Lords Sitting of 16 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Earl of Avon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BEER: SHORT MEASURE
Lord WINSTANLEY: 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, in view of a report by trading standards officers to the effect that beer drinkers are currently losing £100 million annually in short measure, and bearing in mind the known health hazards involved in the consumption of "overspill", they will take steps to encourage the use of marked, oversized beer glasses.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government are concerned at the number of cases where consumers are not receiving the correct quantity of beer, and will be
2
consulting all interested parties on the question of whether glass brim measures should be phased out.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful for that Answer, but will the noble Lord look a little further into a matter in which many noble Lords have a close personal interest? Will he, first, accept that if beer is in good condition it is impossible to get a full pint in the old type of pint pot? One must leave a collar of a quarter of an inch or an eighth of an inch, which represents a considerable amount of beer in a beer drinker's lifetime. Will he, secondly, accept that no other drink, so far as I know, is served in a measure of exactly the same volume as the container in which it is served? We do not serve whisky till it is brimming over the top of a glass and slopping on the floor, so why do so with beer? Will he, thirdly, accept that if we insist on beer drinkers getting what they pay for—and why should we not so insist?—the continued use of the old type of glass can only lead either to waste, which would be undesirable, or to a possible reversion to the use of "overspill"—a practice which is now disapproved of by both breweries and public health authorities as constituting a health hazard?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has shown, as on 2nd December, how close to his heart this subject is, and I accept the description of the difficulties in relation to brim measures.

3
As I indicated in my Answer, we shall be consulting all those concerned about the matter, and no doubt the noble Lord will have a chance to give his expert opinion.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as beer drinkers, we are not so much concerned about the "overspill" as about the enormous profits which the brewers have been making in the past two years? Is he further aware that we are a little disgusted at the Price Commission, who have given the brewers, with their fabulous profits, seven increases in the last two years?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is very concerned about these matters. I think he will be comforted by the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last month that he had referred the question of beer prices to the Price Commission for examination and report. I hope their report will give more satisfaction than hitherto to my noble friend.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this is a matter of spillage or of ullage?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am afraid that these are technical terms which defeat me.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS CONTROL
2.40 p.m.
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 the EEC has yet agreed to comply with the safeguards proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency for control of nuclear installations.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the non-nuclear weapon States of Euratom have arranged for their Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to come into force. The United Kingdom, a nuclear weapon
4
State, signed a separate agreement last September and we hope to implement it as soon as possible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is the case that France has not yet agreed to this, and that this is resulting in the hold-up of uranium supplies to the Community?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; I can confirm that France does not have such an agreement with the Agency.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is likely to be agreement on this matter at the next meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on the 29th of this month?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer for other countries. France, I understand, is considering an agreement of some kind.

URINARY TRACT: SCREENING OF SCHOOLCHILDREN
2.42 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the examination of urine is routine in the medical check-ups of schoolchildren.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness's Question the answer is, No. There is insufficient evidence of the role of screening and treatment in modifying the course of covert infection of the urinary tract to justify routine screening. The same situation exists over testing for sugar or albumen in the urine in the absence of symptoms of disease.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. With the present simplicity of the dipstick method of testing urine, does he not think that it might be worth

5
considering this method in view of the terrible expense of renal failure in children, with the very serious problems which it creates for both them and their families?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, some time ago we took the advice of high medical opinion on this matter. In 1973, the screening sub-committee of the Department's Standing Medical Advisory Committee considered the question of screening for infection of the urinary tract, and agreed that on the evidence that was then available the introduction of a general screening programme for this condition could not be recommended. I think I ought to add that this view was endorsed in January 1974 by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, could the Government say how frequently medical check-ups take place during the school career of any particular child?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government could do so, but I regret to say that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord the answer.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me where I may conveniently obtain the report of the Standing Medical Committee, because I think that opinions may possibly have altered by now?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not sure that the information is in the form of a report. As noble Lords will probably understand, the information would be in the form of advice given by that committee to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, I will see whether there is a report or a paper on the subject. If there is, I will endeavour to ensure that the noble Lord receives a copy of it.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

NHS AND TEACHERS OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
2.44 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to encourage teachers of physiotherapy in the Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, teachers of physiotherapy in the National Health Service have an important and continuing role and we appreciate very much the value of their contribution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made provision for new one-year training courses for physiotherapists to become teachers, and a pilot course for occupational therapists—which I know is another discipline—is in operation at Garnett College during the current academic year. Further courses, including courses for physiotherapists, will be introduced at the beginning of the next academic year.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is no incentive to become a teacher of physiotherapy, and that there is great concern because of the lack of teachers in schools throughout the country? Is the noble Lord able to agree with me that if there are no teachers of physiotherapists there will be no physiotherapists in the future, and that this will be very serious so far as the rehabilitation of patients throughout the country is concerned?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I agree in some measure with the noble Baroness; but may I point out that although she says that there will be no teachers there is, as she well knows, a very substantial number of teachers. The Government are, however, concerned about the situation. We realise that there are difficulties and, let me be quite frank about it, we recognise that they are in some measure financial difficulties. We are trying to make available more opportunities for physiotherapists to be trained as teachers, which may help. The Government recognise that there is some concern about their levels of pay but, because of the pay conditions, we cannot do anything about the situation at present.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord go a little further

7
than that and recognise that the most encouraging thing that can happen to anybody following recruitment is to be offered prospects of advancement in one's career to a reasonable salary level? A situation in which people can earn less after training in their own career than they can earn without training in some other career is most unsatisfactory.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Earl will know, because he was chairman of a committee that inquired into the matter some time ago, that there are a number of grades. The starting salary for the basic clinical grade is £2,142, plus the £6 per week supplement. There are four other grades, with salaries going up to just over £6,000. As I have already said, I recognise, as the Government recognise, that some other incentive is necessary, and as soon as the opportunity presents itself we shall do something about it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, what is the comparison between those salaries which the noble Lord has just mentioned and the average male weekly earnings, as shown by the Government statistics? Are they more, or less, or the same?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I say, in reply to the noble and learned Lord, that it depends what scale we are going to match it against; but if we match it against the third, fourth and fifth, then the scale of those physiotherapists who would be superintendents is quite good in teaching grades and principals. However, it is the lower scales which concern the Government.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But does it mean, my Lords, that the salaries of those grades which the noble Lord has now mentioned are the same as the average male weekly earnings, or more, or less?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, they are more than the average weekly earnings.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that all physiotherapists
8
will be supporting my noble friend who asked the Question? The noble Lord will not know that when I was in another place I represented the physiotherapists for very many years from the Parliamentary point of view. Could I have an assurance from the noble Lord that he also will fight the battle for physiotherapists who are a very important section of the community today? May I please have a very nice assurance from the noble Lord that he, as well as the noble Baroness who asked the Question, will fight for the cause of the physiotherapists?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Baroness what I said a moment or two ago. We are aware of one of the major difficulties, and as soon as we are able to do something about it we shall be only too willing to do so. We recognise that the contribution of the physiotherapists is of supreme importance in the National Health Service, and obviously we want to increase that contribution so far as we can.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to ask just one more question of the noble Lord. Would he agree that on the whole physiotherapists prefer to work in the clinical field rather than the teaching field, and therefore this incentive is really vital?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether that is so or not. I believe there are something like 5,000 physiotherapists working in clinics at the present moment. One imagines that a number of them will want to be able to attain teaching standard and teaching ability, but of course it is known that some who have been teaching for some time like to return to the clinical situation.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree the enormous value of these people who enable us to stand on our own feet, and does not the same answer in fact apply to the whole of British industry and to Government policy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I stand on my own feet today largely as a result of the help I received from physiotherapists some years ago.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Winter-bottom will repeat a Statement on the steel industry in Wales and this will be followed by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi repeating a Statement on the meeting of the EEC Council of Agricultural Ministers.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to restrict in Scotland the import or release to the wild of certain species of fish or fish eggs. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY Lord McCARTHY rose to call attention to the need for further selective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name I am very conscious of the fact that this is the first time that I have deliberately sought to use the rules of chance to inflict upon the House a 2½-hour debate which is of interest to me; but I have a number of excuses. One excuse is that I believe this is in fact the most important social, political and economic question of today. Secondly, I am supported in this belief by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak after me, who will certainly remedy any defects in my introduction to the subject. In this
10
respect, I am asked to say, from the usual sources, that it would be appreciated if noble Lords could restrict their speeches to approximately 12½ minutes.
I want to argue three propositions: two of them I take to be incontestable, though I have no belief that this will prevent argument. The first is that we face a growing threat of mass unemployment which is unprecedented since the depths of the depression in the 1930s and which will almost certainly be much more difficult to remove than the mass depression of the '30s because we know far less than we did then about how to do it. Secondly, the existing economic policies of the Government are unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on this problem. Those two statements I take to be incontestable.
The third point I should like to argue is that our only hope in dealing with this problem lies in further measures of, what I would call, selective job creation; that is, measures designed to have a maximum impact on the labour market with a minimum impact on the general level of prices and demand. Those are the three arguments I wish to put before the House this afternoon.
First, I should like to say something about the extent of our present problems and the reasons for our present position. In the United Kingdom at present we have just under 1½ million workers drawing unemployment benefit; but, if we calculated unemployment in this country in the way that unemployment is calculated in many other countries—in other words if we had sample surveys rather than employment card counts—we would probably have an unemployment rate of something in the region of not 5·6 per cent. but 7 per cent. and one third of this unemployed labour force has been out of work for six months or more. In international terms we are near, if we are not below (depending upon how one calculates it) the EEC average. If we take out the exceptional cases of Canada and the United States of America we are near, if not below, the OECD average. In other words, in comparative terms this country has ceased to be a country of high employment; it has become, if anything, a country of relatively low employment.
The most important point is not the overall level of employment but the

11
structural and regional differences in the level of employment. In certain areas of this country—Northern Ireland, for example—we have on our own computation of statistics an unemployment rate of 10 per cent. More important still, if one thinks about the structural variations in employment, unemployment in this country is increasingly becoming a problem of the old, of the disadvantaged and, most important of all in terms of the future, a problem of the young. Thirty per cent. of the unemployment rate is due to unemployment among the under 25s. Just over 30 per cent. of school-leavers are in fact at this moment likely to find themselves unemployed. If one thinks in terms of the unskilled school-leaver, then the unemployment position is almost about 50 per cent. and likely to increase in the next few years.
The second point I want to make about the extent of the problem concerns the nature of the problem and the reasons for it. If one thinks of the major reasons for the problem, the significant point that comes home to one is that they are more likely to get worse than better in the course of the next few years. The single most important reason for the problem is, of course, the depth and extent of the world depression, which has produced over 5 million unemployed in Western Europe alone. Unless one has very sanguine beliefs about an increasing rate of recovery, one believes that this is a problem which will continue.
The second reason is that measures which have been necessary from this Government and would be necessary from any Government to tackle the economic problem, and in particular the problem of inflation, have left us with high interest rates and progressive cuts in public expenditure. Unless one believes that this kind of policy will be set into reverse immediately, the chances are that the problem will get worse rather than better. The third reason, which is long term, is the continuing—I would say, irreversible—decline in the traditional labour intensive industries; the very industries which in the past could be expected to take up the great bulk of the unskilled school-leavers—the mines, the docks, transport industries and, nowadays, even engineering.
I suppose the next reason is the obsession of management, for reasons that I hope to come to later in my speech, to indulge in labour saving technology, especially in those growth industries like tourism, catering and the tertiary trades where we might have thought in the present circumstances there would be an increase in labour supply which would take in some of the unskilled young and the redundant old. Finally, of course, there is the recent rise in the number of school-leavers and the undoubted future increase in the number of school leavers which will result in an increase in the total labour force in this country by 1981 of something like 750,000.
On some projections which have been made by serious students of the subject, basing themselves on factors like this, the indications are that what one might term the natural rate of unemployment, or the rate we are likely to get unless existing policies are significantly reversed, will rise from 1·4 million or 1·5 million to something like 2 million by the end of 1977, and indeed without further action to something like 3 million by the end of 1979. This is the nature and extent and character of the problem which we face.
Of course, at this point I may be told, quite legitimately, from my side of the House, that I have forgotten to mention the impact, the intention, of the Government's industrial strategy. This strategy commits the Government to a reduction in the rate of unemployment to 0·7 million by the end of 1979. It seems to me essential—in some ways this is the most important single point I want to make this afternoon—to say a number of things about this. First, this projection of what would be done about the level of unemployment was based, and honestly based, upon abandoned growth rates, upon a growth rate of 4 per cent. in 1976 and 5½ per cent. in 1977, far in excess of the growth rates now planned by the Government. The second point is that since these growth rates were published and these plans were made we have had further cuts in the level of Government expenditure, which have not yet worked their way through and which are bound to have a growing effect upon the labour intensive sectors of the public sector.
The third, and in some ways the most important, point to make about the

13
impact of the Government's economic strategy is that the manpower assumptions have, quite frankly, always been the shakiest aspect of the strategy. The assumption was always that there was still in manufacturing industry a very strong employment multiplier, and that by increasing the rate of investment in manufacturing industry by the rates the Government expected in their economic strategy we could generate something like 300,000 new jobs in the next year or so, and that the subsequent effect on other trades of this employment multiplier would produce by the end of 1979 or 1980 something like another 1 million jobs.
My Lords, the facts are—it is essential for the Government and the House to appreciate this—that the overwhelming majority of those who have concerned themselves with this problem, the overwhelming majority of labour economists, now believe that in manufacturing industry we have a negative employment multiplier. Employers are interested in productivity—oriented investment, to maintain the existing level of output but reduce the size of the labour force. Therefore, even if it were possible that the whole of the Government's economic strategy were to be successful, if there was a turnround in the balance of payments, if we had single-digit inflation, if we had a growth rate of 4, 5, 6 per cent. in 1978 or 1979, we could still have a situation in which 50 per cent. or more of school-leavers were more or less permanently unemployed. This is the scope and nature of the problem, and this is the relationship between the problem and the Government's economic strategy.
I should like to move, as quickly as I can, to the third question: What should we do about this situation? There are a number of possibilities. One possibility, which I mention simply to discard—if others wish to take it up in the course of this debate, let them do so—is that nothing must be done on any account to generate increased employment in this country until the trade unions have learned their lesson and the role of collective bargaining in inducing inflation; therefore, if it be the case that we shall have to have 1·5 million, 1·7 million or 2 million unemployed in the course of the next two years, this is an essential part of introducing a measure of discipline into
14
the labour market. If anybody believes that, my Lords, they will believe anything!
The second policy objective, or alternative, is to say that this can be solved by a simple act of regeneration, simply increasing the general level of employment in the economy. There are several things one could say about that. The first is that the problem, as I have sought to point out, is structural; it is sectoral. Even in countries which have had over the past ten years far higher levels of employment than we have had in this country, the problem of structural, sectoral unemployment among the old, the disadvantaged and the young remains. The second simple argument against this approach is that if we attempted to have a general expansion of that kind it would very soon produce over-heating and a rapid increase in the general level of inflation, and would be brought to an end.
The key, therefore—this is the third general heading I want to address myself to—is a selective approach: selective measures of job creation designed to have the maximum impact on labour and the labour market and the minimum secondary effects. This is now accepted in all OECD countries, all EEC countries, many of which in all sorts of ways have gone further along this path than we have.
My Lords, before I conclude, I should like very quickly to make three points. First, I have no desire—as other speakers coming after me may have, for their own reasons—to belittle what the Government have done, either in the field of training by its increased provision in respect of skill centres, the ITB programme or the work experience programme, or in the field of job creation through the temporary employment subsidy, the youth employment subsidy, job release scheme, and so on. It has been said that this has already saved something like a quarter of a million jobs. As a result of a Parliamentary Answer which I was given a short time ago on the impact of the job creation programme on youth employment, I calculate that the Government's measures can be said to have saved about 140,000 jobs among the under-25s. So I have no desire to belittle what has been done so far.
My second point, however, is that it is now clear that a very large part of this

15
programme was conducted on the assumption that we were going through a temporary slump and that we would soon move into an upswing. This is too defensive and too temporary, especially, in my opinion, the temporary employment subsidy; it is temporary, though it is constantly being renewed, and it is defensive. Its function is to keep in work those who are already in work rather than to stimulate new employment opportunities. As a result of the Parliamentary Answer, I can tell the House, if noble Lords have not already noticed it, that it is not really significant in dealing with the critical problem of youth unemployment. Only 10 per cent. of the 140,000 workers helped by the temporary employment subsidy are young workers.
I should like to see this type of proposal replaced by a mixture of the German-Swedish system of job expansion incentive. The TUC in its recent economic review suggests an incentive of something like £20 a week for a maximum period of four years. It seems to me that if we based our policy on this kind of positive employment incentive we would be able to phase out the defensive short-term measures of the temporary employment subsidy and other measures. This kind of measure would be more flexible. It could be biased towards balance of payments industries. It could be combined with more labour-intensive forms of selective investment scheme, as has been done in other countries.
I realise that it will be said that employment subsidies are inherently inefficient, that they promote over-manning, distort labour market preferences, create useless jobs, and are costly to administer. The answer to all those objections is that most of them, if not all, apply equally to investment subsidies. What we have to appreciate is that we can no longer assume that there is an automatic employment multiplier by investment subsidies. We could have a vastly expanded programme of investment subsidies and all we should be doing is reducing the level of employment.
My Lords, my final point is that this is really the moment for a realistic manpower forecast which sets out the real costs of the options available before us. It should tell us what is the natural rate of unemployment, if we continue as we are doing
16
until 1981. It should offset this in terms of the present level of unemployment benefits, lost tax revenue and lost output. It should cost the alternative measures of positive job creation, and the likely impact of these in terms of various alternative measures.
I do not believe that the Manpower Services Commission is the best instrument to carry out this kind of realistic future manpower forecast. It seems to me that this is either a job for some central policy review, a Parliamentary Select Committee or, most appropriate of all, for an extra Parliamentary body with the authority and resources of the Royal Commission on Income Distribution and Wealth. I should have thought that policies for positive employment creation are at least as important to this country as the question of future income distribution.
I am told that it is traditional in this House at the end of one's remarks to ask leave to withdraw a Motion of this kind, if only because there are no Papers to be seen. At the end of this debate I intend to do so. I have no desire to challenge the tradition of the House. However, I hope that this will not be the end of the debate, as it is certainly not the end of this question. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, in this short debate I shall not indulge in ritual pieties about the horrors of unemployment. It is sufficient to say that waste in all forms is no part of good household management—and what else are economics? Human waste of course adds the dimension of tragedy. Even those of us born during or just after the Second World War are close enough to the catastrophe of world recession in the 1930s to be able to understand the force and urgency of British feelings about the dole queue. Even those of us who are critical—as I shall be critical a little later—of the attempts by Governments to sacrifice the long term to the short term in relation to policies designed to alleviate unemployment are aware that this folk memory of the 1930s has become a habit which it is hard for all in this country to kick.
It is said, and well said, that whereas the Germans are fearful of inflation, the

17
British are fearful of unemployment. Unfortunately for us, there is a chicken and egg element in such attitudes. Inflation is an even greater enemy of high employment than world recession or the transfer of resources and money from one part of the world to another. Inflation has done much more harm to British jobs than the Arabs or, to put it a little more fairly, the OPEC price rises of 1973–1974.
Of course the balance of evil is not just on the British as against the German side of the argument. Before the war German inflation and German unemployment were cured by Hitler in a savage and ultimately disastrous parody of Keynesian methods. Since the war the principal burden of unemployment in times of recession in Germany has fallen on the wretched and ill-protected shoulders of guest workers—and what horrible double think lies behind that phrase—from Greece, Turkey and the Italian Mezzogiorno. So we in Britain need make no apology for our often debilitating and self-destructive concern for unemployment. Our job is to keep the concern while getting rid of the selfdestruction—our tendency to ensure that the cure is worse than the disease.
This debate gives us an opportunity to try to clarify our often confused thinking on unemployment and so we may be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for moving for Papers. We look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. We on this side are delighted that he has gone back to the good old habit of taking a place name as a title and is not to be known as "Lord Ted-Short" or some such modern addition.
The years 1973 to 1980 were bound to be tough ones—the seven lean kine of Joseph's dream in the Bible story—for Britain. We have had to adjust to the considerable if ill-balanced shift of economic power from the richer to the poorer countries. So, of course, have our competitors within the rich man's club of the OECD. Unfortunately, the defeat of the last Conservative Government at the very moment when they were beginning to adjust to this shift in resources, and the refusal of the Labour Government to make even a partial adjustment until over two years later,
18
has had the disastrous result of ensuring that we have made a much worse adjustment to the crisis than most of our competitors and allies. Indeed, they have had to bail us out at a time which is not particularly easy for them where their own industries, and their own jobs and their own people are concerned. This is a national humiliation for us. Those of us who earn our living in the invisible exports sector, as I do, and who therefore have to travel about the world, have been made only too well aware of it.
In 1973 my noble friend Lord Barber, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, put an end to the expansion of credit which is ironically so often blamed by Labour Ministers for our economic ills. I say "ironically" because the acceleration of this expansion, which until 1972 had been well within our economy's capacity but which I acknowledge later became very damaging indeed, was a consequence of what the Conservative Government felt to be their intense vulnerability to an unemployment level of just over 600,000. That is rather less than half of the rate presided over by the architects of the Social Contract and by the Government who campaigned on a slogan of: "Back to work with Labour". Lord Rothschild and Sir William Armstrong (as he then was) pulverised the Heath Government—and as a cat in that Administration I was reasonably well placed to observe the behaviour of the kings—with unemployment projections which they sincerely felt might threaten our entire social cohesion. A prices and incomes policy was created. Whatever one's feeling about economic management along such lines, it must be said that in their early stages such policies do protect jobs. Until that policy was breached both prices and unemployment levels remained relatively stable—certainly as stable as external events allowed, more stable than the levels of the majority of our competitors, and almost exactly twice as stable as what transpired under the three years of Labour rule.
However charitable we may feel, and however much we may appeal to external events or internal politics, we cannot escape the record. Three years of Labour rule has actually doubled the rate of unemployment and nearly doubled the rate of inflation. That is not a record that I, for one, would care to campaign

19
on this year or next. The expansion of money, which did the real harm to jobs, was not the expansion initiated by my noble friend Lord Barber and then halted by him at the end of 1973; it was the money that the Labour Government printed and spent between March 1974 and the end of last year. That resulted in a high of inflation of 30 per cent. and a low, if we are charitable, of about 15 per cent. I say "if we are charitable" because only this week in another place Mr. Roy Hattersley was driven to admit to a rate of some 21 per cent. That in turn resulted in the currency crisis of last year and in the rates of interest which became consequent on the Government's borrowing. These were the highest in peace time and, without inflation adjustment, I think the highest at any time in our history.
High interest destroys investment; high inflation destroys profits. High taxes destroy incentives, whether in the board-room or on the shop floor, and so through the erosion of differentials do wage controls. All this, compounded by price controls and the enshrining of restrictive practices by legislation, destroys, and has destroyed, the contribution of private industry to wealth creation, and the contribution of wealth creation to jobs.
That leaves only the public sector, and the public sector is bankrupt. It should function as the result of the contribution which a just and compassionate society demands from vigorous industry. It in fact functions by courtesy of Mr. Carter and Mr. Schmidt.
In the face of this record, we on this side of the House are sceptical of the ability of the Government to ease the burden and tragedy of unemployment. We welcome the Government's declared conversion to public sector cash limits, and to the lower level of public expenditure so long urged by us and, in this House at any rate, by the Liberal Party. We welcome on this side the public expenditure White Paper of 1977, which is really, I would contend, the background to this debate. But, of course, the implementation of this White Paper, the implementation of these cuts, will raise unemployment yet more.
So are we on this side in fact welcoming increased unemployment ourselves? I
20
would say not a bit of it. If this programme had been, as we urged, part of an orderly run-down of expenditure from the autumn of 1973 to the present, such as we have seen happening in the USA and in West Germany, unemployment would have been levelling out at about this time, and, coupled with the abolition of price controls, should even have been falling. With steady reductions in direct taxation, and with increases in purchase tax, it would, in my view, never have exceeded 1 million, or 1·1 million at most. The sins of the Wilson Government are being visited on the Callaghan Government; the sins of the Social Contract on Plessey, on British Leyland, and on jobs lost everywhere through its doctrinaire attack on profitability.
We are sceptical, therefore, in spite of what appears to be a shift in the right direction, because even as the shift is being made, the dreadful old furies of prior policy commitments are being trundled on stage. As I understand it, tomorrow afternoon the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill, admittedly a little improved by your Lordships, will receive Royal Assent. This will actually increase public sector borrowing requirement by some £850 million. Thus the delayed and vaunted cuts made by Labour must be seen against the increases in Socialist spending which they have carried out, and other policies which their numerical weakness in the House of Commons may delay them from abandoning.
Our scepticism is also shared by those still fortunate enough to have their jobs. We have heard already in this debate, and I imagine we shall hear more, of the measures adopted by the Government in response to the levels of unemployment which they have themselves helped to create. The temporary employment subsidy, for instance, and the recruitment subsidy lately replaced by the youth employment subsidy, have been introduced. The one provides a £20 a week subsidy for employers who keep on employees that they would otherwise have made redundant. The other will give a £10 a week subsidy to employers for creating opportunities earlier than they otherwise would for young people who have been unemployed for six months or more.
Attempts have been made to give basic work experience to unemployed

21
young people through the job creation programme which provides funds for short-term community orientated employment. The Government are now preparing to supplement this with the work experience programme to provide workless youngsters with insight into industry. It is highly questionable whether these measures are effective overall, though I acknowledge that full assessment of the job creation programme cannot yet be made. I understand that the Manpower Services Commission will be reporting in a month's time, and I hope that this debate will not prevent us from examining it at a later stage after it has so reported.
In sum, then, we must start to think a bit more about the long term and a bit less about the short term where jobs are concerned, and indeed where the whole of our economic management is concerned. No one likes to institute policies which throw people out of work, which throw even local government officials or civil servants, to take two classes under attack at the moment, out of work. No one underestimates the dangerous cynicism engendered in the young by what appears to them to be a wilful refusal by society to take up their time or their talents. As an ex-university teacher, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had to say about that. But we do have a Welfare State; we do have a caring society; we are not, as is so often touted about in political debate, a deeply divided society—I for one cannot find any evidence for this. Having come to this pass, and not through the fault of my noble friends, we must resist the damage that palliatives and controls, and contracts with one interest group or another, may do to the private side of the mixed economy on which our money and our working life depend.
All developed countries have witnessed a growth in service sector employment in recent years. The difference between Britain and the rest is that the transfer of manpower has been much more rapid here. Our exceptional increase in public services has done little or nothing to create wealth and trade and jobs; instead, it has absorbed resources through the increased taxation necessary to finance it.
Reversing our decline will involve a massive transfer of resources out of the
22
public services and into the private sector. It will mean the achievement of higher output levels and better productivity per man in industry. Essential to this process will be the creation of an economic climate in which investment can be spontaneously generated or attracted from abroad. But the efficient deployment of our national manpower resource will not occur unless people can be attracted to new jobs and away from old ones; unless existing restrictive practices are abandoned and new ones avoided; unless people can be trained for necessary skills; unless disruptive demarcation disputes can be avoided; and unless productivity can be improved in advance of pay. To create such an economic climate will not be easy, for we have left things very late. It will, I acknowledge, need time. But more than anything it will need an Administration with the political confidence and the political will to believe in what it is doing. There is not the slightest evidence of such confidence or belief in the attempts of the present Government to deal with its unemployment today.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, in the short amount of time which is available to one in a debate of this kind I want to raise three points. The first is really in the form of a question to the Government, and perhaps it would be more appropriately put at Question Time. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in introducing this debate this afternoon, referred to the various groups of people who were particularly suffering from unemployment: the old, the disadvantaged, and the young. Rather surprisingly, however, he omitted one group which, if I read the official figures aright, are suffering exceptionally; that is, women in employment. A reading of the figures—and I am asking the Government to give us an explanation of this—shows that since March 1975 the rate of increase of unemployment among women has risen much faster than that among men.
It may be that this is a statistical quirk. It may be due to little more than the fact that a great many women were not in fact paying National Insurance contributions in recent years, and they may now be paying it to a much greater extent and

23
therefore getting into benefit and registering. That could be the explanation. It could be that a great many women working part-time have been got rid of as part-time shifts have been shut down. But the matter certainly needs some explanation. It ought not to be because women are being dismissed in preference to the dismissal of men, because the legislation that we now have in the country explicitly makes it illegal to operate redundancy against the interests of women, women and men being treated equally for the purposes of redundancy.
I should like at this point to ask the noble Lord—and I shall understand if he cannot reply at the present moment, because I did not give him notice—what is the explanation. I would ask whether he would agree that women's rates are going up much faster than those for men, and what explanation there is for that. If the noble Lord does not know, then we really ought to find out, because these figures need some explanation, and so far we have not had one.
The two other points I want to make are of a quite different order. They are different from the kind that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It seems to me that two matters of considerable importance create a very great paradox in the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to unemployment. I have on previous occasions in debates of this sort drawn attention to the paradoxical situation that, while we have serious, rising and grievous unemployment figures, we also have acute shortages of labour in certain key sectors. In my view this factor should be at the centre of our thinking when we are considering unemployment; it is not a matter which should be treated as a peripheral and marginal one.
Relying on official publications and figures, I would draw the attention of the House to a proposal put forward by the Manpower Services Commission in June of last year when they were talking about serious shortages and submitting a proposal for collective funding, which I understand is not now being pursued. The Commission produced a long list—I will not weary your Lordships with all its details—of jobs for which it is difficult
24
to find manpower or womanpower; included are electrical and electronic production fitters, production electricians, press and machine toolsetters, toolmakers, tool fitters and markers-out and precision instrument makers. I could continue with the list—all absolutely key, skilled people. We must focus attention on the fact that in the present state of serious unemployment, particularly among the young, we are unable to fill skilled jobs.
The Neddy report on engineering craftsmen which came out only three weeks ago re-emphasised and documented this state of affairs. Talking about apprenticeships a highly relevant aspect in the whole issue of youth unemployment—the report said:
"In recent years the number of people completing apprenticeship training fell from an average of 15,000 a year in the early 1970s to an anticipated average of under 10,500 in the next few years, barely enough to make up for expected promotions of craftsmen, let alone other wastage. It seems inevitable that in 1977 and 1978 there will be fewer craftsmen available than companies will wish to employ unless there is a substantial measure of redeployment and changes in utilisation of skilled crafts."
The report went on to point out that not only was there this drop in the number of apprentices in the industry but there was also a drift of skilled men away from it. It gave details of men who had drifted away from the industry. Where are these skilled men going? What are they doing? Where have they gone, these men who are our very life-blood? They are doing such jobs as those of licensee publican, dog kenneller, butcher, warden caretaker, grave digger, whisky blender. I have perhaps chosen the less important of the occupations to which they have gone, but this is no laughing matter.
The need to have sufficient skilled men and to promote a willingness among people to become and remain skilled is at the centre of our economic recovery. These are the men who add value to and who create the wealth of the nation. I say this in full knowledge of the fact that I am speaking at a time when skilled men in Leyland are revolting against the conditions under which they have been working. I do not say this in opposition to what the Government are doing in that connection. However, when we create a situation in which toolmakers, who are the crème de la crème of the engineering industry, are, for one reason or another, taking action of this kind, it is long overdue

25
that we make a thorough investigation into what is happening to the recruitment and retention of craftsmen in industry.
As I say, I am speaking of the people who create the wealth of the nation, but they also create jobs because the employment of skilled men makes possible the employment of semi-skilled men; they are carried along in the train of the work of the skilled men. Moreover, they create real wealth because, after all, our wealth is, to a large extent, the value we add to imported materials. We cannot afford to ignore our skilled manpower. By creating wealth and jobs they create purchasing power, and in turn that creates other jobs in all that range of services which are highly labour-intensive. If there were more wealth to be spent, we could be finding jobs for many of the people who are now unemployed.
I urge the Government to accept that what is happening in the skilled trades—the inability to recruit youngsters and retain and obtain more skilled men—should be a matter of the greatest urgency and should be inquired into. We can only guess at the reasons for the present state of affairs. It may be—there are suggestions to this effect in the report from which I quoted—that some of the jobs which are called skilled in industry are in fact not very skilled; that men who have served their time and learnt a complex skill are disappointed and disillusioned by the tasks they are asked to do. It may be that it is too difficult for older people who are capable of being trained for skilled trades to take that training and then get the jobs which require doing in the skilled trades. I do not know, but certainly we should find out. It may be pay, prospects and differentials. It may be that in our desire to enhance the position of the low paid, a really worthy desire, we have so narrowed the differentials between the skilled and the semiskilled that it is no longer worth the skilled man's while, not only in terms of what he can get now but in terms of prospects, because there must be prospects for the skilled man as well as for the rest of us. I urge that this whole area should be seen as a central issue in this overall question of unemployment.
The second point I wish to discuss is different, and here the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, may disagree with me less than I hope he has agreed with me so far. I
26
find it paradoxical in the extreme—I agree with Lord McCarthy that many people far more expert than I am are accepting this position—that in a country, still more in a world, which is grievously short of both materials and services that men and women throughout the world want, we should accept as inevitable, as so many are accepting, that unemployment will persist. In my view, it is sinful that we should accept that situation. Instead of saying that we must learn to live with unemployment we should be far more radical and ask, "Why does this absurd and paradoxical situation exist?
After all, we do not have a surplus of goods and services in the world. On the contrary, there is a great shortage. We are misusing our resources of cash and people and we must discover how to stop misusing them. We need to concentrate our resources where value-added is high—this links with what I said about skilled manpower—so that out of that high value-added we generate the resources to pay for the services we want. This must be the scenario for the future. But what are we doing? We have low value-added. Many of our well-meaning policies of the last two decades have led to a position in which we are more and more rigid, freezing people in the jobs they are at present doing, however low the value-added.
This is an absurd way for this country to use its resources. We should get together in the face of the continuing threat of unemployment, which we must not in any circumstances accept as being inevitable, and find out how, with a better utilisation of resources (and this will mean the reversal of many of the policies we have adopted in the past), we can ensure that people are used in such a way that they will add value and be wealth-creating. This is why, although, in the short term, I understand so well why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is putting forward many of the policies he is—and would, in the short term, go along with them—I believe that we must as the same time say that we have to get out of this situation and must see to it that we are prepared to redeploy our resources so that they are being used as effectively and profitably as possible. Out of that increased wealth we can provide jobs through the provision of services which, in this country and throughout the world, are so badly needed.
Lord McCARTHY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether she would agree with me that three quite simple reasons are that more women register now that we have automation in the industries like catering and cleaning where women would be expected to go—the unskilled industries—and that, in a period of high unemployment with an Equal Pay Act, some people still prefer, if they have to pay the same amount, to employ men.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I asked the Government because these are all possible explanations, but we do not know. In answer to the last point, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that I do not think that we want to get into an argument about this but that, since, alas! jobs for men and women are at present so segregated, men and women are rarely interchangeable. So I do not accept the noble Lord's interpretation.

THE STEEL INDUSTRY IN WALES
3.43 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement now being made in another place.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a further Statement about capital investment in the steel industry in Wales. As I informed the House on 19th July last, I asked the British Steel Corporation to carry out a further review of the options for their works at Port Talbot and Shotton in the light of the latest available information. This review has now been completed. I am grateful to the Corporation for the thorough and objective way in which they have carried out this task.
"The Corporation have concluded that development of their Port Talbot works remains the most economical course of action in steel making terms and in supplying United Kingdom users with quality strip mill products on a fully competitive basis. They recommend proceeding with the development at a deliberate pace so that Port Talbot would reach a capacity of 4 million tonnes of liquid steel by
28
1981–82 and 6 million tonnes by 1985–86. The full cost of this at March 1977 prices is estimated at £835 million. This programme reflects the slower growth which now looks likely in world steel markets up to the mid 1980s. It also reflects what the Corporation can realistically aim at in terms of increased market share and in bringing new plant into full operation.
"The first phase would include a 10,000 tonnes per day blast-furnace similar to that now under construction at Redcar and a new steelmaking vessel, in addition to the developments authorised in July. The second stage would include further investment to support iron-making, uprating the present steelmaking plant and additional continuous casting facilities.
"The Corporation believe that to close Shotton's iron and steel capacity when prospects are uncertain and while Port Talbot is being built up over an extended period might risk a shortage. The Corporation are therefore withdrawing their closure proposals for Shotton's heavy end, and they anticipate that iron and steelmaking will continue there for many years to come. They will undertake the necessary expenditure at Shotton to keep the open-hearth steel plant in prime condition. This will lead to the maintenance of employment there at close to present levels. This decision will not be reviewed during the period of BSC's current five-year plan; that is, not before 1982–83 at the earliest. The long-term future of steelmaking at Shotton can then be reviewed in the 1980s in the light of technical developments and results of our industrial strategy.
"The Government welcome the Corporation's proposals as a realistic plan for the development of their strip mills' activities. The proposals also take account of regional and social needs, and I have agreed to them. I look to both workforce and management in the Corporation and also to those engaged on steel plant construction to make a success of the new strategy."
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord

29
Winterbottom, for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Industry in another place. However much one may argue inside or outside Parliament about the merits of the proposals, may I say that we welcome the fact that, at long last and very late in the day, we appear to have some firm decisions and that some very damaging uncertainty may at last have been removed. I assure the noble Lord that we welcome that.
I should like to ask the noble Lord three questions about the substance of the Statement. The first relates to Port Talbot. The Statement says that the full cost of the development proposed for Port Talbot will be £835 million. Speaking from memory, I believe that the previous figure was of the order of £600 million. Can the noble Lord tell us how much of that one-third increase is due to inflation and how much, if any, is due to any real increase in the investment to be undertaken there compared with the previous plan?
Secondly, may I ask a question about Shotton? The Statement uses the interesting phrase that the Corporation:
"will undertake the necessary expenditure at Shotton to keep the open-hearth steel plant in prime condition".
Does that just mean maintaining what is there in good order or does it imply some new investment of a fundamentally new kind and not just what I call good care and maintenance? I believe that that is an important point.
Thirdly, may I ask the noble Lord the meaning of the last words of the Statement in which the Government refer to "success of the new strategy"? I noticed particularly that they used the word "strategy" not "tactics". Does this mean that the Government have abandoned the previous strategy and that this is more than a tactical decision as to how to carry it out? Are they really going to embark upon a wholly new strategy compared with the one previously put forward and approved for the Steel Board?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the Government for the Statement and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for repeating it. We are glad that some decision has been made. On the other hand, one cannot but wonder whether
30
this is not yet again propping up an existing situation with an ineffective use of resources. We would remind the Government that, for example, in the field of shipbuilding much time and money were lost in propping up shipbuilding in the Clyde when that money could have been so much better spent diversifying industry in the area. Are we sure that this is not happening yet again in putting more resources into Shotton?
3.49 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: As a former Parliamentary representative of the area that includes Shotton, may I say how glad I am that this announcement has been made and that the Government have recognised that it would have been a social disaster of the greatest magnitude had not such a decision been taken, particularly in an area in which, through the run down of Courtauld's factories, the unemployment situation is already causing the gravest concern.
I should like to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. I very much hope that this decision—welcome as it is—is not simply postponing a true strategic decision for Shotton and that the period into the 1980s, while it gives immediate relief, will be used for very serious consideration of the true future of steelmaking in that part of the world. With that caveat, I should like to say how greatly relieved those of us who have the interests of that part of the country very much at heart must feel on learning that the period of uncertainty has been brought to an end for the moment at least.
Lord SELWYN-LLOYD: My Lords, as one who has been associated with the noble Baroness for many years in the battle for Shotton, I should like to say how delighted I am that this Statement has been made, that an end has been put to the period of indecision. We believe on Merseyside and on Deeside that there is a strategic future for the Shotton works, with its magnificent record of labour relations and with the work it has done for the steel industry in the past.
3.50 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with the questions in reverse order.

31
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, for his positive remarks, which are of great help to me. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has made an important point; the true future of Shotton is of concern to us all. The noble Baroness will recall that I said that it was the heavy end of the industry at Shotton that was likely to be, or that will be, in due course closed down. But a very heavy investment into coating steel is taking place there. The figure in my mind is £47 million. Whereas Shotton may cease to be a raw steel-producing unit, it will in fact be producing sophisticated products based on steel, which presumably it will buy from other sources in the middle of the 1980s.
I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who seemed to take a good old-fashioned Manchester economist's view of the economy. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have just spoken have said, we cannot ignore the social impact of closing down a major industrial complex at Shotton just because at the moment its future seems unsure. We must have steel. The economy is becoming more lively and more alive, and it would be silly, while we are building up Port Talbot, to shut down productive resources at Shotton which, if they were not there, would mean that we should need to bring supplies from abroad; for instance, from Germany or Japan. So I think that here there has been a proper balance between the building up of Port Talbot and the closing down of Shotton.
I now wish to turn to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. I apologise that I cannot give precise answers to his three questions, which I think are entirely valid, and it is right that he should ask them. All of them are rather complex. In his first question he asked me whether the £835 million which I have said (at 1977 prices) is to be put into Port Talbot is the equivalent of the £600 million stated at an earlier date. I am afraid that I cannot answer that. From the nature of my Statement I do not think that the two can be exactly inter-related, but obviously they are of the same order. Inflation must be taking place, and the £835 million must take into account the fact of inflation. If the noble Lord would like precise details perhaps he would put down a Question for
32
Written Answer and I will give him an answer. The same is true of the question of keeping Shotton in prime condition, which presumably involves taking the technology of an open furnace which is really a rather old-fashioned piece of machinery. It implies a limit. Obviously, it has to be kept in good shape, and perhaps new technology could be applied to it. Again, if the noble Lord is interested in pursuing that matter further, I will write to him. We are talking now about what is to happen in Wales, and that is the strategy that I have stated today: the balance of steel production throughout various units in Wales.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in expressing relief about Shotton, but I wish to revert to what I believe is the question that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, had in mind. If we are being told that the open-hearth furnaces at Shotton are to be preserved, that means that Shotton will not be kept open for very long, because long ago we passed the point at which they had any real future. Therefore what concerns many of us is that talk of keeping them in prime condition denotes in itself a very short-term future. Can my noble friend say whether, once we have passed this period, it is the intention of the British Steel Corporation to install at Shotton electric are furnaces and modern equipment of that type?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I should say that we are talking about what is, in political terms, quite a long-term period. I have said that this decision about Shotton will not be reviewed during the period of the British Steel Corporation's current five-year plan; that is, not before 1982/83 at the earliest. If anyone can see clearly what this country will look like in 1982, then he has a better crystal ball than many of us. The long-term future of steelmaking at Shotton can be reviewed in the 1980s in the light of technical developments and the results of our industrial strategy; presumably that is the national industrial strategy as opposed to the industrial strategy for steel in Wales.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as most of us know, it is not possible for him to answer the technical questions

33
because these are really matters for an expert? But as my noble friend, Lord Lee of Newton, has said, if the open-hearth furnaces are to be the producers of the future, they will soon finish producing because of the cost and the quality that will arise therefrom. However, in the Statement it was said that the position will be reviewed. In a smaller plant it is possible to have an electric furnace working on the new technicalities that are available, and this could make quite good steel—not necessarily good steel for the products being made at Shotton, but quite good steel nevertheless, and it may be adapted for that particular purpose.
I think that the purpose behind everybody's questioning here is: are there to be developments so far as steel production is concerned, say, along the lines of electric furnaces, which will give hope for the future of Shotton for the next decade; or are we having only a temporary phase to get over a political quandary and run the plant for a year or so on steel that is to be imported from other works, in which case the transportation costs would make it absolutely impossible for that works to continue? That is the kind of question which is being posed to my noble friend. I do not think that he can give the answer, because a good deal of technical experience is needed first, but perhaps he can get the answer so far as Shotton is concerned, and will let some of us know what it is.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if Shotton has not a future I revert to the point that I made: what alternative employment is there? What strategic development is there for the area in terms of employment? That was the point it was asking about. Apparently the noble Lord did not understand.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords: I understood it. The point is that we are now looking into what seems to be almost the impenetrable future; namely, 1983. Shotton will continue until then. I am most grateful to my noble friend, with his great knowledge of the industry which I do not possess, for pointing out that Shotton in its present form cannot continue. But on the other hand, a steel-based industry must obviously continue there, for the social reasons that I have given. So I hope that the noble Baroness
34
will accept the fact that this area will continue to provide employment for the substantial number of people who work there at the moment—if my recollection is right, in the region of 10,000—until such time as new technology, and possibly a more buoyant economy, will enable us to re-create on that site a steel-based industry which certainly will not use the open-hearth furnace.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, understandably most of the interest has been directed at Shotton; but with regard to Port Talbot, which is to be a new extension, have the workforce or their representatives in that area been kept in the picture regarding what is now called the new strategy? I ask this because £835 million is to be spent, and I guess that the sum will be much greater than that by the time the actual extensions are installed. Is there any likelihood of a situation arising where these new plants have been put down but, for some local reason, they are not worked for some time, thus involving the type of waste that has been experienced in the very recent past?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is obvious that the ever closer collaboration between the Government and the trade unions will make certain that this common study of the future possibilities will take place. I have no doubt whatsoever that such consultation is taking place now.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Lord to answer the three questions. I wonder whether he would agree to write to me about these matters, and perhaps to others who have shown an interest, because it is difficult to pursue this in even long Question for Written Answers. May I ask one further question of him. He talked about the period he mentioned as being long in political terms. Yes, my Lords, I think we would all agree; but it is short in terms of industrial development. It is one of the problems of this country that industrial timing is much longer term than political timing, and we want to make a plea to time Government to take that into account.

EEC AGRICULTURAL MINISTERS' MEETING
4 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the meeting of the EEC Council of Agricultural Ministers in Brussels on 14/15 March. There was further discussion of the Commission's proposals for 1977–78 farm prices; but no decisions were reached and since we shall have an opportunity of discussing the proposals later today, I shall confine myself now to the question of fisheries. For this my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland led for the United Kingdom supported by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
"At the start of proceedings on 14th March 1 drew the Council's attention to proposals for the Faroese authorities to introduce, for the period 15th March to 30th April, new conservation measures which would severely curtail fishing activity by Community, and particularly United Kingdom fishing vessels in Faroese waters. Moreover, as President of the Council I was scheduled to sign a framework fisheries agreement between the Community and the Faroese on 15th March—the day the new measures were due to come into force. It was important to ensure that the sudden appearance of the new Faroese proposals did not prejudice the arrangements for signature. I am pleased to say that the Faroese have now agreed to defer the introduction of their measures and to enter immediately into consultations with the Community about them. On that basis I felt justified in signing the agreement which I and the Faroese Prime Minister did yesterday. At the signing ceremony I expressed deep concern at the timing and nature of the Faroese proposals. Commissioner Gundelach supported me. It is now my hope that the consultations on the Faroese proposals can be speedily and satisfactorily completed, although I am bound to tell the House that the initial
36
position taken by the Faroese Government does not give rise to optimism.
"I have for some time been concerned at the lack of progress towards a permanent common fisheries programme. I am therefore pleased to announce that the Council has now agreed on the urgent need to establish a permanent internal reéime and that revised proposals are expected from the Commission soon after Easter. The Council's aim will be to reach decisions on them by the end of June.
"The Council also discussed a Commission proposal to establish catch quotas for the remainder of 1977 for certain species of fish in extensive areas within the waters of the Member States, including United Kingdom waters. One of the objectives of this temporary measure would be to facilitate the development of the fishing industry of the Irish Republic. My right honourable friend, while approving the principle of coastal State preference, drew attention to a number of difficulties to which this proposal gave rise. The Commission's proposal will be studied further by officials, and the Council will consider it again at its meeting at the end of next week. However it is not now expected to be adopted in the form proposed by the Commission. In the meantime the Irish Government undertook to defer introduction of their proposed regulation on the size of fishing vessels permitted to fish in certain coastal waters around Ireland".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having repeated a Statement made in another place. First, as regards the proposals of the Faroes, a drastic reduction at very short notice, had it been accepted, would have struck Scottish mid-water vessels extremely hard, and it would also have been a severe blow to the port of Aberdeen, since a large number of the British vessels which fish off the Faroes are from that port. Conservation is very necessary, but it must be by agreement, by stages and with proper notice. May I ask the

37
noble Lord whether he can tell us how long it is before further proposals are expected from the Faroese? And I must record that the Faroese action is most disquieting.
On the general point of a permanent internal régime, which the Government now state is likely to be agreed in the summer, this means that the negotiations in the coming months will be of crucial importance for the future livelihood of many British fishermen, especially in remote and development areas, although their product is as much in demand now as it has ever been. Will the Government point out to our EEC partners that it would be more sensible and cheaper to enable these fishermen to continue to work in waters which surround their areas, many of them peripheral, such as off the North and West of Scotland, than to render them redundant and then to seek expensive remedies through the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund of the EEC—remedies which may indeed be inappropriate for their part of the country? For this purpose, my Lords, the United Kingdom Government must stand firm on some fully effective system of restriction or exclusion as part of the proposed conservation measures.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement; and I should like to start by saying that I look forward to the Statement on the discussions on agriculture, which I think we may expect to show as much difficulty there as they are having over fishing. However, as this Statement is confined to fishing, I should like to say that it is a good thing to see that the EEC is acting as a body, that Commissioner Gundelach is supporting our Minister and that together they are using the undoubted influence or muscle (call it what you will) which they have to introduce a little common sense into the handling of traditional fishing grounds by the Faroese.
I must say that there appears to be somewhat of a contradiction when the Minister says that he hopes that the consultations with the Faroese can be speedily and satisfactorily completed but that he is bound to tell the House that the situation does not give rise to optimism. Perhaps the noble Lord could expand on that a
38
little and say why he thinks we can look forward to a settlement of the conditions in these very necessary grounds for the fishermen of Aberdeen and of Scotland.
When it comes to establishing a permanent internal régime for the Common Market, I hope that the Minister has not forgotten that all the difficulties he has been having up to now underline more than ever the need for an exclusive zone for the fishermen of this country in certain areas, at any rate round our coasts. The establishment of a 50-mile zone appears to me the practical way to start because, with all the difficulties already being shown, I think it unlikely that a decent and workable permanent régime can be established internally in the Community for a number of years. I hope that the Minister will still be stressing the fact that a coastal State can reserve and should reserve a certain area for the exclusive use of their own fishermen. This is immensely important, and I think that all the experience in the negotiations up to now seems to point to this being a practical measure to take.
The last point that I should like to make and the question that I should like to ask is this. Are any really serious bilateral discussions taking place with the Irish Government? We seem to be fighting with our nearest neighbour over a number of things and we have already referred a number of matters to the Court. I should like to ask whether serious bilateral discussions are taking place to try to settle these matters by discussion—and I am talking about the median line and Rockall and so on—instead of going to the European Court.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what they have said. I shall do my best to answer the various questions. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me to elaborate a little more about the Faroese agreement which was signed yesterday. This was a framework agreement only, on lines similar to those negotiated, or being negotiated, by the Faroes with other third countries. It provides for reciprocal access to fishing grounds, subject to the annual determination by each party of the total allowable catches, and consultation about the allotment of tonnages that each may catch in the other's zone. There will be

39
provision also about possible licensing arrangements, observance of conservation and other regulations, and co-operation in research and on fisheries management.
I have noted, and I agree with, what was said about its effect on Scottish vessels. This is of particular interest to the Scottish industry as most of the fish which are caught off the Faroes are cod and haddock. With regard to the Community, here close contact is being maintained and I think I had better deal with that and also with the general points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. We have sympathy with the Irish claims as a coastal State, but welcome the fact that the Irish have agreed to defer implementation of their boat-size regulation, which was the point at issue, while the possibility of a Community solution is explored urgently.
The Commission's proposals so far leave unresolved some questions about practical implementation which could raise difficulties of principle for us. In the Government's view, the dominant objective must be to press on with the negotiations about a long-term fisheries régime applying to all waters of the Community States. The Government position was clearly stated at the Council Meeting on 4th May last year. So far, the Community partners have shown no readiness to negotiate on the basis of that statement. On appropriate occasions in subsequent discussions the United Kingdom spokesmen have reiterated the points of vital concern to us. We will continue to take, and to create, opportunities for doing this and we hope to see our views reflected in the revised proposals which the Commission are expected to produce soon after Easter.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also asked about the employment situation. I am glad to tell him that the Minister met leaders of the industry on Friday, and that we are maintaining close contact with leaders of the United Kingdom fishing industry, both here and in Brussels, on Faroese conservation measures and on the Commission's latest proposals, and generally. The Fisheries Department officials also met representatives of the workers' union. We attach a great deal of importance to these consultations.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, although I was for 25 years in the other place, I am very much a new boy here and therefore I ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a maiden speech. When the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised a debate on unemployment I felt that I should say something about the situation in the North of England, from which I come. May I say that it is quite like old times to be speaking from the Back Benches on unemployment and to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside.
Your Lordships will have noticed in the Press on Monday a forecast by the Henley Centre that, when the upturn in the economy comes, firms in industry are not likely to take on as much labour as previously. They forecast that by 1982 the unemployment figure will rise to 2·5 million. They then went on to say that if the Government take vigorous measures to encourage new growth industries the unemployment figure could probably be held to 1·1 million by 1982. I do not accept these figures at all but I accept the proposition on which they are based: first that it is very unlikely, because of technological change, that industries will ever again employ as much labour as they did previously; and secondly, however, that that change can be mitigated by vigorous Government action of the right kind and the right quantity now.
I want to illustrate what I have to say by referring exclusively to the North of England, for a number of reasons—because I live there, because I represented part of it for a quarter of a century, and also because one of my voluntary jobs is the chairmanship of the North of England Development Council which covers the big quadrilateral from Barrow to the Solway to Berwick and to the Tweed. In that area at the moment there are, on average, 7·9 per cent, of men and women unemployed. This is the highest figure in the United Kingdom except for Northern Ireland. And 105,000 people are out of work.

41
In September last year the research department of the Development Council did a very well based piece of research and they forecast that by 1978–79, one to two years from now, an additional 92,000 jobs will be lost in that region in shipbuilding, in the manufacture of power generation equipment, in steel and in construction because of the structural changes taking place in those industries. This takes no account of the spin-off on the firms supplying them. Anybody who knows the industrial area knows that when a works or a shipyard closes it affects everybody down to the shop at the corner of the street. If these additional 92,000 job losses occur—and at the moment the forecast is depressingly on target in the six months since it was made—male unemployment in one to two years from now in that northern quadrilateral of England will rise to 14·1 per cent. and a large number of areas in that region will have 20 per cent. and upwards unemployed.
This is due to the long-term decline in manufacturing and extractive industries, the start of which pre-dated the present recession. As a result of that, for many years we have exported jobs and people to the post-war boom areas of the Midlands and South-East of England. To make matters worse, we have an older population than the rest of the country. The Northern Region—and this is the major point I want to make—is a clear demonstration of the nature of unemployment as a long-term, deep-seated structural problem and not solely as a consequence of the present recession. That—and I hope the Government will appreciate this; for I am afraid from their policies they are not appreciating it—is the difference between unemployment in the North of England, in industrial Scotland and in Wales, and unemployment in the Midlands and the South-East. The job creation scheme, the temporary employment subsidy and so on are all very welcome. Anything is better than unemployment. But such measures are not a solution to the kind of unemployment we have in the North of England. The stimulation of new industry, new growth industry, is the only way to resolve this problem.
To emphasise the point, may I illustrate the situation in the North of England by referring to two towns: one big town on the East Coast and one very small town on the West Coast. Sunderland has a
42
population of just over 200,000. Today it has a male unemployment figure of 14·4 per cent. and an average unemployment figure of 10·9 per cent. One exchange area in the town has an unemployment figure of 16 per cent. The ratio of vacancies to unemployed is one to ten. A fortnight ago, the Plessey firm announced the closure of a large telecommunications factory in the town. That factory employs 2,088 people. If it closes (and it looks as though it is going to close), the average unemployment figure in Sunderland will be 14·3 per cent. That is excluding the spin-off on all the firms who supply the Plessey company. There are also another two possible closures on the horizon. If they occur, the unemployment figure could rise to 16 per cent. The only prospect at the moment for new jobs is about 750 by the middle or late 1980s. Of course others will arise, but they are the only ones in sight at the moment. Here is a big town in the North of England drifting rapidly back to the 1930s. That is not an exaggeration.
May I now turn to a small town on the coast of Cumbria. Maryport built its industrial prosperity in the 19th century on coal, iron works and docks. In the depth of the depression in 1934, 88 per cent. of the male population in Maryport were unemployed. The unemployment today is almost the same as Sunderland's, 14·5 per cent. male unemployment, and the average unemployment is 11·2 per cent. The ratio of vacancies to unemployed in Maryport is 1 to 15. In the 16 years between 1961 and 1977 only 250 new jobs were created and 500 jobs were lost. There has been a steady outward migration. I checked up from the county council, and the population dropped by 900 in the ten years between 1961 and 1971. Of all the people left, 63 per cent. were in the 20 to 34 age group. The population is now 11,500.
Here is a small town with a great industrial history which will die unless some vigorous Government action is taken. That is not propping it up with job creation schemes, but some vigorous promotion of new growth industries in that area. A distinctive feature of the situation in the North is that the problems are getting worse because they are structural. I am sorry to say this about my late colleagues, but the priority that the Government attach to solving these problems appears to be diminishing.

43
Let me explain what I mean. Industrial policy over the past few years under both Governments has consisted of a number of carrots and one stick. The carrots have been regional development grants, the regional employment premium and Sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Act 1972. The stick has been the issue of industrial development certificates. But I am sorry to say that the Government are demolishing the regionally selective policy. In May of last year they lifted the exemption below which factory development could take place in non-development areas from 5,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet.
This relaxation had particularly damaging consequences for the North of England, Wales and Scotland. The IDC procedure is a particularly useful instrument for relieving long-term structural unemployment. It has been estimated that it has brought 75,000 new jobs to the assisted areas between 1964 and 1970. It therefore helped the areas in the South-East of England and the Midlands suffering from recessional unemployment, but it did so at the expense of the older industrial areas suffering structural unemployment. The relaxation last May by the Government took place at the very point in time when the procedure should have been tightened and not relaxed.
Secondly, the Government have ended the regional employment premium. What effect has this had on the North of England? It has increased the average wage costs in manufacturing industry in the North of England by £2·71 per week. It has taken £64 million out of the economy. In the North of England it has been equivalent to a revaluation of the currency in the region, raising the price of all the goods and services that we produce. When he made the statement on 15th December last year about this, the Chancellor told us that the REP should now give way to more selective measures. He said that forms of selective assistance to get increased resources were sectoral schemes to support the Government's industrial strategy. It therefore appears that subsidies for labour costs have now been re-allocated to subsidies for capital costs, and a regional subsidy has been re-allocated to a selective sectoral strategy which takes little or no account of regional needs.
44
Why do I say that, my Lords? To date, the assistance for sectoral schemes and accelerated project schemes has given the North 6·5 per cent. of the Great Britain total. Wales, which has a similar problem, has only 2 per cent. The West Midlands has received 15·7 per cent. I am talking about the money allocated under this scheme. The Eastern Region has 14·9 per cent. Yorkshire and Humberside, where the unemployment problem is less severe, has received 31·5 per cent. This is because it is designed to aid sectors of industry and not regions. I believe that this is sheer lunacy at the present time.
Nor has the loss of REP been mitigated by the temporary employment subsidy, for to qualify for the payment of this subsidy a firm has not only to prove that it is viable; it has to prove its viability after the period of payment of the grant, and precious few firms in the North can do that. In the North up to March, only 73·7 per cent. of applications for TES had been accepted, and only 58 per cent. of jobs for which it was requested have been covered by payments compared with the Midlands, who have three times the total given to the Northern region, because many firms in the North fail this viability test. By its very nature it helps recessional rather than long-term structural unemployment, so the older industrial areas have had a very raw deal indeed from the temporary employment subsidy. Therefore, of the Government's industrial strategy, only two instruments remain unscathed: Section 7 of the Industry Act and regional development grants.
On 5th November last year, the Secretary of State for Industry made a speech in Coventry. He told his audience that the Government were carrying out a critical review of regional industrial policy. He said that in future the emphasis would be on an industry-to-industry basis and that there would be no advantage whatever for Coventry to be given special development area status. In other words, the Government are clearly abandoning regionally based assistance, in spite of the chronic, deep-seated nature of our problem.
I believe—and I end on this note—that assistance should be mainly regionally selected, not sectorially selected; because

45
sectorial selection does not help the older and depressed regions to the correct extent. One of the basic weaknesses in our economy has been the gross regional disparities that some areas like the North, South Wales and industrial Scotland have suffered, with high unemployment, low wage rates and all the other consequences springing from those things in education, in health and in the environment—one deprivation upon another. There are so many areas of that kind in Britain.
We often talk, especially on this side, of creating "one nation", and we do it usually in terms of social class. I am not very interested in the class struggle, but I am very interested in raising all parts of the United Kingdom to the level of the most prosperous ones. Unless we do that, my Lords, it is really a bit of a mockery to talk about "one nation" in these Islands. Had we done that in the past, I believe that pressure for devolution, for example, would never have built up to the extent that it has. Anybody who goes to the areas of industrial Scotland and Glasgow can see the extent to which the older industrial areas have been neglected. We cannot allow the little towns like Maryport to die. We cannot allow the big towns like Sunderland to drift back to the 1930s. The Government's present policy, I am sorry to say, is not helping the process of creating one nation. I therefore implore my colleagues in the Government to stop the process of demolishing regionally selective assistance and to devise new regionally selective inducements to industrial growth. Only in this way, I believe, can we create "one nation" in our country.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, it gives me the greatest possible pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, on his maiden speech. I sincerely and absolutely mean that. I should like also to congratulate him on having arrived here in our Lordships' House. I am sure we all agree, having listened to his maiden speech, that he is a most experienced individual, and that the experience and knowledge displayed in his maiden speech is a great asset to the part of the world which he and I both love and admire.
46
I have never before been called upon to congratulate anyone on a maiden speech. Perhaps I might be allowed just to say that I have known the noble Lord for many years. As he has told us, he was in another place for many years, and I too was there for 38 years. Therefore he and I know each other very well indeed. We have very often disagreed, but that is completely natural. On the other hand, I know very well that the noble Lord has great humanity and that he wants, as I do myself, to do everything possible to ensure that our part of the world is as prosperous, happy and contented as many other parts of the country. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, very often in the future, for he has a great deal to offer this House from his knowledge and experience.
I am going to make a very short speech, my Lords. I have only two or three things to say, but I believe they are important. I listened with great interest to the Statement made about Shotton and Port Talbot which are producing steel. I hope that before the end of our debate today—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will agree with me on this—we shall be told that the Consett Iron and Steel Works will receive just as much consideration and help as the others. Consett has once or twice been under the threat of closure, but I hope it will be maintained as a most important steel-producing plant. It is tremendously important.
There are several things I should like to mention. I should like to go back for a moment to 1931, when I first entered Parliament as the Member for Wallsend-on-Tyne, which is a highly industrialised area. At that time, in certain parts of the industrial section of Wallsend-on-Tyne, 84 per cent. of the employable population were unemployed. Since that date I have done my very best to try to ensure full employment for the area. I repeat, 84 per cent. of the employable population were then unemployed; and I think it speaks marvellously for the people in our part of the world that they have worked so hard and so well under such frightfully difficult circumstances. I remember one very skilled pit man telling me that when he was first offered the dole he went home and smashed up all his furniture. Quite why he did that, psychologically, I have no idea. But we in the North have a most wonderful population—and long may they

47
remain there! I think we have done very well in very difficult circumstances.
I should like to put one thing on the record. It is something I have wanted to do for very many years. Not only have we contributed industrially, but internationally we have made some very great arrangements. When the last war broke out in 1939 we were just beginning to get over our unemployment problems. We had our trading estates, and new industries were coming in. We were just beginning to get over the frightful period of unemployment experienced in the early 1930s. At that time, in 1939, the assessment was made—and nobody could criticise it—that the East Coast (particularly Northumberland and Durham, and parts of East Anglia, too) were nearest to the Germans and therefore were the most likely areas to receive the first German bombs. It was then decided—and, as I said, no one could really criticise the decision—that we were not to be allowed to have any new industries at all. We kept the industries that we already had, and we worked very hard to make our contribution, but we were not allowed any new industries. Both Northumberland and Durham had their coalmines, which were very early developments. We were one of the first mining areas to be developed, so our mines were beginning to run out; we had raised all the coal. We still do not have very many mines, but they are jolly good ones.
What happened was that the new developing industries, which were so essential for victory and which have played a great part in the economic development of this country, all went either to the Midlands or further West. I think that this was made clear in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. This happened in the case of the motor car industry, in the development of radio and television, and even in the man-made fibre industry. Nobody in our part of the world—if I may say that to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara—complained, because it was essentially a decision in the national interest. What happens now? Nobody has mentioned that we require more attention, because we did not have the benefit of any of the new industries which enabled us to win the war. Having waited for so long, I am very glad indeed to have that important fact on the record.
48
Another point which is of interest is that it has been advantageous to Scotland and Wales to have Secretaries of State, who can argue inside the Cabinet. We can only argue for ourselves. Though I am not in favour of devolution, which certain parts of Scotland and Wales are now demanding, we want people to put our case, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, did so excellently in his maiden speech. While the present Government are in power, the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will perhaps be able to argue for us, instead of through a Secretary of State as they do in Wales and in Scotland. We have had to fight for ourselves in our own way. Sometimes we have had success, and sometimes we have not. Everybody is very nice in this House. People are very helpful, very co-operative, very charming and very polite. I know that I must sometimes annoy people in this House by always standing up for my part of the world, which I shall continue to do; and now that he has arrived I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will also stand up for that part of the world.
In arranging policies, it is not always very good to have them put forward by people with either safe Conservative seats or safe Labour seats, because unless people know as much as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and, if I may say so, myself—which is not very modest—about our part of the world, people say: "Oh, goodness! Is that girl at it again?". However, I never minded standing up in another place, and I have tried to stand up in this place. I have some friends, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has friends on his side of the House. But I have enjoyed listening to him. I think it was very lucky for us that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, introduced his Motion today; and it was a very good idea for the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, to make his maiden speech on an occasion like this.
I am not talking only about selective schemes which can be developed anywhere. We want something done to help us, and the East Coast, too, because that area has lost quite a lot by also having no new developments. We want to have a fair share, we want fair arguments and we want jolly good Ministers, whether they are on the Labour side or on the Conservative side. I will not go into

49
politics, because this is not a good day to do that, but I expect that everybody knows what I mean. Anyhow, I am very glad to have been able to take part in this debate. I hope that it will enable this country to play the full part which we have always played in the past, and I also hope that the problems of our country will be rapidly and justly settled.
4.47 p.m.
Lord KAGAN: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Glenamara? I, too, come from the North and it is good to know that someone has such a deep and profound understanding of what is going on there. We have textile mills in Todmorden in Lancashire. In 1970, there were 731,000 people employed in the textile industry. On the last count in November 1976, there were only 526,000 people employed in the textile industry. That is an annual decline of 30,000 jobs. While we are debating today, another 120 people will probably have lost their jobs in the textile industry in the North of England.
Is this inevitable? Is this an act of God? May we look at the reasons? Could it be, as we hear about in other industries, union trouble or shop-floor trouble? The answer is emphatically, No. No other industry could wish to have a more responsible, responsive or co-operative labour force than the textile industry. I do not remember any strife, struggle or strike in the last 30 years in our part of the world. Could it be lack of skill? I think I am able to assure your Lordships that in textiles this country still leads the world. This country teaches the world. In fact, in large measure, we supply the skilled people who run the textile industries in the United States and even in West Germany and Switzerland, as well as in other parts of the world. No, my Lords, it is not a matter of skill.
Is it possible that the demand for textile products has declined? Again, the answer is, No. There is a large and ever-growing demand. What could be the reason? In my view, there are two prime reasons for the decline. Very largely, the textile industry depends on free enterprise. In our mills, we just do not have the competitive ability to reward people and induce them to stay in the industry. I have had occasion before in this House to
50
mention that for exactly the same job and responsibilities, a man in this country has to settle for less than half the pay that his counterpart would get in Europe. It is not cheap competition from Taiwan or Korea that stops us from expanding or holding our own in our industry; it is that we are uncompetitive in holding people of the right talent. This is a very serious criticism.
Could the reason for our uncompetitiveness be that we so desperately need the revenue received from the higher incomes? The statistics show that the total tax accruing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the higher rates is less than 2 per cent. of the total revenue received. For the sake of this 2 per cent. we amputate incentive at the top. Any industrial unit is run by example, not by exhortation. If you destroy incentive at the top, it filters right down the line. Could it, then, be that the reason for our uncompetitiveness is the moral compulsion or the theological requirement to introduce a gap between the very well off and the not so well off, between the rich and the poor? Any one of us going through London these days sees far more rich people than we have ever seen before, except that they are not English. Not only can we not collect any revenue from them; we cannot even collect parking fines from them. So in that sense there is no justification for it. May I earnestly suggest that we look again at the fundamental cause of the decline of our industry: the inability to reward people in a competitive way for their skills. We are denying ourselves the benefit of our four-minute milers.
There is another point which ought to be looked at very carefully. In the textile industry, success depends upon being able to keep the industrial units going at as even a pace as is possible; yet it has high points in demand and then slack periods at other times. The only way to solve the problem—this is the way in which our successful competitors in Europe and overseas go about it—is to build up stocks at times of low demand which will then be useful in meeting the high demand which will, one hopes, and which usually does, turn up.
With our peculiar fiscal system, with our peculiar taxation system, when it comes to calculating tax liability for corporation tax, the Revenue takes the

51
attitude that the stocks held should be valued at either cost or market value. How does one measure the market value of the future? You get the absolutely absurd situation that in most textile mills you spend more money on accountants than you spend on technicians to argue out this barren argument; and since at some point you have to settle half way, the prudent manufacturer decides to opt out of the argument and to produce only against firm orders.
In textiles, it is impossible to build up production to meet a sudden demand. Of course, our competitors abroad, who are better placed, are ready to exploit the situation with their stocks. The demand is met, but it is met from abroad. Thus the situation has been created in which our textile industry declines at the rate of 30,000 people a year, which is almost parallel to the increase in employment in the textile industry in Italy. In Sweden, which has a not dissimilar tax system, the industry is allowed, and indeed encouraged, to write down its stocks to zero if it wishes, because they say that they will burden the industry with profits tax only when the profit is made. We, however, are called upon to provide a commitment on profits which we have to pay out of money which we have not got. That is a very serious handicap.
Our debate today is about selective measures to help our industry. We cannot run a free enterprise economy without reward. I think we should be careful not to kill the goose which lays the golden egg in anticipation of the goose laying the egg. May I suggest that this point should be looked at. If, through our fiscal policies, we purge this country of talent and industry of its reserves the decline will continue. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence.
4.56 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, on his maiden speech and from these Benches to welcome him to this House. Like the two previous speakers and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, himself, I come from the North, albeit from the North-West and therefore share that sympathy with him. May I also say briefly what a pleasure it
52
is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. Not for the first time I find myself very much in agreement with much, indeed practically all, that he had to say.
In the words of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I accept the need for further selective measures or for the development of existing measures to tackle the problems of unemployment, at least in the short term. Also, I very much support what my noble friend Lady Seear had to say about the shortages of skilled labour which an increasing proportion of CBI respondents, for example, are citing and the need for adequate training opportunities.
As the Employment Secretary said last week, and as we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the problem no longer has to do solely with economic recession or the lack of training. It involves also the serious new factor of a growth in our potential working population which is likely to last for some years and also the factor of technological development. The number of people available for work is currently increasing by 150,000 per annum. This is largely due to the bulge in the birth rate in the 1960s. At the same time, large-scale industry is becoming more capital intensive. For example, the company for which I used to work has just sanctioned capital expenditure of £25 million on a new plant which will provide only 90 jobs. In my view, therefore, there is a need to approach the longer-term problem in an imaginative way so that if it continues to be the case, despite all our efforts, that there are not enough jobs to go round, we shall be ready to meet the situation with more than temporary expedients.
Here I should like to offer the opinion that, if necessary, it would be better that those who have reached the age of, say, 60, should be encouraged, as they are already being encouraged in a number of progressive companies, to retire prematurely rather than that there should be unemployment among young people. I know that to a limited extent, at any rate, voluntary early retirement is the purpose behind the Job Release Bill which we are to debate next week, so I shall say nothing more about that subject now. But surely there can be nothing more demoralising than that a young person's first experience of the outside world after leaving school

53
should be that for him, or her, there is no worthwhile occupation. If I may amplify some of the statistics already given to us by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, unemployment among young people has become progressively worse since the year 1973–74. At its peak in August 1973 it stood at 43,000; in August 1976 it reached 242,000; at its lowest, in March 1974, the figure was 21,000, and in March 1977 (this month) I understand it is unlikely to be below 75,000. In fact there is every indication that for school-leavers this summer things will be as bad as last year, or alas! worse.
Since 1973 there has in fact been a steady deterioration in the employment prospects of young people compared with those of adults and the problem is accentuated by so many of them being disadvantaged—often coloured immigrants, and living in the centre of cities where housing, violence and even crime are already bad enough. According to my information, many people in the careers service and elsewhere who have direct experience of the labour market are convinced that there have been long-term changes which are working against the recruitment of young people in particular. Among the factors they quote is the undoubted growth in the employment of married women—it is not for me to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lady Seear; it may be that her fears relate rather more to young single women than to married women and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will enlighten us, if he can, when he winds up the debate. That is one factor as I understand it.
There has also been a narrowing of pay differentials between adults and young people; there is the growth in National Insurance contributions and other non-wage costs of employees; there are the effects of the Employment Protection Act, including redundancy payments, and so on, reducing turnover, and there is the belief of many employers that young people are leaving full-time education nowadays with poorer levels of literacy and numeracy and with generally lower motivation to work than has been the case in the past.
All that sounds rather gloomy. As regards what should be done about it, I can speak with some knowledge and
54
experience of the matter as the chairman of one of the district manpower committees which were recently established throughout the country to advise the Manpower Services Commission on employment and training problems in the various areas. The committee for which I bear responsibility last year set up a working party to deal with this very problem of youth employment and to encourage local employers, voluntary organisations and local authorities to take part in, for example, the job creation and work experience schemes of which we have heard already this afternoon. They are aiming to give at least temporary employment to school-leavers. In this I am glad to say that, along with other such committees, we have largely succeeded but as has been said, schemes of this kind have drawbacks and are at best only short-term palliatives.
However, some time ago the Manpower Services Commission set up a working party, on which educational interests are represented, to study all current measures for helping young people. Its aim is to provide a constructive alternative for all school-leavers without a job, including possibly some form of national community service; and I understand it is due to report at the end of this month. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will be kind enough to confirm that all this is in fact the case and that the Government will consider the report as a matter of urgency.
I do not myself rule out the possibility of work sharing as a further way of tackling the problem, so long as unit costs are not allowed to rise as a result. Given that essential qualification it would become largely a matter, as I see it, of whether those in employment were willing to forgo the regular overtime that much too frequently is still being worked while others have no job at all. It might even become a question of whether those employed, for example, as teachers would be willing to be paid at a lower rate so that others trained to teach could make use of that training. I expect the question really, if the worse came to the worst, would be at what point the desire for job security would act as a sufficient spur to prompt people to accept lower living standards.
I do not want to strike too pessimistic a note, because I very much agree with

55
what my noble friend Lady Seear and others have said, that the great need is to create more employment and solve the problem in that way. Nevertheless, these are all matters which we shall have to face if we cannot generate sufficient economic growth to avoid the problems altogether. Our hope is that if we can learn to live and work and plan together we shall not have to face them. Whatever we do, do not let us approach the problem simply by calling for more inquiries, committees and organisational changes, and imagine that by so doing we shall solve the problem. Admittedly there are already a great many bodies involved in the problem of unemployment—according to my reckoning, at least five Government Departments, the Manpower Services Commission, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Health and Safety Commission, and so on. I understand that a review of the roles of these extra-Governmental bodies is already under way, but the prime requirement seems to be for us to confront the problems face to face within existing structures rather than altering those structures yet again.
I should like to end by offering some encouragement to the body which is mainly involved in this problem; namely, the Manpower Services Commission, and I hope that my motives in doing so are disinterested. Certainly I know at first hand that the Commission are going to some trouble to maintain two-way communication with district manpower committees and in other ways with the local communities which use their services, to respond to criticism and generally to enable people in their localities to influence, so far as practicable, national policy. I know, too, from their first published attempt to establish a strategy in the document called Towards a Comprehensive Manpower Policy, that the Commission recognise some of the basic issues which are involved, such as how the labour market works, what the long-term needs of the economy are, how people set about selecting jobs, what are the obstacles in the way of mobility, and so on.
The Commission have also recognised the most critical problem of all, which has been referred to, rightly, on several occasions this afternoon: that any real improvement in our economic health will
56
come only from an increase in our productivity, and that such an increase ahead of economic growth may mean less employment in the short term, and to reduce unemployment permanently therefore is a far more difficult problem than many people seem to realise or are willing to acknowledge. Our prime needs are to improve this country's industrial performance, export sales and profitability, and I suggest that the Commission deserve our support for their apparent readiness accurately to diagnose our illness before spending millions more pounds in treating the symptoms. Let us, therefore, give the Commission, and for that matter the Government, whatever their previous failings, a fair wind in this enormous task.
5.10 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. May I join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Glenamara on his maiden speech. Of course, he is hardly a maiden; he has had long experience in the other place, and before that he spent years teaching children, who do not want to learn. I have no doubt that, as your Lordships will have noticed from his speech, he is quite capable of giving this House many good lessons at various times. I have an apology to make to him: my wife had asked me to tell her when he was making his maiden speech and I forgot to tell her, so I hope that when the noble Lord sees her he will not make the situation too difficult for me. I am sorry that as my speech develops Lord Glenamara might feel that he and I do not entirely agree. He has put the case for the North, and I am going to put the case for London.
My Lords, unemployment in London has increased steadily since 1971 and now stands at 7·2 per cent. in Inner London. Within this 7·2 per cent. there is great variety: Poplar has an unemployment rate of 13 per cent., Stepney 12 per cent., Deptford 10·9 per cent., Holloway 9·8 per cent., Canning Town 9·1 per cent., Hammersmith 8·1 per cent., Bermondsey 8·9 per cent., Fulham and Brixton both have unemployment rates of 8 per cent. I always invite your Lordships to remember that London boroughs contain 250,000

57
people, so that when we are talking of percentages in London we are talking about a lot of people. I must apologise to the noble Baroness; of course, I am referring to male registered unemployed and not to female registered unemployed, because the male registered unemployed is this large figure that we are certainly worried about at the present time. But I agree with her that it is true the figure for female registered unemployed is steadily increasing.
The factors causing unemployment in Inner London are deep-seated and structural. The higher rate of male unemployment in London as compared with the rest of the South-East Region is largely attributable to higher unemployment rates among operatives. Within the operatives more detailed analyses, however, reveal that there are very high rates of unemployment for the unskilled and there are actual shortages in some skilled groups. Again agree with the noble Baroness, who brought out this point. So, while the general message is that a reduction in London's unemployment may best he dealt with by an expansion in the demand for operatives, it is essential that retraining takes place on a scale sufficient to meet demand by firms for certain skilled workers. An improved supply of skilled labour will encourage firms to stay and expand in London, and this increasing demand for skilled labour will again increase the demand for the unskilled operatives. So it is an essential part of any improvement in the unemployment situation that we should have more training.
Of course, different areas contain different balances of occupations. Thus, where there are proportionately large numbers of operatives living in an area, particularly if they are unskilled, there will naturally be a higher rate of unemployment; that is borne out by the figures I have given. Nevertheless, even allowing for this, unemployment is still higher than would be expected in Inner London and lower in outer West London, even among skilled workers. This suggests that there are more deep-seated social and economic reasons for the observed differences such as might arise from obsolescence of the physical infrastructure of an area and concentration of vulnerable firms and workers there; there are more deep-seated causes than these.
58
Moreover, analysis of unemployment in different age groups shows that the duration of one spell of unemployment rises markedly with age in all locations. Despite this, however, it is in the 18 to 24 age group that there is the highest rate of unemployment, except in one or two areas where it is higher in the 60 to 64 age group. This means that manpower policies specifically related to young people are desirable. Some Government measures along these lines, as, for example, the youth employment subsidy and the work experience scheme, have already been implemented; but such measures being of a temporary nature—here I agree very much with what Lord McCarthy had to say—do not necessarily overcome the risks to which young people are exposed. What you need is something of a more permanent nature. I support Lord McCarthy's suggestion of a subsidy for job creation over a long period rather than this temporary subsidy, which tends not to help to create new jobs, which is what is needed.
The central problem, therefore, is to create the conditions for more stable employment in London, so that closures and redundancies are fewer and there is a better distribution of appropriate skills in the labour force. The Greater London Council is particularly concerned about this matter; more particularly about employment in London's manufacturing industries, because these have fallen by more than half a million since 1961. That represents a loss of 38 per cent. since 1961, compared with the fall of 9 per cent. in England and Wales as a whole, and an increase of 13 per cent. in the rest of the South East. So there is a situation ill Inner London—this is about the third time I have tried to bring this point to the attention of your Lordships and the Government—which deserves the utmost attention. There are parts of Inner London which are as in need of support as any of the development areas anywhere in this country. Manufacturing employment made up 32·6 per cent. of London's employment in 1961. By 1975 that figure had dropped to 22·2 per cent. Those figures are important, revealing, and should not be ignored.
I come to the first matter over which my noble friend Lord Glenamara and I disagree. We have pressed the Government on the IDC policy for a long time.

59
Perhaps as a result of our pressure, they have lifted the ceiling from 5,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet. However, we want them to abolish it altogether for London. This policy of restriction was quite right for London at certain stages—it was certainly quite right 15 years ago—but it is wrong today. I turn to the question of office policy. We have a Location of Offices Bureau busily trying to encourage office employment to leave London, despite the fact that London has the rate of unemployment I have mentioned. We have asked the Government to disband the LOB system as it relates to London. I do not think that those two requests are unreasonable.
I turn to another extremely important request; one which we have pressed on the Government for a long time but on which we never seem to make any headway. I do not know whether noble Lords know, but it is illegal for London to advertise for firms to come to the city. We have been trying to persuade the Government to change that law for as long as I have been active on the other side of the water. Recently we thought that we had moved some way towards achieving that end, because in a Statement on docklands Mr. Shore accepted that there must be some relaxation of the present statutory restriction on the advertising by local authorities of London's commercial and industrial advantages in respect of dock-lands. He added:
"and some other areas in London which are experiencing particularly serious unemployment problems."
I hope that he had in mind some of the areas that I have mentioned.
As the Government have no plans to promote the appropriate legislation—at least they have not announced any—the Greater London Council has included a clause in its 1976/77 General Powers Bill which, if enacted, will empower the Secretary of State for the Environment to exercise a discretion—we ask no more than that—to allow exceptions to the ban. I hope that when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House noble Lords will support the clause because, if passed, it will be of some benefit to London.
I turn to the job creation scheme. I do not want to be misunderstood over this. We are under the impression that under
60
this scheme the criteria for projects for London are higher than those for other places. Again, we hope that the Manpower Services Commission will examine this matter, will recognise London's problem and will not ask from London more than it asks from elsewhere. In its anxiety to do something about unemployment in London the Greater London Council has been asking for powers to enable it to set up an industrial development agency to deal with the economic planning problems of the inner city. There is nothing unreasonable about that, but so far we have made no progress in that direction either.
My penultimate point deals with the whole question of the dispersal of civil servants. There was, of course, a time when it was sensible to talk about dispersing employment from London. This policy is now worth re-examining because of London's present state and the fact that it is quite clear that this is not just a temporary phase but that London is steadily having to face a difficult employment situation. We must decide whether it is right to continue to disperse civil servants from London.
Finally, I turn to the point about training. On 3rd March 1977, Mr. Booth announced a continuation of the Government's measures to keep up the level of training in industry. Care must be taken to ensure that these measures are not selectively applied to London's disadvantage. I put it that way because in everything that is done there is always a tendency to assume that London is rich and that London does not have the unemployment problems of other areas. That does not happen to be the case. London is as much in need of training facilities as are other parts of the country. I hope that I have not made matters too difficult for my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany, who is about to make his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will be able to reassure London on some of these matters.
5.27 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, my first appearance at the Dispatch Box was supposed to be a baptism of fire. In point of fact, I have the impression that I have been under intensive bombardment. I do not complain

61
about that because as one who knew the 1930s and what it was like to be on the end of the exchange queue, I know exactly how people feel about the question of unemployment.
On behalf of not only myself and the Government but the House as a whole, I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for bringing forward this Motion. This is a subject that needs even further debate. The noble Lord made a number of valuable suggestions, some of them quite outside the scope of the Department which I am alleged to represent this afternoon. However, I shall certainly ensure that they are forwarded. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are always open to constructive suggestions on this subject and that they will be seriously considered. I assure him that his speech will be considered very carefully by the Government. It is not the end of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the Working Party of the Manpower Services Commission. It is about to report very soon, and although I am not in a position to give a positive undertaking, I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated that he is favourably inclined to an early debate in another place and that he will see the Leader of the House. I, personally, and on behalf of this House, hope that we shall have a similar opportunity in the not too distant future, but I have no responsibility for Government order of business.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, I am sorry to say, disappointed me, because I got the impression at one time that we were having a General Election immediately and that he was making a General Election speech. He talked about the sins of the Social Contract, and it would appear that all the problems of unemployment and the rise in unemployment were the responsibility of the present Government.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I did not say that.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Well, my Lords, the impression I got was that we were under attack; that our criticisms of the Conservatives in the past were out of date, and that he was criticising us.
62
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is considerable concern throughout Europe over the position of the unemployed in their respective countries. It is a disease that has spread like a cancer throughout the Western World. We had an intensive debate in Strasbourg on 27th January, when a number of constructive suggestions were put forward to deal with the problem of unemployment. Many of them are already in operation in Britain.
So far as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is concerned—and I thank her for a valuable and constructive contribution—I tried to get an answer to the question of women in employment, but unfortunately I have not been successful. If the noble Baroness would either put down a Question, or formulate a letter, I shall certainly get the details for her.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, could the noble Lord not take the question I raised instead of a letter? It would save a letter and postage.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is an excellent suggestion, and would save a lot of work and additional printing of the Question. I will see that note is taken of this point, and we shall get an answer to the noble Baroness. She also stressed the serious question of shortages of labour in industry, particularly skilled labour, and the need for additional training. That will be dealt with later on in my speech. I hope to give her some satisfaction on that.
I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend and colleague in the Commons in the past, and in the Lords at present—my noble friend Lord Glenamara—on his maiden speech. It was a sobering, somewhat controversial, but definite and positive contribution, and an indication of the value that we can expect from his speeches in the future. I have known my noble friend Lord Glenamara in another capacity, and I know that he does not waste words but gets straight to the point. Quite frankly, I think he did so this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ward, who is an old campaigner from another place, and still campaigning, raised the question of the continuation of the steelworks at Consett. This is not a responsibility of

63
the Department for which I am answering. I suggest that she puts down a Question, or perhaps we can arrange for the point to be put forward. If she would like to put a Question, probably an oral Question, she no doubt will be able to give the usual supplementary question afterwards. I shall leave that entirely to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, raised quite a number of budgetary issues. I cannot anticipate the Chancellor's Budget, especially in this House. Let us hope that the noble Lord's point is met.
We are facing a very serious problem, as has already been indicated in the House. We have not only got to reduce unemployment over the next live years but also to find jobs for an estimated increase of 700,000 in the labour force. This is not going to be easy, and it is no good shirking the issue. Nevertheless, there are important ways in which we can help ourselves, and to ensure that we shall be ready to take advantage of the upturn in the world economy when it comes.
Improvements cannot be achieved overnight. No politicians of any Party can say that improvements can be achieved overnight. We have to face facts. I tend to take the view that this debate is not so much as political debate but one which cuts across all Party affiliations. We are concerned with human issues, and we can debate them as such. 'We are determined not to be swayed by immediate pressures into taking any action which might have an effect on unemployment in the short term but which could undermine our longer-term prospects for increased levels of employment and for economic performance generally.
However, this is not to say that we are content to sit back and do nothing about unemployment in the short term. I simply will not apologise for any measures we are taking to deal with unemployment in the short term. Even if it means taking a lad away from leaning on a lamp-post to some temporary work, that is far better than having nothing to do at all for him and everybody else. Within our overall industrial strategy there is room for measures to mitigate the worst effects of the recession and, with the assistance of the Manpower Services Commission, we have introduced a number of selective measures of this sort aimed particularly
64
at unemployment among young people. The size and variety of these measures is not widely appreciated. So let me take the opportunity, time permitting, to explain what we are doing.
First, we have saved jobs through the temporary employment subsidy, introduced in August 1975 and extended since then. Under this scheme the Government provide a subsidy for up to 12 months to firms which agree to defer redundancies involving 10 or more workers. So far the scheme has been responsible for saving the jobs of over 214,000 workers in 3,050 firms, and there are in the pipeline applications covering a further 45,000 workers. The subsidy not only delays the date of redundancy; in many cases it helps the firm over a difficult period so that, when the subsidy expires, the firm is in a stronger position and no redundancies are necessary. The subsidy has been most extensively used in the clothing and footwear and textile industries and by medium sized firms with between 10 and 200 workers. The future of the temporary employment subsidy is presently under review and the Government will announce a decision before the end of April.
Secondly, we have created new jobs under the job creation programme which is run on behalf of the Secretary of State for Employment by the Manpower Services Commission. Under the scheme the Commission pays the wage costs and part of the other costs of approved projects which provide short-term work of social value for people who would otherwise be unemployed. The projects are organised and managed by sponsors willing to help alleviate unemployment in their area. The programme came in for some criticism when it was started in October 1975, but it has proved very successful. By 10th March nearly 69,000 temporary jobs had been created in 6,917 different projects, and many more projects are being considered. There has also been a steady increase in the quality and range of schemes approved under the programme, including some worthwhile co-operative projects which are expected to become self-financing.
Thirdly, we have provided funds for the Manpower Services Commission to expand training opportunities for both adults and young people. Part of this expansion is permanent and reflects the importance we

65
attach to increasing training in industry, but, in addition, we have allocated over £190 million for special training measures. Not only does this make sense when many of the new trainees might otherwise be unemployed, but training builds up the stock of skills we shall need as we enter the period of recovery and rising employment opportunities. I think that answers quite a number of the queries we have received this afternoon. So often in the past recoveries have run into bottlenecks of scarce skills and have ground to a halt. We are determined that this will not happen in the period ahead.
The greater part of the special funds have been allocated by the Training Services Agency to the industrial training boards and other organisations to increase the number of awards and grants available for the long-term training of young people in industry. In 1975–76 some 25,000 people benefited and this year the total is expected to be over 43,000. The extra £46 million announced on 3rd March should support about 41,500 training places in industry. In addition, the training opportunities scheme, under which individuals who wish to increase or change their skills receive training mostly at skill centres or colleges of further education, has been rapidly expanded. In 1976 over 89,000 people completed training under the scheme compared with 60,700 in 1975 and 46,000 in 1974. This total included over 12,000 unemployed young people on special courses such as short industrial courses and occupational selection courses which are designed to help those youngsters who are having particular difficulty in settling into permanent jobs. This year the total is being increased to 17,000.
These special training courses for young people are among a number of measures which have been taken to open up opportunities for unemployed young people. In October 1975 we introduced the recruitment subsidy which encouraged employers to give jobs to school-leavers. Over 30,000 applications were approved before; in October 1976 the scheme was replaced by the youth employment subsidy. As noble Lords will be aware, this is a subsidy of £10 a week to be paid for up to six months to employers recruiting any young person under 20 who has been registered unemployed for six months or
66
more. By 11th March over 12,340 applications had been approved.
We have also provided funds to expand community industry—a permanent scheme intended to prepare disadvantaged young people for regular employment in as short a time as possible. Until August 1975 community industry had an authorised capacity of 2,000 young employees. Since then the capacity has been increased to 5,500 places. In July 1975 Government finance was made available for 230 additional careers service staff employed exclusively in finding work or training for unemployed young people. Since then these staff have collected over 16,000 vacancies and made about 11,000 placings. The Government have decided to increase the number of these special posts by another 90 and will review the position in September of next year.
Another measure to improve the employment prospects of young people is the Manpower Service Commission's work experience programme. The programme, which was launched by the Commission on 21st September, gives young people in the 16–18 age group a realistic introduction to working life. Under the programme the Manpower Services Commission pays a maintenance allowance to young people on work experience schemes. Any employing organisation can mount a scheme. They do not provide employment, but facilities to enable young people to learn about different types of work. Schemes should last at least about six months and should include giving young people the opportunity to learn about working life at first hand—this is a very important advance in the education of our young people—and to gain systematic practical experience of a range of different tasks; wherever possible, schemes should provide for further education and training. The Manpower Services Commission has put a great deal of effort into this programme and although it has admitted that it has started rather slowly, it is becoming well-established and is attracting increasing support from employers. By 12th March, 2,255 schemes had been approved involving 13,875 places, at a cost of some £6 million. The Government have acted to affect the supply of labour and in January of this year the job release scheme came into operation. I will not

67
go into the detail of this scheme because we shall be debating the Second Reading of the relevant Bill next week.
On 3rd March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced decisions on a number of these schemes. I have already mentioned some, but it may be helpful if I go over them in some detail. A further £46 million spread over the next two financial years, has been allocated for the training of apprentices and technicians in 1977–78. About 41,500 people should benefit, mainly young people. The number of places for young people taking courses provided directly by the Training Services Agency will be increased by 5,000, raising the total number of places for young people to 17,000 this year. A further £25 million will be allocated to the job creation programme to allow new applications to be received until the 31st August. The work experience programme and the youth employment subsidy will also be extended to 31st August. The community industry scheme will be temporarily expanded by 1,500 places to provide 5,500 places in all. The additional posts in the careers service will be increased by 90 to 320 in all and will be continued next year.
All of these schemes are directed mainly or exclusively at young people and particularly at those who have been unemployed for lengthy periods. The effect of the new decisions will be to maintain, and in some cases increase, the employment and training opportunities open to them in the coming months. Longer-term action to combat the problems of unemployment among young people are being considered by a working party which was set up by the Manpower Services Commission and which includes representatives of the TUC, CBI and the education services. We hope the working party's report will shortly be available and discussed. Of course, the young are not the only ones to be hit by the recession and the Government are now reviewing a number of possible schemes for helping unemployed adults, including the temporary employment subsidy and the job release scheme. Decisions on these will be announced in due course.
To sum up, over the last 18 months we have introduced measures to save
68
jobs, to create jobs, to expand training opportunities, to open up new work and training places for young people and to swap jobs between those close to retirement age and younger unemployed people. These measures have been described as a "dribble of cosmetics"; certain slighting terms have been used about them this afternoon. They are nothing of the kind. They would certainly not be regarded as mere cosmetics by the worker whose job has been saved by the temporary employment subsidy, by the young person who has a job under the job creation programme, by the worker, old or young, who has improved his skills as a result of the expanded training programme, or by those who leave employment or find jobs under the job release scheme.
The measures are an unprecedented attempt in scale and variety by the Government and the Manpower Services Commission to tackle the problems of high unemployment, especially among young people. In total, we have allocated over £650 million to these programmes which we estimate have already helped nearly half a million people through a period of abnormally high unemployment. If these measures had not been taken—this must be remembered when people talk about cutting expenditure in the public sector—there would be over 200,000 more people out of work now than there are. They demonstrate our concern to counter the trend of high unemployment, with all its social and economic waste, while at the same time pursuing the economic and industrial strategies and safeguarding the future.
My Lords, may I end with what is partially a personal appeal? Noble Lords will notice that there are no cuts in public expenditure in this vital field. On the contrary—and let us be honest about it—here, we have an investment in the future of our young people and our country to which, surely, no one can object if he is in his right mind. I appeal to all in this House and outside with industrial or commercial connections to give maximum support and publicity to the schemes announced. Further ideas and constructive suggestions will always be welcomed and carefully considered by my right honourable friend, his colleagues, the Manpower Services Commission and the staff of the Department.

69
Both the latter are doing excellent work and it is time that we recognised the valuable work of some of our public servants, who are so often derided. My Lords, on this issue, we face a challenge: let us be capable of accepting that challenge and getting on with the job.
5.52 p.m.
Lord McCARTHY: My Lords, I feel that we have had an informative, knowledgeable and, on the whole, very good-tempered debate. I am very pleased that, according to my notes, at least two of the three proposals that I put before the House seem to have been universally accepted. It is universally accepted, I take it, that we are facing an unprecedented post-war problem of unemployment which is not going away and which may very well be getting substantially worse. It seems to be generally accepted by everyone, with the possible exception of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that the problem is structural, sectoral, and that the solution is selective. The noble Earl, in a great deal of what he said, seemed to think that it was a kind of by-product of past monetary mistakes and the Social Contract. Of course, the short answer to that is that there are many other countries—not least, West Germany—which have made neither of these mistakes and which have a higher level of unemployment that we do.
So far as a selective solution is concerned, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Glenamara—whom I would congratulate on his maiden speech if I had the cheek to do so in view of the number of speeches he has made in Parliament compared with the number I have made. I agree with everything he said about the importance of the regional dimension. The proposal that I made for a job creation incentive has the advantage that it can be steered in a regional dimension.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that it was not just a matter of dealing with unemployment but of dealing with the skill gap. Here, I would draw the attention of everyone who does not know about it to what I take to be the very sensible, very reasonable but, I am afraid, very controversial recent publication of the Manpower Services Commission, Training for Vital Skills. It strongly deserves the support of anybody who believes, as do the noble
70
Baroness and I, that skill shortages and the skill gap are still extremely important.
Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany for agreeing to take away the ideas put forward today. I would say to him, in reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I think, in reply to me, that I am not suggesting a great pattern of new institutions. I am merely suggesting that someone must take an honest and serious look at the present manpower strategy and accept that that aspect of the Government's industrial policy is seriously out of true and seriously out of line. I should like to end by thanking all those noble Lords who took part in the debate and those who stayed to listen to it, and to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIRPORTS: FUTURE POLICY
5.55 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE rose to call attention to the need for early decisions on future airports policy for the London and Greater London areas; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the document, Airport Strategy for Great Britain, issued by Her Majesty's Government. This is a Consultative Document as regards which the Government asked for the views of local authorities and all interested bodies. For that, they allowed six months and then said that in due course a policy document would be issued.
I have three purposes in undertaking this debate. The first is to say that I do not expect from the Government any great declaration of policy tonight, but that I should like to know the general lines of Government thinking so far as they have considered the problem of a policy. My second purpose is to ensure that the Government shall hear the various views that your Lordships will express from all sides of the House and, in this connection, I particularly welcome the view that we shall hear from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who, later in the debate, is to make his first solo from the pilot's stand on the Front Bench. My third purpose is

71
to ask the Government why we have not yet received a policy statement, in view of the fact that the document to which I refer was published in November 1975. Six months were asked for for representations and opinions to be collected, but nearly a year has passed since that six months elapsed.
Airport policy throws up a series of contradictions which affect our social and economic life and, somehow, those contradictions have to be reconciled in any policy of the future. Let us look for a moment at those contradictions. The first is that no one likes airports but that more and more people want to fly. The second is that no one likes seeing thousands of acres of precious agricultural land converted into great areas of concrete but, unfortunately, airports need runways. The third contradiction is that no community relishes great motorways ravaging its urban and rural environment. Unfortunately, however, airports need very quick access. The fourth contradiction is that no one welcomes rapid growth of new towns in rural areas adjacent to an airport, but that people do not wish for an explosion of population in already existing towns adjacent to an airport.
Air travel will grow and its growth carries with it a grim environmental picture. The growth of air traffic will not be so fast as we thought it would be in the days of the Roskill Committee, but it will be sufficient to make us all somewhat appalled by the problems that it throws up. Any figures that I shall give your Lordships will have been taken from the Consultative Document I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. In 1976, some 23 million persons passed through London airport. This figure is calculated to rise by 1990—which I am taking as the "plannable" future—to up to 107 million persons, with aircraft movements that may well total 580,000 in one year. Yet, if Britain cannot cater for the arrivals and departures of those millions of passengers, that traffic and all that it means directly and indirectly to our economy will be lost and will probably go to Amsterdam and Paris. Therefore my submission is that, somehow we must accept that traffic for the good of the economy of our country.
Statistics show that of that 23 million, over 80 per cent. of passengers are
72
terminating their journey in the South-Eastern area, and 3 million are landing and going on, in either British or foreign aircraft, to some other destination. Those 3 million and the 80 per cent. destined for the South-Eastern area cannot be taken and dumped at some provincial, regional airport, far from the destination to which they wish to go; nor can those 3 million be taken and put somewhere where they cannot connect with their trans-Atlantic or Continental aircraft. By all means let us build up regional local traffic where services from provincial cities generate sufficient traffic. But the point that I wish to put to your Lordships is that there is no major solution for our United Kingdom traffic acceptance in regionalisation. There may be some relief, but there is no real answer. Equally there is no solution, except at cost to our economic wellbeing, in trying to restrict air travel by weapons of taxation, cost discouragement, rationing operational activity or compulsory direction of passengers to places to which they do not wish to go.
The years ahead present many problems for airport strategy. At present London has four airports: two major airports, London airport and Gatwick; and two lesser airports, Stanstead and Luton. Let me say here that I believe that the conception of a third major London airport, certainly within the "plannable" future up to 1990, is just not on. Maplin is a dead duck. There is no need to try to re-argue tonight the advantages or the disadvantages claimed, operational and technical; sufficient to say that in 1973 Maplin was abandoned chiefly because of its cost, and in 1973 its cost was estimated to be £645 million. Using the consumer price index that £645 million has now risen to over £1,000 million, and we just have not got the wherewithal to spend on a major airport requiring that kind of sum.
So my submission to your Lordships is that either Maplin or a third major airport is just not on, at any rate so far as the "plannable" future with which I am dealing, up to 1990, is concerned. I am forced to face a situation—and I think that your Lordships are, too—where the four existing airports, reasonably carefully expanded, must be accepted as the cornerstone of airport policy for the "plannable" future. On these four

73
airports the Government put forward the outline of proposals for each, which they consider would in total allow Britain to accept the air traffic up to 1990.
I should like very briefly to deal separately with each of those four airports. First, let us take London airport, the busiest airport in Europe. Runway capacity is not going to be the limiting factor for acceptance of the traffic figures which I have given and which we shall have by 1990. That is due to improved technical traffic control, and larger aircraft. But terminal facilities could well be the limiting factor. A fourth terminal is now being planned, but discussions seem very protracted, and I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us a target date for completion of the fourth terminal. I regret to say, however, that beyond, a fifth terminal will be required by 1990, if we are to accept 53 million passengers who are expected to go through London airport. This planning will not be easy because, curious to say, nowhere else in the world do we combine an airport with a sewage farm, which certainly does not help very much when making plans.
The employment deployment at London airport at the moment is 50,000 directly employed and probably 40,000 ancillary workers. It is interesting to know that in the Borough of Hillingdon it is calculated that a third of the population depend in some way directly or indirectly on employment in London airport. By 1990, that direct employment of 50,000 will have risen to between 60,000 and 82,000 direct, and there will probably be an increase to between 50,000 to 70,000 ancillary workers.
Let us take the figures for Gatwick. A second terminal will have to be built at Gatwick, raising its capacity, which this year accepted 5·7 million passengers, to 25 million passengers by 1990. Direct employment at Gatwick is at present about 10,000. By 1990 it will have doubled to 20,000. Now let us take Stansted, in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is particularly interested. By expansion and the construction of a terminal Stansted will have to accept 15 million by 1990, compared with 2·7 million in 1976. The present employment of 1,500 will rise to 14,000. Let us take Luton. The expansion of Luton will be such that it will be expected
74
to take 10 million passengers in 1990, and direct employment will have risen from 3,000 to 8,000.
Those figures mean that around 50,000 new jobs involving people directly employed will be created, and probably double that number in ancillary employment. There is no other way that I can see which will enable the four airports which I have mentioned to accept the air travel which will come through the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future up to 1990. Let me say that there will be some relief for the major two airports if we segregate, so far as possible, holiday traffic, where the quickest possible run down a fast motorway is not so absolutely essential. Also, we may be able to develop the smaller airports around London—White Waltham, Biggin Hill, Elstree—to take what I call private commercial aircraft. Furthermore, we may be able to segregate pure freight services to a greater degree than at present away from the immediate main two London airports.
The second easement is, I think, on noise. More silent engines and larger aircraft should make for less disturbance per 1,000 passengers landing and taking off. Also, there will be some limitation of night movements. Already I see in the Press today mention of a report which is aimed at easing the lot of those who try to sleep near airports. But those are just small reliefs compared with what is necessary to tackle the main problem. The picture I trust I have painted to your Lordships shows that stupendous planning and construction work is entailed between now and 1990. I have confined myself to the "plannable" future, up to 1990, but strategy should go well beyond that date. In my opinion the weakness of this document is that it does not go beyond what I term the "plannable" future, up to 1990, but it may be that the Minister will be able to tell us something on that.
My Lords, I conclude as I started. No one likes airports, and when I say to anybody, "There may be an airport near you". the usual answer is, "Yes, of course I realise airports are necessary, but take it somewhere else, not just around my place I am quite conscious that in this debate there will be contentious statements, I trust, which will probably criticise in turn each of the four airports

75
which I have tried to deal with as regards figures for the future, up to 1990; but I hope—and this is almost a challenge to every noble Lord who is going to speak in this debate—that when noble Lords reject the proposals in respect of one of these airports they will please give their views, their positive views, their alternative views, on how Britain is to cope with its air traffic without their accepting their own particular disadvantage. I venture to think that there will be no positive answers as to how this can be done.
I admit, frankly, that I am really rather appalled at the environmental picture which I have had to paint, but there it is: it is the cost of air transport, which this country must accept for the sake of our economy. Many of us may well regret the network of air routes all over the world, but we cannot put progress into reverse without grave damage to our economic survival. We are faced with a heavy price to pay for the progress of air travel; but the questions on this price—by whom, when and where that price is to be paid—are questions to which Her Majesty's Government must give the answers. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.13 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for initiating this debate. I want to limit my remarks entirely to the question of access for the general public as between London and Heathrow, and vice-versa, with possibly a sideways look at Gatwick. The figures I have been given vary slightly from those which the noble Lord has already given but I regard them as being reliable. As he said, at the present moment the number of passengers using Heathrow annually is approximately 23 million. If the improvements, notably the No. 2 terminal building, are completed by 1979, the number that can then be handled will be 30 million. With the completion of the fourth terminal building, on the South side of the airport, which it is estimated will be completed in 1985, the number will grow to approximately 38 million. If the plan to remove the sewage farm (an area known as Perry Oaks which lies
76
to the West of London Airport) is proceeded with and a fifth terminal building is erected there, which it is estimated could be done by 1989–90, the estimate is that the figure will then be 53 million, which I think agrees with what the noble Lord said. That is more than double what it is today.
These figures have been based on the annual growth which has been going on up to date and which will continue to go on unless the traffic is restricted. Some 15 per cent. of these figures could be written down as representing the number of inter-lining passengers. By that mean passengers who, say, have come across the Atlantic by Pan American to Heathrow and have proceeded onwards by BEA to Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome or whatever. These people have no need to go to or from London. Neither do these figures take into account the number of people who go to the airport to welcome or to see off their friends, the staff or those who, on high days and holidays, go purely as sightseers—and their numbers are rather large.
Gatwick, which is sometimes referred to as a relief for the hard-pressed Heathrow, today takes care of some 55 million passengers—not quite the same figure as that which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, gave, but near enough. If the work which is at present in hand is completed by 1980, that figure is likely to jump to 16 million. But, here again, my Lords, friends, staff and sightseers are not included. The limiting factor at Gatwick, I think, is the one-runway aspect, and possibly the inability of British Rail to increase the train frequency as between Victoria and Gatwick. At the present moment, the main access to London from Heathrow is the M4. It only needs a holdup in one of those wretched tunnels, or an accident along the overhead bottleneck between Brentford and Chiswick, and there is utter chaos, of which we have had enough experience.
The extension of the Piccadilly Tube line from Hatton Cross to the centre of the airport will obviously be of help, but cannot be a final solution. At best, it can cope only with passengers with light hand-baggage, staff and sightseers. One has but to imagine trying to cope with a reasonably heavy suitcase through the corridors, passages and moving staircases of, say, Piccadilly Circus station during the

77
rush hour to see how impossible it is. Furthermore, no fast, non-stop communication with the airport by train will be possible along these lines as it is impossible for one Tube train to overtake and pass another. There are some 17 stops between Piccadilly Circus station and the centre of the airport, and Tube trains have to stop at every single one of them.
For the same reason, a non-stop service is probably not practical on the local Waterloo—Feltham lines, and the Feltham lines would involve a short bus passage between the existing station and the centre of the airport. All the same, they provide some help. There has recently been mention in the papers of the line that operates from Broad Street in the City. It goes over the top of London, over the North of London, it goes down through Willesden and then trickles down through Isleworth and Hounslow to join the Feltham lines. That would involve a long, tedious journey, and I do not think that Broad Street station could be considered a felicitous pickup for Central London. Also, to run any fast trains down that line would probably not be practical.
My Lords, if the House will bear with me, I want to go back a few years, to when this problem was examined by BOAC, BEA and the railway companies as they were then. At that time, if memory serves me, the requirement was for a 300-passenger train running at a frequency of three to four in the rush hour in each direction from the centre of London to the centre of the airport. It was to take 20 minutes non-stop. The London terminals were regarded as Paddington and Victoria—with preference to Victoria because it was easier to get at. On the Paddington line, there would have to be a spur to the airport from Hayes or West Drayton and from Victoria to the Feltham line. If the Perry Oaks development is proceeded with, there is a line existing between West Drayton and Staines which could possibly provide a large part of any such spur. However, the great difficulty arose from the track occupancy of the lines out of Paddington and Victoria. The only alternative seemed to be to build a special line, which meant taking a great deal of ground and running into great difficulties over bridges, and the Victoria line would have to have a fly-over at Clapham Junction to clear the Brighton
78
and Woking main lines to get on to the Waterloo-Feltham line. At that time, the traffic was not considered to be sufficient to warrant the cost and the scheme was dropped. Today, with British Rail cutting back on a good many of its services, it may be possible that there is room to run a fast train from one of these services.
I am wondering whether a solution could not be found by considering something in the nature of a Monorail service over the existing tracks or even over the M4. That idea may not be so fantastic and extravagant as it seems at first sight; but whichever way the problem is to be tackled, the cost will be astronomical and no doubt the objections from the environmentalists will be considerable.
My Lords, in financing such a project, I wonder whether it is ever taken into consideration—and I make the suggestion although I am no financier or economist—that a large amount of the expenditure will go in wages and salaries, a good deal of which will find its way back to the Treasury through personal taxation. No foreign exchange is involved, the expense will be spread over a long time and an enormous number of new jobs will be created. I suggest that the airport authority and British Rail should be asked to look once again at the possibility of putting in a scheme for a fast rail connection between the centre of London and the centre of the airport. Before I sit down, may I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on his solo flight from the Front Bench.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this debate. It is a long time since we have debated airport policy in this House. Indeed, I think that the last occasion was on the Bill which brought the Maplin Authority to an end. Airport policy is a matter of great public interest and importance and one which has attracted considerable interest in this House. When I said that I thanked the noble Lord for introducing this debate this was far more than politeness on my part. What is needed is public discussion of this important matter.
After the ending of the Maplin project, the Government document, Airport Strategy

79
for Great Britain, suggested that all development of the inevitable growth of air traffic in the South-East must take place at the four airports—Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted—at least until 1990; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, indicated, one of the weaknesses of the report is that it says nothing at all about what will happen after that date. Clearly such proposals will have enormous effects on all the local authorities, and, although much discussion has taken place on developments at both Heathrow and Gatwick, I think that nothing like so much discussion has taken place with regard to either Luton or Stansted. Before we know where we are, the development of Stansted as a major airport could be revised again without there being any real public discussion at all of this matter. It sometimes appears to me that the policy being adopted by the Government can be summed up in the phrase "planning by stealth".
Delighted as I am to see that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is to reply to this debate, I believe it is unfortunate that the Government have not seen fit to have anyone speaking from the point of view of the environment. It suggests, at any rate, that the Government believe that environmental considerations do not matter and that the debate this evening is simply a debate about the numbers of aircraft, terminals and runways with perhaps noise levels thrown in as a nod in the direction of the people affected by the airports; whereas the development of airports on existing sites is a matter with very far-reaching implications, particularly on employment, but also on road development, on housing, and on the whole of the infrastructure of the areas around the airport.
There is also the question of safety which seems to have been forgotten altogether in the debate. But I well recall during the long debates about Maplin that this was a factor which was taken very seriously. I should have thought that with the increased numbers of aeroplanes flying over heavily populated areas such as London and Luton (to name just two of the airports) this must be a major consideration in any future airport policy. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is to
80
speak and no doubt he will have a great deal to say from his long experience as a member of the Standing Conference on London and the South-East regional planning. I hope he will have a great deal to say on the planning side of this matter.
I wish to make only one point. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when he winds up to add many other matters on this important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is right to say that we should be thinking now of long-term policies for it is the long-term projections which must cause the greatest concern. What I think is known as the "lead time" (or what I understand to be the time taken to plan for a major development in order to achieve it by a given date) is generally understood to be about 7 to 10 years. My guess is that this is a gross underestimate for the reason that it is never possible to foresee all the problems that will occur even in the next 10 years.
If we are talking about 1990, that is not very far away. Even given that many of the estimates of air traffic growth given in the past have proved to be inaccurate, some future forecasts must be made, and must be made against all the known variables: the number of passengers, the size of the aircraft, the cost of energy, the economic state of the country and of the world generally. What appears to be the case is that if all this increased traffic is to be accommodated in these four airports, there will be very severe repercussions on all the areas around the airports up to 1990, quite apart from the time beyond it.
So many figures can be quoted but I do not want to pick out more than just one. I should like to comment on the figures for employment at airports. According to the document, Airport Strategy for Great Britain, up to 1982 it is thought that there will be between 36 million and 53 million passengers using the four airports; and up to 1990 and beyond between 67 million and 107 million. It is true that this is a revision down from the figures given at the time of Maplin, but nevertheless it is an enormous number. In the intermediate phase considerable developments are proposed at all of the airports. What we need to consider is the amount of employment that will be generated up until 1990

81
at any of these airports. I believe, along with other people interested in planning, that the Government have given a gross underestimate of what it is going to mean.
I have read with great interest the document issued by the London and South-East Regional Planning Conference on this matter, and I believe that it is necessary to take not only the figures for employment at the airport itself, but to add a percentage of 10 per cent. on to those who were employed outside the airport directly in connection with the airport, to add on a further amount for ancillary services to that, and then a general growth of employment to service all those numbers of people.
If the employment figures are correct, it suggests that with the total of airport employment at Heathrow—which is given at 55,000—there will be a related figure of 161,000, and a total employed population of 330,000, which is an increase of 26,000 people over the theoretical 1973 figure. The same kind of proportions apply to Gatwick, where a total of 14,000 people are on airport employment and 41,000 airport related, giving a total population of 84,000. That is 29,000 more than the theoretical figure given for 1973. At Luton there are 7,000 more than the theoretical figure, and at Stanstead 12,000 more. It is always difficult to sec what precisely these figures mean; but if we compare them with the figures given in 1971 for the resident economically active populations, Crawley had a population of 35,300, Guildford 27,700 and High Wycombe 29,500. One needs to bear in mind that for every person employed, there will be three others supporting them to take account of the families. So we are certainly talking about enormous numbers of people.
Whether or not it is right, in the narrow sense of airports, to develop these airports is a technical matter on which I do not wish to comment. What is undeniable is that they will have tremendous effects on the areas, and to have an unplanned increase is putting on to local authorities a tremendous burden: a burden of housing, schools, social services and all the infrastructure that is related to the population that is to be employed, quite apart from anything else.
We ought to be having a full and open discussion on the policy regarding the
82
future of airports. It simply is not enough to say that the four airports can be expanded to their maximum capacity. To do so is to ignore the planning processes and procedures, to make assessments of future air traffic and then postulate ways in which that growth can be squeezed into the four existing airports. Not only do I believe such a policy to be wrong in principle, but I do not think that it will work in practice. The fact is that the power of local authorities and pressure groups will prove to be too great. The most casual glance at the history of Stanstead and the outcome of the Roskill proposals should show this, for the proposal to develop Cublington as the third London airport was defeated because of pressure by local authorities and individuals who were concerned. One conclusion can be drawn; namely, that if there is to be another airport, it must be on a coastal site. We cannot afford to take up any more of our valuable countryside. Above all, my Lords, what must not occur is gradual development without any thought of the future of existing airports.
6.35 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for moving his most interesting Motion, and also the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for kindly allowing me to take his place in the list of speakers in order that I may complete other duties later. I should like to add a brief comment to those which have already been made. I should declare that interest to which my noble friend Baroness Young has already referred, that for many years I have been chairman of the Regional Planning Conference for London and the South-East, and therefore I am fairly well informed on the problems on the ground.
I am not going to deal in any way with the problems of air traffic or noise; I will leave that to those who are better informed. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, what he will expect me to say, because I have already said it to his honourable friends the Ministers in his Department, that I take a serious view of the Government's proposals to push this enormous increase in air traffic into the four existing airports. The consequences on the ground are going to be

83
very serious indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend who, for slightly different reasons to mine, has promoted this debate, and I now have this opportunity to express my views in public. I recently led a delegation from the Regional Planning Conference to the Department of Trade and Industry to explain our point of view. The noble Lord already has many details on that matter.
My noble friend Lady Young made a significant point, that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who is answering this debate, is not a Minister from the Department of the Environment. The tradition is that the Departments of Trade and Industry settle these matters in consultation with the airlines and the airports, and the local authorities are not brought into the consultations. One of the points that we are making most urgently is that we should be brought in on at least an equal footing because the implications for us are enormous. I regard the Government's policy now as literally a policy of non-planning and of simply letting things rip.
My noble friend gave the figures, I think correctly, although I was not sure whether he confused the total passenger traffic for 1990 with those for Heathrow. But not doubt Hansard will reveal that, if he did, he corrected it later in his speech. I do not think that we need quarrel about figures: they have been produced in the Government Consultative Document. I should like to develop what the consequences will be on the ground, taking Heathrow as an example. There is a proposal to lay down an additional fourth terminal, and a fifth terminal is looked to in the future but with a fairly long lead time of 12 years, with an increased passenger through-put, from 22 million to some 53 million. That is two and a half times the present through-put. I suspect there is a substantial increase in freight traffic as well.
I think my noble friend was right about the accepted factor of total employment of about double to allow for the service industries outside. So this gives us a figure of those employed on and off the airport at Heathrow of something of the order of between 100,000 and 110,000. By 1990, with the two and a half times increase, the figure will be pushed up, probably not in direct proportion but not
84
far off it, to about an extra 150,000. So we are going to be up to a total in that area of about a quarter of a million people employed on and off the airport. These figures are about right; but if the noble Lord does not agree with them, all the more reason why his Department and the local authorities concerned should put their heads together further.
Those areas are already desperately congested. There is a fearful shortage of labour at Heathrow now. Where those extra bodies are to come from, heaven knows! People are commuting from further and further out in Oxfordshire and Hampshire and from all over the place to get to Heathrow. My Lords, it will be more than doubled: that is the prospect. It will be quite impossible to find houses for them round there—and think of the traffic congestion. It is bad enough at peak times now but if it is to be 2½ times more than it is now, it will be really dreadful. It is almost unbelievable, but this is the Government's plan. All those people will have to be housed, and there will be not only the 250,000 people concerned but that number multiplied by four, to include wives and children. That brings us to something of the order of 600,000 extra people who will be in this area which is already so heavily congested.
It will be bad enough at Heathrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, will of course have something to say about Stansted. I will merely say that what is contemplated for Stansted is really quite incredible. My noble friend gave the figure of 2 million throughput now, but that is not so: it is only 200,000, which is practically nothing. Yet that figure is going up to very nearly the traffic throughput at Heathrow now—Stansted, in the middle of the country, with a new population of hundreds of thousands of people who must be accommodated somewhere in Essex, exactly where the Essex County Council and all the planning authorities do not want them. At Gatwick there is a similar problem.
It is quite certain that in the present national economic situation there will not be much money for any development anywhere in the country. The Government are going to be concerned mainly with the repayment of our vast borrowings. I entirely agree here with my noble friend Lord Balfour that the one certain

85
development concerns the airports, because even if we ourselves cannot afford to travel, foreigners can, and they will be pouring in here. They will be coming all right, and that will make a good economic return for us. So they will be crowding here into these airports.
I suppose that the Government's present policy is now based on the thought of my noble friend that "Maplin is something we cannot afford". But the noble Lord really should not think that he is going to be able to make the developments which are necessary on the ground to meet these huge increases of population, of jobs, houses and traffic, except at very great expense indeed. It will cost vast sums of money, and I daresay that by the time they are all added together it will be quite as much as my noble friend's £1,000 million estimate for Maplin. And what shall we have? We shall have this intensely congested area to the West of London and to some extent to the North, to the South at Gatwick—and on the East of London, where we have very high unemployment indeed, we shall be having no relief whatever. That is really the reverse of planning.
Therefore, I would conclude by making this observation, which will no doubt be a comfort to my noble friend. A large part of this expansion has got to go into the existing four airports because of the lead time, apart from anything else. My noble friend Lady Young is right about that. Probably for the next 10 years, it will all go there whatever happens. I do beg the noble Lord to look ahead now and make some plans for the 1990s. The lead time for an airport is a good 10 years. I would urge the noble Lord and his colleagues to go back and have another look at Roskill, That is the most comprehensive survey of airports that has ever been made.
If the noble Lord does not like Maplin, all right, let him take some alternative, if he thinks it would be more viable. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that even if we can manage, with the greatest discomfort and congestion, without another airport through the 1980s, we cannot manage without one through the 1990s. We must have another airport, and therefore I do urge the noble Lord and his right honourable friends to focus their minds on what is to happen after
86
1990. The question should be asked: Where is all the further increase in traffic to go? May I suggest that they should make a plan which would make better provision for it?
6.45 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, airports are rather like sewage works: everybody says, "We must have one", but everybody also says, "Don't put it at the bottom of my garden". The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has placed before us a very sound and reasoned argument—an argument in favour of a third London Airport. But it does not automatically follow that it is an argument in favour of that new airport being sited at Stansted. We have to look 13 years ahead and the problem of forecasting over a period of 13 years is a very difficult one indeed.
I know we have had some figures officially placed before us, but we have had figures officially placed before us in the past and those figures have gone wildly astray. I have here a report called The Heathrow Airport Master Development Plan, published during the past year. It states that, because of the increased prices of fuel oil, because of the increased air fares and because of the general economic conditions, the growth in air passenger traffic has fallen very considerably and those concerned have had to revise all their forecasts. This is the way they revise one of those forecasts. For the forecast which they published in 1973 they calculated that this year (1977) there would be 44 million passengers at the four London airports. They have now reduced that figure of 44 million to 28 million. For the year 1980, whereas they had budgeted for 58 million, they have now reduced that figure to 36 million, which is a reduction of over one-third. If we are to have such an enormous reduction in the estimate over a period of three years since the estimate was first published, what is going to happen during the 13 years for which we are now planning?—because during that 13 years we shall have similar increases in oil prices and in the wage packets of the operational staff, and we cannot predict what the world economic situation will be.
There is another rather quarrelsome set of figures. In 1967 Peter Masefield, who was then head of the BAA, said that

87
by 1980 the four London airports would have to accommodate 80 million passengers. Douglas Jay, the Minister who was then responsible for these matters, was a little more modest, and he quoted 63 million. So if we split the difference and call it 70 million, we see that the 70 million forecast for 1980 has now been reduced to 36 million. That, again, is another indication of the kind of reliance we can place on some of those forecast figures: it represents a reduction of one-half.
I think that is all I want to say about figures, except perhaps this. The inter-departmental committee—in other words, the body of civil servants which plans these things—said in 1963 that this third London airport would have to be ready in the mid-1970s. The Government were a little more precise: they said it would have to be ready by 1974. My Lords, it is now 1977 and the extreme urgency which was then foreshadowed has not yet arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, who takes the strategic report as his bible, suggests that Stansted will have to be enlarged to take 15 million or, as the book itself says, 16 million passengers by 1990. That is more than two and a half times last year's passenger list at Gatwick, and it is equal to the 1970 passenger list at Heathrow. It is a gigantic project and, as an Essex man, it leaves me feeling rather like a lioness who has been called upon to defend her cubs.
The inter-departmental group of civil servants, which, as I said, is responsible for planning these matters, has been trying to urge the adoption of Stansted for the third London Airport for the last 20 years. They are the people who planned Heathrow, they are the people who planned Gatwick, and there are very many people in the country today who think that the siting of both Heathrow and Gatwick were mistakes. So that does not increase the confidence that we might have in the proposal which they put forward for expanding Stansted to 16 million.
If Stansted is expanded to that degree, a hospital will have to close, 20 schools will have to close, 10,000 acres of farmland will cease producing food, 5,000 extra vehicles per hour will be thrown on to the road system, and there will be a
88
constant din troubling 7,000 houses, with screeches and screams several times every hour—this in a district which for centuries has been a haven of peace and quiet. There are charming little towns like Saffron Walden, Dunmow and Thaxted, together with the National Trust's 1,000 acres of Hatfield Forest. Green Belts are being raped in every part of the country, but, surely, this is one delightful little corner which ought to be preserved and safeguarded.
For what will happen if the airport is built there? There will be the runways—one scheme says two runways, while another scheme says four runways—there will be a huge set of buildings to accommodate 16 million passengers; there will be bulldozers ripping up the fields to provide major roads; there will be factories built around the periphery, and there will be houses needed for 14,000 people working directly at the airport, and 14,000 people indirectly employed in the factories and in providing the ancillary services. That is twice as many houses as have been built in Basildon New Town. And what is to happen to all the little villages? Their whole character of life is to be changed. The whole life style of the population is to be changed. But surely people should figure in a project of this kind, as well as the mechanical aspects.
Roskill did not include Stansted in his four nap selections, and Roskill was not alone. The Ministry's inspector, who conducted the 31-day inquiry into the Stansted proposal, said that to build the aiport there would be a calamity; the London and South-East planning organisation is against it, the county council is against it, all the Essex MPs are against it and all the local population are against it. Modest though I am, I say that I am against it myself. Why should Stansted be put in the dock again by back-door methods, when it has twice faced open trial and been acquitted?
Of course, we are not talking only about Stansted; we have to talk about London, too. If 28,000 workers, many of them skilled, are to be brought into this area, many will come from London, and that at a time when we are told that the drift from London has been overdone, and that something needs to be done to restore the capital city's industrial prosperity.

89
It is not an easy question to argue about, because all the arguments are not on one side. For example, I believe that Stansted, with a million passengers at the moment, could perhaps have its passenger load increased to 4 million. But there would have to be an irrevocable ceiling built over those 4 million, for otherwise the authorities would surreptitiously come along and boost it up to the 16 million set out in the plan, and that is something which we do not want to see.
There is one positive proposal that can be put forward; and we have to bear in mind that circumstances have changed considerably since the day of Roskill. The passenger explosion has not taken place. I think that there are good grounds for having a new investigation, one carried out not by aeronautical experts alone, but by environmentalists, local government, agricultural interests and industrial interests. That inquiry need not content itself with examining or re-examining the four Roskill proposals. I think it could perhaps take a broader view.
I plead with your Lordships not to be seduced by the highly expert, highly—I think—imaginative proposals for Stansted that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. I would say to him, with a merry twinkle in my eye, that he should strap on his parachute, take a jump and bring all his Stansted ideas safely down to earth.
6.56 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, because in County Hall we have a suspicion that the Government are trying, by stealth, to introduce Stansted as a third London airport. We think that there should be a third London airport, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for what he has said, because I shall not now need to say many of the things I had intended to say. I will content myself merely with reading the recommendation of the GLC, and then relating to your Lordships what has happened since.
The GLC stated that it,
"Wishes to see the London airports retain their position as the premier airport complex in Europe."
90
Nobody disputes that. We are not suggesting that there should be any downgrading of the airports which serve the city. But we are,
"…concerned at the lack of co-ordination of capital investment for airports, the areas immediately surrounding them and the transport infrastructure essential for their proper performance."
We went on further to say that we are,
"…unable to endorse the expansion of the passenger-handling capacity of Heathrow to 38,000,000 passengers a year without improvements to existing roads, including the building of the Hayes by-pass, the urgent construction of the M25 and other public works contiguous to the airport, as well as positive evidence of substantial improvements in the environment around Heathrow."
We then said that we are,
"…strongly opposed to any expansion at Heathrow beyond the 30,000,000 passengers a year…without the concurrent development of a third major London airport wherever that might be situated."
We press,
"…the Government to undertake an urgent examination and produce additional proposals within the next two years"—
that was last year—
"for the long-term provision of air transport services in the South East which will be compatible with regional and environmental policies and priorities."
Those are the main observations which we made to the Government.
But yesterday, in the Transport Committee, we were presented with a recommendation for a fourth terminal at Heathrow Airport. Of course, the BAA do not have to consult us, so it is not a statutory consultation. They are exempted by the law from planning control, and therefore they do not have to ask us for planning permission to build a fourth terminal. However, they have consulted us and I will tell your Lordships what we are saying to them.
We are saying that construction of a fourth terminal at Heathrow must be decided upon only as part of an integrated long-term airport strategy for the South-East, which includes firm proposals for development of a third major London airport. We are saying that while the Council intends to see that the London airports retain their position as the premier airport complex in Europe, the BAA should be informed that the fourth terminal should be built only after the

91
condition regarding the decision about a third London airport is met and if the following conditions are satisfied.
First, undertakings must be given by the Department of Transport that the necessary road improvements will be co-ordinated with development of the fourth terminal and other airport facilities. In view of the national interests involved, assurances are required that extra Government finance over and above the transport supplementary grant will be provided to necessary airport related ground access improvements. Necessary schemes include completion of the M25 motorway before the terminal is open; construction of the Hayes by-pass by 1985 to cope with increases in general traffic as well as airport-related traffic; a grade-separated intersection with the M25 spur at the South-West entrance to the airport, and other improved intersections, especially on the A30.
Secondly, agreement must be reached with the Department of Transport, British Rail, the London Transport Executive, the British Airports Authority and adjoining passenger transport authorities (a) to increase the provision of direct bus and coach services to Heathrow from residential areas where a significant proportion of airport workers live before the fourth terminal is in use; (b) to consider further the provision of rail links to the airport (and that until such consideration is complete the British Railways Board be asked to reinstate the safeguarding of the route from Feltham to Heathrow), efficient passenger transport within the airport, and the financing of public transport, especially revenue support.
Third, agreement must be reached with the BAA on car parking and access policies with a view to reducing the proportion of airport workers travelling to work by private car and easing peak hour congestion on the road network. I will dilate on that point. Our survey showed that 80 per cent. of the workers at Heathrow Airport travel to work by road, either by private cars or by taxis. Therefore to expand in the way that is planned will present us with headaches that we think we are incapable of tolerating.
Outside London, firm support is given in county structure plans and local plans
92
and in Government statements and decisions to the principle of restraining development, including that arising fom pressures generated by Heathrow, in accordance with regional objectives. Of course, all this expansion will automatically affect the whole of the regional plan for the South-East and the attempt to concentrate development on certain growth areas while allowing other areas to remain free. The closest discussions should be undertaken by the BAA with the authorities concerned at an early date, and well before any formal consultations, on the design and siting of the terminal so that the noise screening effect of buildings will be used to the full and in order to ensure that visual appearance and landscaping, including ground modelling and also the access arrangements, are acceptable to the council.
I thought I should spend the few minutes I have in explaining to your Lordships what line the council is taking. The expansion of these airports will have serious environmental consequences for Greater London. For once the noble Baroness and I are on the same side. It is not in order that their expansion should take place without proper consideration of the consequences.
I should like to ask the Government to look again at Maplin. The Roskill Commission proposed a four-runway airport for Maplin, but one does not necessarily need four runways. One runway would be enough to start with. The Government should look at the corresponding cost of a one-runway Maplin and at the proposed expansions in terms of not only the employment gains in the Southeast but the reduction in the environmental hazards that can be gained. I ask the Government to look again at Maplin. They should stop looking at Roskill just in terms of a four-runway airport; they should forget that idea.
I agree that we cannot afford a four-runway airport, but the Government should look again at the idea in a much smaller way. If you balance if off, it may well be a little more expensive, but none of these expansions will be cheap; they are all going to be expensive. It is a question of weighing the relative costs and the relative consequences. Therefore I say again to the Government that they should look at Roskill, just as the noble Lord,

93
Lord Leatherland, asked them to do. However, they should look at Maplin not in the way that Roskill looked at it but in a much smaller way to find out whether or not it will cost much less and, in environmental terms, be more valuable.
I noted earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, wanted to know when the fourth terminal will be built. I can assure the noble Lord that it is already under active discussion. However, the consequences of a fourth terminal must be faced before it is built.
7.9 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, first I rise to thank my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for inaugurating this interesting debate and to congratulate also my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I look forward to what he is going to say from our Front Bench.
My contribution tonight is based on what one might call two interests or loves—railways and air travel. First, in connection with railways I am delighted in the interest that the Greater London Council is showing in the invigoration of the North London Line. I travelled on this railway in past years and found it very useful indeed. I was very sorry when it seemed to be getting forgotten or ignored. Its appearance on the London Underground map will be very helpful.
The problem we have before us tonight is the future policy for our airports. However, I should like to speak on ways of getting to our airports. If ever I am given the choice of which airport to use when I go on an air journey, immediately I say that I prefer Gatwick. Victoria Station is not far from my home, and there is a leisurely rail journey to Gatwick station. There the platform is only a few yards away from the main hall where you check in your baggage.
Only last Wednesday I had contact with Councillor Daly of the Greater London Council. He is chairman of the GLC Transport Committee, and he was speaking at a meeting of the Railway Invigoration Society combined with the National Council of Inland Transport, of which I have the privilege to be president. His arguments in favour of the North London line connected to Heathrow were very impressive. I think possibly turning
94
Broad Street into a terminal for Heathrow would be highly advantageous. It is very close indeed to Liverpool Street station, and a number of would-be travellers would be coming in from East Anglia, Essex and also the South-East, because it is not difficult to get to Broad Street and the Liverpool Street area from such stations as Charing Cross, Cannon Street, London Bridge and even Waterloo.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, told us some of the geography of the line, which will save me going through it again. The connections with the Southern Region are between the stations South Acton and Gunnersbury, and the link-up between Broad Street and Feltham, I support wholeheartedly. There are two disadvantages so far. One has already been pointed out, namely, that the line is not very good for fast travel, it curves a great deal so that trains cannot get up high speeds. But even a leisurely moving train, not having to stop at intervening stations, could get passengers from the City of London right out to near Heathrow within about half an hour. That represents a magnificent saving in time considering how long it now takes to get out to the airport. So the first part of my speech is to support the use of the North London line.
The second part is slightly longer and is concerned with certain forms of air travel of which I have already spoken. Considering airports, as we have been doing, they seem to evoke a great deal of mixed feeling. In fact "airports" is quite a new word in the English language. When I was a boy we spoke only of "aerodromes", which were simply grassy fields from which pioneering young men in helmets and goggles took to the air in simple aircraft, usually with open cockpits. Right up to the 1930s they were still grassy fields. One is reminded of the famous visit of Neville Chamberlain to the gentleman who was then known as "Herr Hitler". Mr. Chamberlain's departure and arrival were on these grassy fields, one of which I think was Heston.
Then we were plunged into the Second World War, involving the creation of many new airfields. Huge amounts of concrete were thrown down very hastily where new airfields were needed, to create all-weather runways for the increasingly

95
bigger and better bombers which fought the Nazi tyranny on the mainland. They were certainly important factors in bringing the war to an end. In 1945 there were literally hundreds of these concrete runways scattered throughout the length and breadth of Britain, from Culdrose on the Lizard to the Northernmost tip of Scotland; but the bulk of them were in the flat farmlands of East Anglia.
During the war, when future civil aviation policy was being considered, it was decided that London would need a much larger airport than Croydon. So Heathrow was born, although earlier I think it was called Stanwell. I remember as a boy of 13, in about 1935, seeing this interesting new aerodrome being constructed. After the war we had gleaming modern airliners, the earliest ones being directly designed from bombers. They made it possible for hundreds of people to get across the world cheaply and quickly. Twenty years later, by the mid-1960s, there were airfields with runways nearly 3,000 feet long, as at Heathrow, and then they had to be extended up to 12,000 feet. We now have in common usage the term "jumbo jet". Then there occurred the gradual increase in the size of aircraft, and the residents around Heathrow began to become restless and nervous. Larger aeroplanes seemed increasingly to be much noiser and to need ever-larger areas of land for runways. Where would it end?
In the 1960s the term "protest groups" began to crop up; the word "environment" became common, and since then the new phenomenon of environmental awareness has swept the world, although earlier it had been used only by a few people. Now here we are, in the '70s, with the situation changed considerably and I am afraid rather for the worse. Residents near Heathrow are becoming more and more alarmed by mounting noise levels caused by the bigger jets. In 1972 there was a most unfortunate air crash, with horrible loss of life, and I think many Heathrow residents were thankful that the aircraft had not landed on them.
In the short space of 20 years the dream has become a nightmare. Twenty years ago, in 1957, it was still exciting to travel by air. It was a great feather in her cap for a young lady to become an air hostess. It was still quite fun to go
96
to see somebody off at an airport. There was hope for a big period of expansion in aviation industries, but today everything concerned with aviation seems to be going wrong. We hear that corruption has increased with the ever-larger sums of money involved in both civil and military aviation deals; there are hijackings, midair collisions, death and disaster, pollution and noise.
I take no pleasure in reciting this because I have such a love of flying and the romance that seems to 20 with it. But I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to a plan recently put forward by Friends of the Air, of which I have the pleasure of being a member, a new aviation society which has been registered in London. The plan drawn up projects a seemingly miraculous transformation of the existing Heathrow airport into a virtually silent airport, with even larger numbers of air-travelling passengers than are using it at present, arriving and departing without any disturbance to the residents of West London. This need not be in the dim future.
I must confess that I was rather startled when I first heard the details of the plan, but having studied it I recommend it to your Lordships for consideration. The plan centres around the construction of a fleet of robust modern airships buoyed by safe non-flammable helium gas. The first advantage of the plan is that, because of the great advantages this could offer to foreign travel and foreign trade, rapid modern airship development could be funded by the World Bank.
Secondly, improvement of employment, on which we have just had a debate—unfortunately, I was not able to be present for very much of it. In fact, step by step we could have a three-stage development of a completely new form of air transport. The first step would be the development of a small type of twin-hulled modern airship, rigid and robust, with a payload of about 30 tons. A suggestion for the use of this, I would say, would be Royal Navy operations over coast and sea. A little over a week ago I was privileged to go to RAF Kinloss and fly in a Nimrod aircraft on patrol over the North Sea, and I saw the magnificent work these aircraft do. The Navy, by using airships, could help the Nimrods and extend their own services. Past

97
history has also shown that it is sailors who often make the best airshipmen because of their instinctive feel for wind and weather close to the surface.
If the Government were to initiate such a development programme now, we could have the first prototypes flying next year or the year afterwards. Having spoken about Broad Street as an air terminal, I now put forward what seems to me logical—I admit it does sound fantastic, but it could be done. So far as I know, there has been no claim yet to that derelict dockland area to the East of Tower Bridge. That could be developed into a series of airports for airships. The small area to the East of Tower Bridge—I think it is called the Western Dock—could take about six airships; the region of the Surrey Dock could take about 50.
There are also new ideas to take into consideration. Often the picture of the airship of old was of one moored by its nose. The new design that has been worked out is an airship held down to the ground not by its nose but by its centre, a pinion to the ground to hold it there and hold it safely. Travel for passengers between the City, say, and the first stage of Europe could be much more leisurely. It takes about three hours by the fastest possible means to get from the City of London to the centre of Paris. By this means we could have leisurely travel in two hours. Then when the demand improves there could be a transatlantic service, about 30 hours' travel, sleeping on board and avoiding such discomforts as that awful jet lag.
In the policy for a new airport, if we are going to turn Heathrow into a silent new airship port for long-haul airships, there will be a need for a new airport. I am certainly not, and neither are my friends who are members of Friends of the Air, trying to abolish aircraft. We very much support the use of aircraft. They have their own particular uses, particularly for fast travel. But a lot of us do not want to travel in a hurry. Maplin has been mentioned, but I think it is like the proverbial "dead cluck". There has been mention of the Thames Estuary, and suggestions have been made that a suitable place might be Chile on the South coast of the Estuary. There, there is not such bird trouble as at Maplin. Having, mentioned the building of an
98
airship airport in the centre of London, such an airport could be helped by small airships ferrying passengers to and from this airport, which would save on the land transport.
I know that this is a case of plugging a favourite theme of mine. I have shortened my arguments tonight as much as possible, because I think we should leave opportunity for longer discussion on it. I am making arrangements at the moment for asking an Unstarred Question on lighter than air transport. Possibly some of the teams doing work on Concorde might be interested in giving assistance. However I now leave these ideas to your Lordships' consideration.
7.26 p.m.
Lord STRATHCARRON: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this debate. It is a subject which has generated many words in the past, and some of them indeed rather strong words, but words which are not often followed by decisive action. During the lengthy debates in the past on the future of London Airport—Gatwick, Stansted, Maplin in the past—the need for better facilities for general aviation in the London area has been largely overlooked. Yet there is a steady expansion, particularly for business journeys to and from the Continent of Europe, where flexibility of movement becomes a great commercial asset. In fact, the air fares now between London and Paris and London and Amsterdam have become so high that it is as cheap for four people to club together and go in a chartered twin-engined small aircraft.
With general aviation in view, it is essential to keep all the present airfields in the London area in operation, for if one was to close it would very much overload the neighbouring airfields. In addition, it is essential to have at least one airfield with full customs facilities and navigational aids, one which should remain open for 18 hours a day and be equipped for night landings, with facilities for hiring self-drive cars and also easy access to London, both by road and by rail. Airfields such as Northolt or Farnborough spring to mind as being suitable.
For five years Gatwick was used successfully by general aviation, but the British Airports Authority have made it

99
quite clear that they do not wish to encourage light aircraft. They have done this by charging exorbitant prices, such as 90p an hour for parking a small singleengined aircraft in a space which would not be used by larger aircraft. In spite of the nearness of Orly, Le Bourget, and Charles de Gaulle airports to Paris, there is a most excellent airfield such as I have been advocating in the Paris area; this is at Toussus le Noble, which is situated on the outskirts of Versailles.
Planning permission to improve local airfields is often withheld unnecessarily. There is, for instance, a dire shortage of hangars. Yet a well-designed hangar painted to blend with the countryside need not necessarily be unsightly, and, unlike a factory, it is not noisy; nor would it cause any offence to those in the vicinity.
If the possibility of laying a hard runway is mentioned, local action groups leap into action and have visions of jumbo jets and all kinds of large aircraft spoiling their environment. Yet a hard runway is a great safety factor, particularly in winter. Control is often sought by restricting the number of movements per day or per month, yet a more sensible approach would be to limit the maximum weight of aircraft to ensure the most suitable use of the airfield. For the larger aircraft the main airports would always be available. In this respect consultative committees already exist. It is important to extend them for a constant exchange of views between the interested parties. This can lead only to better understanding. One example of this could be a slight deviation in the climb-out to avoid excessive noise over houses in a particular area. Noise abatement could be agreed by voluntary consent.
A scheme put forward by the Business Aircraft Users' Association is in use whereby, with suitable notice being given at category C airfields, customs clearance can be granted to genuine business travellers holding British passports. The customs officer of course has the right to supervise the departure, but often the details are filled in by air traffic control at the airport. If this scheme could be extended to other airfields it not only would be a convenience for the businessman but would advantageously alter the
100
time-consuming task of making an extra landing just in order to clear customs. It would also cut down the number of unnecessary aircraft movements.
Given forethought and understanding of the problems, general aviation will expand to the benefit of commercial life in this country and will continue to give pleasure to many thousands of private pilots who wish to pursue their hobby with the minimum inconvenience to those below. Let us hope that the needs of general aviation are fully understood and that suitable action will soon be taken.
7.33 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this debate. I was also heartened by what the noble Lord had to say about Maplin, partly because the fact that that particular duck is dead means that the Brent goose, which migrates to and from the Maplin Sands area, is still very much alive.
I intervene only briefly in order to refer specifically to the references that have today been made to Maplin. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about that, far less the figures about it. However, it is true to say that the spectre of Maplin has again been raised by one or two Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness made mention of a coastal site, admittedly in a very tentative and delicate way—perhaps even a passing way. It occurs to me to wonder whether that passing reference to the possible need for a coastal site in the future means that Her Majesty's Opposition are slowly edging their way back towards a reconsideration of the Maplin question.
It is only a few months since the Maplin-Foulness proposal was laid to rest, when the Maplin Development Authority Dissolution Act 1976 received the Royal Assent last October. In my submission it would be absurd to resurrect it now. The project would have been an economic, and indeed an environmental, disaster. It was debated for nearly 10 years. It was exhaustively scrutinised by the Roskill Commission; it was painstakingly scrutinised by Parliament, including the lengthy processes to which the

101
Maplin Development Authority Bill was subjected, with Petitions to Parliament which were examined by Select Committees of both Houses. It seems now that it was discussed interminably in the Press, on radio, on television, and indeed elsewhere. Before its end the project had received widespread condemnation. Roskill did not recommend it. The airlines did not want it. It would have been a gross inconvenience for passengers and freight. The cost would have been monumental, including costly new road and rail access routes which would have had to be provided through Essex and London. For those in the areas affected, including both Essex and Kent, it would have been devastating on noise and other grounds, and for wildlife in the areas it would have been highly destructive.
It would have done nothing to relieve the employment needs of East London. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves also that local authorities and other bodies in Kent and Essex opposed it, as did organisations elsewhere, including national bodies of various kinds. In the end it received almost universal—if not universal—condemnation in the Press. Eventually it was opposed by noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House and, indeed, by Members in all parts of another place. The present Government finally saved the nation from what would have been an environmental and economic disaster, after yet another thorough review had been carried out, by announcing the abandonment of the scheme.
Tonight I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who suggested that perhaps Maplin might be reconsidered in a different way from that in which Roskill looked at it, by considering it in terms of a one-runway airport or at least in terms of an airport of less than four runways. However, if such a grandiose scheme, involving all the costly access routes and the very expensive land reclamation that was needed, made no economic sense and would have been an environmental disaster in terms of a four-runway airport, how much more of a disaster and a nonsense it would be if all that sort of preparatory work, especially the costly access routes and land reclamation, were to be needed and carried out only for a one-runway airport!
102
In my submission, the project made no sense in national or international economic terms; nor indeed in national or international airline terms. It made no sense in local economic terms, nor on environmental grounds. The nation could never afford it, even at the time when it was seriously being considered. How much less can the nation afford such a scheme now with all the talk of the need to keep public expenditure in bounds!
I hope fervently that Her Majesty's Government will resist any temptation—often strong in circumstances like these—to feel that they must be courteous or polite, or forthcoming, by saying some such thing as, "We are always willing to have another look at something." Apart from all the other considerations which go with a scheme like that, there is at least one substantial practical reason for resisting any such temptation; namely, major planning projects create blight, even when they are just barely hinted at. People in the areas, and indeed properties which would have been affected by this project, suffered nigh on 10 years of uncertainty. They should not have to go through all that again. I can assure my noble friend, if he needs any assurance, that this scheme would be resisted at least as strongly on any future occasion, if it were to be misguidedly resurrected, as it was before. So do let us have none of the madness of Maplin or the folly of Foulness.
7.41 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as other noble Lords have already said, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for introducing this matter to us today, because it gives us an opportunity to hear the Government's thinking on a matter which so vitally affects the lives of so many people in the South-East of England as passengers, workers, or one of those living in what is called the footprint of the airports. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, was asking whether Her Majesty's Opposition were moving towards a reconsideration of the Maplin project. I am sorry to have to disappoint him, but Her Majesty's Opposition, in so far as I am speaking for them tonight, are not moving towards any particular policy in this matter. It really is not practicable or wise for an Opposition of whatever Party to form a very definitive

103
view on such a complex matter as this; a matter which relies so heavily on detailed technical information available only to the Government, and also upon the skills and opinions of professional planners and specialist advisers within the Department and elsewhere, all of which is not available to us on this side of the House or to my right honourable friends and honourable friends in another place.
We recognise that the Government have provided helpful sources of information in their Consultative Document, which is a voluminous and comprehensive work, but that alone is not adequate to enable us to form a definitive view of what the best solution of it may be in 10, 20, or 30 years' time. May I say in parenthesis that the Government published yet a third Consultative Document only yesterday, relating specifically to noise at Heathrow and Gatwick—in fact, night noise. I must ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the document will get sufficient publication, because apparently, as of today at least, there is only one copy in existence and that is lodged in the Library in the House of Commons. When I asked for a copy in our Library they had to fetch the copy from the House of Commons. When I asked for a copy in the Printed Paper Office, I was told that it had not yet been printed. They would do their best to get me one. Knowing the resourcefulness of the Printed Paper Office, I shall no doubt get it very shortly, but even the experts there were not too optimistic.
We are entitled to press the Government now for a clear statement of their intentions, and to draw attention to the shortcomings and difficulties of the present arrangements and the problems which these will create in the near future. When considering how to accommodate future growth in air traffic, we first have to recognise the three principal restraints which together dictate the point at which we shall have to say that we can accept no more aircraft movements. These three restraints are, in order: runway capacity (that is to say, the point at which the runways cannot accept any more aircraft, which is of course coupled to environmental considerations); terminal capacity, which has already been touched on by many noble Lords this evening: and, finally, environmental capacity.
104
There is much woolly thinking about exactly when the environmental limit is reached with regard to the major aerodromes, but it is the point at which any appreciable increase in the use of the aerodrome imposes an unacceptable burden upon those living in the vicinity by virtue of aircraft noise, road traffic, et cetera. These limits are again going to be difficult to define in the future, because with the introduction of the modern wide-bodied aircraft with quieter engines, the burdens upon those living in the vicinity will not be as great as they were under the older aircraft.
It is, however, for consideration as to how we should define the environmental capacity of any airport. It is not just a question of aircraft noise; there are the added problems nowadays of vehicle noise and atmospheric pollution. One noble Lord, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, mentioned that 84 per cent. of passengers travelling to and from Heathrow do so in private vehicles. If the prognostications of future growth of air traffic in terms of the number of passengers are borne out, then the number of cars is surely going to increase by at least the same proportion.
May I consider now these criteria at each of the principal airports which we presently regard as London airports. First, Heathrow. Of the three constraints that I have mentioned, all three are already creating difficulties. There is clearly no possibility of further runways at Heathrow, so the only scope for increasing the runway capacity is to spread the utilisation. But there are limits to what we can do there because there are already restrictions on the use of Heathrow at night, quite rightly so, and these will become more and more biting; and they will bite harder and harder in the future, and again quite rightly so. So to increase the runway capacity, or to increase the number of aircraft that can use the runways at Heathrow, we have to spread the existing load.
This indeed presents more difficulties, because it is not possible to dictate to passengers precisely at what time of day they can travel, particularly on the short and medium haul routes. Businessmen want to travel out in the morning and travel back again at night. It is no good

105
telling them that they can travel out in the evening and back again the following morning.
Again, the advent of the larger aircraft will ease the problem somewhat, but not exclusively so because it is not always possible to introduce these aircraft on to the less dense routes. It is not possible, for example, if one is presently operating two services a day with a small narrow-bodied aircraft to merge those two flights and operate one flight a day with a wide-bodied aircraft, because the standard of service one is then offering is significantly less, and one can be assured that the wide-bodied aircraft would not he filled.
As we all know, terminal capacity at Heathrow is presently a considerable problem and we hear of plans for a fourth terminal towards the West on the site of the sewage farm at Perry Oaks. That is all very well, but I fancy that finding a new site for the sewage farm will be as difficult as finding a new site for the third London airport.
May I turn now to Gatwick. The proposal to construct a second runway there is apparently now dead, like the ducks at Maplin, the reason being that because of geographical problems the new runway would have to be constructed so close to the existing one that it would not be possible to use both the runways to full capacity. Indeed, I am told that a new runway at Gatwick constructed to the North of the existing one would only increase the airport capacity in terms of aircraft movements by about 10 per cent. This would clearly not justify the enormous expense involved.
We hear that there is a proposal to construct a second terminal at Gatwick. I am not sure exactly where it is proposed it should be constructed, but I believe it would have to be some distance from the existing one, which would cause special difficulties. Frankly, it should have been put on the site occupied by the recently opened new freight terminal. At present the problem at Gatwick is not runway nor terminal capacity nor even environmental difficulties but, rather, the restrictions imposed by the small size of the parking area for visiting and resident aircraft. Much of Gatwick's traffic is charter flights of a seasonal nature and in winter therefore there is a
106
problem in regard to aircraft parking. Another important use of Gatwick is long-haul cargo charter flights and these aircraft also cause a similar problem because in the main they take much longer to load and unload than passenger aircraft.
As for Stansted, the problem there, at present anyway, is one of environmental difficulties. Major development at that airport is clearly undesirable for the reasons eloquently advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. However, I believe that the use of that airport is so minimal at present—indeed, the figures advanced by Lord Balfour were I think one decimal point out; the present passenger load there is, I believe, in the region of a quarter of a million passengers annually—that there are some steps we could take now or in the near future to ease the position at Gatwick without imposing unduly on the people of Essex.
There is already one major freight line operating from Stansted, and in my view it would be highly desirable if the two smaller but not insignificant companies operating from Gatwick were encouraged to move to Stansted. British Caledonian Airways also has a substantial freight charter business, but I am doubtful about the possibility, or indeed the practicability, of having them split their operation down the middle, with half at Stansted and half at Gatwick, and I would not propose it.
A few words about the position of general aviation operations, which were so well described by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron; that is, the use of business and training aircraft at the airports we are considering. I am sorry to say that, since the departure of Sir Peter Masefield, the record of the British Airports Authority in this matter has been less than satisfactory. I believe that these operators are just as entitled to facilities as the major airlines and indeed the construction of the general aviation terminal at Gatwick some years ago was a greatly welcome step forward and a recognition of that fact. Sir Peter was of course a famous champion of small Aeroplanes—which, incidentally, cause little or no environmental problems—and the BAA's disappointing record since his departure is greatly to be regretted.

107
There is at present in any case no shortage of runway capacity at any of the London airports, except possibly at Heathrow during peak periods, so the action of the Authority at Gatwick last autumn was wholly inexplicable and, I would submit, unacceptable. I very much hope that the Government will use their influence with the Authority to secure a reversal of this unhappy trend; namely, the prevention and active discouragement of all general aviation except possibly at Stansted which the operators find so inconvenient.
In conclusion, while there is no immediate difficulty over runway capacity nor are there any insurmountable difficulties in regard to terminal capacity, both of these factors will become increasingly important towards the end of the decade and it is therefore necessary to begin to consider now what steps we should take at that time. The progressive but not wholesale introduction of wide-bodied aircraft will give us a breathing space, but no more. I am totally convinced that the new London airport, whenever it may be needed—20 or even 30 years hence—will have to be at a coastal site, and I urge the Government therefore to begin active planning now, because time is running so very short.
7.55 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with other noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate, I wish to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for having initiated it; his knowledge and great experience of these matters are well known and valuable and they were forcefully demonstrated in the speech with which he opened the debate. I wish also to congratulate and welcome to his new position the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Straight away I will deal with the point he made about the new Consultative Document. Copies of it have been sent to MPs, local authorities and amenity groups— there has been a wide dissemination—although I acknowledge there was a slip from the point of view of the House of Lords Library; I had made a note to deal with the matter and I am glad that the noble Lord raised it.
We have had a most useful debate and I can assure the House that the wide range of views expressed will provide a further
108
valuable contribution to the Government's current review of airport policy. This review, which is now nearing completion, had its origins in the Government's decision in March 1974 to reappraise the Maplin Airport project and subsequently to abandon that project. The review has been conducted with the greatest possible emphasis on consulting those who are affected by airports and their development and who will be concerned with future airports policy.
There has, I know, been considerable concern—which is expressed in the Motion before the House and which has been voiced today—about the time which this process has taken. This point was particularly emphasised by Lord Balfour. The Government fully appreciate the desire on the part of airport authorities, airline operators, airport workers, local authorities and not least people living in the neighbourhood of airports, for the uncertainties about the future to be resolved. But delay—if that is the word—has been the price that we have had to pay if we were to learn from the past.
I suggest that in the past decisions about airports were reached without those affected having a proper opportunity to express their views on proposals in which they had a direct and material interest. Developments proceeded which have led to an over-provision of airports in some parts of Great Britain and to problems elsewhere; and in the past there has been no coherent policy against which the demand for air transport and the provision of facilities to meet that demand could be assessed within a national context. I make no Party points in my references to what happened in the past because the criticisms I have made can and have been levelled against Governments of both political Parties.
However, the present Government in their consideration of airports were determined to undertake for the first time a comprehensive examination of the problems of the London area within a national context and to work towards a truly national airports policy. The Government, recognising that decisions about the development of airports will have a profound effect on a considerable number of people, were convinced that all those who might be affected should have a full opportunity to marshal their arguments

109
and subsequently to present their views so that these might be taken into account before conclusions were reached and decisions announced. This inevitably takes time.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked for a full and open discussion; that is the purpose of issuing Consultative Documents and the reason for the time that is being taken. She and my noble friend Lord Pitt wondered in this connection whether the Government were proceeding to "planning by stealth". I can assure both the noble Baroness and my noble friend that that is the very opposite of our intention and our method. Indeed, there is more justification for the opposite criticism that we are being too open and, inevitably, having to take more time than, on other considerations, would be desirable.
The review of airports policy undertaken jointly by the Departments of Trade and the Environment has been a four-stage process and I shall deal with those stages. First, however, may I take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about my appearance here instead of someone representing the Department of the Environment? This was, I acknowledge, expressed in courteous terms and was no criticism of me, but there was a suggestion that the Department of the Environment ought to be more fully engaged in this matter. I have stressed that the consideration of policy is being jointly undertaken by the Department which is traditionally responsible—that is, the Department of Trade—and the Department of the Environment because of the considerations that have, quite rightly, been put forward by noble Lords. Indeed, my honourable friends the Ministers for those Departments in another place have been receiving representations in joint meetings. I believe that one group was led by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. So there is no difference between us on the need to involve both Ministries, but one cannot have two Ministers speaking at the Dispatch Box at the same time.
As to the four-stage process, the first stage followed the publication of the Maplin Review Report in July 1974. We sought the views of the main bodies concerned on the report on how future
110
United Kingdom air traffic might be handled. Secondly, in the light of these comments and further work undertaken within the Departments of Trade and the Environment, and with the technical assistance of the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government produced in November 1975 the first part of a Consultation Document that has been referred to by a number of those who have spoken; that is, the document entitled Airport Strategy for Great Britain. This dealt with the airports in the London area. There have been a number of references to this and criticisms of some of its contents and I have noticed that some speakers have suggested that this is the Government's plan. I would stress that that is not so. It is a Consultative Document and the ideas put forward are simply ideas that have been expressed so as to get the reactions of the very many organisations and people to whom the document was directed. It is not a plan; it is a Consultative Document.
For the third stage we embarked upon what was in many ways the more difficult task of producing the second part of the Consultation Document covering the regional airports. This second part of the document, which was published in June last year, examined for the first time in depth and within a national context the role of regional airports and the way they might develop over the years. The Department of Trade wrote to about 1,000 local authorities, airport authorities, airline operators, employees' organisations, amenity groups and other bodies throughout Great Britain inviting them to comment on the Consultation Documents. There has been a massive response to that invitation. The Department has received many hundreds of written comments, all of which will be taken into account, and in addition my honourable friends the Ministers in the Departments of Trade and the Environment have met a number of the major interested groups to hear their views.
However, the time for consultations is drawing rapidly to a close. I recognise the urgency of the matter, which was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and we shall shortly begin the fourth and final stage of the review. This will involve the assessment of all the advice

111
which has been received leading to the formulation of a national airports policy and its presentation to Parliament. My right honourable friend hopes that it will be possible to announce the policy in late summer or in the autumn. I cannot anticipate the form that statement might take, but its objective will be to establish a framework within which airports might he developed initially over the period to 1990, and to outline how future policy beyond that date might be determined in response to continuing assessments of the demand for air transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stressed the long-term aspects of this matter, saying that 1990 will soon be upon us and that we need to look beyond that date. I agree thoroughly, and our assessment will look beyond that date. Thirdly, we shall be considering how to indicate the way in which individual airports throughout Great Britain might develop.
I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that it would be quite wrong for me to comment on individual airports in any great detail while the consultation process is continuing and before my honourable friends have had an opportunity to consider the views expressed in this debate this evening, and, more particularly, before the Government have reached their conclusions. Nevertheless, within the debate, there have been many most useful observations put forward and I should like to comment on as many as time permits. First, a question has been raised by a number of noble Lords about Maplin. My noble friend Lord Pitt raised this, as did my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, and others, including the noble Lord who opened the debate. I feel that the question of a new airport, though not specifically tied to the suggestion of Maplin, was implicit in a number of speeches which were critical of the concept of simply developing the existing four airports.
I think I should say that events since 1974 have reinforced the Government in their view that the decision to abandon the Maplin airport project was correct. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, not only likes to call a spade a spade, but a dead duck a dead duck. He put forward a figure and it is indeed true that perhaps the most
112
fundamental objection to Maplin is that it would be prohibitively expensive. It is some time since the costs were worked out, but we can be sure that they are going up all the time and I do not think that the estimate of £1,000 million put forward by the noble Lord was very wide of the mark. That is a consideration of great importance. This does not mean that new airports can be ruled out for all time, but we remain to be convinced that we should be considering such projects in the present circumstances when expected traffic levels are much lower than envisaged at the time of the Roskill Commission and in circumstances where there is an overwhelming need to maintain stringent controls on public expenditure.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: May I intervene, my Lords? The point that I was making was that the project was for four runways. What I was asking the noble Lord to do was now to consider the matter in terms of one runway.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, I have noted that; but if my noble friend will forgive me I cannot deal with every detail due to the fact that there is a time limit to this debate. However, I should like to deal with the point which was particularly drawn to our attention by my noble friend Lord Leatherland and to which other noble Lords also referred, concerning Stansted, and I can indeed understand their anxiety about it. I should emphasise that the Government have reached no decision on this airport, but there are perhaps two general points about it that I should make. Not all comments that we have received have been opposed to the development of Stansted. Indeed the South-East Economic Planning Council, through its chairman, expressed concern at the serious under-use of the resources presently available at Stansted. I should stress that the project which was considered by Roskill was a very different one from the developments which are discussed in the Consultation Document, which are based on the existing single runway and within the existing boundaries of the airport.
A number of speakers, particularly again the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, raised the question of the effect of airport development on the

113
surrounding environment and the need to involve local authorities in consideration of policy. The question of employment was particularly referred to as well. I fully recognise the great importance of these issues. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that the local authorities have in no manner been disadvantaged in the way that we have proceeded, and amenity groups have had the fullest opportunity to express their views, as have local authorities— and they have had the opportunity to comment on the analysis by the Department of the Environment on the non-aviation matters dealt with in the Consultation Document. So the approach to the local authorities and their welcome response is an important part of the consideration that is being given.
The second speaker in the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, together with the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, dealt at considerable length and in an interesting way with the question of the rail link with Heathrow, and so on. The question of a rail link between Heathrow and Central London is considered in Part I of the Consultation Document. We have received a number of interesting views on the subject during the consultation; and we have had a number more from the two noble Lords during the debate. We shall certainly look at the suggestions that they both have been putting forward.
The question of the fourth passenger terminal at Heathrow was raised in several ways, notably by my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead—and if I refer to him again I hope that he will not interrupt me this time. I should stress that the proposal for a fourth terminal at Heathrow is rather different from the long-term strategy which is the subject of the airports policy review, since it is a much more immediate requirement. Indeed, when the decision to abandon Maplin was announced, it was made clear that, irrespective of that decision, a fourth terminal would be needed at Heathrow. Decisions on the fourth terminal are, in the first instance, a matter for the British Airports Authority, which is currently consulting the local planning authorities about the project; and because that is the situation I am afraid I am not able to respond in specific terms to the question about the date by
114
which the fourth terminal is expected to be made available.
The last group of points on which I might comment was raised first by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, who was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and it concerned general aviation. The Government recognise the need for proper provision for the accommodation of general aviation, and particularly for business aviation. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment are at present considering the advice on general aviation in the South-East submitted to them by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning, and particularly the bearing that this might have on a national airports policy.
Finally, I should like to emphasise once more the importance which the Government attach to the process of consultation which has characterised the present policy review. I am sure that I do not need to recall the history of airports policy in this country in the past 15 years, except to point out that we believe that the two main lessons—the need to adopt a national approach, and the importance of seeking directly the views of those who will be most seriously affected—have been learnt, and they have been reflected in our work. But the determination of policy is the responsibility of Government and we are under no illusions that the Government's conclusions and decisions on future airports policy will receive universal acceptance. In this matter, perhaps more than in most, it is not possible to please all the people all the time. However, we hope that all concerned will feel that they have had an adequate opportunity to express their views, and that as a result the decisions themselves will be better informed and, hopefully, receive a wider understanding.
8.17 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers, I should like to say "Thank you" to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has had to leave the Chamber because I think that hers was the only unfair speech this evening—when she said that the first two

115
speakers before her had ignored the environmental aspect. If she will look at Hansard tomorrow, she will see that I used the expression that I was really appalled at the environmental problems which face us in the times ahead. Therefore, I trust that she will reconsider her indictment of the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, and myself—the first two speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, made a most interesting speech based upon the figures which he thought were wrong. I am not competent to say whether they are right or wrong, but according to my memory, and from statistics from the Department of Trade, in the Consultation Document Stansted was rated to come up to a capacity of 16 million.
Finally, may I say that although the speeches of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were most interesting, I searched every word they said to find something constructive, and I found nothing except destructive criticism and not a single constructive suggestion as to how we are to cope up to 1990, if the traffic estimates are at all accurate.
One must not sit on the fence indefinitely until the mud of Maplin seeps through. One must say whether or not one approves of Maplin. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, it is no good saying that the Opposition ought not to say what they want to do. For goodness sake, take a view on Maplin! It struck me that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Baroness were giving the kiss to the sleeping beauty of Maplin and saying, "Don't worry, dear, don't worry—about 1990 we will come and wake you up".
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him as he mentioned me by name, and I see we have five minutes or so left. If we in Opposition said now that we were in favour of building a new airport at Maplin, with the political situation as it is and the prospect of a Conservative Government in the near future, would we not be creating planning blight without backing it up with the proper information and the proper knowledge to do that?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: Personally, my Lords, I would say, "No". I would take a view on the knowledge I
116
had and on the knowledge I could obtain. I admit that they might be wrong, but take a positive view, that is what I think. My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: CHARGES
8.21 p.m.
Lord FERRIER Lord FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that the telecommunication authorities now review their policy regarding installation and standingcharges. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Some of my correspondence connected with our debate on night-store heaters a month ago confirmed my belief that the present cost of installing and maintaining a telephone is, as in the case of heaters, an obstacle to many underprivileged people installing equipment to match conditions today. But the telephone may well be a lifeline.
When, a fortnight ago, the Press reported that telecommunications were showing a £400 million profit and, simultaneously, that four factories were going to have to close down through a lack of orders for Post Office equipment, and when, on top of that, we heard that the Post Office were contemplating increasing the postal charges, I felt that your Lordships would like to discuss the matter, and hence this Question. Little did I guess that, on the very day that it appeared in the Minutes—that was on the 7th—the other place, in their debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, would devote a couple of hours to a discussion which, though mainly on the problem of the factory closures, was very wide-ranging. Indeed, that debate covered so many of the points that I had in mind to mention here that there is no need to elaborate them. I recommend that debate to your Lordships for study, and particularly the Minister's speech; but I can be brief in consequence.
When, only yesterday, the Consumer Council included a complaint about telephone charges in a representation to the Prime Minister, it might well have

117
been thought that the matter had been processed until it was absolutely threadbare. I consequently half apologise for taking your Lordships' time—but only half. There are a number of issues which are still worth an airing. In the first place, I do not propose to refer to the tariff of charges, to the rates for telephone calls. Indeed, I have deliberately not included this matter in my Question. Our telephone bills may be shockers, as every bill seems to be these days, but, on the whole, the tariff structure, with its varying scales, is in my view well designed for conditions in this country, is flexible, and compares reasonably in terms of cost with those in other countries.
The only really bitter complaint which, until recently, I had had—I live in Scotland—was that so many exchanges, particularly in the South of England, which were available for trunk dialling from London, had to be handled, and still have to be handled, through the operator in Scotland, of course at the relatively higher tariff. But this has recently been put right, so I no longer have a grouse about it, in that the charge is adapted to accord with what would have been the charge had the number been obtainable on STD.
However, where I believe revision should be considered is by the adjustment downward of the charge for installation and, similarly, the rental or the standing charge. As for the former, the installation, in the debate in the other place one speaker contended that changes could be made in the Post Office's sales policy, and another Member, coupling the apparent profitability of the present system with the Plessey closures, felt that the high cost of installation could be drastically reduced. One must realise that this may not be so easy to carry out or to implement when it is remembered that the subscriber who most needs what really amounts to a subsidy is probably the consumer farthest away from existing networks. I have in mind the far-off areas in my native land.
It is often people such as these who need a lifeline more than most. I deliberately use and repeat the word "lifeline" because so many people with whom I have discussed this question have used it to me, and I have sounded out a large number of the public. It is so often the aged and the lonely, the handicapped and
118
the housebound, whether by physical disability or by domestic responsibilities, who should, I believe, come first in our considerations. Of course, it must be recognised that assistance is given by the social services, but my information is that this has not been as easy to obtain recently as it once was, and I should like to ask whether it could be stepped up.
What with the high cost of petrol, the reduced postal services and the very limited and costly availability of public transport in remote areas, it is, as I have said, those in such areas who would seem to be entitled to the greatest consideration. People are inclined to say that, whereas one might afford £20 or £25 for a telephone, £45 or £50 is just not on. This is so, of course. But there is another angle to it which is worth looking at, and that is that a large number of the younger and more active people prefer to have a television set or a smart car than to have a telephone, and they can nip over to the call box, provided that it has not been vandalised.
To turn to the quarterly rental of, say, £8 or £9—I use the words "£8 or £9" because VAT is involved here; and, incidentally, it must be remembered that this rental is payable in advance—it bears hardest on the limited user. The smaller the user the heavier the bearing of the charge. I calculate that a householder whose quarterly charge is for 600 units at 3p plus rental and VAT pays 4·62p per unit, of which the rental and VAT accounts for 1·62p per unit. This is more than the comparable charge in a call-box—a point drawn to my attention only this afternoon.
To take what may be an extreme case, say, some old body who is afraid to use the telephone anyway, and who may initiate only two unit calls per week, she, I work out, would pay 35p per unit for those calls, of which 32p is the tranche of the rental. This is a particular case; and I have had more than one case mentioned to me where families install a telephone for old people. Although this may sound an extreme case, your Lordships will remember I am talking about outgoing calls. These installations very often provide a considerable contribution to income by virtue of the incoming calls that they prompt. At the other extreme, I know one subscriber who is the secretary of an organisation of which I am the

119
chairman, who the other day had a quarterly bill for £300. This, of course, includes many long distance calls, mainly to London. At this level, the incidence of the rental is of minimal significance. These are extremes.
My Lords, I suggest that a valuable concession—and I am referring to the rental—which is also, in my view, a sales gimmick, would be to reduce the incidence of the standing charge by a return to the old system of so many free calls per quarter. Can this be done? In terms of modern mechanical accounting it may be more complicated than one thinks, but it would be a sales gimmick. Can the number of such calls, if such a concession is granted, be varied as between different classes of user? In general terms, it can be urged that telephone usage and the consequent overall profitability might be worth encouraging by some such means. The social gain and the social benefit to the under-privileged would be considerable.
My Lords, there are one or two matters that I might refer to. I have already referred to the call boxes which in many areas, because of vandalism, cannot really be relied upon by old people. One noble Lord said to me this afternoon, "There is a van standing outside the House with 'Instal a telephone now!' written upon it. 'Now,' is the word," he said. Is this quite fair trading?—when we all know there is a substantial waiting list and a substantial waiting time except for special categories. Of course, special categories such as doctors and the like must come first; but when can the backlog he reduced?
In conclusion, my Lords, the high cost of postage has a bearing on all of this, as has also the cessation of Sunday collections. The fewer the postal facilities, the more the need for widespread access to a telephone. May I finally turn to the very useful overnight letter telegram service? The text of this Unstarred Question which we are now discussing was sent to the Table by this service. The overnight letter telegram costs 50p standing charge plus 4p a word. I think that the 50p is a fairly recent addition. Of course, telegrams themselves are increasingly costly. Gone are the days of such telegrams as the P. G. Wodehouse characters used to send to each other at a "bob"
120
(5p) for 12 words. Would it be worth contemplating cutting out the 50p standing charge on Saturdays and Sundays—rather like the lower rate for the ordinary telephone tariff— to encourage the use of the overnight letter telegram service which, in any case, closes at 10 p.m. on any night of the week?
As I have no right of reply, I thank in advance those noble Lords who are contributing to this debate. I only hope that I have not wasted the time of the House in raising this matter which I believe to be of real importance to many people of limited means; the more so as it may be one about which something can he done in this age of increasing burdens, especially in old age.
8.36 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for giving us this opportunity of discussing telephone rentals and charges. I think that all of us have a few shocks from time to time when we get our telephone bill. With six loquacious daughters, for me it can be quite painful to see the bill. I would slightly take issue with the noble Lord over the question of charges for the calls. He had said that he was not going to mention it, but he brought it into his speech later when he spoke of overall costs. I took his point fully. I think we must look at the whole charge, because it is a composite charge. If I might take your Lordships on a very quick tour round Europe, I think it is of interest to know what is being charged in other countries. The Unstarred Question itself refers to installation and standing charges. Figures are always difficult to come by and most of them have been converted from French francs because the headquarters of the organisation is in Paris.
It might interest your Lordships to know that, on the installation side, we come pretty well in the middle of the range of charges with £45—which, let us face it, is for a totally new installation. Where there has been a disconnection and all the facilities are there, it can go down to £8 or so. There is a degree of discretion there, I admit. In France, it costs £100 to install a telephone. In West Germany it costs £42. In Switzerland there is no charge for telephone installation. It is free. The charge comes on

121
the other side; so that one must look at the rental charges. Here, I do not think that compared overall with the rest of Europe, we are too expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, talked about quarterly charges; but, working on a monthly charge, with VAT, we pay about £2.83 a month which is not too bad when you think that people can be paying a lot more (about £8) for colour television. To put the matter into perspective, the cost per month in France is £4.88 and in West Germany £6.80.
An interesting point is what happens in those other countries where the idea of bulk selling is important. For instance, in Canada you can make unlimited local calls for a rental of £4.90 a month, which is good value. Again, in Boston the charge is £8.50, with unlimited local calls. Our charges, I think, are rather on the high side because in so many of these countries which I have just mentioned—Germany and France for instance—the duration of local calls is not measured. As it used to be here in the old days, one can talk for as long as one likes. When you talk for a long time in this country the meter is really ticking away. On that side we tend to be rather pricey.
It does not really matter so much when we are talking about the social need, the lifeline call, because these people are not going to make many calls. Although they may talk for some time, it will not cost too much in real terms. I take the point entirely that the lifeline call is an enormous social need—and I do not think we can underestimate it—for people who are ill, handicapped, crippled or very old. But it must be remembered that it costs £300 to have a line installed. That is with the switchgear—the handset costs £9. Therefore, when one talks about £33 a year, it has to be put into context with the £300 it costs to install the unit.
The area I am more concerned about is the total profit we are making; what we do about it and what we will do in the future. It is rumoured that this year's telecommunications profit for the year ended 31st March will be about £350 million to £400 million. That is not a bagatelle in anybody's language; that is real money. This money has started to pour in at quite a rate since the panic decison in 1975. POUNC and the Telephone Users' Association said that the Post Office was being too hasty. This comes back to the whole
122
question of forecasting. I agree—and I have been involved in it—that forecasting is extremely difficult. If one gets the right figure, perhaps there is a degree of luck, but one is very pleased to get it right. The Post Office did not get it right at that time, although there is a backlog of debt.
By increasing the prices so greatly we are in a rather excessive, almost embarrassing profit situation. Perhaps some of this money should he allocated to social responsibility. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Act allows local authorities to pay for a telephone line for certain people. The trouble is that local authorities are now very short of cash and they are therefore not really in a position to install many of these telephones. Sadly, this is the case. Perhaps a little of the responsibility should be taken off the local authorities. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, at least, will support me.
Regarding business charges, I get worried on that point because we are art exporting country. Communications are absolutely essential. One has to use the telephone if one is going to make money abroad, and this country has to make money abroad. Last year—not this year—international telecommunications made a profit of £59 million. It is going to be much more this year. That is 40 per cent. of the total profit, or about 31 per cent. return on capital. That is a little too hard, because to a certain extent you are inflicting these prices on the people who are making the money to make this country work. We must accept this point. Sonic people go so far as to call it an exercise in Gadarene greed, which is rather a nice remark!
We must remember that it is a heavy cost on our exporters. We have to be careful. I hope that at least with these profits the prices will be pegged. We have had an assurance that the prices will be pegged for some time to come; but I think they must be pegged for a long time. It will still leave money in the "kitty" in order to cover the social responsibility to which I have referred.
As I have said, the subject of forecasting and demand was considered in 1975. The figures were wrong. We await the Michael Posner Report. This will be fascinating. Perhaps we are now talking in advance of this. Then the Carter Committee will have an effect on what is happening. It is a question of marketing

123
and what we want to do. All Governments in the past have been only too ready to interfere with the Post Office. There has been a lot of "stop/go". Let us be sensible about this—we are looking to the future. I have made this plea on a number of occasions, and I shall make it on another subject in the future. Let us be more courageous, take a long-term view and try to stick to it. There is nothing more expensive than switching on and off the electric light.
There is not much that we can do about the Plessey situation at the moment. A great deal has been said, but one of the things which people forget is that much of that plant is Strowger equipment. It was invented in 1896 and was brilliant; it is a beautiful piece of equipment. I have visited many exchanges and one realises how enormous the whole business of telecommunications is when one visits a big, international exchange. The equipment is of incredible complexity. But we still have these wonderful antiques. You hear the Strowger click when you telephone. On a crossbar it is much quicker. The Strowger equipment is out of date and we have not moved on fast enough. This is because we have not had a telecommunications policy—and we desperately need one. We are installing Strowgers, but we are putting in mainly crossbars now. Crossbars are still, in my view out of the Ark. We only have a few TXE-2s and TXE-4s; the TXE-2s are for smaller exchanges and the TXE-4s are for bigger exchanges. They are coming on stream, but they are enormously expensive.
In this day and age, the thought of having to have mechanical switchgear is incredible. Let us hope that we will get it right with "System X". We have to grasp the nettle: new equipment, especially electronic equipment, requires fewer people to operate it. On 5,000 lines a year the number of operators required to produce the equipment will drop from 3,300 to 1,250. There will be an ongoing problem regarding jobs. On the maintenance side, it will take fewer and fewer people to look after more and more complex equipment. We are going to have a jobs problem in the future. There are going to be people out of work. This is a social responsibility job.
I will not detain your Lordships for much longer, but I must say that we need
124
an ongoing telecommunications policy, and perhaps we need a telecommunications policy board with everybody who is concerned involved: the consumers and the business lines, which take up the lion's share. We have only 50 per cent. of households on line at the moment. This could be increased. If we have this policy, we would be able to increase demand in a controlled way and not with "stop/go". If demand is increased now, there will be waiting lists.
The Government must be in a minor role, because Governments get involved too much. The unions must be involved because of the social responsibility regarding jobs. The manufacturers must be there, and the whole aspect of our export potential must be kept in mind, because we export this equipment and we need an ongoing long-term policy so that we can talk about charges and other matters, including how to look after those people who need a communications lifeline.
8.50 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and to congratulate him on raising a matter of very deep concern. My noble friend is a master of such issues, and particularly a master of the Unstarred Question. I know that the whole House is richer for his many Questions and for his probing on these matters. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will agree that the spirit of the Question concerns not so much the business users as the private users.
My noble friend has described the telephone as a "lifeline of communication" for many people. It is a lifeline of communication. I support that description. We have to think of the aged, the handicapped and single people living alone, together with large families who depend upon the telephone for keeping in touch with their relations. They all depend very much on the telephone and yet my noble friend has given us a figure of only 50 per cent. of people who are connected to a telephone. Many are deprived because of the prohibitive cost of connection and rental. What faces an old-age pensioner who wishes to be connected and to make one call a week? He will find that the cost in the first year will be about £1·50 before he even makes the call, and so we see how meaningless the

125
benefits of the off-peak tariff and of the various other tariffs introduced by the Post Office have become.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, will be able to give some sympathetic consideration to this matter. The noble Lord is renowned for his sympathy and for his generous heart. I hope that his brief will show equal sympathy; that it will also show that the Government accept that this is a special case and that they will seek to persuade the Post Office to adopt a more humane policy towards those who depend on this line of communication.
In this connection I should like briefly to ask the noble Lord one or two simple questions. First, what annual income does the Post Office receive from installation charges, and do the Post Office weight their connection costs more heavily for business users than for domestic users? Is there any variation? Another topic which was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, and which also concerns my noble friend Lord Redesdale, was the recent tragedy of the collapse of the Plessey factories. That is indeed a very severe setback for the whole of the British telecommunications industry. We know that many accusations have been levelled against the Post Office for their apparently erratic support for the industry at a time when they have announced an all-time record profit. We know the Government's undoubted concern, expressed in their appointment of Professor Posner and his Committee to look into the whole matter. I hope, as I am sure others also hope, that he will come up with some constructive ideas and suggestions to help the industry. But the basic fact is that many thousands of people will be thrown out of work and valuable export orders have been lost. An industry with a proud, world-wide reputation has been shown to be technically out of date. Whatever the cause, one cannot escape the fact that the Post Office have a very great responsibility to the industry, as the home purchaser.
I should like to ask the noble Lord how soon Professor Posner is likely to report, whether the report will be published, and what active steps the Government are taking to assist those who have been thrown out of work, by finding them alternative work at this time, while we are awaiting the Posner Committee's report. I
126
should also like to ask whether the Government were advised in advance of the Post Office decision regarding the TXE2 and the TXE4, which I understand triggered off the Plessey closures. Finally, I should like to ask: What is the value of the orders the Post Office are at present placing abroad for telecommunication equipment?
I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer these questions, because I realise they go a little outside the scope of the Question which is on the Order Paper. I hope he will be able to give some reassurance tonight, and that whatever he is able to say on this particular aspect will bring hope to the people concerned; that will be very much appreciated not only by the few of us who are here tonight but also by the many people outside who seem likely to be deprived of their livelihood.
8.56 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I know that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this matter, which is obviously close to your Lordships' hearts. May I say he has also given me a very ueful tip, for which I thank him, concerning the overnight telegraph service. When I got his telegram, or whatever the document was, I thought that he must be taking this matter very seriously because it must have cost him a fiver. However, I rather gather it was less than that.
Lord FERRIER: Oh yes, my Lords.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful for his good commercial advice. I am afraid I must display cowardice and confine myself purely to the terms of the noble Lord's Question, which asked whether the Government would ensure that the telecommunication authorities now review their policy regarding installation and standing charges. That Question must be linked with the general policy about capital installations, which brings in the Plessey problem, raised by several noble Lords. However, the latter is rather outside the time-scale we are discussing this evening and so is not exactly relevant. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me when the Posner Committee would report. I would say it will be within two or three months. The Government are seriously considering

127
publishing that report when it becomes available, but obviously we cannot commit ourselves because it may contain material which is not relevant. Nevertheless, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not plunge into matters concerning the Plessey Company and the technology of the exchanges, because that is not what I have been asked.
First, I should like to tackle the economics of the Post Office, because that is basic to everything we are talking about. Noble Lords have spoken of great profits coming our way. I am glad to say that is true; but we must not forget that we are speaking of a very large industry which has a turnover annually of £3,500 million. So it is a very large industry indeed and one should not be surprised if it produced equivalent profits, if properly run. May I remind your Lordships that, in the three years to March 1976, not far short of £450 million of taxpayers' money was paid to the Post Office, in compensation for losses due to price restraint. This is what happens when one starts using the nationalised industries as a controlling factor in the price index.
Taxpayers, some of whom are telephone subscribers and some of whom are not, can reasonably ask that the first priority should be to restore the situation. But while it is true that telecommunications made a profit of £155 million in the last financial year, and are expected to make a substantially larger one this year, all this and more is needed to help finance the £1,000 million investment programme. Every £1 of this programme which can he financed internally offers potential for lower taxes or for increased public expenditure elsewhere. But the chairman of the Post Office has promised that there will be no increase in telecommunications charges before April 1978, and that will represent a standstill of two and a half years at a time of rapidly rising inflation. I wonder how many nationalised industries can have so good a record.
But having said that as a defensive measure, may I say that I agree completely with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made, that profits of this size—and they will be substantial—place upon the Post Office a measure of social responsibility, which local authorities who, at this moment, are being
128
squeezed, will find it difficult to discharge. I agree that there is an Act of 1970 which enables them to provide free telephones, or bedside telephones, where there is a case of special need, which is the kind of person the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was contemplating. But we know the situation of local authorities at the moment, and it is quite clear that it will take a lot of pleading to get cheap or free telephone installations for old people, or people with special needs.
I think it is one of the virtues of a debate of this type, even if it is within a rather closed circle, that I personally, and I am sure other noble Lords, learn a great deal which we did not know before; for example, the overnight telegram service. May I make a summing-up point? We have been asked to ensure that the Post Office should reduce their installation and standing charges. This goes beyond the Government's formal powers, but these matters are regularly discussed with the Post Office and, not least, when there is a Parliamentary interest. I know that tonight's debate has not passed unnoticed. Because the Post Office are now run as an industrial corporation, regional directors are given powers of discretion which they are free to exercise if they so wish. Where there are sound reasons for reducing connection charges temporarily, where there is spare capacity, the Post Office have given regional directors discretion in this respect. They can, in fact, reduce the installation charges, and we are trying to see how far this power can be reasonably extended.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, the noble Lord has just made a very important statement about the discretion which the Post Office have. Can he say how often it has exercised this discretion, and in what cases? I hope that they are the special needy.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. While I had been given a certain amount of advance warning, I cannot give any precise figures. I understand that cuts in installation charges have taken place in Wales, I believe in East Anglia, and in some parts along the Scottish Border. But if I have misinformed the House, I will correct what I have said. However, no such reductions in charges have been introduced for Scotland, where

129
the noble Lord's interest lies. He may find that information of use.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I look forward to seeing vans with "Install an instrument now" on them.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another point. I am trying to help the noble Lord, but he is pulling my leg. I understand that the waiting list for the installation of telephones, which we all agree was once very long, has now been shortened considerably and is at its shortest for several years. How short is "short" is like "how long is a piece of string?" But the list is shorter than it has been for many years, and we are getting on top of the problem.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to interevene. Can he tell us something about the special needs? Is there a similar programme in every area, or does one area give more help than another area? I should like to know what the special needs are. Can the noble Lord give me some examples?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. There are two problems. The regional director has an apparatus, a telephone network, which is not overloaded. If, in his commercial judgment, by lowering the charge for installing telephones he can get more installed and used, his income from the operational charges will increase. It lies within the commercial judgment of the regional director. The other aspect of the matter is: who judges whether an individual needs a lifeline telephone? That must be the Department of Health and Social Security, through its local offices.
All I can say is that I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is absolutely right: because the Post Office are becoming increasingly profitable—part of the profits must wipe out the losses of the past, although we are now getting back to commercial pricing—they will have some money in the till. At present they should perhaps take a greater measure of social responsibility than local authorities which are under very severe pressure, in my view quite rightly, from central Government to reduce their overall expenditure.
130
That is all I can say. If noble Lords wish me to do so, I can enter into a rather interesting argument on the economics of free telephones, but at this hour of the night I do not think that your Lordships would wish it. Once again may I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue. I hope that the one point I made to him will be of help in his battle for cheaper installations in Scotland.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.