Lords Sitting of 7 March 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read hr the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Severn Barrage: Road Crossing
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since a further road crossing of the Severn estuary may be needed in the future, they are considering the merits of a barrage which could not only provide electricity but also a road crossing.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the study, which the Department of Transport is to carry out into how a second road crossing might be provided in the general corridor of the existing bridge, will examine other forms of crossing, as well as a bridge, but it will not duplicate work being done elsewhere.
If a barrage scheme can be shown to be viable on the basis of its energy potential, and could be available in the right place and at the right time, it would be considered as a means of providing a second road crossing.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. There is only one point I should like to put to him and it is this: assuming that this proposal is still a possibility, will he ensure that its possible environmental effects will be included in the study which is now being made for what I term the Bondi barrage, which is much lower down the Severn? If the Government did decide on the scheme, it would seem to be a pity, to have to make vet a further study, with a further waste of time.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 7th February, a study into a second road crossing is being undertaken. The preparatory work is in hand. As I understand it, the Bondi scheme is being evaluated by its proposers.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the question that I asked. Can he confirm that a contract has been let for the study of the environmental effects on the Severn—silting, and so on—of the Bondi barrage? If that is the case, will the noble Lord add to the contract a study of the higher barrage, with its possibility of a bridge crossing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no contract has been let for the Bondi barrage scheme. A joint study is taking place. The Department of Energy has subscribed a sum of money towards that feasibility study. I repeat that no contract has been let.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is very important to keep in mind the relative scales of cost? If a road bridge is likely to be of the order of £100 million, a power station of the order of £1,200 million and a barrage of the order of £6 billion they are not really comparable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the relevant costs of all the suggested schemes are one of the many factors borne in mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, could the noble Lord ensure, bearing in mind that other suggestions have been made for a scheme upstream, that the long-term benefit of a much greater generation capacity will not be sacrificed to any short-term expediency, irrespective of the cost and irrespective of who might finance such a scheme?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, a number of suggestions have been made. When those suggestion come before my right honourable friends in the departments to which I have referred, they will be borne in mind.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that such a barrage would, or could, additionally provide excellent deep water port facilities in close proximity to the industrial Midlands?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not aware of that proposal. However, I am aware that it has been suggested, and the proposal will be taken into consideration if such a scheme comes formally before either of my right honourable friends.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to clarify the situation for my benefit, if not for the benefit of the whole House. Is it not the case that two studies are now taking place? The first study is intended to be set afoot by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, as announced on 7th February, with regard to the possibility of a second crossing of the Severn. The other study is connected with the Bondi Report. Does the noble Lord recall that exactly two years ago there was a debate in the House on the Bondi Report? Is it not the case that in addition to the Bondi Report another study is taking place into the feasibility of the barrage? If these two studies are taking place, is it not possible for the Government to arrange for them to be co-ordinated so that the proposal for a road on the barrage can be considered at the same time? Is that what the Government are proposing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has initiated a study into a second road crossing. The study includes a number of factors—whether it might be a bridge, or whether it might be a tunnel, and so on. That study will be undertaken quite soon. In addition, there are what I might describe as two private enterprise schemes. One is known as the Bondi barrage scheme, which has support amounting to £¼ million from the Department of Energy. That is now being evaluated by the Severn Tidal Power Group. The

265
other is known as the Wimpey-Atkins scheme. Again, they are engaged in pre-feasibility studies, both technical and financial, for which there is no Government support at this time. A further barrage scheme might incorporate a road crossing.
Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor: My Lords, may I ask the Government how they reconcile their apparent willingness to fund research into either a second Severn crossing or a barrage compared with their apparent unwillingness to consider any form of finance for an equally important fixed link—namely, the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will accept that his question is very wide of that originally on the Order Paper.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that closer to the Question is the fact that a great many people in Wales, while welcoming the studies of alternative entrance to and egress from the Principality, still consider the Severn Bridge to be a splendid highway; and that visitors and commerce entering by that bridge are welcomed by the people of Wales all the time?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I of course agree with and support exactly what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been rising to his feet. We have been seven minutes already on this Question. I believe the House might appreciate it if, after the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has asked his question, and my noble friend has answered, we went on to further matters.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in considering the financial implications of any new Severn crossing, will the Government take into account possible grants and cheap loans from the EEC?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I did not quite catch the end of his question.
Lord Hylton: It referred, my Lords, to possible cheap loans and grants from the European Economic Community.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government will consider all forms of financing.

School Meals Service
2.44 p.m
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take about the proposals of certain local authorities to curtail their school meal service.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is a matter for individual local education authorities to determine whether they wish to provide a paid school meals service. The Government could only intervene if they were failing to comply with the duty placed upon them by Section 22 of the Education Act 1980 to provide free of charge in the middle of the day what they consider "requisite" for pupils whose parents receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement. They must also provide without charge facilities for people to consume their own food.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. But does he not agree that last night's decision by Hertfordshire County Council may make the new conditions of service imposed on women working in the school meals service impossible for them to accept and will thereby result in the closure of that service? Would the noble Earl not further agree that Hereford and Worcester County Council has already closed its service? Does the Minister not regret the divisive effect that this will have on children who have free meals, as being the only ones receiving them? If this trend continues and further local authorities close their services, will the Government not seek to take some action?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I said originally that this is a matter for local education authorities. As far as Hertfordshire is concerned, I understand that yesterday they decided to retain their school meals service and to make the necessary savings by changing the conditions of staff by reducing holiday pay. The staff have until 6th April to decide whether to accept the authority's proposal. Savings will also be made by reducing pupils' entitlement to free school meals to the statutory minimum of receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement by the parents.
To date, only three local education authorities have abolished paid meals, and then only in primary schools. I understand that Hereford and Worcester—an authority that has already abolished the service to primary schools—is considering ending the service to secondary schools. We know of no other authority that is considering such action, but this is for local education authorities themselves to determine.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government feel no concern about the quality of the meals which may be given to children in these circumstances, when curtailment of the service is talked of so often? Is there any monitoring? What about the nutritional element? Do the department take no interest in the sort of food these children are eating?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, they do. A survey of the dietary intake of schoolchildren has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security. The result should be available later this year, so we shall see.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, are the Government not concerned that the cash inducements which local authorities are now offering the women working in kitchens are more or less bribes? The Government are trying to get these women to accept

267
lower standards of pay and poorer conditions of service, and this is not good enough. Are the Government not concerned that all this means is that if the women do not accept those conditions, they will be forced to lose their jobs?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, that Question was more a statement of the personal view held by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and does not require my comments upon it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords—
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not this an appalling state of affairs? At a time when so many women have to go to work to pay off mortgages and to pay for their electricity and gas, and so on, is it not appalling that this Government are allowing local authorities to stop their school meals? Is this not quite outrageous?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the Government were to act, then it might be said that we were taking away the right of local authorities to exercise their discretion. Noble Lords opposite cannot have it both ways.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is just 60 years since Leicestershire County Council, faced with a surplus of dairy milk in the county, introduced a daily allowance of one-third of a pint of milk a day for the children in its schools, living under a Tory Government? Is he aware also that the council found to its surprise that by the following year the children showed a notable improvement in their health?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was not aware that this is the 60th anniversary of that event; but I believe that conditions were slightly different so far as children's health was concerned 60 years ago.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the general view in local authorities, among all political parties, is that no Government since 1888 have taken more freedom from local authorities than have the present one?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, were we to take away the freedom from local authorities to do what they like with their school meals services, we should be open to further accusations.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend take into account the improvement in health which came along with free school meals, and will he inquire as to the number of children who are sent to school after a totally inadequate breakfast, which I believe is quite a large number?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have any figures about the number of children who arrive at school without having had breakfast. I have figures for children who are taking free school meals, if that is of interest to my noble friend, but I know nothing about their arrangements for breakfast.

Government Establishments: Trade Union Rights
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what Government departments and agencies in addition to the Government Communication Headquarters at Cheltenham are under scrutiny with a view to depriving their employees of the right to remain members of trade unions and staff or professional organisations.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): None, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that not only I but some 10 million of our fellow Britons in all forms of organised trade union, and particularly those in the Civil Service, will welcome what he has just said and hope that this time the Government will stand by their promises? Is he further aware that the incident concerning GCHQ, which establishment we all recognise as being most vital to our defence intelligence and, indeed, to our allies, has been brilliantly served since its inception by loyal and faithful civil servants who feel deeply aggrieved at what has happened in taking away their rights? Is he further aware that this action has been condemned by Members of Parliament in all parties and by all sections of the British media? It is about time that the Government realised this and should acknowledge that, in so far as the trade unions have now agreed that there shall be incorporated in their relationship with GCHQ a firm no-strike agreement—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, why members of the party opposite have such a hatred for free speech I cannot understand—
Noble Lords: It is Question Time.
Lord Molloy:—nor why they should so stupidly exhibit it whenever they have an opportunity. I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that if he can persuade his colleagues to accept the no-strike agreement and withdraw what has been done, it will be to everyone's advantage in the country?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the arguments about this issue have been well rehearsed both in this House and in another place in recent weeks. We have now passed 1st March. About 97 per cent. of the employees at GCHQ have freely accepted the new terms and conditions of employment. I think we should now settle down and let the matter rest.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in coming back to the Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of any report anywhere which would justify a

269
responsible Member of this House putting down such a mischievous Question as this, in the light of his Answer?
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is not the noble Earl aware that these deep suspicions have arisen purely through the slightly revengeful decision of the Government to abolish the Civil Service Department and that there is now no Cabinet Minister under the Prime Minister who can deal direct with the unions concerned? Is he not further aware that in the past, under the noble Lord. Lord Soames, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe and myself we had dealings with people like Bill McCall of the IPCS who not only were very patriotic but frequently got the Government out of the sort of hole they are in now?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not accept that the Government are in a hole, but I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the patriotism and loyalty of Mr. McCall and others. That was not in any sense the problem during this case. As to the question concerning the machinery of Government, both my honourable friend Mr. Hayhoe and myself work directly with the Prime Minister on these issues and we were present at all these meetings.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am glad that, in his Answer to the Question on the Order Paper, he has reiterated the undertaking given by his noble colleague, Lord Trefgarne, when answering the debate in this Chamber on 8th February and also, I understand, the undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary in another place on 25th January that there was no intention to extend the exercise at the Cheltenham GCHQ to other people working in other Government establishments? Is the noble Earl aware of some reports in the local press that the Secretary of State for Defence may be toying with this idea? Do I understand that the previous undertakings given by the Minister still are official Government policy?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Government have made it very clear right from the beginning that this was never an issue connected with union membership matters or union rights. This is an issue of correcting an anomaly in an agency whose primary function was with intelligence. That was the position from the beginning and it remains so now.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, can my noble friend say offhand—although I am not commenting on the GCHQ issue—how many million employees depend for their jobs on joining a trade union or not leaving one?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question but my noble friend is certainly right to say that it would be better if there were rights to not join unions as well as rights to join them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Lord Paget!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, noble Lords will understand if I consider that the noble Earl did not answer my supplementary question. I did not ask the noble Earl about the GCHQ. I asked him about other Government establishments but he made no reference to them at all in his reply. Is it the Government's intention to reconsider the previous undertakings regarding other Government establishments? That was my question to the noble Earl. Will he please answer it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I have answered that question the way he wishes to hear it answered three times already.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are various questions here which have worried me since the beginning? First, when we are dealing with these people to whom the noble Earl referred, we are dealing with a category which should be of high integrity. Secondly, there is no question of any closed shop. These people of high integrity have freely chosen trade unionism. Thirdly, is not the right to choose trade unionism part of the birthright of a democrat? Fourthly, is not the sale of one's birthright, whether it be for a mess of potage, thirty pieces of silver or for a thousand quid, somewhat inconsistent with high integrity? Indeed, is it not a little odd that we should confine this service to people whom we must rate as of low integrity? One final question: who pays for it? Under what Vote does corrupting the Civil Service fall?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, he is missing the point at issue. The GCHQ at Cheltenham did not—and many of us feel that this was perhaps an absurd situation—officially exist until earlier this year. Once it was avowed it was simply brought into line with the position that obtains at other intelligence agencies. It is no different in any other way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the morale and patriotism of the very important staff at Cheltenham have been improved by the way in which this settlement was imposed?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, morale at GCHQ is excellent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is not really a matter of calling into question the loyalty and integrity of anyone? Is this not right, that pressures have been brought to bear on loyal servants and that those pressures in the past, unfortunately, worked in a way which was incompatible with national security; and it was feared that should this again arise in the future, national security could well be endangered, so an executive decision was taken within the four corners of our own domestic law, and is lawful?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. I hope that the House will pay close attention to what he has said.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Earl say what will be the final total cost of bribing the employees of GCHQ not to belong to a trade union, and how many school meals that would buy?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that one must write that down to a nice try on the part of the noble Lord. The fact of the matter is that the principle of compensating people, whether for loss of employment or for loss of statutory rights, is well established in this economy under successive Governments, and the compensation seemed to be about right in this case.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was not only his reply that was acceptable but the brevity of it as well? Would it not be a suitable model for others to follow, not only those on the Front Bench answering questions but also other noble Lords asking them?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that in the past 22 years of Conservative Government since the war we have had five Conservative Prime Ministers and eight Conservative Foreign Secretaries, none of whom found it in any way necessary to indulge in the action of the present Government? Is he further aware that the Select Committee was also opposed to this activity? Therefore, would he be prepared to recommend that the whole thing should now be referred to the Security Commission?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that it is now the moment when it falls to me, as a Member of the Cabinet totally involved with the issues, to say to your Lordships that I think perhaps we should not go further with the argument now, but I have my duty as well. My noble friend the Minister of State, within the terms of his responsibilities, has given very clear answers, with which I am totally, entirely and completely associated in every way. We have now come to further comments about the Government as a whole, and I think I am entitled to ask your Lordships not to pursue forever this issue at Question Time. I think that to do so would be unreasonable.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and other noble Lords will take it from me that there is no question of extending this form of ban beyond the security of intelligence agencies. That has been made abundantly clear, and I say it again with all the authority that I can command. I hope that it will also be taken from me that there is no question of myself, and others like me, who have been associated with trade unions in many different offices over the years, in any way considering that we are impugning the loyalty of anybody in this matter. I hope your Lordships will take those matters from me and will accept what my noble friend the Minister of State has so clearly laid down and with which I am totally associated. I hope that we can now proceed to other Questions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount say something about this matter being referred to the Security Commission so that these people are not left isolated by a specific piece of Government activity of which they are really frightened?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. I suggested to the House—and I hoped he would agree—that it would be reasonable to proceed to another Question. I hope that I have given the noble Lord what the whole House might consider to be a very reasonable statement of the position, and that we can let the matter rest there and pass to the next Question.

Hospital Patients: Telephone Facilities
3.4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many hospitals (and homes designated as hospitals) in the Greater London area do not have facilities for inpatients to receive incoming telephone calls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, information about the provision of telephone facilities for hospital patients is not available centrally. Health authorities differ in their policies on incoming calls, but it is usually possible to arrange for a patient to receive an incoming call through the ward telephone service. Such arrangements are, of course, at the discretion of the ward staff.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer, but is he aware that there are many hospitals and homes with long-term patients who are denied the right to receive incoming telephone calls?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl has a particular interest in the Marie Foster Home at Barnet because he kindly gave me forewarning that it concerned him. So far as other homes of that sort are concerned, I cannot comment, but as regards this one, I can say that the health authority in whose area it is is already aware of the problem and has consulted British Telecom to obtain expert advice on the equipment needed to meet the noble Earl's concern.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it can make a great deal of difference to the morale of patients if they can receive a call from family or friends rather than always having to make an outgoing call, particularly if they are elderly? Is it not within the capacity of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to advise health authorities that they should do their best to ensure that there is two-way communication by telephone for patients in hospital, particularly for long-term patients?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, makes. Of course

273
it is a matter primarily for health authorities, but the department will be issuing to health authorities in the forthcoming whole hospital building note guidance on the provision of public coin-operated telephones, both fixed and mobile.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only a question of incoming calls but that for family reasons patients very often need to make outgoing calls as well, and it is frequently made difficult for them to do so and sometimes the expense of doing so is considerable? In further consideration of this matter, will he kindly bear that in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly bear what my noble friend says closely in mind. So far as outgoing calls are concerned, I understand that in most hospitals patients are able to make them from either fixed or mobile coin-operated telephones, so presumably the charges levied on the coin-operated machines are the same as those levied elsewhere on coin-operated machines.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this connection the League of Friends give a remarkable service in providing mobile telephones and taking them round to the wards? Should not an extension of this in many hospitals be encouraged and welcomed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am well aware of the contribution made by the League of Friends. That of course will continue to be something for which we have high regard.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we fully appreciate that he is not in a position at the moment to answer this Question, but will he assure us that he will get us the information? It is information in which we are very interested.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not entirely sure of the question about which the noble Lord is particulary asking.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, it is the Question in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when I answered the noble Earl, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I hope I indicated that we were taking steps to try to make those arrangements for hospitals that are built in the future. But there are difficulties in using coin operated telephones for incoming calls, because people can reverse charges on those and the charges may be met in an improper way.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, the only thing that I am asking for is the information that the Question asks for and not the Government's good intentions. When the noble Lord finds out what the position is, can he let us know?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a matter for the health authorities concerned. We do not hold the information centrally, but I shall certainly make inquiries and if we can provide the information I shall
274
try to help the noble Lord. But I cannot promise that it will be possible.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am most grateful.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two Short Debates this afternoon, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The general principle adopted is that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. On that basis noble Lords who speak in today's first debate, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, should limit their speeches to a maximum of eight minutes if they are to avoid trespassing on the ration of speakers later on the list.
The number of speakers in the debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is such that no formal limit needs to be proposed, but I believe it would meet with the general approval of your Lordships if noble Lords would exercise a broadly similar constraint voluntarily in order to preserve the essential character of these debates.

Barriers to Women at Work and at Home
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry rose to call attention to the barriers on women's choices at work and at home; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, may I say straight away how fortunate we are in the list of speakers and thank them in advance? Additionally, may I say how glad I am that we have a leavening of the sexes in our list.
Those of us taking part in today's debate have no desire to score party political points. We want to examine the barriers mentioned in the Motion and to suggest how these might be dealt with. To that end each of us is aiming at a segment of the whole, hoping that between us we can present a serious and genuine case for examination by all political parties and by the Government of the day.
My task is to set the background and to deal with my particular segment of the whole: women in public life. Before attempting to do so, I should like to say that I believe we have set ourselves a momentous task. I recognise that we have to change the attitudes of men, of women, of employers, and of Government.
Few people would deny that a huge proportion of the nation's human resources, more than half the population, remains untapped in most areas of economic and public life. Indeed, in October of last year Mrs. Finlay, the deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, told a conference that fewer than one third post-graduate students were

275
women and that in public life they had an even worse chance of being appointed to a public body, elected as a trade union official or selected as a Parliamentary candidate.
Taking the question of Parliamentary candidature, in June 1983 a total of 2,579 candidates stood for Parliament, of which 252 were women. Among these were 38 Conservative, 76 Labour and 73 Alliance candidates. I did realise in 1945, when I got my chance, that I owed much to the work done by the suffragettes. Women like myself owe them a debt of gratitude difficult to repay. I suggest that part of that repayment is the realisation that not only do we have to build on that foundation but to find a different approach. Chaining ourselves to railings is not the tactic for today. Could we make more progress by the power of example? In other words, some women have arrived in high—very high—places. If they obviously (and I am afraid I have to stress the word "obviously") are a success, will public opinion encourage, and even expect, more?
Well, we have a Queen and a woman Prime Minister. In the last Parliament we had a woman Leader of this House, and in the one before that we had a woman as Government Chief Whip. In the field of the law we have three women judges presiding over the High Court, six women circuit judges and 21 recorders. We have a woman as Lord Mayor of London. I do realise that public life of course is not made up of politics and the law, but time is limited tonight and these are relevant illustrations. Where has my suggestion of the power of example got us to date?
In the House of Commons we have 650 Members. On the Conservative Benches 13 out of 396 are women; and on the Labour Benches, 10 out of 209. In this House, we have 353 Life Peers of whom 46 are women. In the non-industrial Civil Service as at 1st January 1983 and using percentages, we find, taking the top three grades of permanent secretary, deputy secretary, under-secretary, the staff in post were respectively 37, 134 and 523. The percentage of women respectively in these grades was: nil, 1.4 per cent. and 5 per cent. In the two lowest grades (clerical officer and clerical assistant) women formed respectively 67.7 per cent. and 77.5 per cent. of the totals.
I have been trying to find out how many women have fared in the Honours Lists but without a great deal of success. Apparently nobody has noted such comparisons. But in June 1982 Mr. Anthony Lester, QC commented on current Birthday Honours in a letter to the Financial Times. He thought the contribution made by women was seriously undervalued. I never like inflicting numbers on the House but I have not got many and I hope they will be useful to have on the record. We really need not concern ourselves with the top (if that be the correct word) 10 awards on Mr. Lester's list because, in all 10 groups taken together, only one woman—a Life Peer—was included.
The Order of the British Empire group was composed of 83 CBEs, including eight women; 144 OBEs, including 30 women; and 212 MBEs, including 101 women. Taking the same group in the 1984 New Year Honours List, we have: 91 CBEs, including
276
seven women; 148 OBEs, including 26 women; 273 MBEs, including 85 women. Obviously from our point of view the proportion has become worse.
It seems that the unequal treatment of women in Honours Lists reflects the attitude of those who make recommendations and certainly of those who approve them, plus the minority position of women in the higher Civil Service, in Parliament, and of course in industry and commerce. So really even the power of example makes headway very slowly indeed.
We in the SDP would set up a Human Rights Commission to incorporate the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. We feel that more far-reaching powers and sharper teeth than either body has at present, plus law enforcement powers and the power to inquire into suspected discrimination, would contribute to the removal of barriers. In addition, we are committed to incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law. This will bring to an end the laborious and unsatisfactory procedure of taking cases from the British courts to the European courts. It will ensure that Britain always complies with the best practice in Europe, instead of lagging behind our partners as we have on the question of equal pay for work of equal value.
The House will recall that in 1982 Britain was found in breach of European law on equal pay by the European Court of Justice. In December 1983 we had a debate in this House on the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations, and, if my memory be correct, no speaker supported the Government except the Minister. We all felt that what the Government proposed might well bring us into conflict once more with the European Court and consequent loss of face in the eyes of our European friends. We still think so.
Today women feel strongly that some of the disadvantages from which we suffer need to be legislated against, while others need firm leadership from a Government determined to set an example and show that women can and must be given a fair deal. Then more women will come forward; and they must be encouraged to do so.
A survey conducted by the trade union NALGO in 1982 stated that far from winning the battle for equality, women's position had deteriorated in the last six years. My Honours List selections (small though these be) would seem to indicate deterioration. Is this really true? Do we need a war to prove our case? I ask that because during the last war the New Statesman carried a verse by Sagittarius (Miss C. A. Lejeune) that I should like to read to the House. It is as follows:
O woman in the days of peace,
Mere toy of masculine caprice,
A drug upon the labour mart,
Not called upon to play thy part,
In war, so far as men allow,
A positive sheet-anchor thou!
To-day, in Britain's finest hour,
Thou art described as woman-power,
Thou hast acquired mechanic skill
The ranks of absent men to fill;
But in the day of victory, when
Thou art superfluous again,
Thy wartime place thou must vacate,
In the best interests of the State,
Admitting with submissive grace
That home is Woman's chosen place.
We have advanced from there; but how far? We have a job to do; and women have a great deal to offer. Together we have to change the outlook of everyone concerned. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in my brief contribution to this debate on this important topic I should like to emphasise some of the positive aspects of the growth in opportunities for women which have occurred in recent decades. In so doing I do not wish to belittle the problems which many women encounter, both at work and in their domestic circumstances. There is still cause for concern in many areas, especially for those who are at, or near, the poverty line, and for single-parent families. However, others are speaking in this debate who have greater knowledge than I have, especially of crucial issues concerning equality of opportunity and equality of pay.
I therefore thought it appropriate to spend a few minutes considering some of the increases in opportunities available for women and the extent to which we in this country are in a relatively favourable situation compared to our counterparts in other European countries. In doing so I shall refer very briefly to four areas: economic, political, social and educational.
First, in the economic sphere, there can be no doubt that women have benefited greatly from changes in the occupational structure in the twentieth century, and especially in recent decades. The enormous expansion of what have been termed "white blouse" occupations has opened up employment opportunities outside the home for women on a scale unprecedented in human history. I refer, for example, to the vast expansion of secretarial, banking, retail and, more recently, computing jobs. Also, there has been an enormous increase in the personal services and in the service professions, with an expansion in employment opportunities in the predominantly female occupations, such as hairdressing, social work and nursing.
It is therefore not surprising that the numbers and the proportions of women, especially married women, in employment have increased dramatically, from less than 10 per cent. in 1921 to around 60 per cent. in the 1980s. So nowadays, with the exception of Denmark, Britain has the highest figure for women's participation in the workforce, with just over 10 million women in employment, of whom about 40 per cent. are in part-time jobs; and the number of women in the labour force is expected to grow by about half a million between 1981 and 1991.
Moreover, when we turn to consider unemployment among women, we find that women have generally suffered less than men from the effects of the recession while part-time work—which is particularly appealing to many women—has actually increased by 2 per cent. In addition, though it is not cheering to take comfort from other people's misfortune, we in this country can perhaps appreciate our relative good fortune in that our rate of female unemployment compares very favourably with those of other European countries, running at less than one-third compared with West Germany (where the rate is over 46 per cent.) or
278
France, Italy, Belgium and Denmark (which all have rates in the region of 50 per cent.).
Furthermore, there are occupations where employment has recently increased substantially. I give as one example my own profession of nursing. Let me hastily say that I do not regard the increases which have occurred as in any way a justification for cutting present staffing levels, which in many places are still too low. But it is important to recognise progress as well as problems; and it is a fact that in England alone there are now in post 46,000 more nurses and midwives than there were in 1978.
There has also been an expansion of other jobs in the National Health Service. Between 1978 and 1982 the number of women employed in administrative and clerical posts increased from 79,000 to 89,000. So I reiterate that, although staffing levels are by no means adequate everywhere, the health service provides one example of an area where there has been a significant expansion of job opportunities in predominantly female occupations.
I now turn very briefly to developments in the political sphere. Legislation designed to ensure that women receive equal pay and equal opportunities is clearly of major importance. Here the Government's commitment to try to ensure, through regulations under the Equal Pay Act, that women with just claims to be doing work of equal value to that done by men shall receive equal pay, is an example of recent political initiatives designed to improve women's opportunities.
Of course I recognise that women's average aims remain below those of men. However, it is interesting to pause for a moment and to put the present situation into a historical context. We then see that the problems of unequal pay seem to be as old as recorded history. In the Old Testament, in the Book of Leviticus, we are told that women were valued at two-thirds the worth of men; and as recently as 1970 women's value, as measured by average hourly earnings, was still running at that rate, or slightly lower perhaps—63.1 per cent. to be precise. But by 1983 the figure had risen to 74.2 per cent. So although thousands of years after the Book of Leviticus women's economic value compared with that of men's had not improved, the last 13 years have seen a dramatic change. If that rate of progress can be maintained, the residual problem might disappear very soon.
But changes in pay will not remove other intransigent and endemic factors. That leads me to speak very briefly on the third of my topics: the social factors affecting women's choice. Many sociological studies have shown that in most parts of the country the widely prevailing attitudes of previous years, which disapproved of married women working outside the home, have generally been replaced by tolerance or approval. Moreover, the many married women who now take part-time employment often do so not for reasons of sheer economic necessity, but for social reasons—to relieve the tedium of daily housework, or to develop new social relationships. So the increasing opportunity for employment has been appreciated by many women who have benefited financially and socially.

279
That brings me to my final theme: education. One of the problems of bringing about equality of opportunity has been the difference in interest, motivation and educational qualifications between girls and boys. Herein lies the importance of the Government's attempts to reduce these differences in both school and various training schemes. For example, the HMI report on, Girls in Science, in 1980, emphasised the need to encourage girls to take more interest in science. Furthermore, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Engineering Council have together sponsored a recent initiative, Women into Science and Engineering, intended to encourage more girls and women to take up careers in these fields. Similarly, the Manpower Services Commission has initiated a number of courses particularly for women, including the Wide Opportunities for Women courses, designed for women who wish to return to work after a long absence.
So, in conclusion, may I point out that I believe that we who live in this country in the present time probably enjoy opportunities that would have been inconceivable even two generations ago. Never before have economic, social, political and educational circumstances been so favourably disposed to enable women to have such freedom of choice at home and at work. I do not underestimate the problems that remain, but I think that we should take heart from what has been achieved and intensify our efforts to extend these freedoms and opportunities to those who still do not benefit from them. Let us, in the meantime, be thankful that so many women can now enjoy both the joys and the responsibility of family life and the satisfaction of work outside the home if they so wish, to an extent unparalleled in human history.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing this important topic. I am sure that after her historical survey—
Noble Lords: Baroness Burton!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should have said the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I beg the pardon of both noble Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will be the first to agree that the biggest danger in tackling this issue is the well-meaning platitude. It is not enough for us—any of us of whichever gender—to express hopes about the future. Something positive has to be done about the under-utilisation, as she so graphically described it, of at least half the ability of this country.
I happen to have undertaken a considerable amount of research on this subject. I was responsible for a publication issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1979. Without boring your Lordships with detail, I believe that the document still has some relevance and leads me to a conclusion which I feel sure will make this the most unpopular speech in the debate. The research referred to the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act and considered the extent to which the Acts had been literally complied with. I think that, as a starting point, there would be common
280
agreement that, formally, the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act have been largely complied with. Equal pay for equal work—not similar work, or equivalent work, but equal work—has been generally achieved. The provisions to outlaw discriminatory advertising for jobs have generally been obeyed.
There have been no problems on those limited scores. When it comes to the more positive recommendations and provisions of the Acts, the position is perhaps less clear. Our research showed that the requirement for job evaluation was only being complied with in 33 per cent. of the establishments where we carried out interviews. Even there, only 34 per cent. of the establishments had job evaluation for jobs that were done both by men and by women.
When it comes to equal opportunities policy, which, as your Lordships will remember, was a requirement of the Sex Discrimination Act, only 60 per cent. of establishments at that time claimed to have such an equal opportunities policy, and only 14 per cent. of those could claim their policy was real in the sense that it was written down and available to the employees affected. The conclusion I draw is that such legislation is nowhere near enough to deal with the vast differences that exist in the employment opportunities of men and women.
We need to look much more closely at the causes of inequality. Let us put on one side the possibility that this is an issue of conscious prejudice. Let us look instead at why it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has made clear, that there has not been a significant increase in the average earnings of women compared with the average earnings of men; why job segregation continues and actually increases in some cases; why, with due deference to the noble Baroness's experience in nursing, when men come into nursing they seem to get the top jobs, the chief nursing officer jobs; and why the breaking down of job segregation does not improve the employment opportunities of women.
Let us look at the other practical causes and conditions of work that affect women's opportunities at work. First, there is the question of recruitment. The Acts refer to formal methods of recruitment; advertising and so on. But all the evidence that we possess shows that informal methods of recruitment by workmates, by friends and by word of mouth actually apply to the more senior and better paid jobs. They are not affected by the Acts, and men benefit by the differences. When you look at pay, it is, of course, true that there is equal pay literally for equal work. But that is not the same as earnings. A significant part of pay in a large number of jobs relates to shift premia, payment by results, productivity payments, overtime payments and so on. All of these are more common for men than for women. All contrive to increase the difference in average earnings.
When one talks about formal qualifications, educational qualifications and so on. they are probably reasonably equal. But apprenticeships are still largely a male preserve. They are the secret of advancement in skilled manual work and many other better-paid occupations. If you look at training, in-service training is heavily biased towards men. Only 22 per cent. of off-the-job, in-service training is available to women. The remainder is hogged by men.

281
The whole principle of our pensions policy is to reward continuous service—the one thing, by definition almost, that is not available to women who have to break their careers in the service of their families. Sick pay is formally equal but there is discrimination against those who have to be absent from work because of the sickness of others. As we know, it is largely women who take on those responsibilities. Above all, I would mention part-time work. This is largely available to women and taken up by women. It deprives those women of all the other fringe benefits that I have talked about and helps to keep women away from better paid and more responsible jobs.
The conclusion that I draw and the reason why I said that this would he unpopular is that the kind of legislation we have had in the past is simply not adequate in these circumstances. If we are to make any real improvements in using the abilities of women in our workforce, we have to go for positive discrimination. I have seen this in practice. It is a terrible thing to start out by saying that there are 5 per cent. of women deputy secretaries in the Civil Service, that next year, there must be 10 per cent. and the following year, 15 per cent. I believe, however, that it is necessary to go into that tunnel and to accept the fact that, in the short and the medium term, there will he injustice towards men. We have to look at the results after a period of 10 years or so to see what improvement has been achieved.
Anyone who has observed business and government in the United States over the past 15 years as I have will agree that there was a great deal of heart-searching and injustice when equal opportunities policies were undertaken which went much further than anything in this country. When it was said that there would be quotas for women in responsible jobs in business, government and academic life, a large number of people felt that this was unjust to men with equal qualifications and equal experience.
I believe, however, that those who have been in contact in the past few years with the senior ranks of government and business in the United States will agree that it is a remarkable and welcome development that there are now far more women taking responsibility and contributing to the welfare and wealth of that nation in a way that is totally unknown in this country. It is a hard pill to swallow. It is, however, a pill that we must swallow if we are to make significant progress towards the best utilisation of the manpower and skilled resources of our country, which I, as much as the noble Baroness, wish to see.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for raising such an important matter this afternoon, and I should like briefly to support the general trend of her remarks. Choices at home are limited by inadequate community provision to free women from the sole responsibility of caring for small children, the frail and the elderly, while choices at work are adversely affected by education—as we have already heard—careers advice, heavy domestic responsibilities, employers' concentration upon senior
282
staff for training and development resources, and a general under-evaluation of women's work.
The two of them—choices at home and choices at work—are clearly interrelated, but I want to say a word about the first of them: the inadequate community provision to free women from the sole responsibility—and I underline the word "sole"—of caring for small children, the frail and the elderly. Naturally, the squeeze on local authorities has reduced the social service staff available for visiting and for home-help work. The percentage of under-fives for whom nursery and infant class places are available has been dropping since 1981, and in 1984 it is expected to drop to 32 per cent.—rather below the provision of 1978. That percentage would be much lower if executive class families are excluded. By contrast, in Yugoslavia 60 per cent. of under-fives have places in creches which are open from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
In this country only 6 per cent. of old people are in institutions; the great majority are cared for at home. This, of course, is what we want: we want to see people living in the community for as long as possible. But it places a burden on women, because the majority of carers are women, and the majority of them are married women. We have discussed in this House before the need for a proper carer's allowance, and I refer to that again today. I will not elaborate on it, but I certainly emphasise the need for it—a proper carer's allowance.
Returning to the care of children, in Sweden either parent can take six months off at 90 per cent. of pay in the first year of a child's life, or this can be shared between the parents. In addition, either parent has the right to a further 12 months' unpaid leave and to a six-hour day until the child is eight. If employers are aware that men as well as women must be given time off to look after young families and that it must be available for them, a major objection to the employment of women is removed. Of course, this does not help one-parent families, and there are about one million such families in the country today, overwhelmingly headed by women. But they would be helped by the extension of creche, nursery and infant class places; and those unable to earn would be helped, of course, by the carer's allowance.
Today, spouses are discouraged from distributing family care and breadwinning between them by the discrepancy, to which reference has already been made, between men's and women's pay and work opportunities. Women's pay now averages 73 per cent. of men's, and their chances of promotion to well-paid levels in an organisation are slight. A study by Dr. Mervyn Murch of Bristol University has shown that employment during marriage has a significant bearing on post-divorce employment. We do not want divorce, but we know it is there; we know that we have to accept that there are a great many divorces today, so this is an important point. In the sample which was looked at, 60 per cent. of lone mothers who had worked during marriage were working after separation, compared with only 31 per cent. of those who had not worked.
This is beginning to bring me close to choices at work, whereas I did say I would concentrate on choices at home. Let me sum up by saying this. Nobody wishes to force mothers of young children out to work, or to

283
dictate to parents or carers how they should allocate their parental or caring duties. The object should be to allow them the maximum degree of choice, and that choice should not be restricted or eliminated by economic circumstance, lack of community provision or old-fashioned prejudice.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, today's younger women have freedoms their mothers did not have: better education, greater choice of jobs, effective contraception, and freedom to live where and how they please and to choose their own friends. If the new freedoms are over-emphasised they seem to become the norm at the expense of the worthwhile traditional values: home, marriage, satisfying work which is not necessarily a "career". If the pressures are for combining marriage with a career, the choice is less open. True choice would mean equal status between those who decide to manage the home and children, and those who decide to use their talents outside the home. Men do not feel the same pressures to marry as women—they never have—or to establish themselves quickly in work with a lasting and enjoyable future. Their careers can develop uninterrupted over a longer period. This is a fundamental difference between the natures of men and women.
For both men and women a range of models, currently in short supply, showing the available options is necessary because people are different in their capabilities, personalities, and satisfactions, and also because they still have different individual roles. A man may be father, breadwinner, partner, house-helper, and so on. A woman may have a job, or a career; manage a home with, or without, children; have an active social life; do voluntary work, and have a host of interests and activities. Provided she has made a conscious choice of the factors which are under her own control, that decision should be respected. If that decision is to concentrate on managing a house and bringing up children, it should be respected. No man, or woman, is an island, and individual decisions have to take the needs of others into account.
Some time ago the pressures on women to work outside the home reached the point where the decision to work at home did not command the respect it should, and those who made it were constantly stigmatised as "just housewives" rather contemptuously and made to feel lazy, inadequate, and a disgrace to womankind. Having been "just a housewife" myself, I know about this. Incidentally, there is still a regrettable tendency to equate one woman with "womankind". In the business world one woman turns down a top job, so this may prevent others being offered the opportunity in the future. The woman who succeeds is talented—people are amazed—but the woman who fails is just a woman.
Like anyone else, women respond to the level of expectation. Label them "associate" or "deputy", and that is what they will be. Thank heaven we are full Members of this House! May I add to the figures of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on the subject of Life Baronesses that we have some 800 hereditary Peers, of whom 20 are women.
Those who work outside the home should have the freedom to choose between aiming for a job or aiming
284
for a career. It is probably easier for the latter in some ways because education and training are often clearer, although careers information in schools is often blinkered and ignores new technologies and gives limited information on further education.
Most of the women who have got to the top have done so by a combination of unusual ability and hard work. But it is not improbable that fewer women than men are prepared to make the (to them) sometimes very much greater sacrifices that that may involve. So the quality of the women in business and public life may be higher than that of the men. But Heaven forbid! that we should have to have a set number of women in any particular class of job, because that is how to get second-rate people and it negates true equality.
Finally, equality of opportunity does not mean sameness. Nor does it mean changing old stereotypes for new ones. The aim should be for a continuing growth in opportunities for individuals to find the right mixture of work, home, social and voluntary commitments, to give them interest and true satisfaction.
3.51 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I wish to look very briefly at marriage breakdown as one of the "segments" affecting choice, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred. Most women, and most men too for that matter, marry and therefore choice within and in respect of marriage is crucially important to the subject that we are now discussing. That choice has widened enormously during this century. At its beginning the bonds of marriage were bonds indeed—legal, theological, social and economic. When a parent said to a daughter who was about to marry, "You are making your bed and you must lie on it," that was a statement of fact. Once married, only the rarest of women could escape. Today the bonds of marriage have dissolved into the ties of choice and the basis of choice is nothing stronger nor weaker than loyalty. External compulsions no longer have the power to compel.
I am considering only the factual situation; I am not commenting on the issues of public morality involved. But one consequence of this situation has been a huge increase in the number of divorces in the last generation. Indeed, 30 years ago 10 per cent. of all marriages broke down by their 20th anniversary; 20 years ago it was about 18 per cent.; 10 years ago it was between 26 and 28 per cent. In fact, 60 per cent. of these divorcing couples have dependent children; 14 per cent. of all families are currently one-parent families headed by mothers responsible, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, for something of the order of 1½ million children under the age of 16 years. Those children exercised no choice. The choice of their parents imposed upon half of them a life of poverty at a level of half that of the average two-parent family. With the poverty went all the disadvantages and difficulties, plus the emotional deprivation of living in a one-parent family with a mother constantly under strain. Therefore, there is nothing new about one-parent families. But throughout this century there has been a lively discussion about the financial circumstances of such unsupported mothers, and it is

285
to that matter that I wish to draw your Lordships' attention.
Before the First World War there was a great campaign for the endowment of motherhood. As a result of the war and the number of widows, the issue of unsupported mothers became a lively political issue and it led to campaigns for a mother's allowance to be paid as of right out of social security. The Anderson Committee was set up in 1925 and it recommended widows' pensions, but it rejected an allowance for all other unsupported mothers on the grounds that they already had a claim against the fathers of their children and it would be inequitable, therefore, to give such women two claims—one against social security, and the other against the fathers of their children. Therefore, they continued—as they had for the previous 100 years—to be dependent upon the Poor Law. When Beveridge came to devise his scheme, he attempted to work unsupported mothers into his scheme of social insurance. He failed; when his scheme came to be implemented the suggestions that he made about unsupported mothers were cut out.
When the National Assistance Act was passed in 1948, unsupported mothers continued to have to draw national assistance; they received no special allowance. The committee on one-parent families recommended in 1974 a general maintenance allowance for all unsupported mothers as of right. The recommendation of that committee has been ignored or rejected by every Government of the last 10 years. What we have at present is the feeble compromise which we must welcome—but it is a feeble, little compromise—of the one-parent family benefit now payable as part of family benefit. But we are still facing the muddle which arises between the right to maintenance from fathers or husbands who, as we know, rarely pay it, and the right to social security.
Sooner or later we shall have to assimilate the private law of family maintenance and the public law of social security. It is within the essential area of choice to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has drawn our attention, that we should now investigate in detail how these two areas can be brought together. The weight of divorce and the very large numbers of dependent children now affected, and assuredly to be affected for the rest of this century, demand better action than we have yet been prepared, as a society, to take.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and her colleagues for instigating this debate on a very important and very interesting subject. I should like to confine my remarks to one aspect because I believe that it is the aspect which is uppermost in the minds of most women at the present time. It is this. How much truth is there in the sneaking feeling which many women have—often unspoken—that if there are not to be enough jobs to go round it is women, especially married women, who will, who even should, lose out?
What are the facts? Many have already been given. It is true to say that during the last 20 years women, including married women, have probably led the changes which have taken place in the labour market in Britain. Between 1921 and 1981 one million more
286
women joined the labour force; 44 per cent. of our labour force is now female; 61 per cent. of married women work; 70 per cent. of non-married women work, and 50 per cent. of women with dependent children work. Granted that many people are not working at the level they would like; many are earning a lot less than they feel they should; and only 20 per cent. of women are in managerial and professional jobs.
As has been said, women are still partly their own worst enemies. Yet despite all this we have come a long way. But what of the future? Will that steady though slow improvement continue and accelerate, or is it now coming to an end? Let us take a glance at the broad trends that can now be seen in the labour market and at what they imply from a woman's point of view.
There has been a shift from the old heavy manufacturing industry to the new light industries—to electronics, information technology, and the like. The implications for women here are exemplified by yesterday's announcement in Scotland by National Semiconductors that they expect to create 1,000 jobs by 1987 with the largest single electronic investment ever to come to Scotland. National Semi conductors have been at Greenock since 1970, and have now announced a £100 million project for the production of semiconductor wafers. As the largely male-dominated shipbuilding industry in Greenock runs down, this announcement of jobs emphasises a new employment pattern. About 60 per cent. of the new jobs will he for females. Of those jobs, nearly all will require manual dexterity and an understanding of an environment which is much cleaner than a hospital. Another 20 per cent. of those jobs will be for technicians capable of understanding the function of micro-processors and of analysing faults. These things are what women are good at. These jobs are expected to be for women, and they are in a sunrise industry. This pattern will be reflected right across the country, and women should take heart from it.
The continuing growth in the service sector is bound to be helpful to women's employment. Seventy-seven per cent, of women now work in the service sector, and the scope can only increase as banking, insurance and financial services, leisure, travel and broadcasting develop.
Probably most important of all, the changes in work patterns will affect women deeply. Because of the need for quick response and flexibility to changes in the market, employers and unions now realise that there is a need for more part-time jobs, more work sharing and more fixed-term jobs. It has been discovered that workers doing shorter hours often have the best productivity of all, a fact observed some time ago during the three-day week emergency.
It is not passing unnoticed that if we want it to be possible for all who want a job to have one, then many of us will need to work shorter hours. The classic struggle to maintain full-time jobs plus overtime is not necessarily the best way forward. Flexible and part-time working hours certainly suit women. Of the women who now work, 50 per cent. do part-time work. As has been said, these changes are being matched by the changing emphasis we observe in the Manpower Services Commission and in schools. The

287
technical and vocational education initiative in schools is giving girls and boys equal opportunities to learn how computers work, to learn maths in relation to the practical needs of micro technology, to learn physics and to learn science, all linked with jobs today.
The TOPS training and the emerging adult training strategy are putting great emphasis on getting the skills for women which people who are to work in places like Greenock will need. The back-up is coming. There is still a long way to go. For example, I gather that at the present time women are not being welcomed too readily as helicopter pilots in the armed forces. There are many barriers to come down; but as a result of this debate and all the skilled contributions that are being made, it is important that the women of this country should realise that things are going their way, that the jobs will be much easier for them to fill rather than more difficult, and that the education and training will be provided. Women simply must have the confidence to go in and get those jobs, and to play their full part as 50 per cent. of the nation's manpower.
4.8 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords. I have always thought of myself as a feminist, by which I mean simply one who believes that to deny choices or opportunities to half the human race must be not only very unjust but idiotically wasteful. I probably owe this very sensible attitude, as it seems to me. not to any innate wisdom, which I lack, but to my upbringing.
About 60 years ago, which is almost as far back as I can remember, my mother won a seat on the Cambridge Borough Council, as it was then called, so I grew up accustomed to the idea that one's mother, no less than one's father, might have to go out to do important things outside the home—as well as inside. It was a discovery which my mother made as a borough councillor which has prompted the first topic I want to touch on this afternoon.
She was put on what was then called the Watch Committee, and she gradually discovered that, whether this committee had a Conservative majority or a Labour majority—and it changed from time to time—it invariably had a majority of freemasons. One result of this, for example, was that the chief constable of Cambridge was himself invariably a freemason. He had to be, in order to win the necessary approval of the Watch Committee. This struck my mother and I as somewhat odd and not altogether democratic, as the voters who elected the councillors knew nothing about it. They were voting in the dark unless, of course, they happened to be freemasons themselves, which, as I understand this strange business, would eliminate the female half of the electorate completely. That is, of course, what makes this relevant to today's debate.
I do not want to make too much of it. I shall certainly not make any sensational accusations. I think there are two possibilities. One is that these worthy gentlemen, beavering away in their lodges, are doing nothing more sinister than indulging a penchant for wearing fancy dress, exchanging secret signs and funny handshakes, and taking part in curious initiation ceremonies; for all the world like so many cubs and brownies—they would have to be male brownies, of course—but all totally, utterly harmless. If that is the
288
true picture, then I do not imagine that women will mind too much at not being allowed to join in.
The other possibility is that they do still exercise a certain crypto-influence. We are all used to lobbies and pressure groups which operate openly and which are identifiable from the outside. But if the freemasons, as I have to admit I suspect they may, make up a kind of secret constituency, then it is certainly one from which women are excluded. This may be an area worthy of investigation by equal opportunities buffs, like all the speakers in today's debate.
My second topic is more obviously political. Why are there so few women in the House of Commons? People talk about the unsocial hours which they work in that other place, and this no doubt is a deterrent to some women. But the overwhelmingly preponderant barrier to women who wish to get into politics is our tragic addiction to the single-member constituency. In every one of our 650 constituencies the three or four party organisations have to select just one candidate each. It is an indisputable and painful fact that they are far more likely, especially if the seat is thought to be winnable, to choose a man than a woman. In the last general election there were 252 women candidates out of 2,579 or just under 10 per cent. Among the winners there were 23 out of 650; 3½ per cent.
Any fair electoral system could do better than that. The system which we advocate, the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, would work in the following way. May I take the City of Bristol as a microcosmic example? Bristol is now represented by four Members of Parliament—three Conservative, one Labour, all male. In the last Parliament it elected five Members—three Labour, two Conservative, all male. We have seen a big change in the political complexion of Bristol from 3 to 2 in favour of Labour to 3 to 1 in favour of the Conservatives, but neither way do the women of Bristol have a single Member of Parliament of their own sex.
If the activists or members of the parties, instead of being arbitrarily segregated into Bristol West, Bristol South, et cetera, had been choosing a slate of candidates for Bristol as a whole, as a city with three, four, or five candidates, is it conceivable that they would fail to include on that slate a reasonable proportion of women? Then the choice would lie where it should lie: with the voters able to arrange the candidates in their order of preference, either within their party or across party lines. The voters, I feel sure, would deal summarily and effectively with the near-monopoly of seats in the House of Commons which men at present enjoy.
Finally, by a bit of timing both fortunate and fortuitous, may I give your Lordships an item of news which neatly illustrates the point that I have been making? Using, of course, the appropriate form of proportional representation, my noble friends and I have today elected as our new leader my noble friend Lady Seear.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McNair: My Lords, how very lucky I am to be able to be the first to congratulate her here in this House and to pledge to her my wholehearted support!
4.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before I start my speech may I offer my congratulations to Baroness Seear. We are delighted.
In many ways I am saddened that it should be necessary for us to be debating such a subject as the harriers on women's choices at work and in the home. I am saddened because today, more than at any time, the field of choice is so wide. I think that it is now very necessary for us to pause, to take stock of exactly what we have and seriously to consider what we, as women, want for the future.
There is no need for me to tell your Lordships that women are different from men. There has been a great deal of research which shows that we think and behave differently from them in given situations. As with every rule there are exceptions, and I think that there is a very small, but quite vociferous, minority of women who seem to be of the opinion that both sexes are the same. Unfortunately, they have tended to sow the seeds of confusion in the minds of a great many women and not a few men.
I was brought up to believe that if you want something strongly enough you will eventually get it. I was also taught to temper my desires with reason. Admittedly, I had to work hard to achieve what little I did during my working life and I certainly had to prove that I was prepared to put considerably more into my job than my male colleagues, who frequently had fewer paper qualifications than I had. This sometimes made me a little cross, but when I reflected I found that it was perfectly reasonable, not just for me but for the majority of women. My job was important to me, but in my heart of hearts my family and domestic responsibilities carried the greater weight. This did not mean that I spent more time at home than I did at work, but in retrospect I am sure that I suffered more from stress, and stress-related illnesses, than the majority of men with whom I worked. I think this is so with a good many women.
If a man's home is not spotlessly clean it does not really matter. If a woman's home shows signs of a little bit of neglect it is a reflection upon the woman. One cannot escape from this basic fact. No matter how much some females may object, it is a woman's natural function to bear children and to raise them to adulthood. There are those who cannot or do not wish to fulfil this function. To them I would say: "I have a great deal of sympathy with you, but please do not, by your constant wittering, make those of us who are content with our lot, feel guilty".
I would contend that women erect for themselves some of the barriers we are discussing. So many of them do not put themselves forward for promotion or are not prepared to put themselves out sufficiently to gain the extra qualifications necessary for promotion. They may want the prestige and the higher salary associated with a more responsible job, but will be unwilling to work the extra hours demanded or be prepared to travel away from home.
Few women are active in the trade union organisation. We cannot and must not expect something for nothing. If one examines those men and women whom we label as successful—and we have many fine examples in your Lordships' House—we
290
will find that they have all demonstrated one thing above all others: singlemindedness. They have set their sights upon a target and have worked steadily towards its achievement. What so many fail to appreciate is that by pursuing this course they have had to forgo most of the simple pleasures of life. We must remember that there are vast numbers of men as well as of women doing mundane clerical, physical or mechanical tasks which provide little in the way of job satisfaction. Their choice is not limited by their gender but by their lack of ability or qualification for other jobs.
I find it very hard to understand why so many women are dissatisfied with a domestic life. Properly organised, women could make it far more rewarding than a career in big business. The boredom of routine and lack of mental stimulus are two of the major complaints; but here more than in any other situation women have enormous freedom. They do not have to do the washing on Monday, clean the windows on a Tuesday and so on through the week. Most household duties can be set aside for a short while or even done in advance with a little planning. There are numerous organisations for women spanning a wide range of interests. However, women must be prepared to go out and find them. Even if money is short and transport difficult there are means by which women can get together, share experiences and broaden their minds. Children can be a tie but for only a relatively short period in the course of a lifetime. They can also be tremendously rewarding and a source of new contacts and ideas as they grow up. A properly trained husband can also be a tremendous asset. A couple which is mutually supportive can overcome most of the barriers that life presents.
My Lords, there have been Acts of Parliament to prevent discrimination against women in their working lives. These have gone some way to dismantling the barriers. However, no Act of Parliament or Government action can achieve what women themselves achieve by far more subtle means. Prejudices built up over the centuries cannot be eradicated overnight but they can be worn away. Men need to see tangible proof that women can contribute to the wellbeing of their business, social and intellectual lives without challenging their masculinity. We have great reserves of patience, adaptability and persistence. Let us exploit them in a gentle, feminine manner and we will remove the barriers far more rapidly than if we try to emulate men.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has already said, this is a particularly appropriate debate in which to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on her election as Leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House. I wish to convey to her our warm and fraternal congratulations. The Motion speaks of women's choices at work and at home; but these are narrowed even further if a woman is suffering from ill health, and they are eliminated altogether if she is quite simply dead. Women are the major consumers of health care resources. This is partly because they live longer and the elderly account for 65 per cent. of all health care.

291
But it is also because they bear children, have special obstetric and gynaecological needs. Women also predominate in the use of psychiatric services. They take more psychotropic drugs than men and they occupy more psychiatric beds. This may not be entirely unrelated to the kinds of stress and disadvantage they suffer in life, which is what this debate is about. One particularly worrying aspect of women's health is our had record in perinatal mortality. The poorest mothers and the single parents are those least likely to seek ante-natal care: often getting to an antenatal clinic can involve a long and expensive journey on several buses.
We propose an extension of what are known as the "Well-women clinics" to all areas. These are low-cost clinics offering ante-natal care, contraceptive advice, infertility treatment, counselling, cervical smear testing and breast-cancer screening facilities. They were initially regarded, I think I am right in saying, with some suspicion by the medical establishment: but I think it is also right to say they are becoming increasingly accepted. Sometimes one is set up by health authorities, sometimes by hospitals and sometimes by an innovative health centre. But wherever the initiative comes from, the service is of outstandingly good value. The cervical cancer smear is particularly effective. In the Tayside and Grampian district, one energetic doctor is reported to have halved the cervical cancer death rate. Yet this service and the other services associated with "Well-women clinics" is patchily distributed over the country and the overall coverage is alarmingly small. Out of 21 million women of the age to benefit from them only 3 million get cervical smears in any one year, which means, on average, one test per woman every 7 years. Doctors, I believe, want one every three years, and there is a case for one every 18 months.
On these grounds alone—and there are many others—I want to ask the Government, through the noble Baroness tonight, whether they will make a positive commitment to stimulate the development of "Well-women clinics" across the country. They may find the name tiresome or trendy or feminist, but this is an important development in preventive and community medicine. In some cases—and Bristol and Watford are two—a little help has been given by the Health Education Unit, and in others, like the Manchester Town District Health Authority, only the building has been provided and qualified volunteers and professional NHS staff make time for it.
But although these are low cost clinics they cannot exist on nothing, and I want to ask the noble Baroness what further help, if any, the Government have in mind for this valuable development in the field of community health.
I turn briefly to breast cancer. I understand that there are only four centres for breast cancer screening, all of them. I understand, under one research project. Early findings show that screening is likely to prove as successful as cervical smears in catching early cancers. Rather than await the full report, will the noble Baroness not agree that a rapid expansion of these centres is justified by the early results, and will the Government take steps to see that this is put in hand?
292
There is one other area of deep concern which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and that is the increasing pressure on "carers"—those who care for their relatives at home, most of whom are women. There is a crisis in home care because, for one reason, of the cuts in geriatric beds. The welfare state is simply being thrust hack into the hands of women without adequate back-up. The personal social services have been forced to economise on their non-statutory obligations, with the result that some services vital to home caring have been reduced or stopped altogether: Meals on Wheels, day care centres and incontinence services are all going to the wall. Ambulance centres are becoming more and more erratic. The carer many not know whether Grannie is going to be collected at 8 a.m. or at noon, making sensible planning for the day or part-time work impossible. GP hospitals and wards where old people can he looked after for a fortnight or so, while the daughter or the niece gets a break, are being savagely cut; 31 are currently under threat. All these centres are vital if those who voluntarily or otherwise care for the elderly or infirm are to lead tolerable lives of their own.
There is also the question of financial support. The benefits system is full of anomalies. Married men or single women get certain vital benefits, but not married women. This is the case with invalid care allowance. It is bristling with caveats and exclusions, while attendance allowance goes to the person being cared for who frequently refuses to pass it on to the caring daughter or relative. Yet many of these women are saving the state at least £80 a week for a rest home, of £120 or more for a bed in a geriatric hospital. This is not good enough. We believe that the needs of the carers should he catered for by a carer's benefit—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Banks, used the term "allowances"; we mean the same thing—which would replace invalid care allowance and be available to married women as well.
The Government have got to face up to the fact that if they want to shift people out of bleak and forbidding Victorian institutions, they cannot do it merely by thrusting people back into inadequately supported families. "Care in the community" originally meant the creation of small homes in the neighbourhood, close to family and friends; but it is rapidly becoming a code word for dumping the elderly and the derelicts of society on to women, mainly married and often without adequate financial support. This is one of the great social problems of our time; but are the Government even seized of it? Have they any plans for its solution?—because it will not go away.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating two women: first, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for having introduced the debate today; and, secondly, the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, for having been elected Leader of her party in this House. I seek today to speak on the conflicting and competing needs of women, men and children within the orbit of the family and society. Up until the First World War, the role of women was to care for the children, run the home and cherish the husband who, in turn, was the breadwinner, the head

293
of the household and the figure of authority. In many instances, his attitude was—and I quote Muriel Spark—"Do you think it pleases a man when he looks into the eyes of a woman and sees the British Museum?". The position has changed. Men and women look at one another, I suspect, in most cases now in marriage as partners.
In 1921, 3.8 per cent. of married women worked. By 1981 the figure had risen to 35.9 per cent. Thirty per cent. had children aged nought to four; 62 per cent. had children from five to nine years and 71 per cent. had children over seven years. A proportion of women are likely to be out of employment for a total of seven years while they are bringing up their children and giving their entire time to that. I submit—here I am in complete agreement with the noble Countess, Lady Mar—that the administration of a satisfying and happy home requires intelligence, a capacity for organisation, the qualities of sensitivity and understanding and also an ability to give unhurried time. Achieving a satisfying marriage, bringing up children who are emotionally secure and physically and educationally mature is a career in itself, with rich dividends in long-term happiness.
But women have conflicting desires and needs; and one of them is to achieve individuality in their own right. I believe that in order to do this during the time they are bringing up their children—and I do believe that when children are very young they should have a constant, continuing and secure relationship, which is so important, with their mother or substitute mother such as a foster mother or, in some cases, a nanny.
I would suggest that during the years that women are tied to the home with their children they should have a link with the outside world and that such a link is going to enhance the children and to contribute to the happiness of the relationship between husband and wife. May I give your Lordships a few examples? There is, for instance, an experimental scheme run by the National Westminster Bank which is called the reentry and reservist scheme. This enables men and women to take a break in their career to care for young children. The bank guarantees employment at the same grade of pay at which the participant left, and will provide re-training on their return. While at home, a participant in this scheme can work for two weeks consecutively or on odd days—or more if they wish. Contact is maintained through information packs and invitations are issued to local social events. Participants are also encouraged to study for membership of the Institute of Bankers while at home. Thus a link is maintained between home and the bank which ensures personal care for the children and interest for the parent (usually the mother) in the knowledge that the career outside the home can later be pursued.
This pattern could well be pursued in other spheres. For instance, I am told that if a woman trains as a doctor and wants to go hack when she is perhaps 35 years of age, after caring for her children in earlier years, there are difficulties in her not having studied or not having taken responsibilities in the medical field for so many years. An experiment has now been tried that during the years when her children are small she should run one clinic a week, a fortnight or a month to keep her in touch with the medical field.
294
This linking of a women while she is confined to the home to an outside job to which she will later return should be pursued in all other realms and at all levels. It could well be pursued in teaching, in the Civil Service, in banking and in all other spheres. I believe that this would not only enhance the women but it would enhance the children and the relationship between husband and wife. Also it would be good for industry and for the world of work. There are other methods, one of which is job sharing. I think this can well be done because there is flexi-time. It is difficult to organise but, once organised, is of inestimable value both to the place of work and to the individual concerned.
My great contention is that in the struggle for equality of opportunity—this is surely taking place, and not only in this country but in the whole of the Western world—whatever happens, the children must not lose out in this battle. I do not believe that they need lose out if the world of work sees to it that women, while at home, have a bridge which they may cross when their children are older, without loss of opportunity in the career structure.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like first to thank all those who have so graciously congratulated me on my election to the leadership of the party in this House. May I urge, because time is short, that those speakers who follow would take as said what they were going to say on that? It does waste time if everybody feels that they have to follow the example that has been set and add to the kind comments that have been made.
Dealing with the subject of today's debate briefly, there are two points that I particularly want to make. I have never been one to argue that women should be given preferential treatment. I believe that it is in fact damaging to women in the long run; it is extremely patronising and it is really not what women who have thought seriously about the question of equal opportunities want to see.
However, that does not mean that there are not particular problems which affect women that should he given special attention. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two of these. On the whole, girls leaving school do not get trained for the jobs which provide progressive careers. When you examine the position of women in employment, they are found at the bottom of the pile, and not only at the bottom of the pile but in jobs from which there is no career progression worth having. That is because initially they get neither the right advice nor the right training; and there is no way in which women, without unjustified favouritism, are going to get advancement unless they get the right training.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 made special provision for this, recognising the need to supplement the training that women are given because so few of them get the right training. Sections 47 and 48 of the Act permit "women only" training—and indeed "men only" training so far as that goes—in relation to jobs in which either sex is substantially under-represented. These are extremely important sections to which insufficient attention has been paid. Where they have been taken up and used they have been very successful

295
indeed. The Engineering Industry Training Board, when it was led by a very far-sighted man, Mr. Frank Medcraft, realising the shortage of technicians in this country and also that there were very few women technicians, organised "women only" training schemes for technicians—two year courses—in Birmingham and subsequently in Croydon. These have been outstandingly successful.
When he went to the schools he was told that there were no applicants; but when he got on to local radio and blasted into the homes of people, past the obstacles which apparently had been erected in the communications system, he was overwhelmed with applications for training. I have asked again and again—and I have never had an answer—as to why that message never got through in the first place. If we knew why that was, we might know quite a bit as to why girls make so little progress. However, that has been a very successful scheme.
There are similar schemes for accountants. Hatfield Polytechnic has introduced a specially designed scheme for training women as accountants after they have been at home for a period bringing up their families. The hours have been adjusted to suit their particular needs. They have even obtained a good deal of the money for this scheme out of the European Social Fund. Therefore the scheme scores all the way round. If Hatfield Polytechnic can do it, why cannot every polytechnic in the country do it? Why cannot employers do it? Why cannot the Civil Service do it? Why has so little use been made of Section 47 and Section 48?
I know that belatedly the Civil Service has woken up to the fact that in the past it has not been a good employer of women. It needed a woman in charge of the department, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to get something moving in relation to women in the Civil Service. Some 15 years ago a progressive report relating to the Civil Service was prepared. It looked as though the Civil Service had woken up to their responsibilities as an employer—a very preferentially placed employer and an employer to whom other employers looked for an example. But very little happened. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, occupied a position in which she could influence matters, things began to change. Women-only courses for management were started. They are highly to be welcomed. I have been active in connection with other women-only courses—for women managers.
Not all women want women-only courses. For some women they are not necessary. Some of us have had the good luck to be brought up in a more male atmosphere than others, or perhaps we take to it more easily. However, for some women—I have visited these women-only managerial training courses and have taken part in them—they undoubtedly provide an opportunity to realise possibilities which previously they did not know existed. I urge all training institutions and all employers to look again at Sections 47 and 48 to see what use they can make of them. I am delighted that belatedly the Civil Service is setting something of an example.
Secondly, may I follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, concerning re-entry
296
into employment. One basic difference between the sexes which no feminist can deny is that women have children and men do not and that that will continue. A great many women, I believe—though I speak as a single woman—like to bring up their own children. This seems to be very understandable, and in the early years probably very wise. The problem has been that career women have believed that if they did so they would never get back into employment. They have been right, on the evidence, to believe this.
It goes further than that. Women have been bedevilled by the belief on the part of employers that they will not remain very long in employment; they will have children and will not return; therefore it is not worth providing them with the kind of experience that they need in order to qualify for senior positions. This is a very out-of-date point of view. The average woman takes only seven years out of her working life to bring up her family. For the highly qualified woman it is a shorter period still. But the myth lingers that women are only short-term employees. In those crucial early years, therefore, when they should be building up experience and given a variety of different kinds of responsibility they do not get it.
We must meet this problem by means of the kind of re-entry programmes about which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has spoken. They are not easy, but they are not overwhelmingly difficult to organise. I had the privilege of being involved in the development of the Westminster Bank scheme. I know that it can be done. It can be done on a small scale, to start off with, and then expanded. There is no reason why employers up and down the country should not be considering what, in terms of their own conditions and requirements, can be done. If a woman knows that she has a secure opportunity to return to work, she can enjoy those years at home in the way that she ought to be able to enjoy them. I cannot believe that the time spent at home with children, if you wish you were not there, is good for either the mother or the children. If, however, she can he confident that it is just a period at home and that she will be able to pick up her career again, this is surely the optimum solution.
Finally, this is not only a question for employers. It is a question also for the professional organisations. The professional organisations should review their requirements and see how they can adjust them, taking it as the norm that women will he away for a short period of time and then will return. They should remove all unnecessary obstacles in the way of the smooth movement of a career through the early days of training and initial experience, through the period at home bringing up a family and then back into the career, probably for 20 or 25 years. If we provide these two opportunities, enormous progress for women will be made.
4.46 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the subject of this debate is a very wide one. When one realises that, today, one-third of marriages founder, the plight of broken families is very important indeed. But what I have to say today is limited to a narrower field; namely, the provision of better working opportunities for married women.

297
I first raised this subject in a debate 16 years ago, but little progress has been made since then, although, partly thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, conditions in the Civil Service have been made much easier for a married woman with a family. Although my Motion received the greatest support from noble Baronesses, I was never able to arouse much interest from industrialists. Roughly 40 per cent. of our workforce are women. And quite apart from those pursuing a career, there are many who take employment after marriage simply to increase the family income; but others are as much concerned with having an interest outside the home.
I am convinced that a good proportion would much prefer to work part-time if such jobs existed and if the conditions of employment made such work attractive. A move to part-time working should have a worthwhile effect on the unemployment situation, and it would also reduce the brain drain of those who receive a university or specialist education and then give up their careers altogether when they have children. Not only this, but for those who choose marriage as their career, many women feel they are better wives and mothers if they have interests outside the home.
Full-time working, when the family are young, is very often impossible, and many would think undesirable in the children's interests. Part-time working can greatly shorten the period which a mother takes away from work. This is of great importance to anyone interested in a career, because often, after a few years, so much has changed—for example, in a technical or medical field—that it is almost impossible to get back into the stream.
Objections are sometimes raised that part-time working does not suit a particular field of work. This was said about teachers and nurses, but when, some years ago, there was a shortage it was found quite possible to use part-time workers. I believe that there are very few fields of work where it is difficult or impossible. Research has been said to be one of these, but if this is really so, those who combine university lecturing with research are doing unsatisfactory research work.
I believe it is now accepted that somebody working, say, four and a half hours a day, if motivated, can achieve as much as a full-time worker can achieve in six hours. In considering the employment of married women it must be realised that as mothers they are to some extent handicapped—even with children of school age. There is, for example, the difficulty of school holidays and if the children are ill. We should therefore do everything we can to mitigate the handicap.
A European draft directive on part-time work—COM/81/775—emphasises the importance of improving the rewards, conditions and status of such work. We need to consider how far benefits to the worker and incentives to the employer in using part-time workers could be improved. For example, for those commuting some distance the cost of transport can represent a high proportion of the money earned. The present position of the National Insurance Scheme and the denial of unemployment benefit are two of the matters which need rethinking.
There are many other things which could be done-such as more firms providing day nurseries
298
where the number of part-time workers make that worthwhile. Refresher courses—particularly for women working in the professions and coming back to work after launching a family—are very necessary and, I should have thought, desirable for others; particularly medical general practitioners.
As matters stand at present, women tend to work in the lower paid jobs, have no career prospects, and are under-represented in public life or in positions of influence and authority. That is a waste of manpower and I believe we should not be wrong to give positive discrimination in favour of women with families who wish to avail themselves of part-time employment.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, this debate has really been about the hopes, aspirations and job opportunities—or, possibly, lack of opportunities—of some 52 per cent. of the population. Fifty-two per cent. of the population are women; that is a fact which political parties seem to forget far too easily and they relegate women's needs to just a brief paragraph, as a sort of afterthought, at the end of their election manifestos. No party as yet has tried to have a policy for women and for really helping them.
Speaking towards the end of a long and interesting debate such as this, so ably initiated by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, it is difficult to raise even more problems and challenges. I therefore want to underline one or two of the matters to which reference has already been made.
Women are being pressured by reductions in the provisions of the welfare state. It has been suggested that some 7 million old, sick and handicapped persons are virtually dependent on their families. They cannot be left even for one day unless someone is there to take over. Yet community services are being cut, with loss of day centres, ambulance transport, meals on wheels, home helps, community nurses and social workers. As my noble friends Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Banks have said, it is the women at home who are now caring for others who are making up the real welfare state.
Only 5 per cent. of parents conform to the concept of Mr. and Mrs. Average with their two dependent children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, women take something like seven years, on average, of their working lives out of the labour market. With a decreasing birth rate, that time is likely to be even shorter in future. Yet their careers suffer. There is still not enough emphasis given in our schools to encouraging girls to think about their future beyond marriage and children. They are still likely to have to work full-time or part-time for some 30 or more years. The present divorce rate means that one in three of them will find themselves unsupported by a husband. Schools and colleges should do more to prepare a girl to face up to the possibility that she may have to be the main breadwinner. We need more courses for women who want to go to work when their families are grown up. The labour market also has to be prepared to be flexible and to respond to that need.
Over the past 15 years, governments have begun to recognise the problems which women face—but this Government, with a so-called family policy, have sought to drive women back into community care as they cut old people's homes, geriatric beds, children's

299
day care services and so on. One cannot help feeling slightly cynical and wondering whether the Government, through their pressures and harping on the sanctity of family life, are not seeking to ease the unemployment figures by taking women out of the labour market.
Caring for others should not mean giving up everything else or losing out on the job market. We need to examine our career opportunities and job structures. We should aim not only to share more fairly among rich and poor but also to share resources and responsibilities between men and women. All of us want to see our children cared for and well brought up. We all want to cherish the elderly. But society must also show its gratitude to those who carry out those essential tasks and thus contribute so much to the well-being of the whole community. This means ensuring that women get the support they need, that services are generously provided, and that they are used very flexibly. It really means showing that we value the work these women do. That is not done by cutting services, by empty phrases, and by sometimes even emptier purses—as this Government have done—but by providing women with hard cash and services.
More of our old and disabled are cared for at home by their families than at the turn of the century. A higher proportion of old people went into the workhouse then than go into old people's homes, sheltered accommodation or geriatric homes today. Yet 10.000 geriatric beds have been cut in the past five years although the number of the elderly grows by 2 per cent. a year. This burden usually falls on the daughter. However much daughters may love their parents and cherish them, and however much they want to look after them, they can find that burden crushing without money, support and services. Society should be able to care for its old and sick without making intolerable demands on women. Those who save the state many thousands of pounds a year in institutional care must be fairly compensated, properly helped, and supported.
Women as carers of the family receive less and less support. They have little chance of a career now—and no chance at all in later life, when their domestic responsibilities may have lessened or gone altogether. The time has come to stop hoarding Victorian values of old to the detriment of the women who carry the burden. The time has come for the state to recognise that these carers in our society not only deserve our appreciation and kind words but some real, tangible compensation for the role they take on at home.
What we need from this Government and from successive governments is a true understanding of the problems faced by women in a modern world and a very firm commitment to redressing the imbalances between men and women in all walks of life. Women enjoy holding the baby if it is their baby; but they do not like to be left holding the baby for an inconsiderate and seemingly uncaring Government who do naught but cut, cut, cut the services which ought to help them.
5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for
300
having presented us with a subject this afternoon which has clearly drawn so much informed comment from all sides of the House. However, I think the noble Baroness in presenting her statistics should have included the statistics of the number of Baronesses holding a position in this debate; with my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe on the Woolsack at that time, the noble Baroness opposite answering for the Government and—dare I mention it—I am speaking for this side. I would find it quite impossible not to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on her new position, in spite of her injunction.
This has been a debate during which we have heard of the many obstacles facing women in their pursuit of a career or in their attempt to combine outside paid work with traditional family responsibilities. We have also heard of the many advances which women have made, and which have been made for them, over the years. From all that has been said I think it is evident that many of the barriers to women's choices at home and at work probably come under the following headings. First, through education and training opportunities for women being such as to give them an inadequate preparation for so many parts of today's labour market. Secondly, through a discriminatory tax and social system. Thirdly, through the failure of Government to adapt the structure of society to relate to the place women are both able and willing to fill within the community. Fourthly, through outdated attitudes and assumptions as to what that place should be.
Previous speakers have covered many of the technicalities regarding the injustices and obstacles for women in the fields of employment, earnings disparity, pension schemes, taxation, part-time work, mortgages and cuts in the welfare state; including the lack of day-care facilities for children, and so on. There is nothing that I can add to what they have said. Indeed, I noted that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey went so far as to say that our structure is so unfair to women that the only way for them to achieve their rightful place in society is through positive discrimination. Although I am inclined to agree with him, I wonder whether he would carry many women with him in that view. Indeed, I have noticed that he has not, I fear, carried any noble Baroness who has spoken.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for putting the case for the single parent mother. I agree with him that our system has not yet made fair and appropriate arrangements. This is very much to the cost of those innumerable children in single parent families. I quite understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the women of Bristol have no female Member of Parliament to represent them. If I may say so, it may be even worse luck for the men of Bristol who are so deprived through not having a woman Member of Parliament.
For my part I should like to make a general comment and put forward one or two suggestions. To begin with, when considering the choices facing women, it is essential at the same time to look at the choices confronting men and women together. I feel in a way that the Motion of the noble Baroness should concern a readjustment of laws, institutions and attitudes embracing both men and women. After all,

301
each should have a real choice about how they spend their time at home and at work; for has it not become ludicrous to think that in byegone years some men have been expected and impelled to spend all their time out of the home, returning in the evening too tired to enjoy their home, their children or their family? On the other hand, women have been constrained to working in the house, deprived of the wider experiences that have been described by many speakers today and which so many women now realise they wish to achieve.
I know that it is not the job of governments to force people to change their attitudes; but I think that it is the responsibility of governments to make adjustments to bring their laws into line with social trends which, in turn, will make it easier for people to arrive at new attitudes. It should be possible to make changes which would reverse the present situation whereby it is the family who make the adjustment to the functioning of the work and instead gear the pattern of work to serve the family. Likewise, using the family as a focus, it should be possible to develop a greater flexibility in the terms and conditions of employment to this end. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who made points in that regard.
Again, with the family unit in mind it has to be admitted that governments of other Western European countries have found it possible to introduce certain measures which have brought about a greater equality between fathers and mothers in their role as parents, while benefiting the children and the family generally. It has also removed discrimination against the mother in the employment field. I intended to give the example of parental leave as in Sweden but the noble Lord, Lord Banks, got in before me. However, there are instances of other Western European countries which have schemes. Norway has a similar scheme to that of Sweden but for a shorter time of parental leave. I understand that in France it is possible for either parent to take periods adding up to two years of unpaid leave to care for children and it is open to both mothers and fathers. Although the level of maternity benefit is higher in the United Kingdom, it is paid over a shorter period and if averaged out over the longer period covered by other European countries it is the lowest of the EC countries except for Ireland. I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether there is any serious research and serious thinking being carried out by the Government regarding the possibility of introducing schemes based on parental leave; in which case the mother would not be discriminated against by employers.
It is important to move away from the assumption that while the man's position and role in society is inflexible the woman's role can be adjusted according to what society requires from her. In Victorian times, for example, she was needed exclusively in the home. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has already said, in wartime women were needed in the munitions factories, when it became miraculously possible to lay on sufficient child-care arrangements which were even described as being to the advantage of those children. That was a completely new concept and was arrived at simply through necessity. Now, with the recession, women are being urged again to return to the home.
302
Child care facilities are being curtailed, and in some cases women are even made to feel that it is to the disadvantage of their children if they absent themselves to go out to work. Therefore, it is quite clear that attitudes and actions change merely to fit in with the changing role that society needs its women to fill. I believe that has been proved time and again over the centuries. I very much hope that in the years to come it will not be the 1980s which will stand out as the time when the options open to Britain's women were seriously undermined. Indeed, it would be a strange irony that this should have taken place at a time of the first Government to be led by a woman.
My final point is that although it has been evident from this debate that there are still many obstacles in the way of women, we should recognise how extremely fortunate we are in this country to have legislation which not only outlaws discrimination on the ground of sex but also establishes an Equal Opportunities Commission which has the dual responsibility, as has been mentioned many times in this debate, of working towards the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunities between men and women generally.
It is an important advantage that we have over other Western European countries. I would even go so far as to suggest that many of the obstacles which have been mentioned today will probably have already been identified by the Equal Opportunities Commission. But one statutory commission alone cannot remove all the harriers. It needs backing and continual support. I sometimes think that we in this country, the two Houses of Parliament and the public alike, tend to think that having passed this legislation no more need be done. In this case that is not so. We all have a responsibility not only to support the commission but continually to oppose outdated attitudes and assumptions about the place of women in our society. There can be little doubt that these attitudes pervade many of our institutions and dominate many of our systems. We need to identify them and bring them out into the open. This is really what this debate is all about.
Perhaps I may just take up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, made when mentioning the suffragettes. It is worthy of note that at the start suffragettes were chaining themselves to the railings to impose their will; and today women of courage and determination—whether one considers their views to be right or wrong—are taking an equally unequivocal stand at Greenham Common to halt a development that they find a threat to survival. There has been no change in this. There will always be women with the courage and conviction necessary to reject all those barriers, which will, nevertheless, always be in their way.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who has raised an important subject which has attracted a distinguished group of speakers on both sides of the House—I am tempted to talk of "noble persons"—and has resulted in a wide-ranging debate. Flattery gets one nowhere with the noble Baroness, but I got to know and admire her during the six years that

303
she and I served together as original members of the Air Transport Users Committee. If I thought that I should have such a lucid mind as I entered my eighty-first year, I would be more than pleased. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her recent eightieth birthday and belatedly wish her many happy returns. I cannot resist also saying, "Hooray", to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Let me now begin by stressing this Government's commitment to equal rights and equality of opportunity for women. Since 1975 women in this country have had a firm basis for pursuing their rights, in the form of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts. It has been a primary concern of this Government to uphold, and where necessary to build on, this legislation, which is of particular interest to working women. We are concerned with developments in the fields of education, training and employment which seek to widen the options open to women not only in theory but also in practice. But we must also keep in mind the theme of the Motion, "choice", since in a free society our aim must be to ensure not that women are forced into particular roles but that they have the choice of whether to go out to work or to make an equally important contribution, vital to the health of our society, by staying at home and bringing up children. It is simply not true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, implied, that the Government are driving women out of the labour market. There are now as many women active within the labour market, full-time and part-time, as ever there were.
The first crucial steps towards widening choices available to women must be taken in the field of education. This is why the Government have been active in promoting curricular changes so that all young people at school follow a broad and balanced programme up to the age of 16—a curriculum which can ensure for girls and boys alike that no important area of educational experience is neglected and the subsequent choices are not restricted. It is particularly important in a period of change, with the rapid introduction of new technologies—which has been mentioned—that girls have the educational grounding to take up opportunities in all sectors of employment. The choices girls make in education, and subsequently in training and jobs, must reflect the knowledge that most women will be working for much of their lives and an increasing number may be the sole or principal breadwinner for a family for at least part of that time—a point most ably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
We are now beginning to see results from the changes of emphasis within education. The proportion of women on science and engineering courses has been increasing—slowly may be, but every step forward is worth noting. In 1977–78, 26 per cent. of women entrants to higher education were studying science, and by the last academic year this had risen to 30 per cent. The Government remain committed to getting the message across to girls that there are likely to be better opportunities for employment in science and engineering, and for this reason we very much welcome the "Women into Science and Engineering", or 'WISE', initiative by the Equal Opportunities
304
Commission and the Engineering Council. I am pleased to say that Government departments have been able to offer the initiative both financial and promotional support.
I entirely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Ewart-Biggs, in their remarks concerning quotas, and I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who advocates positive discrimination in filling jobs. This is not the solution. Not only is it unjust; it is inefficient both from the point of view of the enterprise and as a means of achieving equality, since few women will feel able, or be sufficiently qualified, to come forward for the jobs. We must change the attitude of girls early if they are to make the right choices at school and later true equality is to be achieved. This is bound to be a slow process. But the Equal Opportunities Commission with, for example, its WISE initiative, is engaged day by day on precisely this task.
The Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is vitally important that women take full advantage of their equal access to the full range of training opportunities offered by the Manpower Services Commission. The commission does much to ensure that women have full information about all the options, and has taken particular steps to ensure that young women entering the youth training scheme who wish to go into non-traditional areas are readily able to do so.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, explained, in the training field there is one exception to the general rule of equal access which is designed specifically to help women make up for past inequalities. Section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act allows training bodies under certain circumstances to run courses exclusively for women in occupations where they are underrepresented or to meet the special needs of women returning to the labour market after a period of absence for domestic reasons. The MSC's "Wider Opportunities for Women" courses are a good example and now cover a range of skills, including those in new technology. Ministers have responded readily to applications from other training bodies to use the Section 47 provision. An encouraging number have brought forward proposals for training women for self-employment and to run small businesses, which can offer important new employment opportunities for women. The Civil Service also has a scheme to train its women managers.
I have indicated the importance of training in helping to bring about equality of opportunity for women seeking to enter the labour force. I now turn to the position of women once they are in work. At present about 10 million women are economically active—about 40 per cent. of the total labour force. Some 40 per cent. of these women are in part-time work, which is particularly prevalent among married women, some 61 per cent. of whom work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked whether we needed another war for the contribution of women to the economy to be valued. I think that these figures show that we do not. In recent years women have been less hard hit by unemployment than men. Their employment has actually fallen less than that of men since 1979. The number of women in part-time work

305
has actually risen. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, in the United Kingdom alone among our Community partners the unemployed rate for women is substantially below that for men.
The high participation rate for women in the United Kingdom is largely attributable to the numbers in part-time employment, and I should like to dwell for a moment on the more positive aspects of part-time work for women. Far from being the barrier to women's advancement that it is frequently alleged to be, part-time work is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, often the means favoured by women who wish to keep a foothold in the labour market while also, for example, devoting some time to their families. This is reflected in the fact that some two-thirds of part-time women workers have dependent children.
Not only do many women actively want to work part-time but it also has positive attractions to employers, who appreciate the flexibility it offers in meeting peaks in business and demands for labour outside normal working hours. Were it not for the conjunction of demand for part-time work on the part of both employers and women, particularly where there is already another breadwinner in the family, many women would be unable to work at all. Reference has been made to the National Westminster scheme. BUPA also, for instance, use a nurse bank where part-time nurses can be brought in to fill a gap.
The state of affairs to which I was just referring may of course reflect the unequal distribution of domestic responsibilities in the home, but I cannot believe that many noble Lords would suggest that this sphere is one in which decisions are properly made other than by the family concerned. The most crucial of domestic responsibilities is of course the care of the children, which was very much the theme of my noble friend Lady Faithfull's speech. The Government recognise the needs of working mothers and attach great importance to the continued development and improvement of day care services for children. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that we do not, however, accept that it is primarily the role of the statutory services to make this provision.
However, local authorities do provide certain day care facilities for children with special health or social problems and they are also encouraged, so far as resources allow, to provide advice and support for all those in the community who provide child care services. Voluntary and community resources make very important contributions in this field, and the Government have been eager to promote activity in this area. We provide over half a million pounds per year in grant aid to the major voluntary organisations working with children under five and their families. In October last year we launched a central initiative, through which £2 million per year for three years is available to fund specific projects managed by the voluntary sector. This initiative is designed to help disadvantaged families in particular: one-parent families and low income families where both parents need to work; families with isolated parents needing help in coping with small children at home; and families from ethnic minority groups who may fall into the first two categories but who may have additional needs.
306
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about the Civil Service equal opportunities policy. Looking to the future, one of the most promising developments for women at work is the increased interest in the practical application of equal opportunities policies by individual employers who go beyond simply ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. As a rule, it makes good business sense for employers to develop their workforces' potential, and increasing numbers of employers can be expected to adopt such policies with this in mind.
I am pleased to say that the Government, as an employer, are giving a lead here with a programme of action within the Civil Service, which was announced in February by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. It arose out of the joint review group involving Civil Service management and trade unions; and, among other things, the programme sets out practical steps which can be taken to help women, such as expanding part-time working opportunities where that is feasible and ensuring that the provisions for maternity leave, part-time work and special leave are brought to the attention of staff as necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, drew attention to the small proportion of women who reach high levels in public life and the need for the Government to set an example. Research has recently been commissioned into the promotion procedures and systems within the Civil Service, to see if reasons can be isolated as to why women generally seem to fare less well than men in this important respect. I was most interested in the excellent remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the original thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair—I am so glad that his mother and I have so much in common.
Let me now attempt to pick up one or two points raised in debate, and I will of course write to any noble Lord or noble Baroness with which whose questions I may not have time to deal. The noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Burton, and other noble Lords and noble Baronesses raised the question of equal pay. The Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations, which came into force on 1st January, for the first time allow a woman to claim equal pay with a man, even though he is doing quite different work from hers and they are not covered by the same job evaluation scheme. This will help women in jobs where there are no men alongside them doing similar work. The Government noted carefully the views expressed in this House on 5th December. However, we remain firmly convinced that the regulations bring our equal pay legislation fully into compliance with European law. We now want to see how the new provisions work out in practice.
I heard with interest the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, about a new Human Rights Commission. The existing Equal Opportunities Commission carries out a great deal of sound and practical work in investigation, research and advocacy in support of wider opportunities in employment, work for which the Commission is widely respected. I wonder whether it would be wise to risk diluting this expertise by setting up a body with a wider remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me to give various commitments. I am afraid I cannot give those

307
commitments today, but I will naturally see that my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Services, hears what he has said and I am sure he will take note of the noble Lord's remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me about parental leave and leave for family reasons. The Government's policy is to support and strengthen the role of the family as a basic unit of our society, but the imposition of general statutory obligations such as those proposed in the draft directive would increase the administrative burden on employers and tend to impair the competitiveness which is essential for the maintenance of economic recovery. In doing so, it would tend to damage rather than improve the employment prospects of those whom it seeks to assist.
I began by saying I would explore the field of choice. I have indicated what has been done by the Government in the fields of education and training and as an employer itself. This country, after all, has a proud record where women are concerned. We were pioneers with the Equal Pay Act in 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975 and, in the following year, the birth of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I feel I must also include our unique Open University, which, curiously enough, nobody has mentioned but which has so successfully given women a chance, many of whom never before thought it possible, to take a degree which in its turn has enabled them to aim for better jobs.
Let me now finish by mentioning the word "barriers". This is one area where progress is still much needed but it is not one which can be tackled by Government alone—it is of course the deeply entrenched attitudes to women's role at work and at home which still hinders progress towards greater equality in practice. Such changes of course take time. When I represented the United Kingdom as United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Status of Women's Commission—a post several others of your Lordships have held—I soon learned that this problem is worldwide and that we in the West talk in a very different way from those in the Third World. The impetus must come from men and women themselves.
I would finish, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton began, by saying that it is really not just the employer but the husband, the father, the teacher, and, indeed, changes in the attitudes of our young people that are needed. In the field of equal opportunities, legislation has helped to lead public opinion. I very much hope that our debate today will draw attention to individual responsibilities. We all have an interest in this, because the sooner women are brought to develop the full potential of their talents and abilities, the more will society and the nation be enriched.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, we have had a most excellent debate, which has ranged very far and very wide. At the beginning I said I hoped that our individual contributions would make up a whole. I think that we have done our job. I feel that in this particular House of Parliament we have some very good debates, and I would venture to suggest that today's has been one of them. I would very much hope, particularly with our interest, that all the
308
political parties will perhaps have a look at what we have said today. I think that we all need improvement.
I cannot let that point go without doing what other speakers have done: that is, to offer congratulations to the noble Baroness. Lady Seear. It is not only the Liberal Members who will be pleased to have her as their leader. We (I had better not say "as part of the Liberal Party") the Alliance Members are delighted to welcome her, and I am quite sure that every section of this House will be glad that she has been appointed to such a position.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her winding up speech. It was her first major speech, and when I saw her deluged with paper I was sorry for her and was glad that it was her job and not mine. I think that we should all like to thank her for what she has said. We are all after the same thing. I believe it is the Government of the day who have been so much at fault in the past, not a particular Government. So I wish to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Nation's Assets and Current Spending
5.32 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond rose to call attention to the Government's policy of selling off the nation's assets and using the proceeds for current spending: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not be arguing as to whether or not a particular sale of assets was merited; nor shall I be arguing as to whether or not the general policy of the Government of selling off assets is right. No doubt others may wish to do so. My sole concern is to demonstrate that the Government have embarked upon a policy of selling capital assets and using the proceeds for current spending. It is as simple as that. It is a practice which we all condemn in our private lives or in our business lives, and one which I should have thought was miles removed from the normal Conservative policy. Nevertheless, it is happening, and I am only sorry that I cannot follow my noble friend Lady Burton, who in such an excellent speech spoke in so non-partisan a way, since in what I am about to say I may have to draw attention to the Government's failings. Indeed, I think it is so culpable for a Government deliberately to run down the nation's assets and to use the money towards covering current expenditure that I must be quite sure of my facts and I must be satisfied that the Government have a reason for doing it.
Let me deal first with the reason. I do not think that we need look further than statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who has made absolutely clear the need to contain public expenditure and has drawn attention to the shortage of cash. Indeed, he has linked the shortage of cash with the proposed sale of assets, and so has made it quite clear that the sale was one of the methods by which he would seek to deal with the shortage.
As we all know, as unemployment has soared so has the cost of unemployment. The latest public

309
expenditure White Paper makes the position very clear indeed. It shows (and I am now talking in terms of constant prices) that by this year, as compared with the year when the Government first took office, the public expenditure total has increased by some £7½ billion—I repeat, £7½ billion. Of that £7½ billion, some £64¾ billion—practically the whole amount—has been due to the increase in social security spending. Was that what the Government wanted? Was that what the Government planned? Of course not.
When the Government first came to office early in 1980 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made it absolutely clear that the Government were planning on a fall in public expenditure, at constant prices—a fall this year of 5 per cent., which would have amounted to £5½ billion. So with a planned reduction of £5½ billion and an increase of £7½ billion, there has been a swing of £13 billion between what the Government intended to spend this year and what they are compelled to spend this year. That £13 billion is an exact measure of the failure of the Government's economic policy.
So it has transpired that the Government have tried, through the sale of shares, to meet the shortage of cash which has resulted from the way in which the economy has gone under their care. There is no need to argue as to whether it is the Government's desire to do that. In the White Paper that I am talking about it is clearly set out that the Government intend to sell shares at the rate of £2,000 million a year for the next three years—a £6,000 million special sale of assets—and that they intend to apply the proceeds towards annual expenditure. Those of your Lordships good enough to look at the figures will see that in an attempt to go some way towards covering expenditure the incoming moneys are set off against it. I say "to go some way" because, as we all know, the deficit is not covered. At the end of each year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to borrow money, and that goes only some way towards covering the Government's expenditure. So, to summarise what I have been saying up until this moment, it is clear that the Government have embarked upon a new policy of massive sales of national assets and of using the proceeds for day-to-day expenditure.
Now the Government will say that that is not the whole story. As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has already indicated, it is not of course Conservative philosophy—nor would he applaud the practice—to use permanent capital assets for the purpose of covering day-to-day spending. To do so would be highly irresponsible, and therefore the Government say that what I have been indicating is not the whole story. because if we look at public expenditure for the year we shall find that that in itself includes some—I repeat, some—payments of a capital nature. Indeed it does. But that does not go anything like far enough; and I must ask your Lordships to be good enough to bear with me while I draw attention to those important matters which are totally excluded from public expenditure because, of course, it is not appropriate to show them in that way.
First of all, the calculation to which I have just referred takes no account whatever of the massive depreciation of our physical assets which takes place every year. Every businessman, every company
310
director, every accountant, every lawyer—we are all of us familiar with what goes on. Indeed, any member of the public has only to look around to see the extent of the depreciation—the falling off in standards of our infrastructure and of our various assets—that is taking place. That is estimated at a figure of some £10 billion a year at the moment. That is the first item. Secondly, no account is taken of the running down of a very important asset, our North Sea oil, to which I imagine other noble Lords will be referring. This is at the moment netting some £9 billion a year. I am talking in billions. These are huge figures.
Thirdly, no account is taken of the continuing increase in the financial liabilities of the country. The Chancellor and the Government borrow money. The Government pay off money. At the end of the year, you have to work out the sums and see what is the net result. The net result in 1982–83, the last year for which figures are available, shows that there was an increase in net financial liabilities of £9 billion, an enormous sum. But the biggest of all was one to which the Government have not turned their mind at all, so far as I can see. That is the increase in the value of unfunded public sector pension liabilities—a problem that is arising the whole time. The Government have not yet attempted to face it. It is a figure of the order of between £15 to £20 billion a year.
Finally, however you describe capital expenditure—it can be defined in many ways—you find that there has been a massive falling off over the last I 0 years. If you take the normal definition, which is gross domestic fixed capital formation, and if your Lordships are good enough to refer to the Written Answer that I received from the Government on 6th December last year at column 1079, it will be seen that over the last 10 years, capital expenditure, as so defined, has fallen by more than 60 per cent. Of that figure, two-thirds occurred in the first three years of the present Government's tenure of office. So it is absolutely clear that there has been a massive falling off in the value of the nation's assets and that the Government have not attempted to provide new assets for old.
As all of your Lordships are interested in accuracy and as I, being an accountant, have a special interest in it, one naturally wants to see, so far as one can, what this fall has amounted to. The only means that I know for arriving at an accurate figure is the preparation of a full balance sheet of the nation's assets and liabilities showing what are the physical assets, the financial assets and the financial liabilities. Then one can see, from one year to another, whether the nation's fortune, as I might call it, has been falling or has been maintained. Fortunately, this exercise has been done for last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Its finding is of great interest to me and also, I hope, to your Lordships.
The institute finds that total public sector net assets fell from a figure of £235 billion, a very substantial figure of net assets that the country possessed at the beginning of that year, to £209 billion; that is to say, a fall of £26 billion or, to make it more comprehensible, a fall of 11 per cent. in one year. That figure apparently excludes our falling oil reserves and our rising pension liabilities because the figures I have quoted were prepared on a very narrow definition. I

311
know that it is unwise to rely on one year's figures. They may be affected by temporary circumstances. One wants to he as fair as possible. If the Government have some better figures and have worked out their own balance sheet and would be prepared to publish it, we should be delighted to see it. It was not done in my time at the Treasury because it was obvious that the depreciation that was taking place was covered by cash expenditure and there was no need to go further than that in terms of detail. We were replacing assets all the time.
I agree that it is unwise to rely on one year's figures but what I can certainly assert is that if the nation's assets are to continue to be frittered away at the same rate, it follows that in eight years' time the net value of our assets would be nil. It may be said to me that I am criticising the Government, as indeed I am, for selling assets and not replacing them, and that in particular I am referring to the special sales of £2 billion a year which the Government have specially defined and to which they refer in their White Paper. I may be asked: am I not suggesting that there should be even further pressure on public expenditure? And how are the Government to cover that public expenditure, if they provide for this further £2 billion a year, unless they are to cut social services even further or knock £2 billion a year off the cost of the dole? I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting something quite different. I am saying that if the Government's economic and financial policies are such that they cannot afford to replace the nation's assets as they are running them down, it is high time that the policies were changed.
The facts, I think I can say, are outlined in my Motion. In their mad scramble for cash to pay for the huge unemployment that they have caused, and against the background of their massive failure to maintain the value of the nation's assets, the Government have embarked upon an accelerated course of realising capital and using the money for everyday spending. This Rake's Progress, if continued, will have its inevitable consequence. By the end of the present Parliament half our birthright will have been dissipated and the successor Government will inherit a most almighty mess. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: No!
5.48 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as I certainly do, for raising this important topic. It is sometimes thought of as being a highly technical topic, only of interest to a small number of people. In fact, it is a subject that should be of greater interest to this House and to the other place than next week's Budget. However, it usually is not. Nevertheless, I am sure that the House will be grateful
312
to the noble Lord for having raised the subject. The noble Lord, like myself, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been frequently attacked during periods of office for cutting public expenditure and for cutting capital expenditure in so doing. If I may say so, in my case, I was most savagely attacked by the present Chancellor and most of his Front Bench colleagues for doing that. However, I am not a vengeful man. I have no objection to the present Chancellor having done that and I shall not seek to reciprocate in kind.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be so kind, it might console him to know that when he was cutting public expenditure he was praised from the Opposition Front Bench by myself.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. It is a pity that some of his friends in another place did not take the same attitude. However, as I say, I am not a vengeful man. The central question that we are debating is whether it is correct to say, as Lord Diamond states in his Motion and has repeated in his speech, that the proceeds of asset sales are being used for current spending. I do not think it will be disputed by the noble Earl the Minister that the Government are technically treating the sale of public assets as what is called "negative expenditure". Indeed, on the question of asset sales I should like to quote from page 15 of volume 1 of the public expenditure White Paper recently issued:
"Public sector capital expenditure is usually measured net of asset sales, and in particular council house sales. Thus, the Government's policy of selling council houses and the privatisation programme decrease public sector capital spending in the conventional presentation."
In other words, they are doing it for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord was indicating to the House. That may be the technical reason, but in reality (as the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of another place recently pointed out in their report) the fact is—and it is an undoubted fact—that it is a receipt. It is not negative expenditure.
Perhaps I should quote to your Lordships what a highly respected all-party committee said on this particular matter. I quote from paragraph 31 of their report:
"The proceeds of asset sales are a receipt to Government and conceptually we would expect that to be shown either as revenue or as a means of financing the borrowing requirement."
Of course, that is not the way the Government deal with it because they deal with it as negative expenditure, which I will refer to again in a moment.
As this all-party committee said, it is a receipt, and, above all, it is an unhypothecated receipt. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in a recent question to the Minister had an answer which seemed to indicate that the Government are treating the receipts or sales from public assets as hypothecated income to be used against the purchase of capital assets. It is nothing of the kind. It is no more possible to distinguish receipts from the sale of public assets than it is, so far as public accounts are concerned, to distinguish them from the proceeds of value-added tax, income tax, loans and the rest. So the simplistic Government argument, that perhaps we should look at the fact that capital expenditure is higher in a given year than the proceeds of asset sales, means, putting it very simply, that asset sales are financing capital expenditure.

313
Of course, it would be just as foolish an argument as saying that because the proceeds are higher than expenditure on, for example, arts and libraries, or the expenditure on law and order, it is financing those particular items of expenditure. Your Lordships will know that is not the case, for the plain fact is that the totality of income (including loans) finances the totality of expenditure. That is the way Government accounts are treated, and they are rightly treated in that way.
The Government's case would be much stronger, of course, if it could be shown that asset sales were having the effect of increasing the amount of public expenditure going into capital investment. But as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out quite fairly and irrefutably, that is far from being the case. Indeed, at best capital expenditure at present levels is static. Expenditure has been broadly the same since 1978–79. That cannot be disputed. Indeed, I shall quote directly from volume 1 of the Government's own public expenditure White Paper, where we are told at page 9:
"In cost terms, the level of this expenditure"—
that is, capital expenditure—
"has been broadly the same since 1978–79, £21·7 billion compared with £21·8 billion".
I will not go into the very sensible point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made about the whole nature of capital assets, and the points made in an excellent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies which he quoted. The fact is that capital expenditure has been broadly static and, indeed, much worse, it is planned to stay broadly static despite the fact that the Government are now telling us that the total growth in the economy will be some 2 to 3 per cent., if not more, in the years ahead. In other words, as a percentage of total GNP, capital expenditure is indeed going to fall.
That is the real charge against this Government, and it is an indisputable and deplorable fact because what has happened—what must he happening in current circumstances under Government policy—is that this Government, despite everything they have said in the past, despite all the criticisms they have made of past Governments (including past Conservative Governments) is allowing the nation—indeed compelling the nation—to eat the seed corn with a vengeance. The sale of public assets, including the most important one of all to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred, the huge and declining asset of North Sea oil, is being used to allow us as a nation on current public expenditure and personal consumption to eat the seed corn, so that when the oil runs out, when the sale of public assets runs out—when there are no more of them to sell—we will then be in the situation where our total stock of public assets will be lower; North Sea oil will have gone, or seriously diminished.
All that is the real charge that must lay at the door of this Government. There can be no doubt about it on their own figures that over the next few years expenditure on capital is going to remain broadly the same. So, despite the money from North Sea oil and money from the sale of public assets, not one penny of all that is going to go on increasing or, indeed, even properly maintaining our stock of capital assets. It is a very serious charge to lay at the door of any
314
Government but I do so because it is, as I say, a fact which cannot be disputed.
The philosophical and party political question apart—and I do not today propose (because it is not part of the Motion) to take up the question whether it is right or wrong to be selling off public assets—there are two main considerations that make asset sales attractive to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First, by presenting as negative expenditure the total sale of public assets, it reduces the public expenditure planning totally. For a Chancellor, like this one in particular, that is a very useful presentational exercise. Second, at a stroke it removes from the public sector borrowing requirement all future borrowings of the nationalised industry concerned. Those are two primary considerations to this Chancellor, there can be no doubt, even if one accepts the philosophical and party political consideration that everything in the particular industry will be enormously improved if it is in the hands of private investors rather than in those of the public. And it is a bit difficult to accept, to put it mildly, given the fact that most of manufacturing industry has been in private hands, and by comparison with most of our competitors abroad it has not exactly done well over the years. So it is not an easy argument to deploy.
Let me take those two questions of why it is of enormous value to this particular Chancellor and not a very great deal of value to the nation. First, it has no effect on the real economy, other than a damaging effect, by allowing the Chancellor to pretend that the sales have had a real effect somehow or other on the public sector borrowing requirements. As a consequence of that, he can take action which is certainly not justified. As the authors of the recent report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies made clear, by showing a public sector borrowing requirement reduction from the sale of public assets, it appears to imply a tightening of the Government's fiscal stance, when of course they are really doing nothing of the sort. In the process the Government then take policy decisions, and no doubt some of the Chancellor's colleagues in the Cabinet think that, somehow, by sleight of hand, he is doing something wonderful. In fact, he is doing something pretty awful. I am glad to see the noble Earl shaking his head and I hope agreeing with all that I am saying, as I am sure he will tell us shortly.
Let us take the second point—the fact that the Chancellor is at a stroke reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. The reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement, by not having to count future borrowings, simply shows yet again how inadequate the public sector borrowing requirement is as an economic measure. I immediately plead guilty to having used it in the past myself. But the use of a single all-embracing public sector borrowing requirement target means that public current and capital spending are both subject to the same constraints, even though as private individuals and private firms we would apply different considerations to borrowing for investment and borrowing for consumption. That is why the simplistic idea that, by a single reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement, we can make a serious economic change, does great harm to the management of the nation's economy.

315
In drawing to a conclusion, I point out that I have already quoted the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee view that the proceeds of the sale of public assets should he shown as revenue, or as a means of financing the public sector borrowing requirement, and not as an actual reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. That is not just my view; it is the view of an all-party committee chaired by a former Conservative Treasury Minister, and it must be taken very seriously. It is not some esoteric question of interest only to experts. The way in which the sales of public assets are treated has a real effect on real issues.
I willingly concede that in 1976 when we had a little problem—a trifling problem—with the International Monetary Fund, I was responsible for disposing of the sale of BP shares. I see the noble Earl nodding; perhaps he even has it in his brief. Just in case he does or does not have it in his brief, I willingly concede right away that at that time I was delighted to take credit for that particular sale.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The only reason that I was nodding was that I thought it was an excellent idea at the time, and I wish that we had sold more.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, what I am about to say perhaps will not please the noble Earl quite so much as he found it at the time when I did sell them. At that time we were having a few little local difficulties with the IMF and the outside world, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will recall. But in the calm of your Lordships' House I hope that we can look at the situation rather more rationally than perhaps we did even around that very intelligent Cabinet table at the time. The plain fact is that the sale of those shares, the sale of shares now and the sale of public assets now, do nothing whatever for the real economy and do great harm if we imagine that such sales will help or affect the real economy. Let me make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that, in view of what the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee indicated in their report—namely that if it were treated in the way in which they have suggested it would mean that there had been a growth in public expenditure as a percentage of GDP—the Government should cut public expenditure. On the contrary, I think that the Government should increase public expenditure in the capital field.
But the straight and indisputable fact that public expenditure is declining and the way in which the facts are presented to the nation, have serious and important consequences. The net result is that we have ill-thought-out policies. But the worst consequence of all—whichever way the figures are presented—is that the Government are indeed as the Motion says;
"selling off the Nation's assets and using the proceeds for current spending".
Disastrous consequences must surely follow deliberately neglecting to improve the capital structure of our society, and they will, I fear, be borne by our children and grandchildren.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, this
316
evening, for even if I cannot agree with the implications of what he has said, nor the implications behind the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Barnett, this debate gives an opportunity for those who believe in it to put up a defence of privatisation.
I know the Opposition claim that the Government's programme is no more than a policy of selling the silver to pay the bills. That charge is wrong on two counts. First, the main object of the programme is not to help the Treasury balance the books, nor even to relieve the public sector borrowing requirement: its object is to introduce, wherever possible, the normal commercial disciplines of competition and private capital into the workings of the nationalised industries. Many of these are, or have been, state monopolies of essential services, and have been widely perceived to be sometimes both inefficient and insensitive to their customers' needs. The aim of privatisation is to improve their efficiency for the benefit of their customers, of their employees, of the taxpayer and of the economy in general.
Secondly, the figures involved disprove the charge. In 1984–85, asset sales are budgeted to be £1.9 billion out of a total public expenditure of about £126 billion, excluding debt interest. The sale of 51 per cent. of British Telecom—the biggest privatisation measure in prospect—is expected to raise approximately £4 billion. But payment may be spread over several years and is unlikely to make a great impact on the Government's total budget. Furthermore, public investment continues greatly to exceed asset sales. This year the nationalised industries alone plan to invest around £7 billion, and total public investment will be around £12 billion. So the Government are in fact investing many times as much as they are realising through asset sales. The charge of selling the silver to pay the bills is therefore baseless.
As the Financial Times has stated, if all goes well the sale of state assets, which, like North Sea oil and gas receipts, can be used in part to fund a public expenditure programme, could add an extra £2 billion a year to Government revenues over the next five years. In addition, the Government have been engaged in a high-powered programme of selling council houses—an often forgotten side of asset sales. These have raised over £6.25 billion since 1979.
One argument in favour of including the asset sales income as an offset to public spending is that the purchase or creation of state assets counted as public expenditure at the time. This has been graphically summed up by Mr. Christopher Johnston, the group economic adviser to Lloyds Bank, when he said that sales of assets by the public sector are counted as reducing the PSBR, not financing it. I cannot go through the whole of this article, but everything he says endorses that point.
My honourable friend Mr. John Moore, the Financial Secretary in another place, has repeatedly stressed that competition and wider share ownership remain the principal motive for disposing of unnatural public monopolies. At all events, as my honourable friend has said, privatisation leads to a fundamental shift in the balance between the public and private sectors. It is already bringing about a profound change in attitudes within state industries. It opens up exciting possibilites for the consumer; better pay, better

317
conditions and better employment opportunities for the employees; and new freedom for the managers of the industries concerned. Yet the rationale here seems to be poorly understood and, indeed, misinterpreted. The Government's privatisation strategy is justified on economic and business criteria as well as making sense in political terms. While the present momentum is maintained, it is helping, and will further help, to remedy some of the ills which have beset United Kingdom industrial performance in the past.
The performance of nationalised industries has been of major importance to the performance of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. Nationalised industries have dominated certain parts of it, especially the transport, energy, communications, steel and shipbuilding sectors. Their actions directly affect every individual in the United Kingdom and every firm, both as suppliers and customers. Their actions have permeated industrial life in Britain. If those nationalised industries which are monopolies exploit their position, if the industries are run as bureaucracies and not as businesses, and if they are unresponsive to their markets, the effect is felt throughout the economy.
As I see it, the reasoning that led to the original establishment of nationalised industries was that nationalisation would increase the equality of income and wealth, and advance the general prosperity of the nation. The outcome has been the reverse. Unfortunatley, the original proponents were strong on idealism but weak on practicalities. They believed that by placing management and workers in public enterprises in a position of responsibility and trust, they would be so imbued with a sense of the public good that their actions would naturally reflect what was best for the country.
Unfortunately, experience over many years shows that, left to their own devices, the industries will not automatically work efficiently for the national good. The commanding heights of the economy were handed over to large, remote monoliths that may have been strong on paper but weak on actual performance. It is, moreover, a mistake to believe that all the nationalised monopolies are in any sense natural monopolies. They are in many cases artificial monopolies. Natural monopolies are few and far between.
Because of the integrated nature of the networks, it may make economic and business sense to organise regional or national monopolies to carry out transmission and distribution of water, gas and electricity, and to provide local district telephone services. But activities such as electricity generation, the production and marketing of gas, coal production and its sale, telecommunications (other than local services), bus transport and sewage treatment and disposal are in no sense natural monopolies. The monopolies in these areas were created; they were not natural. It is by no means evident that they are necessary or even beneficial. The public would not tolerate state monopolies in clothing or food. Imagine nationalised food, with no Sainsbury's, no Tesco, no Co-op, no neighbourhood grocer: just one state-controlled concern!
In certain cases direct comparisons can be drawn between the performance of nationalised industries
318
and their private sector counterparts. Be it in civil aviation, rail catering, short sea ship and hovercraft services, the sale of gas and electrical appliances and contracting, comparisons are unfavourableq to public industries. The message is clear: public enterprises perform relatively poorly in terms of their competitive position, and they may use labour and capital inefficiently and be less profitable.
The nationalised industries have also not been good at satisfying their customers. A National Consumer Council survey published in 1981 said that standards of service provided by many of these industries clearly fell short of customers' expectations. They found a pervasive discontent with declining standards.
Why has the performance of these industries been so disappointing? I do not believe that the industries' management and workers are at fault. They do their best, but are faced with an impossible task. The odds are stacked against them. Not only are the industries constantly at risk from political and bureaucratic interference, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, but the managers must at times wonder what it is they are supposed to be managing. Are the industries businesses or social services? A host of other reasons contribute to their poor performance. I cannot go into them all this evening, but financing constraints spill over to the industries' investment programmes.
The advantages of privatisation are many. It brings clear benefits to the companies concerned. Managers are set free to manage, and new opportunities are opened up. I see—and it is no surprise—that companies which have been privatised so far are trading very successfully in the private sector. The pretax profits of Cable and Wireless have more than doubled; Associated British Ports raised profits from £1·5 million to £6·8 million in their first six months as a private company; Amersham's profits are up by a third despite fierce overseas competition. The National Freight Company is likely to make a profit of about £5 million this year compared with last year, when the company barely broke even. In all these cases turnover is up and share prices have increased substantially, to the benefit of both employees who hold shares and non-employees.
The finance director of Britoil has recently defined the principal benefits to his firm from being in the private sector. Your Lordships can look them up; I have no time to go into them. It is no wonder that Britoil's profits in the first few months of trading were comfortably above the prospectus forecasts.
It is not just the companies which have benefited. The benefits to those who work for the companies are significant. Only in nationalised concerns are employees debarred from owning a stake in the businesses in which they spend their working lives. As your Lordships know, employee participation has been particularly noteworthy in the case of the National Freight Corporation. But benefits to the employees and managers of privatised firms go much wider than the chance to acquire a stake in their own company. Privatisation sets managers free to manage. It makes it possible to link pay to success, and to provide appropriate rewards. It is a fallacy to believe that nationalisation preserves jobs. In the 15 years from 1963 to 1978, employment in the gas and electricity industries dropped by about 20 per cent.,

319
and in coal, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, by no less than 51 per cent. In fact, nationalisation has greatly reduced the number of jobs.
Competition, on the other hand, breeds jobs. It forces modernisation and technological change, as has happened in the United States. Competition is an efficient mechanism. It ensures that goods and services preferred by the consumer are delivered at the lowest economic cost. It responds constantly to changes in consumer preferences. Privatisation hands back to the people of this country industries which have no place in the public sector. I should like to join with others in saying: long may the process continue.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I feel a certain diffidence in intervening at this stage of the debate because we have had three such eminent speakers before me; two noble Lords, both former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, with whom one would not dare to argue on their financial skill—not that I would because I agreed with everything they said. Then we had the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, with his great political experience. I feel diffident also because it may not be possible for me to remain throughout the period of this debate due to a long-standing commitment for dinner.
I should like to tackle this question on the basis of the Motion put on the Order Paper; namely, to relate the answer I should like to give to the question of the sale of the assets and what is done with them. Much as I would be tempted to wander into the field of privatisation, as a philosophy dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—I say straight away that I did not disagree with all he said, but I have different views with some of what he said—I feel I would rather keep to the other issue.
My experience is an industrial one, and therefore I should like to look at this as though we were dealing with an enterprise. Let us assume that this enterprise had run into great difficulty due to the economic recession, due to structural change and various things, but as far as its accounts were concerned it was helped through this difficult period because it decided, as many enterprises have in these difficult times, to dispose of some of its assets.
When assets are sold one has to choose the best. No buyer will buy assets that are not making money, so the most profitable are disposed of. This is what this particular enterprise has done, and some of those assets in other hands have done even better than they were doing. Whether they would have done still better had they remained under the previous ownership no one can tell. Secondly, the enterprise I am talking about was saved by the fact that it found a product within the area under its ownership which was extremely valuable, namely oil, which it exploited with great skill and made a lot of money out of. Unfortunately that particular product line has a limited life.
Thirdly, this enterprise decided to dispose of a lot of the tied houses in which the personnel lived. Indeed, it did quite well out of those sales in capital terms. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for drawing our attention to it. About £2 billion a year on
320
average has been coming in from the sales. If we tot up all this, it is £2 billion in the sales of assets, £2 billion on the sale of houses and, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said, £9 billion on the oil.
The question then arises, what is this company to do in the future? These assets will not be available indefinitely for sale. The houses will not be available indefinitely for sale and we know that the oil will run out. So what is the future strategy of the company? If this were a company and an enterprise, that is what its Board would now be very seriously considering, and it would have one of two options. It might want to dispose of all its assets and go out of business, but I presume the intention is not for Great Britain to go out of business. Therefore, assuming that we want to remain in business, how will we do that? We have been through these difficult times. These are some very serious underlying difficulties in our remaining activities: very heavy unemployment, under-utilisation of the remaining assets, a very serious underlying adverse balance of payments if the oil is taken away, and we are disposing of many of these valuable assets. So what do we do about it?
If we were an enterprise and wanted to remain in business, we would be thinking very seriously about investing in new assets in that situation. Indeed, we had a debate not so long ago on the question of the infrastructure. The infrastructure is vital to this whole question. I should like to quote from the views of the CBI on the subject. In its latest submission to the Government on the Budget it deplored the deterioration in the adequacy and quality of the infrastructure, which is adding to business costs just when efforts are needed to improve our competitiveness.
I submit that one of the things that the enterprise ought to be doing is getting its infrastructure right: the adequacy and the quality of the infrastructure. All the figures show that investments in that sector have fallen very substantially. What we therefore need to address our minds to, assuming that we have so far managed to get the books right by the policies that I have indicated, is to the future, and to replacing those assets with other much needed assets.
Secondly, we must also encourage the investment in new assets in the private sector. I am not one who says that all the investment must be in the public sector. It must be in both. Here, too, the CBI in its submission has made some very good suggestions: to eliminate the National Insurance surcharge, to continue to work—and happily there is a trend in that direction—to reduce interest rates, and to reduce rates on business, In other words, to create a climate in which investment can be stimulated.
I should like to conclude my brief intervention by saying that we have here a very serious problem, because at the moment, as a result of the sale of the assets and the houses, and the benefit of the North Sea, the public accounts both internally and externally look viable. What is worrying is that in about three years' time when this process will reach its normal term, unless we have created something to take its place, the enterprise in which we are all involved will inevitably begin to run down. I do not believe that it is the wish of anyone in this House that that should happen.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in asking to be associated with the expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in initiating this important debate, I confess that I feel myself somewhat of an intruder. It is true that I was once a member of that detested tribe of Treasury Ministers, but that was long ago and I have had all too much time to forget all that the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, taught me during those days. I am glad that he is to speak today and I hope to be refreshed by it.
Not only is the experience of the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Barnett, more recent, but they have brought to their important office a previous experience in accountancy which your Lordships would not have failed to note today and which undoubtedly redounded to the advantage of their tenure of office. We have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has had all the experience as an industrialist, and particularly as the head of a nationalised industry.
In spite of my trepidation, I have ventured to intervene mainly to ask a particular question of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Before I do so may I make two points. The first is a general one on public finance. As your Lordships well know, the big revolution in public finance in this country was the establishment of the consolidated fund. Previous to that, when an item of expenditure was proposed, a tax, generally an excise duty, was raised to finance it. In the technical language which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that tax was hypotheticated. But after the establishment of the consolidated fund, all Government revenues, from whatever source, were paid in.
I know that recently there has been a slight modification but, by and large, Customs and Excise was paid in; when Inland Revenue came in, the income tax was paid in; when death duties (which, after all, are a tax on capital) were introduced in 1894, they were paid into the consolidated fund. I think that even Sir Stafford Cripps' once-only capital levy was paid in. So, also, were sales of Government assets. If, for example, to take up a comparatively trivial case, the War Department sold off a drill hall, the proceeds were paid (like all the revenue items and like the capital taxes) into the consolidated fund. The great advantage of that was that the tax was no longer tied to a particular project of expenditure and the committee in the other place, having the consolidated fund, could determine the priorities of payments out of it. That was a big and beneficent revolution.
But from that it will be apparent to your Lordships, first, that the sale of public assets is nothing new in our public finance; and, secondly, that the proceeds of such a sale were paid into the generalised consolidated fund as they are today; and were then available for all types of expenditure, whether an accountant would call that revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. That is the first preliminary point that I should like to make.
My Lords, the second arises out of the influence, I think, of the Prime Minister who really has been a First Lord of the Treasury. She, I think, has taught the country to think of the Exchequer as a prudent housewife thinks of her housekeeping expenditure: in
322
which two matters are particularly relevant. A prudent household lives within its income and, secondly, it is only in exceptional circumstances that capital is drawn on for current expenditure—which is the point that lies behind the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
That Motion really falls into two parts. The first refers to the selling off of national assets—a slightly pejorative phrase which was developed much more pejoratively in the noble Lord's speech and by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and answered by the noble Earl. I think that the noble Earl mentioned industries which have no place in the public sector. I do not think it is possible for the Conservative Party or the Labour Party to give a completely satisfactory line of distinction. I do not know what is the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to Clause 4 of his party's constitution. I always imagine that sophisticated members of the Labour Party in their attitude to Clause 4 are rather like Roman senators in the early Empire in their attitude to the Olympian Pantheon: it is not believed in; but it is not done to question it in public.
But I think that the Alliance is in a strong and authoritative position to work out for the benefit of us all what belongs possibly to the pubic sector, what to the private sector and (as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is here) what belongs to what really lies between them, the co-operative sector. I, myself, think that this is no occasion to go into where the boundary should be drawn, particularly when it has already been so ably argued today. I would remark on this that, in addition to privatisation of nationalised industries, your Lordships at the moment are concerned with the right to buy council houses; and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, speaking the other day from the Alliance Benches made it quite clear that he—and I do not think that he was speaking purely as an individual—was generally in favour of the selling off of that particular national asset.
The second part of the Motion refers to using the proceeds for current spending. If I have carried your Lordships with me so far, that is no new thing. That has been routine ever since the establishment of a consolidated fund. But what one has to do, undoubtedly, is to watch lest the sale of assets exceed the total capital spending of the nation. If that does take place, then you are, indeed, consuming the seed corn, you are using the proceeds of sale of capital assets for current (in other words, non-capital) expenditure; so that the question which arises is this. Is there such an excess, an excess arising from the sale of the assets to the total capital expenditure of the nation?
My Lords, the answer to that appears in the document that, oddly enough, is called a White Paper. It strikes me—and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will correct me if I am wrong—that the first, crucial table is 1.13 which deals with public-sector capital spending in cost terms. I am going to take only one figure because the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has already made this point. The estimated out-turn of 1983–84 was £22,000 million-odd. The other figure, I think, ought to be collected from Table 14. The noble Lord. Lord Barnett, referred to page 9 but the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, spoke to us very severely, I think yesterday, about not dealing with the matter in cost terms; and the cost terms appear on Table 14. That

323
shows public expenditure in cost terms and the special sales of assets in 1983–84, estimated out-turn, is just over 1,000. In other words, there is a figure of 1,000 as against a figure of 22,000 odd, in millions. So if those figures are right, and if I have correctly apprehended them, there is a fundamental fallacy, in my respectful submission, in the noble Lord's argument.
I want to ask a particular question, and it is this. I think that the former practice was that the supply estimates were presented on Budget Day; but the present practice seems to be very much superior, now that we have this information beforehand. But I seem to recollect—the noble Lord. Lord Roberthall, will correct me if I am wrong, or perhaps the noble Earl will—that at some time after the end of the financial year a blue book of Government expenditure was presented and that had a very valuable table, showing capital income and expenditure. It included, if I remember rightly, taxation of capital which at that time was probably estate duty, and it may have been more than one death duty. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us what has happened to that. This involves the further question: if we are going to have a balance sheet such as was argued for by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, ought we not to bring capital taxation into account?
Much has been said today about the decline in oil. Of course that is a wasting asset, but we have had the wasting asset of coal for more than two centuries. If you are going to bring in oil, should you not bring in every wasting asset? Also, should you bring in depreciation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond? At any rate, it seems to me that if one looks at the figures in the White Paper it is not true to say that the sale of assets is being used to subsidise—"being frittered away", the phrase was—current expenditure.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I sympathise so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said at the beginning of his remarks: that it was a bold man who was going to speak at all in a debate which was begun by two past Chief Secretaries. Of course, I remember very well working with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon, but I do not feel quite so much afraid of him because he pointed out, as I would do, that his memory is a little vague. I thought that when he got on to the Consolidated Fund he was going to defend the present practice; but during the progress of his speech he got more and more on to the fundamental question: that of using the seed corn.
I am going to make just a few rather straightforward remarks from a macro-economic point of view. Beginning with the sale of assets, they are sold to people who regard the purchase as an investment and the funds that they would have used would, if they had not bought these public assets, have gone into the general fund of money awaiting investment and would therefore have been an addition to the nation's capital.
Of course, if one individual sells an asset such as a house and spends the proceeds, he is normally offset by a somewhat more cautious, "saving" person who saves more than his current expenditure; so there is an offsetting process. It would also be true that if the Government, in disposing of these assets, used them in
324
some way which would offset the counter-balancing effect on total investment, there would not be anything to worry about. What is worrying is that, when we look at the national figures of investment, it is quite clear, as has already been pointed out, that public sector investment as a whole is falling rather sharply. In overall figures, I think it has fallen in the last two years from about 10 billion to 8 billion. A great deal of that took place in the housing sector, where, as a deliberate act of policy, there has been this cutback in public sector housing, and more has been done in the way that the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, mentioned, in cutting back on the infrastructure: the sewers, roads and so on.
So, if we look round, we can see that, from the Government's point of view, so far from there being an offsetting element to make up for their expenditure on current spending of the proceeds, there is no government offset at all. They may say: "We will get investment in the private sector to make up." If they did in fact use the proceeds in some way which would directly stimulate private investment, we could say that there was an offset. It is in fact extremely difficult to find a method through reducing taxation which would directly affect investment. All governments have tried it, without much success. The real way to do it would be by direct government expenditure of a capital nature, and that, as I have said, is not going on.
Looking at the private sector investment over the last three or four years, on the whole it makes very gloomy reading. That is to say, private investment in most sectors has been falling rather than rising. There are two main exceptions to that. In the distributive trades it has been keeping up rather than falling, and in the financial sector it has been rising rather sharply. But that does not make up for the fall elsewhere in those parts of the economy where we would mainly look for an increase in employment opportunities.
Looking, therefore, at the economic problems of the country, one cannot help feeling, as has already been stressed, that the Government have got no plans to deal with them. When they came to office they quite rightly gave priority to the control of inflation. They did so by departing from what all governments since the end of the last war had been committed to: the maintenance of employment. They used, and are using, unemployment as an instrument of policy. By means of that policy, they have managed to reduce the rate of inflation to its present figure of about 5 per cent., at the cost of between 3 million and 4 million unemployed, according to how one chooses to count the figures. However, we have now reached the point where most forecasters believe that the rate of inflation will not fall much further and may rise.
The Government are as opposed to an incomes policy in the private sector as ever they were, thereby antagonising the trade unions, who feel bitter and defeated and who are not in the least likely to want to co-operate in any form of incomes restraint if the present slight upward tendency in the rate of inflation leads them to believe that they can get away with it. The Government's overall policy, therefore, of fixing monetary limits for the coming year would result in a marked decrease in unemployment only if the inflation rate were to fall very sharply indeed. The present policy of the Government is that output, GNP and inflation ought to move in opposite directions.

325
The more inflation goes up the more you plan to keep down output.
This subject is no part of today's debate and I do not expect the noble Earl to deal with it in his speech. However, its relevance is this. If one looks at the Government's attitude towards investment, obviously they are giving no priority at all to investment. Their own actions tend towards a reduction in expenditure, not towards replacing, by other forms of investment, the money they receive from the public sector by the sale of existing assets. Therefore one cannot help feeling gloomy that we seem to have reached the position where the Government have no real plans for getting us out of our present difficulties. Their attitude is to give low priority to employment and to the investment which will be needed if the unemployed are ever to to be absorbed into the workforce of this country.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that I speak in this debate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for moving this Motion. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has made most of my speech for me. I thank him very much for putting what I wanted to say so very much better than I could have put it myself, and with so much authority.
All I wish to add is that I believe that the Government should, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, keep a proper balance sheet which shows clearly the capital and revenue receipts and expenditure for the year and, therefore, just how healthy or unhealthy is the country's financial position, because to spend capital as revenue is never healthy. Moreover, how do the Government—this applies to all governments that I have known—who milk capital in the form of capital taxation out of the country and then spend it as revenue without apparently knowing the difference, expect other people to know the difference? A great many people—in quite responsible positions in this country, and even dealing with finance—do not know the difference between capital and revenue, with disastrous consequences. Because of the example they get from their betters, I do not know how they ever will.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as always where economic matters are concerned, the Minister winding up can say that it has been a lively and interesting debate—only with, very often, rather more sincerity now than is sometimes the case. I have missed participating in economic debates in your Lordships' House during the last few years, and it is very nice to be allowed back in again.
If your Lordships will forgive me for continuing, very briefly, in a personal vein, there is something deep in my psyche which seems to admire and sympathise with Labour or ex-Labour Chief Secretaries to the Treasury. I suppose it is because they are rather like Arts Ministers. They are Sisyphus figures—always rolling heavy stones uphill, only to have them fall down upon them just as they get to the summit. Therefore I begin with a considerable bias in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord,
326
Lord Barnett. But just as they accused us of wasting the assets of the nation so, I am afraid, did I feel that they were wasting the very favourable picture of them that I started by bearing. This can be illustrated by the wording of the Motion, which is both highly emotive and. I believe, unintentionally revealing.
The Motion contains the implication that the Government are selling off valuable national assets and frittering the proceeds on current indulgences —selling the family silver, so to speak, to pay the butler. The Motion is revealing—it is particularly revealing in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as an economic spokesman and, more than that, as perhaps the major economic influence on the Social Democratic Party—because in it the nation is taken to be synonymous with the public sector; as if the activities of the private sector of the nation scarcely mattered; as if, for instance, capital formation by the private sector scarcely mattered. That might have been expected, if we were to catch him in a severely loyalist mood, from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. But it is curious to hear the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, speaking as if the nation were the same thing as the public sector of the economy.
I shall return in a moment to the family silver point, but let me begin by setting the Government's privatisation policy in its proper context. I apologise for that word. I greatly prefer "liberating policy", even if it is a policy which does not find favour with latter-day Liberals like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But "privatisation", like it or not, has passed into common currency, and I feel a bit stuck with it.
There are many activities that can properly be provided only by the public sector. It is clearly right that this should continue. We have no doctrinaire objection to public sector activities in their proper sphere. Defence and law and order services are clearly proper public responsibilities, and in this context perhaps I should wryly add the work and the costs of the major opera companies.
There are other areas where the public sector has a major continuing role—not least, in health and social security and personal social services. Here, the Government's record is one of substantial increases in expenditure. Indeed, one of the fallacies of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is that it was principally Government policy which was creating unemployment, and that therefore this aspect of current spending was to be laid at the door of the Government. The noble Lord leaves out technical changes and structural alterations in the economy. Surely he would agree that it is morally and economically right to ease the burdens of those who, through no fault of their own, are painfully caught in the machinery of an economy that is changing gear in any case. I do not imagine that any of your Lordships would dissent from the proposition that the most valuable asset of the nation is its people, and that the money we are spending on training—some £2 billion a year where young people are concerned—is obviously money for the future in that regard.
I therefore pay tribute to the nationalised industries and to the efforts of many Members of your Lordships' House who have worked in them, often in commanding positions—as in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But I believe it is now widely agreed

327
that the public sector is not usually at its best when it comes to managing wealth-creating resources. It does not always provide an environment conducive to the most effective and efficient use of such resources. We see a need to correct an imbalance which has grown up over the years between the public and private sectors and steadily to place the wealth-creating resources in an environment more related to the market place; an environment that can only suit them. A company which has to satisfy customers and compete is more likely to be efficient, alert to technical innovation and to give improved quality of service. For that reason, privatisation is a key element of our overall economic strategy. It is a policy based not on dogma but on recognition of the economic and commercial facts of life.
Consider, my Lords, some aspects of the record of our nationalised industries in recent years—and I pay the warmest tribute to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, which covered this point. Over the past 20 years, return on capital has been consistently and substantially below that of the private sector; prices have regularly increased faster than the RPI; standards of service have often been subject to consumer criticism; and the productivety record and employment costs have given cause for concern. Of course there are exceptions, and we know that the industries are wrestling with improvements. But overall, since they were set up their performance has not fulfilled original expectations. We need a better course and I suggest that the benefits of our policy are increasingly acknowledged; they were eloquently acknowledged by several noble Lords.
For employees—and again my noble friend touched on this point—privatisation enables initiative and success to be rewarded. If offers employees the chance to own a stake in their business. About 100,000 of them have taken advantage of that opportunity already, and it speaks for itself that they represent about 90 per cent. of the eligible workforce. Privatisation also removes the risk of political and bureaucratic interference. Industries' financing flexibility is no longer circumscribed by public expenditure requirements. The same point was made, with slightly different phrasing, by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, who said that financing constraints spill over into the nationalised industries' investment programmes.
Time and again in economic debates in your Lordships' House I have been urged by noble Lords opposite—particularly from the Alliance Benches —that there shoud be more capital investment by these industries. This seems to me to be a good way of achieving that agreed aim. A few examples of the record of companies already returned to the private sector illustrate the benefits I have mentioned. Cable and Wireless pre-tax profits have more than doubled since privatisation. Associated British Ports raised profits from £1.5 million to £6.8 million in the first six months as a private company. Amersham International's profits are up by a third despite very fierce overseas competition in their field. The National Freight Company made profits exceeding £8 million in 1983 compared with barely breaking even in the last year before they were privatised.
328
It is not enough, of course, to transfer control from the public to the private sector. The problems of monopoly and lack of competition must also be overcome. This is particularly so with the nationalised industries accounting for about-one-tenth of GDP and dominating sectors such as transport, energy, communications, steel and shipbuilding. A critical complement to privatisation is opening up the public sector to competition and market forces. Already, the stir of competition has seen British Telecom increase its range of telephones, British Rail introduce innovative marketing, and British Airways become one of the world's best airlines.
I cannot believe that the process I have been describing is well summed up in the terms of the noble Lord's Motion as,
"selling off the Nation's assets".
The Government's policy is to promote competition and enhance efficiency and productivity—and these are the key to enhanced prosperity—and by proxy to increase revenues in order to meet what are liable to be continuous current expenditure demands. When one sells the family silver, one does not usually continue to gain value from its use. That is why it is a little misleading, as I suspect the noble Lord is aware, to argue from private to public in that context.
The related charges have been that the treatment of asset sales as negative expenditure is in some sense misleading and that once the stock of assets has been sold there will be an unfillable hole in the public sector accounts. These arguments reveal a number of misunderstandings and misconceptions; misunderstandings and misconceptions, I would say, which did not cloud the minds of both noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite when they were Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
It is true that although the principal aim of privatisation is to increase competition and improve efficiency, asset sales do indeed serve to reduce public spending and the PSBR. There is nothing wicked about that. When the Government buy assets, public spending rises. It is quite consistent for sales of assets to reduce public spending. This is the treatment recommended by the IMF; recommended by that body to the previous Labour Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was an ornament. The noble Lord spoke about selling off BP shares at that time under the direction of the IMF. I would argue as forcefully as I can that the British nation is not a penny poorer as a result of the sales of BP shares conducted by the noble Lord. I have urged my own colleagues to get on with the selling of the rest of them.
The receipts from asset sales are naturally welcome. In their absence, pressures of public expenditure would of course be greater. But there is certainly no presumption that more asset sales mean more expenditure. Anyone tempted to suggest that the viability of the Government's whole public spending plans rests on asset sales should read the latest public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 9143) and the special project sales of assets running, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough reminded us, at some £2 billion a year compared with spending totals of some £130 billion a year. That is hardly a massive proportion. As I said earlier, the improved performance we anticipate from privatised companies

329
will provide more general benefits to the economy and more continuous and current revenue to the Chancellor.
I want quickly to deal with some of the points raised alleging the dependence of the financial strategy on North Sea revenues. Again, I think the arguments are misplaced. We have always known that production and, with a lag, tax revenues would peak in the mid-1980s. But it is extremely hazardous to try to forecast precisely many years ahead. It is necessary to bear in mind the possibility of new finds of oil and gas, new energy technologies and alterations in the dollar price or the dollar price of oil. We are in any event talking about a gradual process of adjustment. There is not some unforeseen black hole round the corner. It would also be fair to claim—and I make this point particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall—that ever since North Sea oil and as a consequence, too, of our other liberating policies, British corporate capital has been building up very valuable assets overseas which will more than take the place of North Sea oil revenues.
It is a heroic leap to jump, as the Motion does, directly to the conclusion that the proceeds from asset sales are being used for current spending. It simply is not a conclusion that stands up to logical analysis. First, receipts from special sales of assets are not hypothecated to any particular purpose. They are used in accordance with overall economic policy and, as I have just reminded the House, they are very small in relation to the Government's overall spending. Secondly, accounts show that in recent years the public sector's aggregate current revenues have consistently exceeded its aggregate current spending, and hence provided a contribution towards financing public sector capital spending; including, of course, capital replacements. That takes care of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about depreciation.
This may not accord with some popular versions of the received wisdom but I would refer the House, for example, to Table 5.8 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report published at the time of last year's Budget. So, although one cannot hypothecate particular elements of revenue to particular elements of spending, at the aggregate level public sector current spending is more than financed by current revenues. It is, to adopt a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as simple as that and simply blows a hole in the noble Lord's Motion.
Thirdly, much comment in recent years has understated the amount of capital spending carried out by the public sector. This brings me to some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Understandably, comment has focused on the figures of capital expenditure included within the public expenditure control totals, but these totals have been designed specifically for control purposes and do not give an accurate impression of total capital spending by the public sector. This is because the control totals are after deduction of receipts from council house sales. They show only the external finance of the nationalised industries and not their much larger capital spending.
In accordance with United Nations conventions, virtually all defence spending is classified as current,
330
whereas NATO definitions treat spending on ships, vehicles, equipment, buildings, and so on, as capital. We are now making sensible adjustments for these factors so that the latest White Paper shows, in a commonsense way, how much is being spent on capital goods and construction by the public sector. This is a much better indicator of the impact of public sector transactions on the industries concerned. It shows that, again contrary to much popular belief, public sector capital spending has been broadly constant in real terms over the period since 1978–79. I have in my brief many examples of how we have been spending in terms of roads, prisons, light railways and others, but as this is a short debate I will, if I may, ask that that evidence be taken for the moment on trust.
The serious point is that the case for new capital spending—whether for schools, hospitals, roads or whatever—must be considered on the basis of the best available assessment of the returns it will provide. All too often in the past public sector investments, including those carried out by nationalised industries, have proved to be unjustified. May I say, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, in particular, that the key is proper project appraisals and not the setting of some simple target for the allegedly "right" level of aggregate capital spending.
In conclusion, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the issues raised in the debate are important aspects of the Government's overall economic policies. Next week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be presenting his Budget. Of course, it would not be for me to try to anticipate what he will have to say. At this point may I say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and his very telling arguments in respect of the publication of estate duty figures. I assume that the noble and learned Lord was referring to the estimate of taxation receipts given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report published in another place on Budget day. Table 5.11 in last year's FSBR showed figures for residual estate duty payments and capital transfer tax and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find that helpful
It is clear, as commentators have already suggested, that the economic scene is showing a very considerable improvement. But sadly—and this is the case with all the advanced economies—there is not a hot line, and I wish there were, between overall economic improvement and an improvement in the levels of unemployment. Of course there is a long way to go and I am much too old a hand to show any complacency, hut there is no doubt that the overall strategy, of which this is so important a part, is now starting to pay handsome dividends, despite all the gloomy prognostications that critics have offered in recent years.
In financial planning we have clearly demonstrated our determination to stick to the established plans for aggregate public spending so that it will take a decreasing proportion of the nation's output. That, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, is the proper use of the word "nation". This is an essential key to lower taxes and lower interest rates to provide a lasting basis for the recovery that we are now seeing in its infancy. The economy is showing encouraging growth. As has been said, the rate of inflation has been greatly

331
reduced. Indeed, the combination of 3 per cent. growth and 5 per cent. inflation represents the best performance of the British economy since the 1960s. It represents a performance, in this regard, in a much worse international climate. The February CBI industrial trends inquiry pointed to further increases in manufacturing output and further evidence of a broadening of the recovery to capital goods producers.
However, this continued growth is also dependent on further improvements in efficiency and competition. It is here that the privatisation policy, along with other measures to remove controls and stimulate enterprise, is so important. It is totally misleading and intensley damaging to caricature this as "selling off the nation's assets". The benefits from measures already taken are now evident, and further developments will serve only to underpin the recovery we are seeing.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it is my pleasure, as well as my duty, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have helped me to understand the very important issue of whether or not this country is running down its national assets or maintaining them. I hold to the view I originally held, and I have heard nothing in the course of the debate to cause me to alter my mind.
I have been much reinforced by what the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Roberthall have said. They all speak with far greater authority than I can muster. I have listened most carefully to what the noble Earl the Minister said in reply, and, indeed, to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said. I note a considerable unity of view from them, particularly on certain aspects of which privatised industries have produced which results. No doubt what we have been told twice must be true.
I do not feel that this is an occasion when your Lordships would wish the debate to be continued. Indeed, I find it difficult to thank noble Lords for what they have said and then proceed to say how violently I disagree with the content of their speeches. We had better leave it that I shall read most carefully what all noble Lords have said. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will reciprocate. He will find that I have said nothing whatever derogatory about the private sector. On these Benches we believe in a mixed economy. I have said nothing whatever against the policy of selling off. I am concerned only to maintain the nation's assets—if one wants to put it in technical terms, the general Government public sector. That is as patriotic a view as any expressed from any other Bench. I repeat my gratitude to noble Lords. It is very important that we should be quite sure what we are doing in this context. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979: Anomalies
7.22 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to deal with the
332
continuing anomalies arising from the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am well aware that this is not the first time that these issues have been debated, but they are important to a sizeable number of the less fortunate members of the community. For my part, I have to confess that I do not altogether understand the line that the Government have been taking so far. I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have put down their names to speak, even if some of them seem to have been taken a bit by surprise by the ending of the previous debate. If I may say so, I am particularly appreciative of the fact that the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, is to help us, given the fact that as Secretary of State he was responsible for the Act which forms the subject of my Question.
As noble Lords will recall, it was an Act which followed a number of cases where vaccination, especially for whooping cough, had apparently gone wrong and where all the publicity was having a pretty devastating effect on programmes of immunisation against a variety of other ailments. I shall not weary your Lordships with a detailed account of the 1979 Act, but to make my remarks reasonably intelligible I think that I must say just a little about it.
It was an Act designed to give a measure of compensation to those who suffered severe damage as a result of vaccination carried out under public policy. The argument was that society asked for these vaccinations to be carried out in the interests of the community and it was right that the community should shoulder responsibility when things went wrong. The Act applied to children after their second birthday, to adults in relation to polio and rubella and to anyone affected as a result of vaccination carried out during an epidemic and who was encouraged by the authorities. The test of what constituted severe damage was disability of at least 80 per cent. Claimants could apply to the DHSS for a grant of £10,000, and, if refused, could appeal to a medical tribunal. In view of the great problem of proving causation, the test was to be a balance of probabilities.
When the Bill was debated, it was welcomed in both Houses by the then Opposition as a new benefit for a very deserving category of person, but the Opposition made the reservation that they regarded the Bill as only an interim measure and that it must not prejudice consideration of the more far-reaching proposals in the Pearson Royal Commission report, which had been published the previous year. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was careful never to describe the Bill as an interim one. No doubt the Treasury had made it clear to him that the word "interim" in relation to a spending Bill was to be regarded with the same abhorrence as the word "hypothecation". But in the event the Bill was discussed by one and all on the basis that it was a temporary measure which would hold the field until conclusions had been reached on the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
That commission had received overwhelming evidence in favour of paying compensation when vaccination was undertaken to protect the community. No witness argued to the contrary. The commission had also looked at the provision which was already made on these lines in a number of other countries. It concluded that the existing remedy in

333
tort, with the usual test of negligence or fault, was of no help whatsoever in this context. A doctor who performed a vaccination in the recognised circumstances and using the recognised methods could never be said to be acting outside the bounds of proper practice and would never be found negligent. The commission did not know of a single case in which there had been a successful tort action, and I myself am not aware that there has been one since. It therefore looked for an alternative remedy.
The commission concluded that this was an area where the basis of liability should no longer be one of fault but should be strict. If the plaintiff could show, on a balance of probabilities, that the injury was attributable to the administration of a vaccine on the recommendation of the Government or a local authority, he should be entitled to compensation. There would be no need to prove fault or negligence; and the award would follow the accepted practices of the courts in tort cases. There would certainly be no maximum of £ 10,000 and no hurdle of at least 80 per cent. disability to surmount before a claim could even begin.
The Government have stated that they have no intention of accepting this recommendation. They have given not the slightest indication either that they intend to do anything at all about the 1979 Act. In a reply to a Question in another place not long ago, they even placed some reliance on the right to take tort proceedings on grounds of negligence. I cannot help thinking that, if this debate has done nothing else, it will perhaps at least have made those concerned in the department read the Pearson Report afresh.
I hope that some of what I regard as the anomalies arising from the 1979 Act will have emerged from my recital so far. The most obvious point is the inadequacy of the £10,000. Once the principle is accepted that there is a case for a special payment because of the interests of the community, a sum of this order falls far short of the extra expense with which a family with a brain-damaged child is faced, as recent research has shown with startling clarity. It is not just the distress and the impact on the whole of a family life when a tragedy of this kind occurs: over the years there is a very big financial bill.
Anyway, whatever was to be said for the figure of £10,000 as a gesture in 1979, it has been steadily reducing in real terms ever since, and will keep on doing so, even if at a less precipitate pace. I am not clever enough myself to work out what £10,000 in 1979 is now worth, but I have seen estimates that it is nearer £6,000; but no doubt the Minister will be able to give us a more accurate figure when he replies. I may say that I in fact sent him a note asking him if he could let me have this figure, but when he saw it perhaps he was too horrified to pass it on. I recall that when the Bill was going through this House the wise and noble Lord, Lord Robbins, not always an advocate on index-linking, said it was a matter of simple justice that this sum should be index-linked; but this was not done, no doubt because it was thought that it would not go on for very long.
Then there is this test of 80 per cent. disability. I would remind your Lordships that the Act makes just the one provision; either an 80 per cent. disability, or more, and £10,000, or nothing at all—a simple and
334
rather crude provision acceptable as a temporary stopgap but hardly suitable for a permanent provision. I had better not get involved this evening with discussing the comparable provision in regard to the severe disablement allowance in the current Health and Social Security Bill. It is a point which speaks for itself in this context.
Next, it depends on which part of the country you live in whether you are likely to succeed in an appeal to a medical tribunal. From the latest figures which the noble Lord the Minister has kindly given me, it seems that, in Cardiff, 41 claims have been allowed and 120—practically three times as many—rejected, whereas, in Nottingham, 76 have been allowed and 108 rejected—rather less than one and a half times as many. I do not suggest that the Principality was picked out for especially unfavourable treatment, but this is just one example of a number of very strange inconsistencies. I cannot persuade myself that this is at all a satisfactory state of affairs, and I think it is bound to raise the question whether the tribunal procedure is really the right course.
Then there is the problem of whether, when a lump sum is awarded, it is taken into account when a claim for supplementary benefit is made. Here, the picture has been somewhat blurred by the inability of the department itself to know what the policy is. At one stage MENCAP were told, at ministerial level, that the lump sum would always be disregarded, and they disseminated this glad news to their anxious members. Then they were told, again at ministerial level, that regrettably this information was wrong and that for those over 16 claiming in their own right the payment is, after all, treated as capital and is taken into account. Both for the policy and for the muddle in explaining it, I fear that the Government do not score a very high mark.
I could understand it, if not exactly welcome it, if the Government said that it was wrong in principle to single out one section of the community for special treatment; that, like others, these victims should rest on the various social security benefits, actual and proposed; and that the 1979 Act should therefore be repealed. No doubt at the same time the Government would repeal all the industrial injuries legislation, put an end to compulsory third party insurance to cover traffic accidents and scrap the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I could understand it, too, although I would think it quite inadequate, if the Government now said that, although the 1979 Act was passed as a stop-gap measure, we seem to be landed with it and we had better patch it up and bring it up to date. It would be a bit like converting a post-war prefab into a permanent dwelling-house, and about as satisfactory. But it is a possibility.
I could also understand it, and greatly welcome it, if the Government, having perhaps recalled what they themselves said when in Opposition, found themselves on the road to Damascus, as it were, and were converted to the view that, after all, the Pearson proposal, and the payment of realistic rewards, was the right answer. I cannot help pointing out that the Government seem to find the payment of quite large sums perfectly acceptable for criminal injury awards, and that, not long ago, they were reminding us that these payments were justified as expressing the

335
responsibility of the community—and I would congratulate the noble Baroness on the timing of her arrival in this debate!
But what I cannot understand is a flat refusal to do anything at all, and simply to maintain for an indefinite future an Act which creaks at the joints and is bound to get steadily more and more out of date. Nor do I quite follow how this attitude of Government is supposed to fit in with what I suppose is their overall policy of trying to strengthen the immunisation programmes against rubella, measles and the rest. I shall learn of the Government's response this evening with great interest, but so will a number of other people who have already suffered distress, frustration and personal misery, and the collapse of their lifetimes hopes and ambitions.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for asking this Question. He was himself a very distinguished member of the Pearson Commission, and certainly it is my view that the report of the commission received really very little consideration, or achieved very unsatisfactory results from that consideration, by the Government; and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will perhaps give some indication of how many of the recommendations in the Pearson Report were acted upon. I have of course read the debate in this House on 1st December, 1982, on a Motion by the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I am looking forward to the speech that he will make later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said, I have a deep personal interest in this Act, as it was I who introduced it on to the statute book originally in the House of Commons in 1978, with the warm-hearted support of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was then Lord Chancellor and without whose assistance it would not have been possible for me to have persuaded my colleagues in the Cabinet to bring this forward before the report of the commission was published.
So what was the object of the Bill? There was a very serious problem for a limited number of very seriously handicapped children. I had the opportunity of seeing many of the parents and the children, both in my own constituency and in other parts of the country, and I was deeply moved. It was clear (and it was later proved to be so) that many of them were in the sad state that they were because they had followed the policy advocated by successive Governments regarding vaccination. There was also very active advocacy on the part of the Association of Vaccine Damaged Children, led by Mrs. Rosemary Fox, who did a quite remarkable job.
Of course the noble Lord is right in saying that the sum of £10,000, which was not compensation—and, as he said, I constantly stated that it was not compensation—was not adequate, even as a temporary cash payment. I now use the word "temporary" which I could not have used then. In the other place I never used the term "interim payment", because that would have implied that a decision had already been taken that there would be a compensation scheme, and that the interim was
336
obviously leading towards something. That something had not been decided upon. The Pearson Commission had not actually reported when the decision was first taken regarding the Bill, and even later when the Bill was in Committee consideration of the Pearson Commission's report was only just in hand. The sum was of course inadequate, but, having seen the children and their families, I felt that it was necessary urgently to find some means of getting some cash to the families, who were experiencing very great distress and extra expenditure due to the situation their children were in.
There was another argument, too. The incidence of vaccine damage, relatively small though it was compared to the damage caused by children not being vaccinated against whooping cough, was prejudicing the vaccination programme. As my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said at col. 1259 in the debate on 1st December:
"the disease is far more dangerous than the vaccine … the higher the proportion of children vaccinated, the greater are the prospects of controlling whooping cough".
He was right then, and he is right today.
Therefore at the time when I took the decision—or the Cabinet took the decision—there was an element of seeking to strengthen the vaccination programme.
As I have said, the sum was never intended to be a form of compensation. Certainly it was my hope that in their consideration of the Pearson Commission's report the Government would come up with some form of compensation. I note that in the earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said at col. 1251:
"because vaccination is carried out in the interests of the community and at the urging of Government, notwithstanding a known element of risk, there is a special responsibility on the Government to do something about those few cases where the procedure goes badly wrong. This debate is showing beyond a peradventure that the 1979 Act is imperfect in its operation. But it was not, and was never intended to be, the final answer".
"Imperfect in its operation"—in what sense? Certainly, I agree with the noble Lord, in several senses. First, it was very strange the high proportion of those who were granted the award of £10,000 on appeal who had been turned down when the original application was considered by the Secretary of State or those acting on his behalf. There was, on the whole, a high proportion of acceptances on appeal, though, as the noble Lord has said, the variation was tremendous as between one part of the country and another. But the situation suggested to me—and I raised this point with my successor as Secretary of State, Mr. Patrick Jenkin—that there was not enough generosity on the part of those who were taking the original decisions, and that wherever there was doubt it should be cast in favour of the applicant.
Secondly, while, as I have said, the sum of £10,000 was inadequate in 1978, what should it be today? Perhaps the Minister has done his arithmetic and we have not done ours very well. But I should have thought that it would now be of the order of £18,000 or £19,000. The Minister may say £16,000, but whatever the figure is, it is substantially more than £10,000, because though the inflation rate is low at the moment, certainly it was very high just three or four years ago. In the six years since payments started to be made the Government have refused to increase the sum.

337
Thirdly—and this point has been raised by the noble Lord—should the lump sum be regarded as capital for the purposes of assessing supplementary benefits? This is a very important question because, sadly, a large number of these families are on supplementary benefit, partly due to the fact that the parents have to concentrate their attention on their extremely handicapped children—at least 80 per cent. handicapped. As I say, many of them are living on supplementary benefits. In the case of those who have grown up and are over the age of 16 the grant is made to them personally, and it seems to me to be quite appalling that it should be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing supplementary benefits.
In January 1981, together with my friends in another place, Mr. Jack Ashley and Mr. Alf Morris, I led a deputation to see the then Secretary of State, Mr. Patrick Jenkin. We raised with him the issues of indexing and supplementary benefit. He took a long time to consider them. Then, in July 1981, he wrote a letter to me, giving a written assurance that the new supplementary benefit regulations would enable the cash benefit to be disregarded. I am sorry to say that he went back on that written assurance. I was extremely angry at the time, and I shall always be extremely angry if a Minister of the Crown goes back on a written declaration of intent.
As the noble Lord has said, the same thing happened again. On 22nd April 1983 a letter was written by the then Minister for the disabled, Mr. Hugh Rossi, now Sir Hugh Rossi. One has to make a number of mistakes in order to become a "Sir", and one has to lose one's seat in order to become a Lord—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not everyone.
Lord Ennals: Not everyone. This is just a momentary light, jocular riposte. Mr. Hugh Rossi wrote to Mr. Brian Rix, the general secretary of MENCAP, and in his letter he made it absolutely clear that,
"the sum should be totally disregarded".
That was on 22nd April.
On 6th July Dr. Rhodes Boyson, who had then succeeded Mr. Rossi, wrote to Mr. Rix as follows:
"I am sorry Hugh Rossi's letter of April 22nd misled you and suggested that there had been a change in the rules. This is not so. Where a vaccine damaged person is aged 16 or over and is claiming in his own right the payment is treated as capital".
Of course, if it is treated as capital, the tendency is to spend it straight away, to get it all spent. That is the thing to do, otherwise one loses supplementary benefit, and in the course of a number of years one will lose in supplementary benefit what one gains in terms of the payment of the £10,000. So clearly it was an absolute nonsense.
Mr. Rossi did not at all believe that he had made a mistake. He said:
"I was happy and content to sign that letter as it reflected the policy I was following, I deeply regret the fact that it has been changed".
At the time I was appalled that someone referred to the matter as a civil servant's blunder. I think that is quite wrong. It is not civil servants who blunder in these situations; Ministers have to take responsibility for
338
letters that they sign, and either it was a ministerial decision, or Mr. Rossi did not read the letter that was put up to him. So it is an appalling record of incompetence; and it is incompetence that has led to the suffering of a significant number of individuals. The Minister is shaking his head. All right—but not to have taken that mean action would have cost only £300,000. That is all that it would have cost not to have taken the payment into consideration when assessing supplementary benefit.
In conclusion, I want to put three questions to the Minister. Why did the Government not introduce some form of compensation, whether on a no-fault liability basis or in some other way in line with the Pearson Commission report? This seems to be absolutely common justice, particularly in a case such as this where the action was taken in line with community interest. Secondly, what weight should we give to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, in reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on 27th January 1983, said that the Government thought:
"that improvements to the system ought to be subsumed in a wider consideration of benefits available for disabled people, and we shall do that as soon as resources are available."—[Official Report, 27/1/83; col. 364.]
What does that mean? Are the Government really planning new benefits for disabled people as we, from these Benches, have advocated for many years? That would certainly create a record. To my knowledge, no new benefit for disabled people has been introduced to Parliament by a Conservative Government for the past 50 years.
My last question is to ask the Minister whether he can explain the significance of a section of the document, Social Security Notes published by his department, that is headed "Vaccine damage payments. New time limit for old claims". I find it difficult to understand why this is being done and exactly what the declaration means. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can indicate the purpose of this new decision, taken and announced in the February edition of Social Security Notes. I warmly support the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, of the eight speakers in this debate, six spoke in the debate on 1st December 1982. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, had been here he would have spoken on that occasion. I can perhaps therefore make the figure nine. This indicates the depth of feeling that those of us who are interested in the subject have shown by coming here again tonight. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for raising the matter once more.
In the debate of 1st December 1982, I made three points. I cannot forbear from making them again. First, there is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that parents have had to wait too long. It would have been too long in any case. But, with the changed circumstances of recession, unemployment and the difficulties of life which we have to face at the moment, it is doubly difficult for the parents of these children. My second point relates to the climate of opinion. It is absolutely essential—I speak now as a

339
social worker—that, when working in ante-natal clinics one should be able, in partnership with the doctors and perhaps at the doctors' request, to talk to parents and persuade them that the children should receive immunisation. I have worked in various clinics and I have had to do this.
One tries to explain to parents either before or after they have seen the doctor, but usually before, why the children should he immunised. Their response is always to say, "Supposing it goes wrong?" One does not want to hang up the carrot of a large grant. That is quite wrong. If, however, one is able to say that should it go wrong—one has to be absolutely honest with parents—then help would be available, a climate of opinion is established. If it is possible to tell parents that help will be available should anything go wrong, one is able to set a positive climate of opinion in favour of immunisation and not against it. That is most important.
My third point relates to the social services and health visitors knowing what help is available to be given to parents whose children have suffered as a result of vaccination that has gone wrong. I have made this point before and I make it again. A decision made in your Lordships' House means that under the Mental Health Act there should be social workers particularly trained to understand the workings of the Act and to understand the needs of patients and the ways of helping them. With regard to the handicapped, there are a number of organisations. I contend, however, that there should be specially trained social workers who understand the needs of the handicapped and who also know what facilities are available. If the social work service of the Department of Health and Social Security had to produce a manual of the facilities that were available, it would experience great difficulty because it would fall over the question of finance. I had intended to go much more deeply into the financial situation but the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has performed that task for me. I am grateful to him.
A fourth point which I did not make in my speech in the debate of 14 months ago was that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, about index-linked help. I have lately had to deal with, and enjoyed doing so, the whole question of handicapped students. I have also had to deal with a number of adults who are handicapped. The handicap lasts. It does not go away. It is there for all time. Unless there is index-linked financial help available, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the patient or the person who has sustained the injury will be at a severe disadvantage. I should like very much, although I did not mention it in my speech of 14 months ago, to support what was stated by the noble Lord, because it is most important. The wheels of Government, we are told, grind exceedingly slow. I should like to ask the Government "Are they going to grind sure?" Are we to have a very positive policy in the realm of the Pearson Report?
7.58 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as has already become clear, I think, the House, not for the first time, owes a substantial debt to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of
340
Abbeydale, for drawing to our attention a matter that, if not speedily resolved, could undermine public confidence in public health measures in general and thereby prove damaging to public health itself. If the public become disenchanted with one form of vaccination, they very soon become highly suspicious of all forms of vaccination. And down that road lie very great dangers, indeed.
Vaccination serves two purposes; first, to protect the vaccinated individual against the particular disease concerned and. secondly, to impede the transmission of the disease through the community as a whole and thus protect the public health in general. Vaccination can be, and, indeed, has been, immensely effective on both counts. As an example, I would quote diphtheria. In the year before routine immunisation was introduced, there were 70,000 notified cases. In the following year, the figure came down to double figures, in the year after that, to single figures, and soon there was a year in which there were no cases at all.
Similarly, there was the dramatic effect of vaccination against smallpox. One does not have to go back all that many years to reach the time when anyone who was not pockmarked was regarded as good looking, so universal was that very serious disease. Smallpox has been virtually eradicated from the face of the world as a result of vaccination. Similarly, poliomyelitis is a disease that can have dramatic effects on the young and on very healthy and particularly highly trained adults. That too is no longer the scourge it once was.
Having said that, vaccination can also have its dangers and I quote the same examples. We very quickly found that vaccination against smallpox indeed carried quite serious dangers. We later found that poliomyelitis immunisation, when it was first introduced, had certain dangers. We then went on a course in which we improved the vaccine and so on.
This particular question relates to pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Whooping cough is a disease which, in the main, affects the very young. In the main, again, it is usually very mild indeed but it can have most serious consequences, particularly in the very young. The disease of pertussis (whooping cough) can be prevented by this vaccine, but this vaccine can cause, and has undoubtedly caused, very serious side effects. When side effects become known as a result of vaccinations, we then have to balance the risks: the risks of vaccination on the one hand, and the risks of contracting the particular disease and the consequences which flow from it, on the other.
With the example of smallpox which I quoted, that balancing act had already taken place. Smallpox has now been so far removed from the world that we no longer recommend routine vaccination against smallpox because it is not necessary; the risk of smallpox vaccination is immeasurably greater than the possible risks of contracting the disease. So that has been eliminated. In other cases, such as that of poliomyelitis, as I said earlier, we developed a much safer vaccine, as we certainly did with the polio vaccine in the early days. Where are we now with pertussis? That is where I want to add to the questions which have already been posed to the noble Lord the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I should like to ask whether the Minister can tell us

341
what is the present level of pertussis immunisation? We used to have figures published fairly regularly and I should quite like to know what is the present level of immunisation against whooping cough among young people at the moment. It is a figure which I am not aware of.
Secondly, I should like to know how many new cases of brain damage have occurred as a result of these vaccinations. That again is a figure which I personally do not know, and, when we know the answers to those two questions, I think we shall perhaps be able to make some kind of estimate of the size of the present risk.
If we look for a moment at the other possible course of action, when we find a vaccine which is dangerous—that is, in pioneering and developing a safer vaccine—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on. I wonder whether he will forgive me for putting a question. He would agree, would he not, that we know very much more now than we did five or six years ago? The Committee on the Safety of Medicines has at its disposal information, statistical analyses and so on, which shows that it is far safer for children to be vaccinated than not be vaccinated. I hope that in putting his question he was not casting any doubt on what the Committee on the Safety of Medicines is now prepared to state very emphatically.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am not going to give an unqualified answer to that question until I know precisely where it is leading me. Indeed, I should like some of the answers to my questions from the noble Lord the Minister before I finally formulate my firm views on this matter, because I still think it is a matter in which we have to balance the risks. But I will come back to the noble Lord's point in a moment.
If we look at the other possible course of action which we can take before we find a vaccine having no risks—and that is the pioneering and development of a safer vaccine—I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell the House what progress has been made as a result of the efforts which are being made (and they are being made in many places) to develop a safer vaccine against haemophilous pertussis. I should like to know whether we are on the route to a safer vaccine and how soon it is going to be in general use and what we know about it.
My next question is this: so that we shall all know the size of this problem and the problem with which we are now confronted, I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us the total number of cases on the books, in general terms, in which parents still feel aggrieved and dissatisfied perhaps as a result of failing the 80 per cent. disablement test, perhaps as a result of the deplorable application of the supplementary benefits capital cut-off rule in relation to the £10,000, perhaps because of appeals which are still pending in one way or another, or perhaps because their present circumstances are such that what they have been paid so far is manifestly below what they actually need and deserve.
From that question, one would really like to know from the noble Lord the Minister—and I know this is a figure which he will find very difficult to conjure out
342
of the air—what his estimate would be of the total amount of money which might now be necessary in order to settle once and for all these outstanding grievances. I know it is a difficult figure to ask for, but I feel that unless we do know that figure, unless we can settle the outstanding grievances, this matter will bubble away, will continue to arouse resentment and frustration, and will continue to arouse suspicion about vaccination and public health measures in general which could, in fact, be desperately dangerous.
If the figure is going to be a huge one, I should like to say this to the noble Lord: if we cannot pay the cost and if we cannot find a safe vaccine, we really do have to address ourselves to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put to me; should we continue to recommend routine pertussis vaccination?
Here, I think, I must remind the House of the circumstances in which the last debate took place. It took place in the midst of a whooping cough epidemic and at a time when the then Secretary of State had altered the guidelines with regard to vaccination against whooping cough. In the past we had always said that it was necessary for very young children but not necessary for older children because they were not substantially at risk as the disease in them was not serious. But we then had a Secretary of State who said that children of two, three and even up to four should be vaccinated against whooping cough, not to protect those children—who we did not regard as being in great danger—but to prevent them contracting whooping cough, so that they did not pass it on to their brothers and sisters, to young children in their families, or perhaps other people's families.
I say to the noble Lord the Minister finally that if children were vaccinated not for their own benefit but for the benefit of others as a result of the Government's general policy at that time, and if any of those children did subsequently suffer from brain damage as a result of that, surely it is utterly clear that we have a responsibility and that that responsibility should be fulfilled. I urge that if the noble Lord the Minister can tell us that any of those children who were clearly vaccinated against whooping cough for the public benefit and not their own individual benefit, have suffered brain damage as a result, clearly they should be compensated, compensated adequately and compensated very speedily indeed.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to add to the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having once again raised this extremely distressing question. I should also like to pay tribute to the Pearson Commission for the very close study which they gave to this particular aspect, among many in the commission which was presided over by the very wise noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson.
This, or any, Government may or may not argue that at a time of severe financial restriction all questions of compensation have to be looked into in relative terms, but in this case I do not think that argument applies at all. I have also had the argument put to me—and I have had some experience, having served on the committee of a mental health hospital over a period of years—that all children who are mentally handicapped, or their parents, should

343
receive compensation; or if they do not, why should vaccine damaged children or their parents receive compensation? Why should these children or their parents receive compensation if the others do not? Here again the argument is somewhat illogical.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has mentioned the sum of £10,000. I think that at the time he was facing an extremely difficult task. Any Minister of State, faced with what is virtually a unique problem, has to make an extremely difficult decision. We are assured that this is not really a payment of compensation in legal terms. But the criticism which must go through the whole of your Lordships' House, the other place and, indeed, the country at large, is that after all this time no proper amount of compensation has been fixed. Having said that, I would of course agree it is very difficult to fix a statutory sum of compensation because some of these children may well be living in areas of ready access; others may be living in tower blocks; some may be living in underprivileged households and some may be living in relatively comfortable circumstances. Not that that is any compensation for the children or the parents or those who look after them. But if one looks at the financial and environmental circumstances, it does make it a particularly difficult task for anybody who is trying to fix compensation.
The other point is that it is in future years that these children will face the gravest and most alarming problems. For example, their parents may die or the parents may separate under the great strain of looking after those children who live at home. Clearly, in those circumstances, again the statutory fixing of compensation is extremely difficult. However, it has become cruelly apparent that £10,000 is a derisory sum of money. What will £10,000 pay for? It might pay for a wheelchair properly adapted for these children. It will hardly pay for any kind of help, even if it were, to some extent, to be funded by the state.
All governments can find money for schools—maintained schools and other schools. I have no quarrel with that. But I believe that here we have a handful of children—I do not know the number—who have been vaccinated or inoculated for rubella, for pertussis and other diseases specified in the 1979 Act, and who have been cruelly striken down with the most awful condition. The fault of course is not with the medical profession; nobody can specifically be blamed. It is some compensation to know that under the Medicines Act very much more care is now taken in the manufacture of vaccines. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has the figures as regards any recent cases of brain damage occurring through vaccination or inoculation against any diseases specified in Section 1 of the 1979 Act. Clearly the figures are, mercifully, well down from what they were at the time when we had all these cases. But have they been eliminated? I think, alas! that the probable answer is that they have not.
I turn to the 80 per cent. disability. I am not a doctor, but I should have thought that just about every case was an 80 per cent. or worse disability. So was it really necessary to fix an arbitrary figure? Possibly for the sake of parliamentary power, yes. But surely, if a vaccination of this kind is given and brain damage
344
occurs, the extent of brain damage in every case would be sufficiently substantial for compensation to be paid? I would hope that in every case where brain damage has occurred, compensation, the allowance or whatever it is called, has been paid irrespective of the extent of the brain damage. These children are suffering the most cruel' disabilites, and their parents or whoever looks after them are suffering even worse ordeals.
It is more than probable that this question will be raised again in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. But I say to my noble friend the Minister that the time has now come for her Majesty's Government—and I would say this of any government—to make sure that the parents of these children are paid a proper amount of compensation, since the Government have for a long time—and quite rightly—urged parents to vaccinate their children. That is absolutely right. But where things go wrong (even if it is not the fault of the Government or the doctor) because vaccination took place by Government encouragement, the compensation—even if it costs the taxpayer a lot of money—should be paid without any further hesitation.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, fortunately for the House, but unfortunately for me, I seem to have lost the notes of what I intended to say on the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act. Anyway, much of what I would otherwise have said has already been said by those who have spoken before me. So I shall be rather more general and less specific in what I say than I would otherwise have been.
To my mind the anomalies arising from the operation of the Act are quite horrifying, and they must be due either to the deficiencies of the Act itself, in which case it should be amended, or to the existing machinery or the policy of those who operate it, in which case urgent administrative action should be taken. Alternatively, it may be a combination of all three.
My interest in compensation for personal injury is almost exactly 40 years old. I have no complaint myself as my personal injury was due to the war. Ever since I have been compensated by a war disablement pension and I have been well cared for, first by the Ministry of Pensions and now by the DHSS. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned the 80 per cent. assessment of disability. I cannot help recalling that the other day the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, declared that he was a 100 per cent. war disabled pensioner. I recall that when I was awarded a 100 per cent. disablement pension 40 years ago I asked myself: 100 per cent. of what? I thought that this was perhaps a declaration, an assessment, of death. To me, 100 per cent. of life disablement equals death! But in statutory terms one has to look at the Act, and one sees in Section 1(4) of the 1979 Act that:
"For the purposes of this Act, a person is severely disabled if he suffers disablement to the extent of 80 per cent. or more, assessed as for the purposes of section 57 of the Social Security Act 1975".
That does not help very much. It still remains a mystery to me how anybody can assess disablement except in terms of total extinction of life, which is 100 per cent.

345
Be that as it may. I can never forget the time when I was in a spinal injuries centre which, of course, contained those who were injured other than by war, and there were those with identical or closely similar injuries lying in the same ward or in neighbouring beds. One person was in receipt of compensation for his injury, perhaps caused by an accident at work, and he received industrial compensation, whereas his neighbour received nothing. The anguish caused by this injustice compounded the injury of the victim who received nothing. Just as bad as that was the effect on his family—the wife and the children of the uncompensated victim, who in those days received little enough in the way of social security benefits.
For some reason that I have never fully understood, this crying injustice was not appreciated by the general public, nor by many politicians and nor by the great political parties until the events which led to the setting up of the Pearson Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury in 1973. So great was the problem that it took that commission five years to hear evidence and to deliberate before it reported in 1978. I do not complain of that. It was five years well spent, and, in view of its quality and its comprehensive nature, the report was well worth waiting for.
It is six years since the Pearson Commission reported, and despite the valiant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was a member of that commission for most of its time, nothing of any great significance has happened. I know that there has been some legislation implementing a number of the Pearson Commission recommendations, and there is the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, which (if I do not do the Pearson Commission an injustice) roughly followed the proposals in chapter 25 of that report. I suppose that it could be regarded as a pilot scheme, which is something. But here we find in the small area of vaccine damage the same sort of anomalies that one finds among all victims of personal injury. It may be an exaggeration to say so, but it almost seems as though the payments that you or your parents receive under the Act vary according to the part of the country you happen to live in, and as has been repeated by everyone who has spoken so far, clearly those payments do not seem to be enough. Therefore, even if one is to regard this as a pilot scheme it has proved itself to be woefully inadequate.
Clearly, great though the abilities and persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, are, this is a matter which cannot be left solely to his efforts and his initiative. Do we have to wait for yet another sensational piece of Sunday journalism to galvanise the Government into action? I would say as seriously as I know how to those organisations concerned with the disabled, whether or not they are Government-aided, that they should combine and bend their energies towards persuading the Government to implement the major recommendations of the Pearson Report. In my view, those organisations have wrongly persuaded those interested in the disabled in Parliament to spend a great deal of parliamentary time this Session on a comparatively trivial, though I grant important issue of discrimination against the disabled. How very much more worthwhile would it have been had they spent that considerable amount of
346
parliamentary time on pressing the Government to act on Pearson's major recommendations!
I know well enough that it will never be possible to be entirely fair and that, however hard one tries, there will always be anomalies. But that is no excuse for not trying to be as fair as possible and to reduce the areas of unfairness. We are all at risk. But it is grotesque that compensation for injury should be so capricious as it is. If a road accident is caused by a cat or dog, by a pedestrian or by a cyclist, it is only very rarely that the victim receives any compensation because the owner of the cat or dog, or the pedestrian or cyclist, is not insured and has no money. But very occasionally one finds that the owner of the cat or dog is insured for personal liability—possibly if he or she is a council tenant and an enlightened local authority has taken out a blanket policy for all its tenants. Then, huge damages may be awarded by the court, as happened only last summer when I think a victim of a road accident was awarded some £250,000. That, of course, can he regarded in two ways. One may say that that is too much money, but at least it shows up the paucity of the £10,000 for the parents or the wretched child who is damaged by a vaccine. There is a grotesque difference between £250,000 and £10,000.
Then, again, the kind of thing which is worrying is if the lucky recipient of the £250,000 (if I may so call him) is so badly damaged that he dies within a month or so of receiving the compensation then that £250,000 accrues to his widow. That, of course, is another matter; but it illustrates how capricious this matter is and how very necessary and urgent it is as a matter of public policy and as a question of deep social significance that it should be looked into.
This may seem very far removed from vaccine damage payments, but in my view it is not. The vaccine damage payments scheme is a microcosm as well as a pilot scheme, and should be seen in the context of the much greater social evil that requires a remedy or series of remedies such as were proposed in the Pearson Report of six years ago to the very month.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, some subjects are so painful to consider that one yearns to find for them a flattering disguise. But facts must be faced and no amount of ingenuity in these particular cases is likely to do much good unless it can provide cure, cash or care. Part of the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House is to grip these uncomfortable subjects. I should like to add my tribute to those already paid to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his persistence in returning to this unfinished subject and in shining on it the full brilliance of his intellect.
I ask to be associated with the very highest degree of sympathy that has already been expressed for the cases and families described. There is therefore no need whatever for me to add to the heartrending descriptions with which I so fully concur. I am in entire agreement that this situation of the vaccine damaged children should be dealt with as far as is possible.
My concern is that the circumstance of other families with equally handicapped children shall also be fully considered. Eventually, and much sooner, I trust, than later, one hopes that an allowance will be

347
payable, not made to compensate but to retrieve such opportunities of life as are feasible. That must be the best solution for an already cruel situation. This calls for an assessment which is not made on the cause of the handicap under which, for example, a child with defective limbs that just can be linked to the thalidomide tragedy, receives more than those with identical impairments where this fault just misses being so established. I have to admit to your Lordships that these are the sort of cases that really drive me beserk. In my view it is the extent of the handicap that should be measured, taking into account social and environmental circumstances.
I asked a parliamentary Question last December which was answered by my noble friend the Minister, regarding the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps, published by the World Health Organisation in 1980. That brought from Dr. Wood, Professor of Community Medicine in Manchester, a follow-up on his draft for that WHO publication. His prime purpose was to promote a more sensitive appreciation of the experience of disablement, distinguishing between the three dimensions of impairment, disability and handicap. He considers that benefits on the basis of impairment, rather than the resultant disadvantage, could cause unnecessary anti-bias, stigma or whatever. Every encouragement and opportunity should be allowed to those who are impaired but who try hard and achieve a lot. Yet those who cannot state their case, who cannot be vocally emotive about their situation, must always rank high for consideration. Hence the case for the vaccine damaged.
In case what I have said today sounds pretty well like pie in the sky, may I say that I understand that a DHSS feasability study has been completed to update the Amelia Harris 1968–69 survey of handicapped and impaired people in Great Britain. As I understand it, its results are still in limbo. It is my earnest hope that they may be taken up and that the opportunities of a resulting survey explore the alternatives of applying impairment, disability and handicap as the basis for eligibility, so that the right definition formula may be found. Of course if the basis for benefit were to be altered and were to result in established groups at first losing their edge, this could be adjusted. What is sure is that the home, social and environmental situation must be included in the consideration.
I apologise for my detailed argument at this time of night. My deep interest in the subject is the wish to see those with the same degree of disability, such as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has mentioned, awarded more or less the same help.
Dr. Wood's department does not cope much with impairment other than that some handicaps arise from impairments without actual disability, as in the case of facial disfigurement. His department is aware that the Amelia Harris in depth inquiries took some three hours to get through, having started first with a postal screen. Dr. Wood's department is developing a questionnaire for use in detailed study with people responding positively to the screen. They expect to get the information they need, this time in a much shorter time than 3 hours. He is particularly aware of the effect there would be on all of their social circumstances as
348
well as the actual physical condition. I find it heartening to know that there are courageous, clever people working out these delicate issues. It is a subject that is becoming better understood through current higher education courses. As one goes around one finds that to be so.
To me it is extremely necessary that some balance be struck. Only when a basis has been agreed can cases be judged without emotive discrimination. It may then be, the experts tell me, necessary to hope for a separate division of the High Court to be set up, with a judge advised by two distinguished members of the medical profession, to work out the important conclusions. It is interesting that an opinion poll taken in 1981 indicated that 80 per cent. of those questioned said that in the benefit system there should be equal treatment for all disabled people. I am quite certain that that equal treatment does not exist today. It is my fond wish that a fairer basis be found for allowances and best of all for a national disability pension, including extra expenses, which the vaccine damaged and their peers require. If anyone wants to read a most careful, reasonable assessment of these cases, a booklet called Mental Handicap Costs More by Judith Buckle, which was published by DIG recently, can be strongly recommended.
The needs for which we claim stem from progress in medical science. It has succeeded in helping many of us to survive, despite appalling handicaps in many cases. But I believe we are becoming privy to many small matters that really need not require the attention of the whole House because we do not have a suitable measurement of impairment. Such a measurement of handicap could be used to help, to enable and to empower people to have a fairer deal in our mainly generous society. For this reason I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to bring pressure to put the feasibility study to the aims I have described, and thus help to overcome the dilemma of the vaccine damaged; to point the way forward, for many of the current programmes for disabled people, to cash and care if not, necessarily, alas! for cure. It is difficult for a Minister at this time to appear to support any expenditure on such schemes but, with all the power that I can use from my own experience, I ask my noble friend the Minister to accept that the Government will find it both economic, humane and administratively wise to undertake the survey into the definition of disability.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, here we are again, this small, dedicated, select, esoteric band of hopefuls under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We will continue to meet, we will continue to fight, in this House, whether we have this Government or whether we have another Government, whatever may be the case, until our voice is heard and heeded in high places. And we now have the welcome force of the reasoned eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the all-powerful strain of the Cross-Benches.
My sole purpose tonight is to seek not to repeat what I said on 1st December but to make it plain that my own personal reservations, for what they are worth, are as to the system—rather the same argument as arose in

349
the case of another type of compensation debate, also introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is the system.
The first question arising is a very simple one to ask. It is this. Why has Parliament already recognised the special case for compensation in this regard as distinct from other disabilities? It is because—and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox accepts the reason although, quite fairly, she disagrees with the application of the reasoning—this triple injection is administered to the very young, on the say-so, sometimes, of a very young parent, with the full encouragement of the state in the general public interest. And that is why Parliament has made this a special case.
I adopt wholly the most helpful exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who told us, with authority, about the origins of this Bill and also the full explanation on this aspect of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is the acceptance of this slight, but appreciable, risk of irreparable brain damage in these circumstances which distinguishes this situation from all other forms or categories of disability—the point made before, and made again (if I may say so, with even greater cogency and force on account of the interruption) by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
This is essentially a medical matter on which someone such as I must simply rely upon the evidence of experts, the opinion of experts. Figures have been asked for. We need these figures in order to form a judgment, and of course I rely upon the expertise of the noble Lords who have expressed their views in different ways—for example, as governors of mental institutions and as medical experts. I rely upon the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. They are a disparate group but their views make up the composite run; the drift is all the same. I rely on their expertise, for mine is only that of a lawyer who has some practical experience of these cases, though I am told (and I observe this) that it is not proper for me to speak on that aspect in this House. And I shall not do so.
My Lords, on the assumption that there is a special case, the question then is whether this makeshift statutory experiment is not long overdue for reform. If so, what are the options? There are only three options. The first is a comprehensive scheme for all disabled. That is the long-term solution, something that one day we must have, the ideal. But, although I would support the ideal and, certainly, the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I, for one, feel that in the financial situation in which we are, the constraints as they now exist render it not a viable option.
So I go to the next option. That is the Pearson solution, where causation is irrelevant. Again, one would be naive to suppose that this Government—and I have said this to your Lordships before in another context—have any intention of implementing the Pearson Report because, if they had any intention of doing so, they would either have done so or have said already that they proposed to do so. So we are left with the third option. What is that? That is a radical revision of the Act; and it is quite simply done. All you have to do is to introduce a new qualifying proviso and scrap the old and a new regime for compensation and scrap the old.
350
In a matter of two minutes, may I put to your Lordships for your consideration how simply this might be done? As to the new qualifying proviso, the concept of proof of causation on the balance of probabilities, which creates so much difficulty in practice and is the common law test, must be replaced by a reasonable ground upon which the tribunal could infer a lesser test, thus abrogating at once the arbitrary, qualifying proviso of 80 per cent. brain damage. As to the regime for compensation, subject only to the new qualifying proviso—that is, proof, reasonable ground upon which to infer that some brain damage has occurred as a result of the injection—the tribunal should award compensation according to actual brain damage, percentage brain damage, applying ordinary common law principles. This should be subject to review by our regular courts of law to iron out the inconsistencies and remove the disparities and the injustices to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and other noble Lords have referred. That would abrogate all at once this ridiculous, outmoded and unjust concept of fixed compensation anyway and the ridiculous amount of £10,000. If steps along those lines are taken by way of a radical revision of the Act, you do not get the ideal, the first, option; you do not get the second ideal; but you do more than refurbish a prefab: you produce a respectable set of law which would do justice broadly.
If I may, I would say this in conclusion. We have to consider very carefully the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Should we have, if I may use the phrase, "routine injections" of older children for the exclusive benefit of the community if there is to be no fair and proper compensation if things go wrong? I repeat: should we, my Lords?
The second matter is this. Without repeating anything that has been said, the case for urgent administrative reform within my third option was developed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and, for the reasons that he gave, surely the case that he made out is unanswerable. Surely, the case that I seek to make out for radical reform is unanswerable too. For how long shall we all gyrate in a vacuum?
8.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I join those who have spoken before me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate and for bringing to it the depth of his knowledge and experience, especially as a member of the Pearson Commission. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act was introduced in 1979 as a response to the Pearson Commission's recommendations, and it is particularly apt that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, as the sole member of the commission still in this House, should have asked this particular Question.
Those who have taken part in the debate have criticised several aspects of the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme, but before I respond in detail to their criticism I ought to make it clear at the outset that the Government are satisfied that the Vaccine Damage Payments Act operates fairly and that we have no plans to review or extend it. When the Act was introduced in 1979 the aim, as then expressed by the

351
noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, was to provide a measure of financial support to help ease the present and future burden of those severely disabled as a result of vaccination, and for their families. This remains the aim today.
The Government believe that the scheme plays a valuable part in providing a preferential payment in respect of children who are found to be severely disabled as a result of vaccination, compared with other children who are similarly disabled but as a result of other events. The award under the Act is additional to the social security benefits and health and personal social services available to disabled people in general. For instance, it is probable that the unfortunate child who qualifies for the special payment would also be entitled to the attendance allowance, and possibly also to mobility allowance. The £10,000 award does, therefore, represent a substantial preference for vaccine-damaged children over and above the benefits available to other groups of disabled children; and this is fully consistent with the treatment of vaccine-damaged children as special cases.
The Government cannot contemplate any changes which would increase the preference, but we have not adopted this position lightly or out of any lack of sympathy for children disabled as a result of vaccination, or for their families. We do not underestimate in any way the day-to-day problems faced by parents and others who care for vaccine-damaged people, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to their immense courage and sacrifice.
Rather than increase the financial preference for vaccine-damaged children the Government feel that it is right for their long-term policy to be one of working towards a more coherent system of benefits for disabled people in general. Some progress has already been made in this direction, despite the rather gloomy comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Last year, for example, we were able to remove the "invalidity trap" which prevented thousands of chronically sick and disabled people from ever qualifying for the higher, long-term rate of supplementary benefit. Also, the Health and Social Security Bill, at present in another place, includes proposals for the introduction of a new benefit, severe disablement allowance, to replace non-contributory invalidity pension from November 1984. Initially, this will result in an extra 20,000 disabled people being able to qualify for benefit for the first time, at an additional cost of £20 million a year. So I really cannot accept that the noble Lord's challenge in this respect was fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has drawn attention in his speech to statistics which show that among the seven vaccine damage tribunals in different parts of the country there are differences in the proportion of claims which have been allowed following their respective hearings. This is a matter of fact. But it is a fact also that one cannot expect each tribunal to be faced with an identical cross-section of cases for consideration. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that. Each individual case must be considered on its own merits. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that the
352
different success rates between tribunals is the result of different attitudes on the part of chairmen and members. But the tribunals are independent bodies, and it would be quite improper for me to compromise that independence by reacting to any suggestion about their conduct.
The chairmen of the vaccine damage tribunals are appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, while the tribunals are under the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. Should the noble Lord, Lord Allen, wish to pursue this point further, I think he would agree that it would be appropriate for him to do so with my noble and learned friend.
With regard to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, I am of course well aware of the very strong views that she holds on this matter, but I am afraid there is very little I can add to the reply that I gave her on 19th December. The classification of "handicap", as advocated in the World Health Organisation document, is at an experimental stage. The feasibility of a new survey of disabled people is still being considered by the department. No firm decisions have been taken yet, but I have no doubt that if it is decided to go ahead the existence of the WHO document will he taken into account by the researchers, as I am sure it will by by others. However, it is far too early to say whether it could form any basis for the assessment of benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked about the whole acceptance of the Pearson Commission's recommendations. I have to say to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—and I think they recognise the point—that payments under the Act cannot be regarded as compensation. That is emphasised by the fact that the Act provides for a single lump sum payment instead of a sliding scale of payments according to the degree of disablement suffered. We cannot agree that because vaccination is recommended generally there is a case for paying compensation in every case of vaccine damage. That would involve massive public expenditure, which could only be made at the expense of other equally deserving goups. On the other hand, a claim under the Act, whether or not it leads to an award, does not prejudice the individual's right to institute legal proceedings on the grounds that negligence has occurred.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, my noble friend Lord Auckland and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the question of reliance upon 80 per cent. as the criterion for the allowance. I must stress that the phrase "80 per cent. mental handicap" is not the criterion for an award and gives a rather misleading impression. What is assessed is overall disablement, either physical and/or mental. In making this assessment, regard must be had to the scale laid down in the social security regulations. For example, blindness and deafness are each prescribed as 100 per cent. disablement but clearly do not represent the greatest possible extent of disablement. Eighty per cent. is customarily regarded as the lower end of the spectrum of severe disablement, as defined, and it is misleading to think of 100 per cent. as representing the greatest possible extent of disablement. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will agree with me on that point; And he looks 100 per cent. alive to me. The level of disablement decided

353
upon as a qualifying condition is in line with the thinking of the Pearson Commission which envisaged payments only for severe disability.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about the real value of the £10,000 payment. The £10,000 payment continues to give a substantial measure of preference, as I have already said. Any increase in the £10,000 payment would lead to a movement away from rather than progress towards our long-term strategy to improve benefits for disabled people in general. That is the point which I made just now. However, so far as the figure itself is concerned, the payment now would be approximately £16,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of the payment of supplementary benefit. So far as supplementary benefit is concerned, a vaccine damage payment held in trust for a child is wholly disregarded in calculating his parents' benefit entitlement. Where the vaccine damaged person is 16 or over and claiming supplememtary benefit in his own right, the payment is normally taken into account as a capital resource, so supplementary benefit is not payable. But it may be disregarded temporarily, usually up to a year, where it is earmarked for some major item of expenditure for the benefit of the vaccine damaged person.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, alleged that the Government had gone back on a promise to disregard completely vaccine damage payments. He said this promise had been made on several occasions. While certainly there was some misunderstanding at the time when the new supplementary benefit regulations were being drafted in 1980, I have to say to the noble Lord that his description of this misunderstanding was something of an exaggeration and that it has now been cleared up and is a matter of history. Those who are involved now accept that point. Therefore I do not believe that I can usefully be drawn on what previous Ministers did in fact say. The noble Lord quoted letters, but the dispute has now been resolved—perhaps not entirely to the noble Lord's satisfaction, but certainly to the satisfaction of others.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, an assurance was given to me in writing by the Secretary of State for Social Services at that time. Is the Minister saying that this was a misunderstanding? It could not have been a misunderstanding. There is no chance of it being a misunderstanding. I do not understand what the Minister is saying to me.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we could discuss the matter at considerable length, but if I were to do so it might weary the House. The noble Lord was quite right to quote the letter to which he referred, but that subject has been examined on a number of occasions and the record has been put straight. I shall be very happy to follow up this matter in correspondence with the noble Lord and to show him that it has been dealt with. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance from me.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others referred to the vaccination programme. I should like to dwell for a moment on the principles underlying the vaccination programme. It has been argued that vaccinations against whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus in
354
particular, commonly administered as a three-in-one injection, are administered primarily in the interests of the community generally. It is important that we should reflect on the purpose of vaccination. Vaccination against the diseases which I have just mentioned and against poliomyelitis, tuberculosis and measles is recommended as public policy, with the eventual target of eliminating those potentially deadly diseases. But this is not to say that it is only for the good of the public at large.
Vaccination against these diseases is indisputably for the benefit of the individual children who receive it. Your Lordships will remember only too well the threat of fatal and disabling diseases such as diphtheria and polio. Now over 80 per cent. of children are protected against these diseases. Of course it is a valuable consequence of individual and, I suggest, voluntary decisions by parents that the incidence of disease in the community as a whole has diminished. I do not want to mislead anyone. The balance of advantage is not weighted in favour of the protection of the community. If a case of polio or diphtheria is imported, the balance is weighted overwhelmingly in favour of protecting individual children who might encounter either danger.
Other diseases, such as whooping cough and measles, also carry risks of long-term damage. Your Lordships will be aware that during the last whooping cough epidemic which peaked in 1982, with over 2,000 new cases of the disease being reported each week at its height, over 80,000 children contracted the disease. Tragically at least 21 of them died. The greatest incidence of the disease was in children under the age of nine, and of these a significant proportion were aged between five and nine. Having explained the vaccination programme and the consequences of relaxing vigilance, I believe your Lordships will agree that in the light of those figures the risk of damage attaching to vaccination is mercifully small, although I do not discount in any way the suffering that this brings when it occurs.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords. I am very anxious that the point I made to the Minister should not be misrepresented in any sense. I never suggested for a moment that vaccination against diphtheria was carried out for the public benefit rather than for the benefit of the individual. Nor did I suggest that this was so in relation to tetanus, for example. The noble Lord knows that although the triple antigen can be given with whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus combined, it is also the practice very often to give each of these separately.
In the past, it was not the practice for doctors to advise parents to immunise their children against whooping cough if their children were already above a certain age. That practice was altered during the course of the last epidemic, on the advice of the then Secretary of State. He advised that children who formerly would not have been vaccinated for their own benefit should now be vaccinated for the benefit of others. That was the specific case to which I was referring when I asked the noble Lord about this particular point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for the sake of the record, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to

355
associate myself with those comments. I have gone in fairly hard on this debate and I do not want to be misrepresented in any way. I know that any such misrepresentation would not have been intentional, but the noble Lord has stated my position with total clarity, as I intended to state it myself.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly do not want to misrepresent anybody and I am sorry if that is what I have done. This is a complex area; the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is a doctor and understands the technicalities rather better than I do—although that, of course, is no excuse.
There are a number of other points I want do delve into, and, in the interests to time, perhaps I should do so now. My noble friend Lord Auckland asked about the number of recent cases of brain damage from vaccination. I cannot say for certain that there is none, but to date no award of a vaccine damage payment has been made for a vaccination which took place after 1981. Of 763 awards made since the scheme began, only 27 relate to vaccinations since 1978.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked specifically about the research that is being done into alternative whooping cough vaccines. Research is continuing in this country into the development of an improved whooping cough vaccine, and if potency and toxicity studies are completed successfully then clinical trials of the vaccine will be considered. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Auckland also asked whether we can give precise figures for the risk of brain damage from vaccination. There are, as your Lordships will know, several causes of severe neurological disturbances in babies and infants, some of which may arise at the same time as the administration of a drug or a vaccine. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has always recognised the difficulties of identifying conditions caused by vaccination in the system of monitoring adverse reactions. Recent research suggests that a figure of one in 100,000 children vaccinated against whooping cough who might suffer a permanent handicap is the most reliable estimate at present available.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked what the department are doing to publicise the risk of immunisation against whooping cough. Guidance on adverse reactions is highlighted in the whooping cough section of the memorandum on infectious disease which was issued in 1982. It was sent to all NHS doctors. An updated revision of that memorandum is shortly to be distributed. In addition, the Health Education Council's leaflet on immunisation is widely distributed. It gives clear advice to parents about both the benefits and possible side effects of whooping cough vaccination.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked what steps the Government are taking to ensure that vaccines are safe in use. All vaccines are medical products, as he knows, and as such have to be awarded a product licence before they can be marketed. Before a product licence can be granted, vaccines have to be examined by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which considers their safety, their quality and their efficiency. Once a vaccine is marketed, any adverse reactions are monitored by the CSM through the yellow card
356
system, among other means. A sub-committee of the CSM reported last year on improvements to current arrangements for the notification and consideration of adverse reactions. The recommendations were recently approved by Ministers, and action is now proceeding on a number of measures. A working party is now operating, and during the second phase of its deliberations will be looking at new or alternative ways of collecting adverse reaction data. It is expected that the working party's report will be ready later this year. I hope that to some extent that satisfies the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why the right to make a claim under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act will be restricted with effect from May this year. When the Act was introduced, it related to vaccinations carried out on or after 5th July 1948, and specified a time limit of 8th May 1984 for claims to be made where the child's date of vaccination and second birthday were before 9th May 1978. This time limit was needed because it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain and investigate medical evidence as time goes by. From 9th May 1984 claims will only be accepted within six years of the date of vaccination or the child's second birthday. The fact has been publicised in the February edition of the DHSS periodical bulletin Social Security Notes, to which the noble Lord referred.
I have covered quite a lot of ground but there are, I fear, a number of points which I have not been able to answer in the time available to me. Of course I shall study those points and if any of them can be met usefully for those who took part in the debate, I shall certainly respond in writing. I am, of course, fully aware of the strength and depth of feeling and the passion which vaccine damage leads to. It is quite understandable. For that reason I am glad to have been able to set out the Government's view and glad that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, gave me the opportunity to do so. As I said, I will follow up with what I can in writing, but I hope that at least with what I have said the noble Lord is in no doubt as to the Government's views.

Travel Concessions for the Unemployed Bill [H.L.]
A message sent to the Commons to request that they may be pleased to return the Bill because Clause 2 is incorrect. Bill returned from the Commons pursuant to the above message.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.