right to the far Left there is complete agreement that worker participation, good industrial relations, indeed industrial democracy, is a good thing; indeed, the noble Earl said that no one in his right mind would oppose it. But from that point of agreement opinions differ. The employers, with one voice, say that the present position is satisfactory, and the employees, with one voice, say that it is not. There is no doubt in my mind that we are now ready, in this progressive industry more than most, to take a sig-
340
nificant step forward in this sensitive but highly stimulating field of human relations.
The Document refers to the need for organic development, and my understanding of that is that one cannot impose by legislation a new pattern of human relations: it has to grow, and grow freely but without artificial forcing. There are those on the Left who see the way forward through worker representation on the policy-making board—something along the lines of what is already happening on the Continent. There are others who wish to experiment in other ways, and see the objective as an elected Workers Council of Control, which would, in their words, hire the management and have the power to fire. My own experience as an elected Member of Parliament leads me to think that a capability to dismiss as well as appoint encourages a proper degree of respect. I have also seen evidence, however, of a readiness to curry favour with the electors which was not always consistent with sound judgment.
Moreover, it surprises me, at any rate, that there are those who so keenly recognise the need to encourage self-respect and a feeling of independence, but who overlook the fact that senior management have the same natural feelings. I am not certain that this formula of hiring management will promote that dynamic initiative and the new motivation which we must develop among those who have, by merit, worked their way towards the top. There is in the British aircraft industry an enormous body of talent, some of it latent, some of it needing more opportunity for expression. We have to find new and better ways of using this talent. But we must beware of changes which appear to favour one section of workers at the expense of another.
One other section of the Consultative Document has been assailed from opposing sides; namely, that relating to diversification. I was asked by the noble Earl whethcr I would say something about that. There are those who think we should have gone wider, taken over other industries; and, on the other hand, there are those who condemn the proposed powers of diversification. Nothing that I have seen so far leads me to think that we were wrong in limiting the scope of

341
public ownership to those companies which account for about 80 per cent. of employment and turnover in the airframe and guided weapons sector. It will be quite a task to get that 80 per cent. into proper shape. I think we should see how we get on before we consider widening that scope. If there is an obvious need to acquire, by agreement other companies in the airframe sector, it is right that the powers should be there. I might say in this connection that I have been asked by deputations, by at least one other company, that we should include them in the airframe companies that are to be taken over. But I think the decision that we have put forward in the Consultative Document is probably the right one.
If we are to maintain stable employment, or to spread overheads, or profitably to use floor space, then some appropriate diversification is possible— as I think noble Lords opposite will agree, there is nothing new in this—and the powers should be there. I see that one firm making equipment points out that 75 per cent. of its output goes overseas, and another claims to supply 450 airlines and air forces in 138 different countries. These were precisely the kind of considerations which led to the decision that we took regarding scope. But of course if the situation changed, or if at any time the corporation in any particular field thought it could develop some instrument, some item of equipment, ought we really to say, No? But this permissive power ought not to give rise to the kind of fears that the noble Earl had in mind. In this sector, too, with proper discussion, I hope we might get wider agreement. Those are some of the thoughts which I hope will be helpful, and I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of AMHERST: My Lords, may I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on allowing us to have this debate. Perhaps I might be allowed in advance to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, on his maiden speech. When the date for this debate was first put on the Order Paper, I was told that I would be in order if I raised some salient points with regard to the airline position, improvement at Heathrow,
342
and IATA. I have since been told that this is not so, so I shall confine my remarks to the construction industries and the proposals for nationalisation.
The noble Earl has already referred to the Plowden Committee. I shall do so again, but in a slightly different reference. We note that it recommended that the Government should take a majority shareholding in the amalgamated British Aircraft Corporation and the Hawker Siddeley Group. The Government now say that the only way of achieving a satisfactory framework for the industry's future is for the Government to take over the industry in full ownership, which presumably also includes what I believe to be some 300 ancillary businesses and possibly 200,000 employees. This excludes—and if I am wrong perhaps the noble Lord will put my figures right when he replies—defence and space projects, and the Westland Helicopter Company. Can the noble Lord tell us why the Westland Company has been chosen for exclusion?
The Consultative Document, which has already been referred to, which was published by the Department of Industry in January last, contains some high-sounding and faintly benign phrases, such as: To secure the long-term viability of the industry by giving it motivation to make the best use of available resources; unification of major production units as a means of using available resources to their best advantage; to establish a framework in which the industries' interests can be reconciled with the national interest; to enable the industry to operate flexibly in a competitive international market; to encourage strong and organic forms of industrial democracy and to facilitate diversification into areas where the capacities and skills can be advantageously employed. Possibly, all well and good.
However, is not the existing industry aiming at just these objectives? Would they not be able to carry them out under the Plowden Committee's recommendations? Can we be told just where and how the Government think these people have been or are falling down? Perhaps we might be told to what extent the new shareholders (presumably the taxpayers), the 300 firms, the 200,000 employees and the international sales effort will benefit.

343
At the risk of being accused of searching for sinister motives, I would draw attention to the pronounciamento that while the Government state that they want the new Corporation to have the greatest possible commercial freedom consisent with public accountability and broad Government policy, the powers of the Secretary of State in the Nationalisation Bill will have to be the minimum necessary to give him strategic control.
However, to secure this control the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and the Board, and he will approve annually the Corporation's corporate plans and its annual operating budget; he will receive regular returns of performance against budgets; he will approve major development programmes, barring the exclusions I have mentioned, and he will give general direction in the national interest. In fact, he is to have a veto on practically every facet of the business. Neither my colleagues nor I like nationalisation for any doctrinaire sake of nationalisation, and we are seriously alarmed that any Minister should, in times of peace, be given such wide dictatorial powers, without, it seems, any reference to Parliament.
Lastly, we note that the industry has been given 28 days in which to study the proposals and make its views known to the Minister. We think this is far too short a time in which to study properly such a vast project and we would ask the Government to think again and to give more time. I know that I have asked several questions of which I have not given notice to the noble Lord, and if he cannot answer me today, perhaps he will write to me.
6.2 p.m.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, in addressing you for the first time this evening, in accordance with tradition I seek your indulgence. What is said outside about this House—its past, its traditions, its usages and even its future —could not detract in any way from the sure knowledge that anyone will have a deep understanding of a subject within a short while of entering this House, nor could it contest in any way its courtesy. On the matter before us this evening I shall take advantage of and conform with the almost unanimous desire of the House for brevity. What I say this evening
344
may disappoint some noble Lords, but I am sure that another occasion will arise.
I would remind your Lordships that the British aircraft industry is second only to the United States in the Western world. It is the largest in Europe and, perhaps, the only point of contention on which I shall be drawn this evening, is the fact that over the past 25 or 30 years it could not possibly have been in that position had it not been for the intervention and continued support of State capital for research and development. This has provided the basis for the successes and the genuine pride that has been expressed by noble Lords already this evening. Although on this occasion I cannot be drawn too deeply into controversy or contest, I believe that Rolls-Royce would like the opportunity of having Government support for the development of an aircraft engine that is within their capacity—one that would be the quietest in the world. I also know that British Airways would be delighted to co-operate and participate in the development of such a project. I am sure they would both be happy if there were indications of Government support. I am sure it is unnecessary for me to emphasise the export possibilities of an engine of this kind. People in all countries would be appreciative of a silent aircraft, and this would be a contributory factor in solving the problem of siting airports. Therefore, there would be every encouragement for us to enter this vast field of possible exports.
In order to avoid any controversy during the few minutes in which I will address your Lordships this evening, I will merely, as it were, think aloud on one matter which has been raised in this debate. Perhaps through our mass media, particularly our national newspapers, we should be encouraged to consider whether we ought to have a new concept of patriotism in our attitudes towards our State industries. On both sides of the House this evening there is pride in our aircraft industry; its place in the world is undoubted.
Perhaps some consideration could be given to this "thinking aloud", so that this idea might become part of our national concept, the concept of patriotism in the State industries, that will be so important to us in these difficult days.

345
I could so easily drift into contention and, while I may have disappointed many noble Lords this evening, I promise that on future occasions on a number of other subjects and problems that have been raised, I will seek the opportunity to return in more contentious form with a more robust presentation. Suffice it to say that I am very appreciative on this occasion of the attention and courtesy of your Lordships.
6.9 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is a seldom and rare privilege to have heard a speech like the one we have just heard. So far as I am concerned, it is a unique privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, and to tell him that not only those of us on this side but the whole House, respected enormously not only what he said but the way he said it. In his gentle and attractive method of delivery one could not help feeling that all his natural impulses were straining at the leash to prevent his being controversial, and he succeeded to a quite extra-ordinary degree. We are not at all disappointed in his contribution. Indeed, to witness someone making a maiden speech without a note in his hand, is most impressive.
Those of us who have not had the privilege of seeing him before feel that we know him slightly because he is in charge of a union, not noted for its reactionary views, which periodically delights the public by removing from it the opportunity of reading all the miserable news that the purveyors of information seem to think we need to have. He is well known and respected for his firmness of operation in his work. What is not so well known is his erudition and learning, and the fact that one of his pastimes is that of being an expert on military strategies of the past, of which I think Clausewitz is his main interest. Doubtless he derives his tactical experience in his every-day work from the historical military mentors of the past.
We are glad to see the noble Lord and we look forward I hope on many occasions to hearing from him in the future. This is a special week for him. He has made his maiden speech today, and tomorrow he celebrates a party which is being given in his honour, he having been a full-time officer with NATSOPA for
346
25 years. I would congratulate him on his new triumph, which he celebrates today, and wish him well on the long-term triumph which he is celebrating tomorrow.
My noble friend has certainly introduced a subject of extreme interest and topicality. We all want to see the British aircraft industry succeed. Rather like the affiliation small boys have with trains, the great British public feels a sense of attachment, pride and almost personal involvement with the aircraft industry. I suppose this is because its products are in the vanguard of research and technology and are the result of an extraordinary amalgam of boffin-type brains, hard industrial manufacture and a financial control which must almost be regulated by zombies, so complex are the ventures in which they are concerned and which are really on the threshold of the unknown. There is therefore a built-in reflex action of great sympathy by the British public. We want to see this industry successful, not only for those working in it but also for the country as a whole so that we may play a part in the advancement of the frontiers of knowledge and also as an encouragement to exports and their promotion. Yet today we find this industry turned into turmoil because of the Government's stated intention to nationalise it.
Here we accept entirely that totally different points of view are adopted by noble Lords opposite and by those who sit on these Benches; there are different points of view taken by people who work in the aircraft industry and by management. But if we are at one in trying to seek what is best for the industry then there should be room for intelligent argument as to how that is best achieved, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for having intervened on this specific point right at the beginning, and for having portrayed the arguments both courteously and delicately. I was impressed with his manner and his arguments, but was sorrowful about his conclusions.
If we leave out the arguments which are motivated by theoretical political philosophy it might be said that the real purpose of nationalisation is twofold. The first argument is that because the Government have to spend so much

347
of the taxpayers' money in backing projects, then they should have not just a stake in but a control over the industry. This premise masquerades under the attractive, and, incidentally inaccurate, title of "accountability". The second argument says that we ought to have one airframe business, not two, and that nationalisation will achieve this. I do not think it follows that if a Government put money into the manufacture of something necessarily it will be better manufactured if the Government owns it. The best way to get a product manufactured properly is to employ the professionals to do it, and this is precisely what the Government do when they give manufacturers contracts for military requirements. They say, "You have the knowledge, the expertise, the ability. You make it, we will pay". That is a straightforward commercial contract.
Launching aid for specific products is totally different: it can be given by the Government on their terms and does not of itself invite or require ownership of the business, any more than the fact of, for instance, giving grants to farmers necessitates Government ownership of farms. The mere fact that the Government may be the biggest purchaser does not impose the requirement of ownership. But of course the Government are not the biggest purchaser. For instance, Hawker-Siddeley Aviation sells more than half of its products for export. BAC already have outstanding orders for £900 million, £600 million of which are for export. Therefore, construed on that basis, those companies might be more appropriately owned by a collection of foreigners; but of course nobody in his right mind would suggest that course.
My Lords, too often the impression is given that nothing can be produced by The British aircraft industry unless it is subsidised by the Government. That is not so. The figures need to be examined. Indeed nobody could put it more clearly than Sir Arnold Hall put it a short while ago when he said that out of every £1 spent by the Government on civil aviation projects over the last ten years, about 92p went between Concorde and the RB 211, a little under 3p went to Hawker-Siddeley and the other 5p went to other parts of the industry. So it is Concorde and the RB 211, both prestige projects,
348
which we have rightly, as some people think, wrongly as others think, entered into which have taken the lion's share of Government funds. We should dispel the view that without Government help the aircraft industry is on its last legs. Of course, if the Government feel that they do not have enough control over the funds which they allocate, that could be an argument for strengthening the system of control. But I find it hard to believe that Government accountability is inadequate.
There is the Government Contracts Review Board, the defence contracts machinery and the Public Accounts Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that theirs was a negative interest. I find that hard to believe, because I should have thought that theirs was a very positive interest. These three totally separate but public bodies are far more in a position adequately to assess the imprudence, inadequacy or shortcomings than is possible with the self-criticism, or inevitable inhibition of it, imposed by a nationalised industry upon itself.
But there is an argument for the rationalising of the industry, by making one airframe construction business instead of two. The previous Conservative Administration were in favour of this, but my question would be: Will nationalisation achieve rationalisation? I think not. Few would doubt that in a theoretical world if you put Hawker-Siddeley Aviation and BAC into a mixing bowl and stirred them up you would get, at least on paper, a more efficient business and a general tidying up—but at the expense of several thousand jobs and the closure of some factories. Some would argue that in the interests of efficiency—and I am bound to say that I am never quite certain what efficiency is, because I am sure it is more than what the cost accountants would have one believe—this should be done.
However, I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House would expect a Government—least of all a Labour Government—at this time deliberately to create unemployment by rationalisation, and this will certainly not happen by nationalisation. To make one firm out of two without economies would, I suggest, be disastrous, apart from being quite pointless, but I myself am not so certain that it will be best to have one unified whole. When there are two enti-

349
ties, one can very easily see the theoretical advantages and the economies which can be achieved by making them one. It is only after the single entity has been created that one may realise that gone for ever are the advantages of competitiveness, rivalry and a sharp cutting edge which went with a non-monopolistic industry. The Hawk Trainer is a typical example of this. The design went out to tender to both the BAG and Hawker Siddeley. They both wanted the contract. Each knew that the other wanted the contract. Hawker Siddeley finally got it and the result of the competition was that it was a better aircraft technically; that it was better for the RAF and that the cost was better for the Government.
My Lords, there is one person above all who should be considered: that is the customer. Without the customer there is no point in having an aircraft industry. For all the arguments, this is not a philanthropic institution for the creation of employment. I should be the first to agree that good industrial relations are of extreme importance, but the whole purpose of the industry must be to provide products which its customers, whether they be Government or airlines, require. Therein must lie success and the success of those employed in the industry. Nationalisation, if it were to take place —and 1 still hope that it will not—must be carried out in order to make a positive contribution to that end. That is why I find this booklet, A New Approach to Public Ownership, quite terrifying. It is published by a body called the Bristol Aircraft Workers' Study Group and the name carries the insinuation—though, to be fair, it explains that it is not so—that it represents the views of the British aircraft workers. While advancing the cause of and suggesting the methods for nationalisation, not once does it refer to how nationalisation will benefit the customer. Its paramount concern is related to
"pushing forward the frontiers of industrial democracy ",
whatever that may mean, and to worker involvement and control. I quote from the booklet:
"Our proposals would require the direct election of representatives from among those who work in the industry to constitute the overall decision and policy making body."
My Lords, this may be fine for advancing the theories of industrial demo-
350
cracy and worker participation, but it contributes absolutely nothing to the debate on how to make the industry more efficient. Frankly, I should have dismissed the booklet as an utter irrelevance and as the work of people on the periphery of the political scene who are obsessed with Party dogma of some sort. After all, all Parties have them. But my concern is with the fact that on the outside front cover it shows the Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, addressing a mass meeting of aircraft workers and that on the inside of the back cover it carries an advertisement saying, "Speeches by Tony Benn, the authentic voice of British Socialism, cloth, £3."My Lords, this blatant display of advertising and of a desire to be associated with the Secretary of State makes me wonder how much influence the Secretary of State has had over the views expressed in this book or how much those views have influenced him. I hope; that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will dissociate his right honourable friend entirely from connection with, reliance on or concurrence with the views expressed in the book. I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I should be asking him this question and I shall look forward to hearing from him that there is no association.
My Lords, I do not believe that the case for nationalisation has been made out by commercial or industrial arguments; it rests on political arguments. However, the mere threat of nationalisation has already presented some of the companies with unexpected problems over financing for new equipment if no allowance for such additional expenditure is to be made. The aircraft industry is a highly sensitive field where quick decisions of great importance have to be made, and one wonders how a nationalised industry will compare in that respect with its American counterpart which is and always has been absolute "mustard "in that respect. Historical analysis would not indicate that this would lead to our advantage. Here, with a great deal of modesty, I would offer a word of caution. When thinking of the future the aircraft industry may consider that its future lies in association with Europe or in partnership with America. We should remember that we have a thriving and—contrary to what many people think—a highly

351
profitable industry. It is the largest in Europe, being twice as large as that of France and four times as large as that of West Germany, and it is in Europe and even in Britain that the future of the industry should lie. I suggest that we should guard against any inclination to turn our backs on Europe in favour of short-term advantages which may appear to lie across the Atlantic. Mutual participation with America may be possible to a limited extent; too big an involvement may be attractive the first time round, but it is not impossible that at the second time round the American companies may say, "This time we want to do it on our own, thank you. "At worst, we should then have lost our new-found association in America and have severed our natural association with Europe and, at best, we should have become a sub-contractor to the all-powerful American aircraft industry and the prosperity of our industry would be regulated by the latter's considerations. We are not subcontractors; we are, have always been and should be determined to remain, pioneers not only in construction but in techniques and in thought.
My Lords, the RB.211 engine is an example of what I mean. It is a fine engine, one of the most efficient in the world. It is quiet, economical and good from the point of view of pollution. Yet the only aircraft that it is being put into is the Lockheed TriStar, though there is the possibility that it will be put into the Boeing 747. The whole future of this engine is therefore dependent upon its being put into an American airframe. I wonder whether it is not possible to get ourselves out of the highly exposed and vulnerable state in which we are. I suggest that it might be possible to build a British airframe to take this British engine, and I would ask the Government to consider whether we could not even now make an updated version of the 311 aircraft which was turned down some years ago. The situation is different now. When it was turned down we had no engine, but now we have the RB.211 engine and, even if a certain amount had to be spent on research and development, it would be minimal compared with the £200 million or so which has already been spent on the engine. Yet it would give us an up-to-date, all-British, wide-
352
bodied aircraft which would be efficient, quiet and clean to operate. It would also give us security for the future of the RB.211 and more orders for it.
In that connection, my Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, confirm that the Government have agreed to give aid for development for the "hottedup" version of the engine to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred, and, if so, how much? I believe that work is also going ahead to fit it to the Boeing 747, which will give it a higher payload and a longer range. I think that this has been agreed, provided that Rolls-Royce accept responsibility for the alteration of the aircraft design and for the subsequent programme of certification which will have to be carried out. Can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, say whether this project has or will have any Government participation?
Any new aircraft venture has its fearful problems, and I am glad that, despite their very hesitant start, the Government have agreed to go ahead with the Concorde. I am sure this is right and time—it will need time—will show this. But British Airways expect delivery of their first £25 million aircraft in November, and the second in December, and scheduled flights are due to start in January. But, as yet, they cannot fly it, because they have no landing permission anywhere in the world. I accept that there are difficult negotiations going on, but if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, were able to say how these negotiations are progressing, it would be much appreciated.
Another vitally important decision is awaited—my noble friend referred to this, as well—about the Harrier. About 220 of these have been sold—half, I think, to the United Kingdom and half to the United States Marines. Are the Government to go ahead with the maritime version?—because if they are, then there are opportunities for considerable exports abroad. But if the Navy, who I understand want this aircraft, are not prepared, or are not permitted, to have it, the overseas exports will be put in jeopardy.
My Lords, we are going through difficult times, both for aircraft manufacture and aircraft operation—apart from inflation and recession—and we have seen many airlines cut down on their operations. Yet the funny thing is that in the

353
last year every airline which has cut down on its operations has lost more money and more passengers by so doing. In fact, the passenger loss which airlines have sustained is almost directly related to their reduction in capacity; in other words, those who reduced their capacity by 20 per cent. have reduced the passengers which they have carried by almost the same amount. Conversely, each airline which has increased its capacity has increased the number of passengers which it has carried and has increased its profit —and all of this at a time of recession! There must be a moral in this somewhere, if one can find it. I suggest it could be that despite the recession there are more people actually in work today in this country than in 1972; despite inflation, in the past three years the net disposable income of the country as a whole has gone up by over £4,000 million, and a similar picture exists in the United States.
The point is, therefore, that the cash is there; people have got it and want to travel, and the demand is there. Our only problem is how to tap them both, and the only way to do that is to provide the right type of service and the right type of aircraft. If we do that there is a future for our airlines, both national and private, and a future for our manufacturing industry. But we must go out and seize the opportunities, which I believe are there.
6.33 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is a special pleasure and privilege for me to rise so soon after the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, has made his maiden speech, which I found so interesting and full of promise for the future. Like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I noticed how he was straining at the leash a little, but that, no doubt, is an experience of which we shall have the pleasure in the future. I also wish to pay a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing the Motion and giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. I have an apology to make to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because I did not take up his offer to consider in advance any points I wished to make, so that he could be better prepared to answer them. I do not think I have anything to say that is unpredictable, so far as the aoble Lord is concerned,
354
but if I say anything that he feels unable to answer until a later point I shall understand.
What I have to say is concerned principally with the Consultative Document which the Government published a few weeks ago. Like the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I wondered how it was that the Government came to the conclusion that Lord Plowden—and I quote from paragraph 3 of the document
"… recommended that the Government should take a majority shareholding in the British Aircraft Corporation and in the airframe and guided weapons interests of the Hawker Siddeley group …"
because I cannot find that in the Plowden Report, either. If that is the major platform on which the Government are basing these nationalisation proposals then it does no): get first place, but there are other objections as well, which I shall endeavour to show—
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will excuse me. I should like to dismiss that point about Plowden. I am not, and the Government are not, basing their case on that. I think that if we take paragraphs 474 and 493 together, they indicate that the majority of the Plowden Committee, as distinct from the minority of the Plowden Committee, suggested that the Government should take up over half the equity in the three firms.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that point. I will not pursue it at this stage. I do not have a copy of the Plowden Report with me, and there are other points which I should like to make. Noble Lords opposite and their colleagues were in power in 1965 and, if the Plowden Report recommended nationalisation or a majority shareholding, why did they not do something about it then? They were in Office until 1970. Of course, the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State was not, I think, Secretary of State then; so, perhaps, it is he and he alone who is promoting these new proposals. If one reads the Consultative Document it bears his stamp and not that of the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Consultative Document talk about greater public accountability. The noble Earl, Lord

355
Ferrers, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also mentioned this point, but I fail to see how it is that public ownership extends public accountability to these industries. After all, the coal industry, the railways, British Airways and others are already in public ownership and who can say that they are more accountable now than before they were nationalised? The present contractual arrangements in the aircraft industry already provide better accountability than is likely to exist after public acquisition.
Paragraph 7 of the Document touches on the scope of the proposed nationalisation and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already mentioned that; but like the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, I am very puzzled as to why the Westland Helicopter Company has not been included in the proposals. I do not think that the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for omitting that company, and, perhaps other companies—he did not, in fact mention that company specifically—are very convincing. If the arguments which the Government advance for the acquisition of the other companies are to be taken seriously, surely those arguments must apply equally to the Westland Helicopter Company and, for that matter, to the major systems and components manufacturers, like Dowty-Rotol and Smiths Industries.
In Paragraph 8 of the Consultative Document, we are told about the effects of public ownership on the companies that it is proposed to take over. I found that paragraph perhaps the most distasteful of all in the Document, because of the rather thinly veiled threats as to what would happen to these beastly people if they scuttled the ship before we got there; if, for example, they sold off all the assets before we were able to take them over; or if they helped themselves to enormous pensions before we finally got in to prevent all that. I think—at least, I hope—that the Government will want to reconsider some of the remarks in that paragraph, because if I were in the manufacturing industry—which I am not—I should have been rather offended by them. That same paragraph talks of fair compensation to be paid for the companies to be taken over. That would be fine if it were not for the remarks which we have already heard from the
356
right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State about taking into account the public money—mostly in the form of grants or development contracts—that has already been paid to these companies. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw—talked about State capital being put into these industries; but there has been no State capital put into these industries; there have been grants and items which could be classified as of a revenue nature, but not capital. There is, I submit, a distinct difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, talked about the transfer of ownership and did not understand how that could strain the economy. If that is the case, the fair compensation referred to in paragraph 8 can only be very small. Like other noble Lords, I have no special comment to make about the proposals to extend the industrial democracy arrangements or about the general proposal under the organisation of public ownership in paragraphs 9 and 10. But I wonder how it is imagined that the new Corporation is to become more efficient and more competent under the direction of the Secretary of State—because there is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State has taken very wide powers to control the day-to-day actions of the Corporation in the proposed legislation—and I wonder how it is he imagines that he and his successors will be able to exercise better management control of those companies than we have today.
I would refer to paragraph 13 in the Consultative Document which talks about the extension of the scope of the new Corporation by diversification. I find this a rather sinister proposal, because I think it will be difficult for Parliament to control the scope of the diversification of an aircraft enterprise, as opposed to moving into another industry altogether. Perhaps this might well be covered by the legislation when it comes before the House. I hope so.
My Lords, I should like to make one further proposal which is not contained in these Documents, but is one which, I hope, will commend itself to the Government; that is, to make provision in the legislation for the accounts of the new Corporation to be audited by outside accountants. I cannot pretend that I am an expert in these matters. I believe that this is not done, in the case of the

357
nationalised industries that we have at present, but that it might go some way towards allaying the fears over the extension of accountability that I have mentioned if the accounts were audited annually by independent accountants, accountants not related to the Government and upon whom we can all rely for an unbiased view.
In paragraph 16 we have provision for the financial arrangements of the Corporation; and the Government suggest that the new relationship that they propose between the Corporation and the Ministries—the Ministry of Defence, for example, who will be an important customer—will promote the smooth running and accountability (to use a wellworn word in this context) of the Corporation. I find it difficult to imagine how it is that a contract between two Government Departments, where any excess profits or losses if any, are borne by the customer, can lead to greater accountability. Surely this is a total lack of control rather than an improvement! I have already touched on the question of the control to be exercised by the Secretary of State which seems to me to be more detailed than is provided for in the nationalisation of other industries. It is, I think, especially undesirable in this case, bearing in mind that the industries to be taken over are, by and large, very profitable anyway. There seems to be nothing to suggest that the new arrangements will be any improvement at all.
The final point, which is really an expansion of one that I have previously made, is the question of the cost of taking over. There is nothing in this document to suggest what that cost is to be. As other noble Lords have said, in these strained economic times it is surely vital at this early junction that we have some idea of how much money the Government propose to spend.
6.46 p.m.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I think that the Motion of the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, has been on the "No Day Named "list for a long time; but it could not have come off at a more opportune moment because it has given us this opportunity of considering the nationalisation proposals in a particularly easy atmosphere and one in which I hope we can express views which will be of value to the Government. To
358
begin with, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, on his maiden speech. He may have overlooked it, but he and I have a connection; and if he wishes to devote more of his time to developing his interest in aviation then he must come more often to Cranfield where he is a member of the court and I have the honour of being the Chancellor.
My Lords, I feel that so far the argument has gone very much against the Government proposals in the Consultative Document. When we consider the weight of the argument put forward by the SBAC, by the CBI and by noble Lords in this House this afternoon, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, persuasive as he was in his intervention, is really having the worst of it—but he is to have another go later on. Nevertheless, although it is my view that the whole weight of the argument is against the Government, I do not think that there is much doubt that they are to press forward with this legislation; and, in case they are successful, I should like to make one or two points which, if accepted, might mean that they could achieve their aim with the minimum of discomfort to the industry.
First, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his plea for maintaining the present machinery for monitoring expenditure in the industry. I think that it should be left unchanged. I think that in their organisation of technical cost estimators, their accountants, their contract officers, the Contract Review Board and the Public Accounts Committee, the Government have already a means for detailed supervision of the expenditure in the industry. In so far as there have been errors in the past, the machine has been strong and efficient enough to expose the errors, and adjustments have been made. But there have in the past been severe losses to the public purse—not because of any defect in this machinery but mainly, I would suggest, because of changes of mind by the Government on development policy; and not this Government particularly, but all recent Governments. We have had severe losses due to errors of judgment like the cancellation of the TSR-2 and like the ordering and cancellation of the Fl-11 and similar mistakes which in previous

359
speeches in your Lordships' House I have referred to and need not refer to again.
So I believe that, whether or not an Aircraft Corporation of Great Britain is set up, we need some form of permanent agency, some kind of continuing organisation for guiding civil aircraft development policy, outside the Departments of State and unaffected by changes in Government, but planning of course within a budget agreed by Government. I appreciate the difficulties inherent in a suggestion of this kind, but believe that, whether or not the industry is nationalised, some very positive steps must be taken to avoid the great losses occasioned by oscillations in development policy. What is more, looking to the future, and realising that the enormous current success, which has been referred to, of the aircraft industry today is largely due to design work which they did years ago, we need some planning for the next decade to ensure that in ten years' time the success is as great as it is now.
Secondly, if the nationalisation process is to be pressed through then it should be pressed through as quickly as possible—
"… if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
We must avoid, once the die is cast, if it is to be cast, a long twilight period of uncertainty, with financial confidence in the industry sapped by, for example, ignorance of the terms of compensation, and money for investment consequently hard to come by.
One of the objectives that the Government have stated in the Consultative Document, of which I heartily approve, although I think it is achievable by straightforward negotiation between the companies concerned without nationalisation, is the unification of the main aircraft production units. I do not know that I care much for the word "unification", because it sounds like the creation of some vast central factory. "Rationalisation "would perhaps be better. But certainly, if reorganisation can produce a more efficient production organisation, then let us by all means reorganise. What must not be done, I suggest, is to centralise the design organisation. It is absolutely essential that a number of separate design teams be kept in being with their own special skills and esprits de corps. It may not often be necessary to have
360
competing designs, and certainly competing prototypes would be very rare indeed; but competing brochures, so to speak, are necessary and talented designers must always have the means of full expression. I have had a lifetime of experience in administration, particularly the administration of technological enterprises, and I know that overcentralisation spells disaster.
I want to mention another matter which has already been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his quite splendid speech. It is so important that I do not hesitate to mention it again. It is not connected with the pros and cons of nationalisation. I believe that industrially, commercially, scientifically, technologically, this country must collaborate with the rest of Europe. I happen to object, and object very strongly, to many aspects of the Treaty of Rome, but in the present context I regard it as unimportant. In the aircraft world we developed a number of co-operative projects with Continental countries. Three of them, which have been mentioned this afternoon already, are Jaguar, the MRCA and Concorde. We developed those long before the Treaty of Accession.
Even if the forthcoming Referendum takes us out of the European Economic Community, there is no reason on earth why our industrial, commercial, scientific and technological connections with Europe should be any different in character from what they were before we went in. To the aircraft industry, nationalised or not, I regard the European connection as vital. Without it we should gradually be forced, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, into a transatlantic connection, and that for our aircraft industry, I am convinced, would be the suffocating kiss of a lingering death. As the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, said in his speech, our aircraft industry is the most powerful outside the United States of America and the USSR. It can be a major part of a European consortium, but could never be more than a junior partner in a transatlantic association. So I should like to be assured, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies, that a fundamental plank in the policy of any national aircraft corporation that may be created by the Government is the maintenance and development of the European connection.

361
I do not say that change is unnecessary. If the primary objective of change is seen as a concentration of our aeronautical resources, then I agree with the objective. But I do not believe that nationalisation is necessary to achieve it. Indeed, I believe that the kind of nationalisation adumbrated in this famous paragraph 15, which has been referred to several times already this afternoon, would be of the worst possible type. inevitably this nationalisation, if it goes through, is going to be expensive because the shareholders can scarcely expect to be given less than the net tangible assets of the industries which the merchant bank Fraser Ansbacher calculate to be £121 million. If we have to regard it as inevitable, I suggest that the organisation should be modelled on that of the Rolls-Royce Company, which though nationalised seems to be extremely well run with the minimum of official interference.
My Lords, in this matter my noble friend Lord Beswick is, I fear, for the first time in our long acquaintance on the opposite side from me in an aviation debate. This I very much regret. Aviation has many friends in this House but has no greater friend than the noble Lord. He and I have seen eye to eye on many aeronautical issues in the past. All I can say on this one is that if the nationalisation goes through; if it is done with due regard to the criticisms that have been made; if the organisation has an independence comparable with that of Rolls-Royce, and if the chairman and the board are a team of knowledgeable enthusiasts, then—who knows?—we may see eye to eye again. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he may be able to encourage me to believe that this will happen.
6.58 p.m.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I have listened with much interest to the arguments put forward by previous speaker. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull who has brought forward this Motion. He has done much in this 'House for the benefit of the aircraft industry; he has given it his great support, and he always speaks on the subject with depth of knowledge. I would also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, for his splendid off-the-cuff maiden speech. It was indeed
362
a great pleasure to listen to. Many of the points I had intended to raise have been dealt with in a concise and informative manner—I am sure your Lordships will agree on that point. There are, however, one or two points I should like to raise. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for not giving him private notice of them.
A great deal of comment has been bandied about in the national newspapers concerning worker control on the boards of nationalised companies. I wonder whether the noble Lord could make any comment about that. Secondly, would the commercial decisions of the nationalised companies be left in the hands of the present managers, or would they be made by Whitehall? We should like to know the answer to that question. Other than that, as I am the final speaker tonight, all the points that I wished to make have already been made. My only comment, therefore, is that if the Government feel that it is right to nationalise the aircraft industry, which is a vital dollar and foreign currency earner, I hope they will make sure that in future it is run in what I believe is the successful way that it is run now.
7.1 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to claim that in the debate I have had overwhelming support for the proposal to bring this industry under public ownership. I do not intend to rehearse again the points that I made in support of my Government's proposal, but I shall have one or two comments to make. First, may I add my congratulations to those which have already so warmly and rightly been given to my noble friend Lord Briginshaw on his maiden speech. If I may say so, I especially approved of his proposition that a successful aircraft industry can be not only an economic benefit but can add considerably to national morale.
It was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who opened the debate and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the development of the RB.211–524. The position is rather complicated. This also raises the question of the quiet engine which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw. The estimated total launch cost for this version is £45 million at 1973 prices. The Government will make agreed phased contributions

363
towards these costs until 1978. These contributions, including the payments which have already been made, will bring direct Government support to a total of £26·3 million. The payment for 1976 and later years will, however, be subject to escalation based on cost increases after 1975. If there are any further points upon which the noble Earl feels that I should give him information, I should be grateful if he would raise them with me or write to me.
On the Boeing 747 application of the -524, the Government have informed Rolls-Royce (1971) that they will support further development and application of the -524 for use in the Boeing 747 when a further major order is obtained in addition to that of British Airways. I was asked about the maritime Harrier. I am afraid—
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Lord has said, that the Government are giving a contribution for those engines to go into the Boeings which British Airways already have, or is this not so?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, certain work has been done on the necessary modification to the Boeing 747. I am not absolutely certain whether that sum of money, which is not considerable, is being given directly by Her Majesty's Government, or through the accounts of Rolls-Royce (1971). However, I will let the noble Earl know.
I was asked about the maritime Harrier. I am afraid that there is nothing I can say about a Government decision on the future of this aircraft. We recognise the export potential of the maritime Harrier. We recognise also that it will depend a good deal upon the use which is made of it by the Royal Navy. However, I am afraid that it is something about which further thought is required. Design work is continuing, and a Statement will be made as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked me about the Concorde situation. The fact is that the Department of Trade are pressing forward as rapidly as possible their discussions with the countries who will be concerned with the routes and the landing rights for Concorde when it enters airline service. We are making
364
progress; but because these matters are rather complicated it is difficult not to prejudice the position if interim public statements are made. We are determined to go ahead with the necessary negotiations, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept that as soon as it is possible to do so we shall make a Statement.
I was asked especially by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about endurance flying. We expect that in March or April Concorde will receive the special certificate of airworthiness which it needs before it begins its programme of endurance flying. The programme will begin later in the year. The position about further authorisations remains the same as that contained in the agreement which was reached between the Prime Minister and President Giscard d'Estaing in July 1974. As the House will know, there is a proposal that M. Cavaillé and my right honourable friend will meet again, and I am hopeful that there will be a meeting in the middle of March. The full certification of airworthiness and the operational programme should start certainly at the beginning of next year and, if possible, at the end of this year.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and my noble friend Lord Kings Norton, raise the question of European collaboration. I think that the points that they made are sound ones. In my view, collaboration here is a quite separate argument from that on the European Economic Community negotiations, of EEC membership or otherwise.
The MRCA, the Jaguar and the Concorde programmes are going forward. There is, of course, the Hawker Siddeley interest in the A300. With the encouragement of the Governments concerned, some of the major European airlines—British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa— have been discussing their future operational requirements, and are hoping to evolve a common specification for the aircraft they will need during the 1980s. In parallel, six of the major European airframe manufacturers, including the British Aircraft Corporation and the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft Company—and I am very pleased to see how well these two organisations and the technical people who are concerned are collaborating in advance of unification—have agreed

365
among themselves at the industrial level to avoid wasteful duplication of their efforts, to assist each other to sell non-competing existing types of aircraft and to explore the possibilities of collaborating on future developments. I hope that this outlook will be acceptable to those who spoke about the possibilities of European collaboration.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the multi-role combat aircraft. In his Statement on the Defence Review the Secretary of State said that there is to be a sizable reduction in the rate of production of this aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The reduction will be about one-third. The production programme is still some way off, so the impact is not at all imminent. The Ministry of Defence are continuing with the project definition studies for an air defence variant of this aircraft.
Several noble Lords asked me why the Westland Company has been excluded from the proposals for nationalisation. I am not absolutely certain whether or not they are pressing me into extending the boundaries of nationalisation. I thought I had made it clear that in our view there will be a major task of re-organising the two major airframe companies, that the problems and prospects of the Westland Company are somewhat different, and that there is no reason therefore to extend the proposals to them.
A point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the size of the aircraft company that will emerge as a result of public ownership. He indicated that there will be a disadvantage so far as size is concerned. I thought he referred with some degree of criticism to the gigantic size of this new Corporation. I have the figures of some American airframe companies. Although Boeing has, of course, slimmed down, because they had a most: amazing programme of redundancies, they still have about 68,000-plus employees; North American Rockwell have over 100,000, Lockheed have 66,000 and McDonnell Douglas have 78,000. Each of them therefore will be about the size of, or bigger than, the combined British Corporation. I think this will put us in a better position than before to compete, and I do not think the idea can be supported that we should be unmanagable at the size considered.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point I was making was that we see from British Leyland that a huge conglomeration makes management extremely difficult, and in the case of British Leyland I believe this has been adverse to the interests of the motor industry. I hope the same situation will not be repeated in the aviation industry. The fact that the noble Lord offers us comparisons with the American industry prompts me to say that I hope very much we never reach the same state of affairs as the American industry, going up and down like a yo-yo, which is most unsatisfactory.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in another connection recently I had occasion to say that I do not think an organisation that is bigger is necessarily better. Nevertheless, there is a case for thinking that a size of 70,000 is quite a different matter. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, quoted a figure of 200,000, but I think he had in mind the aero-engine and the helicopter companies as well. I have dealt with the point concerning the power of the Secretary of State, about which I think some unnecessary alarm has been raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me about the French export figures. I have no reason to believe that the figures are not as the French statement maintains; I have not had the details and so I have been unable to study them. So far as the British figures are concerned, there is some discrepancy, as he rightly said, between the figures used by my Department and those used by the SBAC. For this year the SBAC quoted a figure of exports of £631 million; our comparable figure is £607 million, but that does not include various items which have gone out under other categories, for example, spare aircraft tyres and radar aids. Nor do we include in the net export figure re-exported goods—goods which have been brought in and re-exported. If one takes the net figure, we reach £512 million as against the SBAC's figure of £631 million, but on any reckoning this is a remarkable industry which is doing a first rate job of work.
I agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, about the need for proper plan-

367
ning of this industry. The importance of this is brought home to me when I look at the figures; I find that of the total employment at the present time, no fewer than 40 per cent. is on spares and repairs. It is the spares and repairs on goods which were sold up to—I have reason to believe in one case—12 to 15 years ago; so clearly it is the seed corn about which the noble Earl was speaking that we should be concerned about. On the other hand, it was said by a number of noble Lords that we were exporting rather more than 50 per cent. of the industry's output. In fact, I have looked at the total figures between 1964 and 1973. I find that of the total output of the industry 51·5 per cent. went to Her Majesty's Government, 13·5 per cent. to home and civil orders, and 35 per cent. to export. Here again there is an important and substantial export element, but I simply say that we do not want to spoil the case by exaggerating.
There were some differences of opinion with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, about industrial democracy, and I was asked in very categorical terms whether I would dissociate my right honourable friend from the booklet to which the noble Earl referred. I am afraid I cannot do that; I have no authority for doing that. What I can tell him is that I believe the picture which appears on the cover was of my right honourable friend addressing the workers at Bristol on the occasion when their livelihood was threatened as a result of the review of the Concorde project put in hand before we took Office, and those workers were very gratified by the action which my right honourable friend took at that time.
If this eventually goes into service and if, as I hope and believe it will, it becomes a credit to our industry and to the French industry, a large part of that credit will be due to my much criticised right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I cannot say that he is entirely unconnected with the kind of thinking behind that booklet, because I know that he is keen on encouraging people to do thinking on this and on other subjects.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that that is precisely what is worrying us?
Lord BESWICK: I know, my Lords, and I am giving the noble Earl the facts. I am trying to be factual about this, and I was going on to say that, if the noble Earl gets very worried—and it is possible to think that here we are not only going up to the frontiers but beyond them in terms of democracy—I get a little solace, a little encouragement and am a little less worried when I think what was said when we made advances in political democracy.
May I remind your Lordships of what was said by Lord Macaulay on the occasion of the Second Reading of the 1832 Reform Bill, which I believe, was passed—I speak in the presence of experts—on Second Reading by one vote. Looking at the Opposition Bench, Lord Macaulay said,
"The jaw of Peel fell, the face of Twiss was the face of the damned, and Herries looked like Judas taking off his necktie for the last operation."
That perturbation, which was even greater than that displayed by the noble Earl, was at a proposal that there should be a vote to those who had a £10 rateable tenancy, or to tenant farmers—and then only if they were male.
My Lords, we have developed in that area of political democracy. I should not like to say where we shall eventually go in industrial democracy. We have to make progress. The rate at which we make it, I agree, is a most important factor. I should like to think that the good wishes extended by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, to those who will take the eventual responsibility of this Corporation will be justified because, among other things, they will take proper care of this important factor of industrial democracy.
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, we started this debate at about 5.20 this afternoon, and since then one has had a nightmare in remembering whether we were allowed two or two and a half hours. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and particularly to single out the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, for three splendid aspects of his maiden speech—brevity, no notes and the fact that he was non-contentious. It must have taken steely determination on his part, and we are all grateful. If I may single out another

369
speech, it is that of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, whose expertise in aviation matters is well known. I hope the views he put forward today will be considered by the Government when they read the report of the debate.
My Lords, the issue of nationalisation is today a matter only of skirmish, and we will be returning to this in due course. I convey my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the care which he has taken in giving us a great deal of information during the debate. There is one aspect on which I think we are all agreed; that is, whatever reorganisation takes place within the air frame industry, nothing should be done to harm the future of the industry. On that happy note, I beg leave to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
7.23 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Draft Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 21st January, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975. The purpose of this Order is to extend the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 to make provision for the prevention and control of rabies and the control of other diseases communicable from animals to man; and to amend the Act to allow for increased fines and to standardise the time limit within which proceedings may be started for an offence against the Act. The most important part of the Order is the rabies provisions, which are contained in Articles 3 to 8 and which correspond directly to the provisions of the Rabies Act 1974. Like that Act, the Northern Ireland provisions are required to implement a number of the recommendations of the Waterhouse Committee of Inquiry on Rabies which reported in 1971. Among the powers sought is power to include, in an order declaring a rabies infected area, provisions for the
370
destruction of foxes and other wild mammals. Methods of destruction, such as the laying of poisoned bait, which would otherwise be illegal, are authorised for this purpose as is the erection of fences to prevent animals entering or leaving an area where destruction is being carried out.
There is also power to require, in infected areas, notification of the death of animals and the disposal of their carcases, and the vaccination, confinement and control of domestic animals including strays. There is enabling power for the Department of Agriculture to make orders controlling the importation and use of rabies virus and power to require quarantine for animals which may be carriers of rabies. Also included is a requirement that any person, knowing or suspecting that an animal is infected with rabies should report the fact to the police. Powers for dealing with illegally imported animals are strengthened by making provision for the possible destruction of animals landed without a licence and for offences against rabies importation controls to be taken on indictment.
Before moving on to deal with the provisions of Articles 9 and 10, I think I should say a. word or two about the reason for introducing such stringent powers for the control of rabies. The United Kingdom has been virtually free of rabies since 1922, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The disease is advancing across Europe at a rate of approximately 20 to 40 kilometres per year and the French estimate is that it will reach the Channel coast by 1980. The risk of the disease entering this country has therefore never been greater. Remembering that rabies is caused by a virus which attacks the central nervous system and that once it has developed in humans it is almost invariably fatal, I am sure noble Lords will agree that stringent powers for dealing with this disease must be available throughout the United Kingdom.
Turning now to Article 9 which contains provisions of a more general nature for the control of diseases transmissible from animals to man, quaintly called zoonoses, these correspond to powers already available in Great Britain and will enable the Department of Agriculture to designate by order diseases carded in animals or birds which constitute a risk

371
to human health and to apply any of the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 to such diseases. Salmonellosis, which is a form of food poisoning, is a good example of the sort of disease where action could become desirable. The Department will also be empowered to require a person, such as a veterinary surgeon, to report any case where he has reason to believe that an animal or bird may be affected with disease and there is provision for the Department's veterinary inspectors to enter land for the purpose of carrying out tests or taking samples for diagnosis.
The remaining provisions of the Order are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Diseases of Animals legislation. Article 10(1) provides for an increase in the fines for offences against the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958. In 1967 the maximum fine for an offence was increased from £50 to £200 and this has remained at £200 despite the fact that in Great Britain the corresponding fine under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 was increased in 1970 from £200 to £400. It is felt that the deterrent value of the Northern Ireland fines should now be restored and the £200 figure is therefore being increased to £500 with subsidiary fines increased accordingly.
The purpose of the amendments in Article 10(2) is to standardise the period within which legal proceedings may be started for an offence against the Act. At the moment proceedings must be started within six months of the date of an offence, except for offences in relation to imports of animals, poultry or eggs. where the limitation is five years or six months from the date when evidence first came to light, or the marking or movement of animals, where the limitation is three years or six months from the date when evidence first came to light. The effect of the amendments will be that, for any offence against the Act, legal proceedings may be started at any time within three years of the date of the offence or within six months of the date when evidence relating to the offence first came to the attention of the Department, whichever expires first. These amendments have been found necessary because of instances that have arisen, for example, in relation to illegal imports of meat, where offences
372
have only come to light more than six months after their commission.
I should say that all the provisions of this Order had already been approved by the Executive and the Consultative Committee on Agriculture before the prorogation of the Assembly.
Finally, I hope that the House will bear with me if I speak in some detail about the Ninth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in which the Committee draws this draft Order to the special attention of the House on the grounds that its drafting appears to be defective. If noble Lords have some difficulty in following the rather detailed legal explanation which I shall give, perhaps they will read it tomorrow. It took me two readings before I fully understood it. These comments refer to paragraph (1) of Article 10 of the Order which amends Section 46(1) of the principal Act so as to increase the amount of certain fines. The present level of these fines was fixed by the Schedule to the Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, and the relevant entries in that Schedule are repealed in the Repeal Schedule to the Order, as being superseded by it. The Committee has expressed the view that there should have been a reference to these repealed provisions in Article 10(1).
To have included such a reference to an earlier amending provision would be contrary to the practice in relation to Northern Ireland, by reason of a special provision contained in the Northern Ireland Interpretation Act (that is to say, Section 11(1) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954) which provides that any reference to any statutory provision is to be construed as a reference to that provision as amended. There is no corresponding provision in the Interpretation Act 1889, but it is customary in Acts of Parliament to include a provision to the like effect, individually. Accordingly, the practice in relation to the drafting of Statutes, whether in relation to England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, is the same; that is to say, earlier amendments are not cited, save exceptionally.
An exception to the general rule is to be found in cases where the full text of the provision to be amended is to be found in an earlier amendment, and an

373
illustration of this exceptional treatment is to be found in paragraph (2) of Article 10. This paragraph amends subsection (2) of Section 47 of the principal Act (which had no subsection (2) as originally enacted) and accordingly the reader is referred to the place where the text of subsection (2) is to be found. This practice is also in accordance with the practice of the Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the drafting of Statutes for all parts of the United Kingdom.
The Committee refers to this draft Order in Council as being "delegated legislation". In fact, it is not delegated legislation, but original legislation whereby Her Majesty in Council exercises the legislative powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The law which applies to Measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly applies to this Order also, by virtue of paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. These Orders in Council are drafted by the Legislative Draftsmen's Office in Stormont, who previously served the Northern Ireland Assembly and, before that, the Parliament of Northern Ireland; and they follow, as they must, the law and practice relating to Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and Measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not, in any event, feel at liberty, during this temporary period of direct rule, to alter the practice in relation to the drafting of legislation applying only to Northern Ireland, even if the practice were at variance with other parts of the United Kingdom. But, as I have explained, the practice here is not inconsistent with the general practice in relation to England and Scotland. It follows that the Government do not feel able to accept what is proposed in this Report, and I recommend to the House that this draft Order in Council should be approved, as drafted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 21st January, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Order, and I should particularly like to welcome Article 8 which
374
provides that certain offences to be specified in Rabies Importation Orders may be prosecuted on indictment. I think I am right in saying that this corresponds so far as rabies is concerned, with Clause 3 of the Diseases of Animals Bill which has recently been debated in your Lordships' House. I certainly support the increased maximum penalties which are the same both in that Bill and in this Order. There are two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord. In relation to Article 9, where the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture is empowered to designate by Order diseases carried in animals which constitute a risk to human health, it would be interesting if the noble Lord could either indicate today what the list is or perhaps tell the House where the list will be found.
With regard to Article 3, and this is my second question, there is the provision to be made for the destruction of wild animals and foxes in a rabies infected area. I do not contradict for one moment the need for this, but I really do question the advisability of the Government's current proposal to increase enormously the fee for gun licenses in Northern Ireland, which I think is relevant to this provision; because when the need arises for this work to be done—I hope it will not arise, but it may—it will then be found that there is far less control of wild animals, and therefore much greater need for clearance.
Perhaps, speaking from these Benches, I ought not to talk about the shooting of foxes, but if, as I saw quoted in another place, the licence fee is to be increased five-fold, I seriously consider that in wide rural areas of Northern Ireland the control of wild animals will suffer. I realise that security must always be in the fore-front of the Government's mind in Northern Ireland. But the farmer's gun is really not an Armalite rifle. I should be grateful if the Government could give a little more detail than was given in another place about their thinking on this matter.
We are grateful for the detailed explanation which the noble Lord has given about the criticism of the Statutory Instruments Committee. As I understood that criticism, it was simply that between the principal Act of 1958 and this Order there was some amending legislation and

375
this was not readily discernible—discernable but not readily discernable—to the reader of the Order. If I may say so, I think that the very detailed explanation which the noble Lord gave still misses one point, which I am afraid I have made many times before but I make it again. It is that we do not have the advantage in either House of Parliament at Westminster of being able to read Stormont Hansards or being able readily to look at previous Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore, as the Statutory Instruments Committee have said, it is really necessary for this legislation which is coming before us in the form of Orders to be, to quote their words, "intelligible, especially to those not legally qualified ", and, my goodness, that includes me. I would, therefore, beg the noble Lord, even though the Government feel that they have got the drafting absolutely right, for reasons which we will be able to read in Hansard tomorrow, to consider that the prime consideration in bringing forward these Orders is clarity and helpfulness to those of us who have to try to understand them. With those two questions and with that small note of criticism, I support the passing of this Order.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I put one question of a quite different nature? I was wondering whether in relation to this tightening up of the legislation in regard to rabies, there is any proposal for similar tightening up of legislation in the Republic of Ireland, because unless there is it seems to me that the effectiveness of the legislation in Northern Ireland will not be as great as it otherwise would be. If this has not been considered, would the Government consider making the suggestion to the Government of Eire?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for accepting this Order. I will deal first with one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The question of gun licences is entirely irrelevant, though I will answer it. It is irrelevant, because the destruction of animals in the declared areas which have to be cleared is the duty of the veterinary service of the Department of Agriculture. There is no question of farmers being asked to keep down animals in their areas by their
376
shotguns. Having disposed of that, there is no secret about the increase in licence fees. From 1st January 1975 the fee for the grant of a firearms certificate became £10 and, for its renewal, variation or replacement, £5.
The increased level of fees is needed to cover the substantially increased cost of administering the scheme. They have been increased five-fold since they were last adjusted in 1970 from £2·10 to £10 on initial issue and from £105 to £5 on renewal. Renewal is required every three years. So the running cost of keeping a firearm licence is still only £167 per annum, which, in view of the enormous rise in costs, seems perfectly reasonable.
I would rather not discuss at this moment the policy of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State over firearms. It is being dealt with at this very time in discussions with various people in Northern Ireland, and I think something will be said about it before very long. Our general view is the fewer the better, while admitting that farmers, of course, have them. I am sorry that my elaborate explanation did not satisfy the noble Lord, but I have not the slightest doubt that when he gets hold of his legal advisers and reads it he will see no question of either inaccuracy or anything else. It is a question of two different conventions which are exercised in a perfectly normal way, and I think he will find that the explanation I gave him will hold up.
There is no difficulty in getting Hansard from Northern Ireland when there is an Assembly sitting. At the moment, of course, there is not. So far as I know, this is something which can be arranged through the Printed Paper Office when there are normal services. I do not think there is any embargo on Hansard to this House, and if anybody asks for it they will get it. It is as simple as that. I hope that when they do have an Assembly in Northern Ireland there will be many persons asking for their Hansard.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked where we could find out what diseases were zoonoses, where in the list they could be found, and whether they could be transmitted from animal to man. I am informed that the Order listing these will be published in the Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland by the Stationery Office

377
and can be obtained there. It is a fairly long list. Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked what was the position in the Republic. We agree, of course, with the point made, that this would be a much more effective Order if it were reciprocal in the Republic. Copies of the Order have been sent there and they are considering it. I cannot say more than that. We hope very much, with the noble Lord, that this will be adopted. My Lords, I am grateful for the support for this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NHS HOSPITALS AND WOMEN PATIENTS
7.43 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the need within the National Health Service for a hospital where women patients can be sure of treatment by women doctors.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Rules of Order of this House result in some strange priorities in business, when we have to discuss the diseases of animals' in Northern Ireland before the diseases of human beings in England. This is, if, I may say so, a very important Question that I have on the Order Paper. I am sorry it has come on so late in the evening, because I know there are a number of Members of the House who are deeply interested and would have wished to be here if that had been possible. I am sure your Lordships will remember the original Question by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, which stirred up a great deal of interest in the House and which stimulated me to put down this Unstarred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, is very sorry he cannot be here. My noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland had also wished to be here, and I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, would have wished to be here if possible.
My Question relates to the whole principle of a hospital within the National Health Service serving the special needs of women, but I am principally concerned this evening with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in the Euston Road. I make no apology for returning to this
378
subject because the hospital is devoted to a very special need, and I hope to persuade the noble Lord and the Secretary of State that it is of critical importance that its future be decided by the Secretary of State herself and not simply as a result of a decision by the Area Health Authority. The fact is that only 27 per cent. of the patients who attend this hospital come from the Camden-Islington area and it would be quite wrong to take into account only the Area Health Authority's point of view. It is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for the National Health Service and this hospital serves a national, and not merely an area, need.
May I very briefly remind your Lordships of its history. Its founder was Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, a pioneer woman doctor, whose idea it was to provide surgical and medical treatment for women patients by women doctors. It was established on the present site in 1872, and was paid for entirely by voluntary subscription. It is worth remembering that it was an entirely voluntary hospital, especially when one considers what must now be the value of the site it occupies in the Euston Road. In 1948 it: lost its independence and became part of the National Health Service, and since then it has had the misfortune to have three different managements. First, there was the board of governors of the Royal Free Hospital; then it came under the North London Group Hospital Management Committee; and now it is part of the South Camden District of Camden and Islington Area Health Authority. I make no criticism of those managements, of course, but from the point of view of the staff who work there, it is rather upsetting to have to endure three different managements.
In particular, the reorganisation of the National Health Service has made things very difficult. Until recently the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital consisted of three separate buildings. There was the hospital itself, in the Euston Road; there was the Garrett Anderson maternity home; and there was Rosa Morrison House, a pre-convalescent unit. All three buildings, after the reorganisation of the National Health Service, were in different health districts. The main Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is in the South Camden district, the mater-

379
nity home in the North Camden District, although it is managed from the South, and the Rosa Morrison House comes in Barnet.
I said "until recently" because some two years ago Rosa Morrison House was taken for urgent use by another hospital authority, thereby depriving the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital of some very valuable beds. As your Lordships will realise, pre-convalescent beds are most useful in freeing beds for acute patients in the main hospital. Yet I am informed that this valuable pre-convalescent unit now stands empty, except for one doctor and his family who live there. That does not seem to me a very good use of the facilities. Now, with the opening of the new Royal Free Hospital in North Camden, which has its own maternity services, the Garrett Anderson maternity home is threatened. It is not a particularly convenient building, but it provides maternity services for those who wish to be cared for in childbirth by women doctors. There are quite a few women—Muslim women, Orthodox Jewish women—who for religious reasons need that kind of care, and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital without its own maternity beds is really inconceivable.
I should have thought that by far the better solution would be to move those beds from the Garrett Anderson maternity home into the main hospital. There is room for them where now there is an area with paediatric beds; and for a comparatively small expenditure these maternity beds could be integrated into the main hospital. The result would be an overall saving in running costs.
The hospital faces another difficulty in relation to its nursing staff. It used to form part of the nurse training school of the North London Group. Now the General Nursing Council has withdrawn recognition on two grounds: first, that the hospital does not provide experience not available elsewhere; and, secondly, the physical conditions of the hospital. However, these have been improved since the General Nursing Council reported, and with more finance could be improved still further.
The position now is that there is a new nurse training school at the new Royal Free Hospital, and a nurse train-
380
ing scheme in full flood—I think an experimental one—at the University College Hospital. In these circumstances, it is obvious that a small hospital cannot compete, and in June is to lose all its student nurses. No wonder that those who have devoted their lives to this hospital feel desperate. A small and excellent hospital, providing a unique service to women, is being slowly throttled out of existence. Buildings now over a hundred years old, but still solid, are being allowed to deteriorate; staff are being replaced by locums instead of permanent members; insecurity is leading to resignations and, incidentally, is affecting morale.
My Question asks whether the Government "accept the need within the National Health Service for a hospital where women patients can be sure of treatment by women doctors". It therefore covers also the South London Hospital which provides a similar service for women, although, so far as I know, at the moment it is not under a threat of closure. But it is the answer to this general question on which the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital depends.
It does not serve a district need nor an area need. As I have already said, only 27 per cent. of its patients come from the Camden-Islington area; 98 per cent. of them come from the South-East of England as a whole. When I visited the hospital recently, there was a lady from the Sudan who had specially come over with her husband to go to that hospital. It is no good putting the problem to the Area Health Authority; it is a national problem to which the Secretary of State must give an answer. I hope that, as a woman, she will see the need to retain this hospital.
Why should we destroy a small, specialised, highly successful hospital for the sake of size and uniformity? Certainly none of the patients who have been there would wish this to happen. Support has been coming in from all over the country, and, when I last heard, there were already over 10,000 signatures. I ask the Government to recognise that the original initiative of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson has demonstrated by its very success that a need exists for such a hospital as this. I ask them to agree that it is a national need which demands national support;

381
and this should be made available to the district from national funds.
I have one suggestion to make: if the Government will consider making special funds available to keep the hospital going, I would suggest that in return the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital itself should be allowed to appeal for funds to support its work. I have no doubt that —in view of its place in women's affections, and the support that it enjoys from women's organisations all over the country —such an appeal could raise very large sums of money. I hope that this would therefore go to reduce the amount of money that the Government themselves might have to find to keep the hospital going.
Above all, I ask the Government for a quick decision. Those who work in the hospital will fight to the last to keep it open, but even they would prefer to know soon if the decision goes against them, rather than suffer a lingering death of slow attrition. But best of all let the hospital be given a new lease of life to continue to provide devoted service to women, and to further the ideals of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say how much I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdure, in what he has said. He went over the original objects of the hospital, which I should like to repeat. It was originally built for women patients to be cared for by women doctors, for the training of nurses, and the training of women doctors. These objects still apply today. Not only do many British women go to it but, as the noble Lord said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said a few weeks ago, there are many women of other faiths who go to this hospital, whether they be Muslims or of the Jewish faith, because they like seeing a lady doctor. I should add here that at one time I had a lady doctor, and I can firmly recommend them as being every bit as good as any man. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they realise that there have been over 10,000 signatures collected for retaining this hospital.
I should now like to go into some possible reasons for the closure, and make some suggestions as to why it need not
382
be closed. One of the reasons that I was given was that there is no need for the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital to exist any more. One answer to that is that the hospital is as full as it ever was. Another point was that it does not fit in with the reorganisation, or fulfil the local district needs. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has already said that 98 per cent. of the patients come from the South of England, and therefore it is a very special hospital and it could be funded from special funds. Another reason given for closure is that the buildings are old and shabby. But so are the majority of other hospitals in this country! Is there any reason why it could not be upgraded? Even if it was eventually rebuilt—because the present site must be extremely valuable land—it could be resited. At least it should be preserved, even if not on the same site.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said on 21st January that the school of nursing has been discontinued, and the reason given was that it was too small and too limited. But alternative arrangements are already being made, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, and even better arrangements could be made in the future. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government could tell me why they feel that the nurses do not have wide enough experience and learning at Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.
However, most important, in my humble opinion, is that the work and the traditions of service, and of individual attention to women patients, are maintained. The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson must not be closed for the sake of the stroke of a pen, or of red tape, bureaucracy, whatever you call it. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' Chamber would agree. There is still, and there always will be, a need for a hospital for women, nursed by women, and attended by women doctors.
7.59 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for introducing this debate. The problem of whether or not there is a need for a hospital staffed by women doctors for women patients is clearly bound up with the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, about which

383
questions were asked in your Lordships' House on 21st January.
Over the years, it has been my privilege, as a doctor, to have looked after certain members of the Anderson family, and I know how proud they have all been of their pioneering medical ancestor, our first woman doctor— Elizabeth Garrett Anderson—who founded in Seymour Place, in 1866, a dispensary for poor women and children. In 1872 she built The New Hospital for Women in Marylebone Road, which was paid for by womens' organisations and members of the Anderson family. This hospital was developed for two main reasons: To have some of the first women doctors on its staff in many specialities (by no means only gynaecology and obstetrics) at a time when they had the greatest difficulty in being appointed to other hospitals; and as a place where women patients could be treated only by women. In 1899 this hospital was rebuilt on its present site in Euston Road; and in 1917, when Elizabeth Garrett Anderson died, it was renamed after her.
Some of my patients have been treated in this hospital, and I know how useful it has proved and how well it has fulfilled its two main functions. It is almost unique because, because so far as I know, there is only one other hospital in England run by women for women—the South London Hospital for Women and Children, which docs take young gentlemen up to the age of 10. In the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital not only the doctors are women but also the nurses, medical students and student nurses, and, also, very nearly all the rest of the staff. Just before the war there was a male stoker, but he was kept underground! Since then, over a period of years, they have had one male consultant anaesthetist and two registrar anaesthetists, one male consultant radiologist, and several male porters.
In our gardens, my Lords, I am sure that many of us must have found that it is usually a mistake to cut down, without very careful thought, indeed, a tree which has been growing for more than 100 years, unless it is certainly dying, is in the wrong place, doing harm to or taking water or nourishment away from other plants, and until something really better has been found to replace it. This famous hospital which we are discussing this evening is
384
more than 100 years old. It has been somewhat starved of funds lately, and it is not altogether healthy. It has had one branch lopped off already (its pre-convalescent home in Barnet); it is losing another this spring when its student nurses are being removed; and a further branch (its maternity home in Hampstead) is now in imminent danger of being closed. Its main trunk, however, still flourishes, albeit under somewhat difficult conditions.
I have spoken to senior members of its staff and to the Medical Officer of the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority. There are, without doubt, a great many things wrong with this hospital, and it is generally agreed that the present overall situation is untenable. Among the disadvantages is the fact that it is on rather a noisy site on Euston Road —a site which was chosen deliberately near to several railway termini for the convenience of patients coming from the Northern Home Counties and the Midlands. Its fabric is outworn; one of its two lifts needs to be replaced. Paying for this hospital is difficult because it has a wide catchment area: only about one quarter of its patients come from Camden and Islington; about four-fifths are from London postal districts, and 98 per cent. are from South-East England, mostly from North of the Thames; 2 per cent. come from further afield, and are, perhaps, of Moslem faith from overseas. For religious or cultural reasons, they do not wish to be looked after by men.
It has 107 beds for a great variety of medical services. With its maternity home, it has 19 consultants, five locum consultants and just over 20 junior medical staff. All its consultants work part-time in the National Health Service —in general medicine (including diabetes), general surgery (including breast diseases and urology), gynaecology (30 beds), with family planning and fertility clinics, dermatology, rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry and physical medicine; in addition, anaesthetists and pathologists are required. Its obstetric service—with accompanying pediatric cots—and antenatal and postnatal care—some of the most important parts of a hospital for women—was moved 27 years ago to Hampstead where its maternity home has 32 beds; but this is likely to be closed shortly for various reasons, one of which

385
is that there is an excess of maternity beds around there. The consultants hope that these maternity beds will be returned to the main Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital where, by right, they should be; but the Area Health Authority, I believe, would like to see them absorbed by the new Royal Free Hospital. Within the main hospital there are four private beds, usually filled with patients from overseas or from the National Health Service, and two National Health Service amenity beds which are often occupied by retired nurses or doctors.
Just over 100 female beds is not considered enough to give student nurses a comprehensive training, even though some of these students have been seconded to other hospitals, with men patients, as they were to the Seamen's Hospital at Greenwich before they went to hospitals in the North London Group. The recent reorganisation of the National Health Service has taken the nurses' training school of this group into another district. For these and other reasons, the General Nursing Council, as you have already heard, is shortly to withdraw its approval for the training of student nurses at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, although it is fully recognised how excellent has been the nurses' training which has taken place there. When student nurses are withdrawn, they will have to be replaced by fully-trained, perhaps agency, nurses who will be more expensive.
On the other hand, my Lords, this hospital has many advantages. With its fine pioneering traditions, and the splendid work which has been done in it for more than 100 years, the consultants and sisters are proud and happy to work there, and the great majority of the patients are contented, too. The nursing care is, without doubt, splendid; and the gynaecological teaching of women students from the Royal Free Hospital has been excellent. Another advantage is that this hospital has enabled young married women doctors to work there part-time, on a sessional basis, allowing them to keep in touch with their profession and promote their continuing medical education, between having babies or while looking after their families. Later, when their children have grown up they can then return efficiently to full-time specialist posts or go into general practice.
There is no doubt whatever, my Lords, that some women patients, especially those
386
who are shy or adolescent, like to be cared for by women doctors and not only for gynaecological and obstetric conditions; just as most men prefer to be looked after by male doctors and not only for particularly masculine complaints. Some people might be tempted to ask how women in other parts of the country get on, and are the two women-for-women hospitals in London really necessary? My answer to that would be that if there were more of such hospitals in other parts of England they would almost certainly be used and it is likely that many women patients would be happier. There is something attractive to many patients, to their doctors and to staff about smaller hospitals which tend to be more friendly and personal than the very large ones and which are often preferred for the care of common or simple complaints, for which expensive equipment or services are not required.
The problems we had a few years ago with small general-practitioner or cottage hospitals were, I know, quite different from those which we are now discussing; but in some ways they were comparable. For administrative convenience, and for economy, an effort was made, and much pressure was brought to bear, to close many of these smaller hospitals which doctors, their patients, and their patients' relatives: and friends had found so very useful and convenient over the years. After much discussion and heart-burning, common sense prevailed; and many of these small hospitals have now been preserved and are still doing splendid work, having been brought up-to-date and made more efficient, perhaps with modifications and adaptation to wider uses, with more staff than before, and even under a new name —"community hospitals ". In considering the problems of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, we all realise that the opening of the new Royal Free Hospital in the same area merits a most careful reassessment of local funds, administrative arrangements and of medical staff and nursing resources. Administration and finance are fundamental; but other things are important, too—personal, humanitarian, emotional, and to some extent traditional factors play a major role which must be taken into account, and cannot be ignored.
What of the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital? Is it viable?

387
Should it be wound down or closed quickly? If not, how best can it survive and even grow? Its future may well be much brighter than many people expect. There is no serious vendetta between the Area Health Authority for Camden/ Islington and the senior staff of the hospital. They both want to find the best possible solution of this difficult problem. Friendly discussions are already taking place between them, and with the local community health council. I have heard today that a letter has been received which suggests that the Department of Health and Social Security is taking a special interest also. More than 10,000 signatures have been obtained, mostly from women, supporting a petition in favour of keeping this hospital open; and nearly all the general practitioners who send patients to it want it to continue, too. As it is not altogether a local hospital, methods of paying for it will have to be worked out between the Department of Health and Social Security and the area and district health authorities. There is an urgent need now for a lead to be given by the Department of Health and Social Security and by the Secretary of State for Social Services who is ultimately responsible for the future of this hospital and its maternity home, and for the financing of both.
Is it to be refurbished on its present, valuable site, at considerable expense, being loosely linked to a larger hospital in the same district, such as University College Hospital, which will allow it to use certain expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment, and medical or nursing training facilities? Is it to be rebuilt on another site, which will be more expensive still? Is it to be integrated or incorporated into a larger hospital not far away, its staff being given a few wards or a wing allocated to the treatment of women by women, with a plaque commemorating Elizabeth Garrett Anderson on its walls? We must remember that some large hospitals are still uncertain of their own futures; and not all accept the principle of women being treated only by women even in a few of their wards. There is an enormous difference in status and prestige between working in one's own hospital bearing a famous name, with a great and proud tradition behind it, and being relegated to just a few wards of a
388
much larger hospital which has been kind enough to accommodate a poorer and older neighbour. It has been said that integration is what the cat offered the canary; and if you want the canary to sing it should be as an equal partner.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to repeat that the hospital founded by Elizabeth Garrett Anderson has been in use now for more than a century. It has been giving extremely valuable and particular services to many women consultants and innumerable women patients, and it would be more than ironical to abolish it during the current International Women's Year! Even if it is not pulled down, many doctors and patients will be most upset if it were to lose its identity and character. A recent report from the South Camden Community Health Centre said that suggestions had been made for adapting the building as a psychiatric day-centre or a centre for inadequate mothers. I, as a practising doctor, would like to add my name to those who are making a plea for the preservation, if this is reasonably possible, of its present building, its name, its work and of everything else for which it stands, while fitting it efficiently into the framework of our National Health Service as this is organised at present in North London. If it cannot be preserved, one hopes that a suitable alternative will be found, nearby, before the old hospital is closed down.
There is need, now, for a wide assessment throughout the country of how many women really do prefer to be looked after by women doctors. If this number is found to be significant, I should like to make another plea for wards, clinics or departments named after distinguished women doctors, local or otherwise, to be developed in or near district general hospitals in other parts of Britain in which women can be cared for by women. This would widen the field of work of many women consultants some of whom still meet a certain degree of prejudice against them when they apply for hospital appointments; it would make many women patients throughout the country happy; and it would be in keeping with the wonderfully courageous, pioneering spirit of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson herself and of those who worked with her 100 years ago.
8.18 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for entering this debate not having put my name down, but at this late hour I shall trespass on the time of your Lordships for only about four minutes. But I think that from this side of the House there should be some "say so "about this fundamental problem. I have listened with great interest to the cogent and constructive statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who is a distinguished member of the medical profession, who speaks with authority and who has made a constructive case. I have listened to all the speakers except for one moment when I had to leave the Chamber, but I would enter a caveat. I think that the medical profession should tread softly when it is talking about a private medical service. The majesty of the National Health system, whatever criticisms it may have had, is unmatched anywhere else in the world. If we were to follow an arid agreement that we would sweep back into the old private system of medicine that I knew as a child in South Wales, all those ideas would go to the wall.
Nevertheless, I feel that I must support the plea. I hope that we will get an answer to the main question, because the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to whom I also listened with interest (I always do, because he takes such care to put his point of view without acerbity and constructively) is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the need within the National Health Service—this is the 64,000 dollar question—for a hospital where women patients can be sure of treatment by women doctors. It may seem strange towards the end of the permissive 20th century, when there is probably more permissiveness than in the days of the 18th century and even than in the 13th century, to find this plea. Nevertheless, those of us like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—who himself comes from Wales—know that in the remoter parts of these islands there are still women who want to be tended in this way. While I would not encourage blind prejudice when there may be first-class medical attention from a male doctor who is present, such as sometimes occurs with Jehovah's Witnesses who allow themselves to die refusing medical attention, there should be within
390
our Health Service something which could meet the demands of women who want women doctors.
There was no specific mention of the hospital in the Unstarred Question, but I should like to add to the plea that, in International Women's Year, we should not see the demise of this wonderful system of hospitalisation. Furthermore, when the Opposition have had the courage: to pick a woman as the Leader of a great and historic British political Party, it would be sad if we had no agreement in the National Health Service that women patients could be attended by women doctors. I should like to press my own Front Bench, even if they cannot give a constructive answer tonight to what the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hunt of Fawley, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, have said, to say that some formula can be found by which, under the National Health system—once we have overcome the bitterness that recently seems to have crept in over consultants and so on—the people of Britain will be prepared to bear the burden of this demand on the part of some women.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord realises that the hospital in question is now part of the National Health Service. It is not a private hospital. It is providing these facilities now and all we want is that the National Health Service should continue to support it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, it would not be able to keep going if it did not. It is not mentioned here— that is the point. I absolutely agree that I should like us to find a formula by which the hospital could be kept alive and I was particularly interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, about Muslim, Jewish and other women who have religious views. I must not use the word "prejudice". We have to be careful when we apply that word to another person's belief in his or her God. From the therapeutic point of view and for the cure of the illness, the person in question may believe what he or she wants to believe and, if it is a woman and she wants a woman doctor to attend her, I believe that her chances of being cured—though I could not argue this point with the medical profession—would

391
be slightly improved by having the satisfaction of receiving the kind of medical attention for which she has asked. My Lords, having said that—and I have taken five minutes instead of four—I appeal to my colleagues on the Front Bench to tell us whether there is some formula by means of which this hospital can be kept going, and kept going worthily in this international Women's Year.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I do not want to delay the Answer which is to be given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for more than a moment but, as the only woman in your Lordships' House tonight—I beg the noble Baroness's pardon; I see that the Chief Whip has come in—I should like to say that I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill and Lady Phillips, share the same view as has been so excellently put forward by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, and so convincingly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley. I should also like to add the voice of a woman to the plea that has been made to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. to consider this problem carefully and to approach it very sympathetically indeed.
Though I do not know the hospital in question, I have followed the correspondence in The Times and various other newspapers, and the strong pleas that are being made that the hospital should continue in the traditions in which it has been built up. Though they are perhaps not unique, they fill a gap and a need in the Health Service and I am sure that the noble Lord will give us a very sympathetic hearing on this matter. I should like to support by noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in their appeal.
8.24 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I, too, refrained from putting my name down on the list of speakers. I did so for the reason that the more deeply I delved into the evidence for the continuation of this admirable hospital and the more I was able to consider that evidence, the more reluctant I became to speak too dogmatically on one side. However, I hope that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, when he comes to reply, will be
392
able to make out a really strong case for justification of three important points which have been heard. First, there is the justification for having a women's hospital staffed solely by women. We have been told that only two remain, both in London. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, made a very strong case for building new hospitals exclusively for woman patients. That is, I imagine, a policy which any Government would be bound to defer. But what is the justification for maintaining a small hospital in these days? When I was faced, as a medical student, with the choice between receiving training in a small or a large hospital, I opted without the slightest tinge of regret for a small hospital. My only regret subsequently has been that that small hospital—the Westminster Hospital—was later converted from a small establishment with 250 beds, on a magnificent site in Broad Sanctuary, between Westminster Abbey and the Methodist Central Hall, to another site in Horseferry Road and transformed into a large hospital with between 500 and 600 beds. At once it lost its intimate, personal family character, which to me is a source of great regret. The same thing has happened to Charing Cross Hospital, which was also located on a magnificent site right in the centre of London and is now a large hospital somewhere down the Fulham Road. One can only look back on these events with enormous regret.
The other point is how far there is justification on religious grounds for maintaining a hospital. We have heard of the sensitivity of members of different faiths. I should like to feel that in any hospital those deep religious feelings would always be taken into account. Whether that presents a case for a special hospital staffed exclusively by women to meet those sensitivities is another matter altogether. However, I think that we all realise that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is a hospital of quite outstanding traditions which has been working for a number of years under appalling difficulties. First, it suffered a crippling blow with the withdrawal of its facilities as a hospital for the training of nurses. I should like to know how far that privilege could be restored to the hospital. I should also like to know, as the hospital has pleaded on so many

393
occasions for improvement of the physical conditions under which the staff have to work, what can be done about this?
I can see no mention in the reports of how far the hospital has been able to go to meet these crippling physical handicaps. So far from agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that a decision must be reached quickly to put the hospital out of its suspense—and, as we know, that suspense has been continuing for many years—I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whether a thorough inquiry has been made into the improvements which the hospital has already effected in its physical conditions? We know that it is a hospital which is well over 100 years old, but that does not necessarily debar it from being modernised and extended, even on its existing site. Let us remember that originally the hospital came in under the National Health Service. It is a tribute to the hospital that it willingly undertook to serve under certain restrictions and difficulties. I imagine that the difficulties were mainly of a financial nature.
But let us remember that there is one hospital in London today that is still standing outside the National Health Service. This hospital was originally founded for the benefit of trade union patients. It has been able to survive only because of the support it has received from the trade unions. I refer to the Manor House Hospital. Here we have an instance where, for some reason or another, conditions of joining the National Health Service do not apply. Whatever the justification may be on the part of this hospital for staying out of the National Health Service, I believe the only answer is that it is able to maintain itself financially through the contributions of the trade unions and does not fall into the National Health Service scheme which, after all, was initiated by a Labour Government.
These are all factors which must be taken into account. No more sympathetic and understanding Minister has been able to speak for the Department of Health and Social Security in my long recollection than the present spokesman on our Government Front Bench. We know how deeply he feels on these matters; we know the extent of his sympathy and—
394
as has been mentioned already this evening—we know of the extraordinary degree of physical tenacity with which he has placed himself repeatedly at the disposal of this House. I hope that when the time comes to make out the case for the closing of this great and historic institution, the Government will be able to make out a really strong and convincing case to justify their action.
8.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is indeed International Women's Year, because I gather that the mantle of my noble friend Lady Summerskill has fallen upon the shoulders of, shall I say, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I think she would be very pleased with him were she here, and certainly she will be very pleased when she reads Hansard. My I noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has said he hopes that there will be an Answer to the Question on the Order Paper. There will be an Answer—but whether it is a satisfactory Answer remains to be seen. The noble Lord's Question has given rise not only to an interesting discussion but to a rather interesting situation. Nowhere in the Question are the Government asked to express an opinion about the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, and I see it as my duty tonight to answer the Question rather than to permit the Question to be used as a vehicle for raising the matter of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. However, I would not treat the noble Lord in that way and I will make some references to that hospital. One must bear in mind, however, that it can be only a reference, because of the reasons I have given.
It is important to set the question of the treatment of women patients by women doctors in its context. I have said before and I will say it again, that I am very much impressed by the very balanced argument which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, has put tonight, and which he always puts, in which he helped the House, and certainly Ministers, by putting forward the pros and cons.
We have to bear in mind that under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales have a duty to provide, through-out England and Wales., hospital accommodation and such other services as are

395
required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness, and here I quote the Act
"to such extent as she considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements".
The operative phrase there is, "reasonable requirements". I do not want to discuss at this stage whether or not the matter before your Lordships' House is reasonable. This is a matter that must be decided, and is in the process of being decided; but I will come to that in a moment or two. There is a very wide responsibility in relation to diagnosis and treatment, and also a very wide discretion as to how this responsibility should be carried out.
The key to the use of this discretion is however clear. Hospital facilities have to be organised to meet the needs of the community as a whole, having regard of course to available resources. The need for health facilities and indeed the demand for them varies from locality to locality depending on, for example, the age structure of the population and the patterns of morbidity and mortality. Moreover, ever since 1948 we have seen an increase in the complexity of medical care and an ever-increasing recognition of interdependence of the various branches of medicine in the treatment of the individual patient. Accordingly the pattern of hospitals which has been developing is the replacement of the smaller and single speciality hospitals by district general hospitals. This is what the 1973 Act was asked to do, and it is something which Parliament accepted.
These hospitals, whether in one new building or operating as an integrated organism from several new or existing buildings, provide facilities covering all major specialities including gynaecology, obstetrics, geriatrics, psychiatry and surgery. Additionally in the district there will be community hospitals for those patients in need of in-patient treatment of a less specialised nature than that generally provided at the district general hospital. In this way the most up to date and appropriate care of the patient and the most economical use of skilled man-power and technical facilities can be achieved. This is something we cannot afford to ignore. We have to provide on a general district basis not only appropriate care, but economical skill on manpower and technical facilities. What has never been possible is to guarantee that
396
patients attending, or being admitted to, a hospital can designate the doctor who is to treat them; or, equally, can specify that they are to be treated by doctors, or other staff, of one particular category.
It has therefore never been possible to guarantee for the population as a whole that a patient can be seen by a doctor of one particular sex. I think the practical reasons for this must be fairly obvious. For instance, it would mean discriminating between the sexes in the appointment to hospital posts. Moreover, it would be impossible in hospitals generally to ensure that a doctor of one particular sex was always available during holidays, or at night to deal with emergencies. It would raise a whole series of problems. But this does not mean that the wishes of patients are to be ignored.
Within the general framework of the organisation of hospital services, efforts are made to meet the susceptibilities of individuals or groups in so far as this can be done in a way which does not unduly disrupt the services for the generality of patients. Thus at hospitals where there are women doctors in the relevant specially, we would hope that patients who, on conscientious or other serious grounds, want to see a woman doctor could be allowed to do so, provided that this could be done without disturbing the work or imposing too great a burden on the individual doctor. How far this sort of arrangement is practicable in individual hospitals is, of course, dependent on the local circumstances.
Furthermore, where there is evidence of demand, perhaps from religious or ethnic groups or from women generally, health authorities would no doubt be willing to consider notifying the groups who make representations of the names of hospitals in their districts which have women doctors, and notifying to general practitioners the names of hospitals having women consultants to whom women patients could be referred if they so wished. This, then, is the general position. I turn now to the particular topic of single-sex hospitals.
The noble Lord's Question refers to the need for a hospital within the National Health Service which would satisfy the wish of women patients to be seen by women doctors. I cannot imagine that the provision of one hospital, even one based in London, could be a satisfactory

397
way of meeting the wishes of women in the country as a whole, who would prefer to be seen by women doctors. Nor would the Government consider that the establishment of one or more new single sex hospitals would be desirable. The practical problems of staffing and the difficulty of assessing the demand for this facility would mean a wasteful use of resources of all kinds.
Nevertheless we would not want to close any existing single-sex hospital if it was giving a useful service to the community, so long as it remained viable, and provided that its costs were not excessive in relation to the benefits provided. The latter point is important because if a health authority is required to keep open a hospital it does not need, then it is forced to spend its resources in an inefficient manner at the expense of leaving other health needs unmet.
I do not want to sit down before making some reference to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital because obviously this was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and of others who spoke. But I am in a difficult position and I want to be frank about it. I am not in a position to add to what I told your Lordships as recently as the 21st January last—which is just over three weeks ago. The position has not moved all that fast. It cannot move very fast when negotiations are going on, not only with one group but with a number of groups within the medical profession.
Because the hospital was founded with certain special objects, no decision on its future can, as I said on 21st January, be taken without the consent of the Secretary of State. The discussions which have taken place up till recently were informal only. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has now authorised the Area Hospital Authority to proceed to formal consultation on the future of the hospital. This was a point raised by Lord Hunt of Fawley. The Community Health Council will, of course, be closely involved in any consideration given to the future of the hospital. Let us say at this stage that the Community Health Council is in existence to be concerned with, and to concern itself with, the needs of the people. This is perhaps one of the great features of the Community Health Council.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, the Community Health Council is interested only in its district and in its district needs and will no doubt look on the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital from the point of view of serving the district. What we have all been trying to say is that this hospital is serving a need that I expressed as a national need, or a need for the whole of South-East England. It is this aspect of the hospital which it is so important to emphasise.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord would be on stronger ground to mention that something like 84 per cent. of the women attending this hospital come from the London postal district.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, some 98 per cent. come from the whole of the South-East of England.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords, this is true. But there are these figures; and 84 per cent. of the people who attend come from the London postal districts while 98 per cent. come from the whole of the South-East of England. These figures are not incompatible.
The Area Health Authority has agreed that the necessary funds should be made available to overcome extra costs arising from the: need to recruit qualified nursing staff to replace student nurses as they are withdrawn until such time as a review of the hospital has been completed. I do not think that this is a matter which can be hurried. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, will know, when a matter of this kind is being considered there have to be rather long and deep consultations at a number of hospitals. I can say that those consultations are taking place. I can say that the ultimate decision has to be made by the Secretary of State.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has rendered a service in bringing this particular matter before your Lordships in the form of an Unstarred Question. Those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate in the main have some real knowledge of what is needed. I am certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will read this debate with some considerable interest.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommited to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommended to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (NORTHERN IRELAND OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.