Lords Sitting of 13 November 1991

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

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Polish Citizens Visas
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change their policy with regard to visas for Polish citizens.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it would not be prudent to abolish visas while our embassy in Warsaw continues to receive very large numbers of applications from Polish nationals who do not meet the requirements which are prescribed in the immigration rules.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which will give little encouragement to the Polish people. Is he aware that Britain's present restrictive policy is not only deeply hurtful to the Polish people but is hampering important developments in trade, academic, scientific and cultural activities, town twinning projects and even family reunions? Does he appreciate that the Poles are especially offended by the fact that we have lifted restrictions for countries such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary and that other European countries have lifted restrictions for Poland? Does he agree that this is a very unfortunate way to treat a nation to whom we owe so very much?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes a number of very valid points. I concur with what she said about how much we owe to the Poles, but the fact is that many more people apply for visas than can be accommodated. In fact, 57,000 were admitted in 1990, which is more than from other Eastern European countries. It is perfectly true that we abolished the visa requirements for Czechoslovakia and Hungary but in 1989 our embassies in Prague and Budapest had refused only 20 visa applications compared with 4,400 in Warsaw. I emphasise to my noble friend that the purpose of the visas is to avoid having people come to this country and being turned away. However, we allow in a very great many of them.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister say what are the criteria that Her Majesty's Government apply before visa regulations are lifted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we keep the matter under constant review in order to see whether the visa requirement continues to be necessary. While there are so many people applying in Warsaw to come to this country, to remove the requirement would merely mean that, having first secured a ticket, they come here and are turned away at the ports.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although immigration officers work under great strain, yet act with much skill and always use great sympathy, there is a special worry on the part of those of us who know Poland? We became involved in the Second World War on account of that country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's point. I can only repeat that 57,000 Poles were admitted in 1990, which is more than from any other country. However, we cannot allow everyone who wishes to come into this country to do so. A report stating that 50,000 Poles crossed the border on the day that Germany abolished visas is an indication of the pressures that exist.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the foundation which bears my name has over many years invited to Britain more than 5,600 Poles—many of them survivors of the Nazi and Soviet concentration camps—and their children, yet only 17 are known to have remained here? Is he further aware of the disgraceful picture of Poles queuing for hours outside the British consulate in Warsaw, often without food or sleeping space? Does he realise that they are then often quizzed by, sadly, impertinent British personnel who happen to care little about their conditions and circumstances? How much longer must this situation be tolerated when East Germans and others, some with sinister backgrounds, come to this country whenever they wish?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I find it difficult to accept the whole of the last part of the noble Baroness's question about people coming over from East Germany whenever they wish. However, I know only too well the valiant work which the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, does on behalf of the Poles and of her enormous interest. It is good that she has invited so many people and that they have come here successfully. The fact that only a few have remained is irrelevant to the original purpose of visas, which is to ensure that only those who are entitled to come to this country will enter and not those who are not so entitled.
With regard to the complaints that the noble Baroness made about Warsaw, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have made strenuous efforts to avoid the queues which arose in Warsaw last year. Procedural staff office layout changes have been made, and a same day service is now provided for most visa

557
applicants. Cramped visa accommodation remains a constraint and our embassy officials are making efforts to improve it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are the visas for visits or for permanent residence? If what is sought are family visits, in view of our historical relationship with Poland during the last war would it not be right to make a derogation from general policy in favour of Poland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have great sympathy with what my noble friend says. Of course the visa requirements are to ensure that only those who are entitled to do so will come to this country and will not be turned away. It is not just a question of removing the requirements in order to be kind to Poland because all that will happen is that we shall have an influx of people which this country cannot accommodate. Therefore, it is necessary to keep a firm control on immigration.
I repeat the fact—I believe that it is for the third time —that 57,000 people were admitted in 1990. That was more than for any other East European country.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries have all withdrawn their visa restrictions on Polish visitors, cannot the Minister give a better reason than that we still do not find it prudent to abolish visas?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how I can give a better reason than that which I have given already to the House: that is, that far more people apply to come here than we can accommodate and we need to have those visa requirements. I agree that many European Community member states do not have such visas, but they have long land borders and, more than we do, depend more heavily on post-entry immigration control.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, as the issue of Germany has been raised, has the noble Earl compared our experience with that of his opposite number in France? France does not have a common border. It has an indigenous population with Polish connections. It has long historical ties with Poland. It has no visas. Has France had an embarrassing flood of Polish immigrants?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer for France. I can only answer for the principles held by the United Kingdom. In order to keep control of those who come into the country it is necessary to have visas for visitors from certain countries. Where the evidence is that vast numbers are likely to come, then it is necessary for those visas to continue. However, we shall keep the position under review.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, has my noble friend detected the strong feeling from all sides of this House on this issue? Will he undertake to discuss the matter again with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to see whether a satisfactory solution to the problem can be found? Having spent two days in
558
August with those queueing outside the Polish Consulate in Warsaw, I can say that the situation causes great damage to the United Kingdom in Polish public opinion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I detect the inference which my noble friend has drawn. I quite understand that your Lordships would like to see the position relaxed. However, the mere fact that there are the vast queues to which my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, referred indicates that there are vast numbers of people who wish to come to this country.
I can only repeat that unless we abandon all forms of immigration control it is necessary to keep visa requirements under those circumstances.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give estimated numbers of those likely to come into this country if the visa requirement were withdrawn?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a somewhat hypothetical question. I cannot estimate how many people would be likely to come in under different conditions. However, 57,000 people were admitted in 1990; 22,000 applications were refused or withdrawn, of which 20,000 were withdrawn by the applicants.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, your Lordships may feel that it is time to move on. We have a further three important Questions.

Overseas Domestic Workers
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When and how they propose to address the hardships suffered by overseas domestics admitted to Britain under the Home Office concession of 1980.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have introduced changes in May of this year which require domestic workers to apply abroad for entry clearance. They must attend personally for an interview before being allowed into the United Kingdom with their employers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not intolerable that about 1,300 cases have been documented involving such matters as very low wages, false imprisonment in the employer's house, and physical and sexual abuse, without any effective government response or action? When will Her Majesty's Government start to take this matter seriously?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do take the matter seriously. That is the reason why we have produced a leaflet which we give to every—the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, makes a funny face which is not a normal occurrence! We have produced a leaflet which informs people of their rights when they come to this country. The potential employer is also provided with a leaflet informing him of his rights. Once here those people, like any others, are subject to the laws of this country and to prosecution.
Lord Castle of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many such workers already in the country are subject to the most appalling exploitation? The Filipino organisation Kalayan has recorded more than 1,000 cases since 1989. Can the Minister tell the House how many of the employers involved have been brought to court as a consequence? Does he agree that to accord to the workers' independent status from their employers would go a long way towards alleviating their desperate plight?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, such workers who come here for domestic employment do so as a special concession. I cannot tell the noble Lord how many cases there are and nor can I tell him how many criminal prosecutions there have been because no statistics are kept in that form. When such domestic servants come to this country they are obliged to remain with their employers; to work for them was the reason why they came. They and their employers are subject to the law of this country as is everyone else.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the weakness of his case is that if as a result of bad luck the workers come here with a bad and evil employer they cannot leave and obtain another job? If one looks at the whole domestic scene in this country the numbers involved in such cases are small, although the need is growing. Does the Minister agree that it would be easy to make an alteration to the law given proper grounds?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a person does not have to come to this country. If someone applies to come here his application is considered. If his employer is already bad when the application is made to come to this country. it is odd that that person should continue to wish to come. However, if he does come with a bad employer, then that bad employer is subject to the same conditions as any other person or employer. The noble Lord asked why the Government cannot allow people to come to this country and then change their jobs. That would be an enormous loophole in the immigration law because people could come here saying that they are domestic servants and then immediately change their jobs.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the deportation of such workers after they have become liberated? I have in mind the recently reported case of Helen Samuel, a Nigerian woman who was kept in captivity in appalling conditions for five years. Her employers were prosecuted and sent to prison for five years. According to newspaper reports the Home Office is now threatening to deport her. Can the noble Earl give any assurance that the policy of deportation will be applied, if at all, with the greatest care and humanity?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct; the court sentenced both her employers to five years' imprisonment. That indicates the seriousness with which the courts and judicial system treat such cases. Helen Samuel has been allowed to remain here exceptionally for one year in view of the
560
particular circumstances of the case. If she applies for an extension she must qualify under the immigration rules.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are not the Government worried that new cases of domestic workers leaving their first employer are occurring at the rate of about 45 per month? Does not that indicate the urgency of the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if a person comes into this country as a domestic employee with a special concession under the immigration rules, he or she comes in under the employment of the person with whom he or she comes and is not entitled to move. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right in saying that people move, they are almost certainly breaking the rules.

Joy-riding: Penalties
2.55 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the serious consequences of joy-riding, they will propose the repeal of Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. However, it is the Government's intention to propose to Parliament a new offence which will provide for more severe punishment when the taking of a vehicle has aggravating consequences.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that, almost exactly four years ago during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in this House, a few of us expressed the fear that to lower the maximum sentence for taking a car without consent from three years to six months and to lower the maximum fine—both, no doubt, for perfectly valid reasons of administrative convenience—would almost certainly lead to trouble? That has proved to be the case.
In order to save valuable parliamentary time, would it not suffice to introduce a simple single-clause Bill to restore the maximum penalties to their pre-1988 level, to be used in conjunction with valid existing laws covering manslaughter, dangerous driving and criminal damage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are existing laws which enable the police to take action. Our concern is to ensure a tougher sentence for what is done to or by the car after it has been taken. Before 1988 Section 12 of the Theft Act allowed for the taking of a vehicle without consent to be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in saying that there was a maximum penalty of three years. However, experience showed that sentences of more than six months were rarely imposed—in about 3 per cent. only of cases in any one year. The average sentence given in magistrates' courts was 3.7 months both in 1988, which was before the change, and in 1989, which was after the change.

561
Therefore, to reimpose a system which allowed a heavier penalty which was not used appears to be unnecessary.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I did not hear the Minister reply to the fundamental question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Will a simple Bill be introduced quickly to deal with the matter? The situation is a great deal worse than it was three or four years ago. Joy-riding involves the slaying and maiming of innocent people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. It is the Government's intention to introduce a Bill for that purpose.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in certain parts of the country motorcycles are also taken for joy-riding? That is occurring to such an extent that insurance cover will be unavailable to many motorcyclists, especially in the North. Joy-riding on a motorcycle can be as lethal as joy-riding in a car.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount; it is terrible that motorcycles should be used as joy-riding vehicles. Incidentally, I emphasise that the description of this activity as joy-riding is bad because it is not joy-riding but highly dangerous behaviour. The fact that the offence involves motorcycles underlines the necessity of introducing a Bill to deal with this vexatious problem as soon as possible.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a Bill will be introduced. Will he explain why the gracious Speech did not mention legislation to implement the Home Secretary's promise of prompt government action to combat car crime? Are the Government unaware of the strength of public feeling for an urgent and immediate legislative response to deaths resulting from joy-riding such as the recent tragic death of Adele Thompson in Liverpool?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. This behaviour is awful and it needs prompt attention. The noble Lord asks why this matter was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. He has forgotten those mellifluous words:
"Other measures will be laid before you".
That is one of the other measures which will be laid before your Lordships. I assure the noble Lord that we consider this matter to be extremely serious and we intend to take action upon it.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that whatever new measures may be introduced, unless the measures are widely and strictly enforced, those people will still be a law unto themselves and will continue to be a menace to society?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is true. That is one of the dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, asked why we have not produced legislation immediately. The
562
problem is that if the Government produce something immediately, noble Lords opposite say that the legislation has been hastily prepared and is all wrong. When we try to work out legislation among various departments, the police and so on so that it will be as effective as possible, we are told that we are being slow. We are trying to get it right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether or not the Bill is produced straight away a notice of intention should have been expressed in the gracious Speech? For all the noble Earl's urbanity and pleasantry with the House, that was a staggering omission.
Do I understand from what the noble Earl tells us that the essence of the new offence will be the old taking and driving away offence plus aggravating circumstances? If that is so, will the noble Earl tell us when we are likely to see a copy of the Bill?
Finally—and I ask this because it may be of importance to the House—we have heard hints that this matter may be dealt with by Private Members' legislation. I ask the Minster for an assurance that this will be a government Bill and not left to the Private Members' procedure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it was a staggering omission, but if every single Bill to be introduced by the Government were to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech those lovely words which I quoted, which appear in every Queen's Speech, would be redundant. In fact they are put in the gracious Speech for that purpose.
The noble Lord asks what will be in the Bill and I understand his desire to discover these matters. However, I ask him to be patient and wait. We are trying to get the Bill right and I do not intend to tell him exactly what it will contain. Finally, I can assure the noble Lord that it will be a government Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, apart from the question of joy-riding, for 95 per cent. of motorists who have their car taken without consent, the person who has taken it is a thief, whether the car be taken for 24 hours or 24 months, not least because just as much damage can be caused in 24 hours as in 24 months?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is a keen scrutineer of these matters. Unfortunately, he is not a lawyer. Theft involves the intention permanently to deprive the owner of his or her property. Those people who take cars for the purpose of so-called joy-riding do not, therefore, come under the Theft Act unless the intention is permanently to deprive the owner of his property.

Asylum Bill: Consultation
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the views of individuals and organisations on the Asylum Bill,

563
given the lack of prior consultation and the short period between publication of the Bill and Second Reading in another place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are always willing to consider representations from interested parties and will look carefully at their comments on the Bill.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. But does he agree that the absence of consultation was confirmed by the refusal of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to fulfil the role proposed for it by the Government? Will Her Majesty's Government study with care the letter in The Times today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster together with a full page advertisement by Amnesty International?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course we shall consider what was said by the most reverend Primate and the Cardinal Archbishop. Indeed, we shall consider anything which anyone else has to say. However, the Asylum Bill was not wholly unexpected. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement on 2nd July in which he referred to the fact that there were enormous increases in the number of asylum seekers and that we intended to legislate on the appeals procedure. We are in regular contact with the organisations and we shall continue so to be.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, do the Government admit that they did not invite interested parties to make representations? Why did they not do that and are they now satisfied that those organisations will be properly consulted and given a full and fair opportunity to make representations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is the Government's duty to propose legislation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he intended to do so. Those organisations are not usually slow in coming forward. The noble Lord says that there was no invitation to consult, but there was and still is every opportunity for consultation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Earl surprised that there is a great deal of feeling not just among organisations which represent refugees and asylum seekers—for example, the British Refugee Council and Amnesty International—but also among many individuals who care deeply about the principles involved in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees? Bearing in mind that this is an extremely contentious issue, possibly with racial overtones, does the Minister not realise that the past two or three weeks have shown a decrease in the number of applicants arriving at both airports and seaports. Does he also not think it wise to withdraw the Bill until after the election?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not think so. The noble Lord asks whether I am surprised at the amount of feeling on this matter. I am not surprised at all. Anything to do with immigration or asylum understandably produces strong feelings. Therefore, it is not surprising. We are merely trying to ensure that those who—I do not say that they have a right because
564
no one has a right to asylum—but those who are genuine asylum seekers will be treated properly and those who are not will not move in under that banner.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the urgency of the matter and the possible number of people seeking entry, will the Government proceed rapidly with the Bill and reject any suggestion that it should be deferred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is our intention to move rapidly. This Bill has already received its Second Reading in another place and it is not our intention that it should be deferred. Therefore, in those circumstances, not for the first time I concur with my noble friend.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a deep feeling in the country that there is unfairness in the rules which seem to be emerging on the way in which genuine asylum seekers can appeal? In particular, does he not accept that there is great anxiety about the fact that green form legal aid is to be withdrawn from people when they first arrive in this country and seek asylum? Is he aware that both the Bar Council and the Law Society have strong feelings about the issue? Does the Minister not believe that this is one matter on which the Government should think again?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the proposed changes to green form legal aid in immigration cases do not form part of the Bill. We are currently discussing with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service how the changes can best be implemented. We have made it clear that there will be no change in the present arrangements until suitable alternatives are in place.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it will conform with the spirit of our debates if, save for the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, opening and my noble friend Lord Ullswater winding up, speeches were kept within the 15 minutes maximum time limit recommended in the Companion.

Unemployment
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of opening a debate on the subject of unemployment this afternoon, although I am sure that no one can be happy that we find it necessary to debate the subject yet again in this House. We all know that

565
the situation is not a good one. However, the present Government have been in office for over 13 years. They can hardly blame this situation on their predecessors. The large figures of unemployment are, in my opinion—and I shall argue it in my submission this afternoon—directly attributable to the economic policies followed by the Government and which they show little sign of changing.
Unemployment rose in Great Britain between July 1990 and July 1991 by 49 per cent. During the same period it rose in the South East by 109 per cent. Over the past year we have lost almost 300,000 jobs in manufacturing industry, and 150,000 jobs in the service industry, including 60,000 in banking and 70,000 jobs in the retail industry. In the construction industry, another 100,000 jobs have been lost. One disquieting feature is the growth among the young unemployed. Of the total unemployed population, 32 per cent. are in the 16 to 25 year-old age bracket.
In the early 1980s we were told that the losses then taking place in manufacturing industry were a necessary manpower "shake-out". Industry had to be leaner and fitter in order successfully to compete. But that is all in the past. Being leaner and fitter has not meant greater prosperity. On the contrary, even well-managed firms face the future with anxiety.
At Question Time recently I mentioned that during the Recess I had visited Leyland DAF at Preston. I was impressed by the spirit of co-operation that exists between the workforce and management. The site that once employed 13,000 people now employs only 3,000. But all are apprehensive about the future. There is a modern assembly plant there. They can turn out a high quality product, but they need orders. The bottom has dropped out of the home market because of the recession. No one is buying trucks. In case the Minister tells me, as he well may, that the solution is to sell abroad, I remind the Government that the Japanese built up their global position on the basis of a good, sound, stable and highly protected home market.
Incidentally, Leyland DAF was selling to Nigeria. Of course, African states need trucks to develop their infrastructure. But that market disappeared with the collapse of oil prices and the resultant effect upon the Nigerian economy. There is something to be said about the long-term advantage to the UK and other industrialised countries in providing aid to the third world. Ultimately it would help with our employment situation. One of my noble friends may deal further with that aspect in the debate.
The CBI has criticised the Government because of their lack of support for manufacturing industry. Its report calls for a national commitment to help sustain long-term investment in the country's manufacturing base and says the Government must be prepared to act as the champions of industry in the international arena. But we learn from the Government's own figures that manufacturing output was 6½ per cent. lower in the second quarter of the year than for the same period a year earlier. Perhaps the Government believed in the 1980s that service industries would provide the employment which had disappeared in the
566
manufacturing sector. If so, there has been a disappointment. It has not happened. On the contrary, we are now seeing widespread redundancies in the service sector. For many years—in insurance, for example, where I was a union official—there was no such thing as involuntary redundancy. Computerisation and new technologies were introduced against a background of agreements specifying that there would be no involuntary redundancy; that people would be re-trained and re-deployed or else would take early retirement on enhanced terms. Those days appear to be gone. We are now seeing involuntary redundancies in the finance sector. Indeed, Clydesdale Bank announced redundancies only last week.
Much of the unemployment is taking place in the South East—an area once regarded as highly prosperous. In London it has risen by 78 per cent., in East Anglia by some 79 per cent. and in the South West by 91 per cent. Unemployment is occurring among people who only a short time ago were persuaded into home ownership by the former Prime Minister and her Chancellor. As a result, the number of repossessions by building societies is higher than it has ever been. The unfortunate householders find themselves burdened with debt they have little chance of repaying. They bought homes at the peak of the market and are now trying to sell them when the market value is much less than they were originally charged. But they are still liable for the original debt. The misery that that is causing must be very great. And it is happening to people and to families who have little previous experience of unemployment, or of having to deal with the intricacies of social security provision.
In the first six months of 1991 there were 14,306 repossessions in the South East out of a total for Great Britain of 33,778. What that means for the individuals concerned one hardly likes to think. I remember a television programme earlier this year when a manager working in the construction industry was interviewed. He was unemployed. He had had three jobs in the past two years. On each occasion he had had a job the company had closed down after a while. He was not eligible for redundancy pay because at no job had he worked the requisite two years.
That highlights another cause of high levels of unemployment. In the 1980s, people were persuaded to become part of the enterprise culture. Many attempted to do so, often with unhappy results. This year has been a record year for company closures. In the first nine months of 1991, 33,500 businesses collapsed—a 71 per cent. increase on 1990; 200 firms now fail every working day. Moreover, fear of unemployment itself blights lives. It leads to drops in consumer spending and deepens the recession. There is no doubt that unemployment leads to impoverishment. Unemployment benefit is payable for one year, and afterwards the individual and his or her family must rely on income support. Britain is the only country in the EC where unemployment benefit is not related to previous earnings.
It may perhaps be recalled that the last Labour Government introduced earnings-related unemployment pay, but one of the earliest actions of the Conservatives was to do away with it. It was finally phased out in 1982. Moreover, it has become progressively more difficult to qualify for unemployment benefit. Instead of being "available for work" the claimant now has to demonstrate that he or she is "actively seeking employment". Those of us who opposed the change in the formula when the Bill was before the House claimed that it was intended to force people into low-paid employment, and I do not withdraw that allegation. Of course, each change made in the formulae governing entitlement has meant a reduction in the number of those officially regarded as unemployed since only those claiming and receiving benefit are included. That undoubtedly means that the real figures are much higher than those officially quoted.
There is little doubt that there has been an increase in poverty and general deprivation in the past decade. Unemployment means poverty. One survey on living standards during unemployment showed that after three months of unemployment, the average disposable income of families dropped to 59 per cent. of what it had been before unemployment. Families immediately reduced their spending on food, clothing and entertainment. Unemployment was also likely to cause psychological distress. In the survey, 38 per cent. thought that the worst thing about unemployment was being short of money; but 53 per cent. identified being bored, depressed, feeling dependent and losing control of their own situations. It is little surprise that there is a close connection between unemployment, poverty and poorer health, even a tendency to earlier death. Mortality for men aged 20 to 64 is said to be 2.4 times higher for those at the lowest income level than for those in social class 1.
The National Children's Home reports that,
"during the 1980's there has been a disturbing increase in the number of children growing up in poverty and an increase in families becoming homeless. Policies deliberately designed to reduce child poverty have not been adopted and the situation has been exacerbated by a sharp rise in the level of unemployment."
As I said earlier, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of young people unable to find work. Many of the young homeless we now see on London streets originally came to London looking for work. Centrepoint in London conducted a survey recently of young people Who came to their night shelter. They found that 75 per cent. came from outside London to look for work; over 78 per cent. had had to sleep rough; 77 per cent. were unemployed. The difficulties of actually obtaining employment for a person with no fixed address are of course very great. It is a vicious circle. They cannot find work without a fixed address and cannot find a home without employment. Some of them beg—something that 13 years ago was hardly ever seen on London streets. I do not believe that they do that from choice. I have seen young people on London streets shivering with cold after having obviously spent the night sleeping rough. No one would seek to live like that if they thought that there were other options open to them. We debated
568
this at length in your Lordships' House on Monday night in connection with the European Communities Committee's report on Young People in the European Community. Speakers in the debate drew attention to the danger that an alienated and dangerous underclass could be created which could ultimately threaten social cohesion.
Of course, the Government will point to the schemes which they have put in place, or those that they intend to introduce, and to increased expenditure that they intend to make. We all welcome schemes aimed at retraining the long-term unemployed and increased training opportunities for young people, though there may be some criticisms of the extent of the schemes and of the resources committed to them. However, many of those nowadays facing redundancy are already skilled, already trained, and in many cases cannot find work in the specialty for which they have been trained.
We shall also no doubt be told in the course of the debate that the Labour Party's proposals in regard to a minimum wage will produce large increases in unemployment. That will be said—indeed it has been said—although almost all other developed countries in western Europe have minimum wage provision either through legislation or as a result of national collective agreements. We have only very partial pay protection through wages councils in a few industries. That does not cover workers under 21 years of age.
The Government have already indicated that they want to abolish the remaining wages councils. However, two recent independent analyses of minimum wage proposals disprove the Government's case. The OECD analysis of the effects of the minimum wage in France found no appreciable impact on employment. The second analysis carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Review found the job impact of Labour's proposals negligible. At the present time low wages—and Britain has a very significant low wage sector—contribute to poverty. In effect the taxpayer subsidises employers who exploit their workers. Family credit has a significant wage substitution effect. If employers paid their employees a living wage, there would be savings in the social security budget. I see no reason why exploitative employers should be subsidised in this way.
Others of my noble friends may well deal with the minimum wage arguments in more detail. I simply say that the Government's claims in this regard are spurious. It is also spurious to claim, as the Government do from time to time, that regulation in the employment field leads to job loss. We now have one of the most deregulated labour markets in Europe and yet we have high unemployment. The fair wages resolution, supported by all governments since 1946 until this one, has disappeared. Access to industrial tribunals has been made more difficult, trade union rights and individual rights have been eroded yet we have high unemployment. It is clearly not the case that regulations protecting employees lead to unemployment.
The basic cause is surely to be found in the economic policies that the Government have followed

569
since 1979. The neglect of manufacturing industry, the refusal to assist small businesses suffering from high interest rates, the failure to encourage long term investment, are some of the basic causes. The Government have been prepared to leave everything to the market and have even appeared, on occasion, to be complacent about unemployment, claiming that that is the price that we must pay for reducing inflation. But too many people are paying too high a price. It will not do. The electorate will tell the Government so when it has the opportunity at the next election. In the meantime, I challenge the Government to say what they intend to do about the situation which they themselves have created. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I believe that we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion today and for the sensitivity of her own address. With some element of historic rhetoric it raises issues which concern all sides of the House. When I stood up to speak today it worried me that I might tend to speak in an economic debate because the inclination these days is to blame everything on economic policy, and particularly so at this moment when there are fundamental divergences between different sides of the House.
The Government believe that, above all else, the control of inflation is the most important factor. I endorse and support that because we have seen throughout the world the problems that inflation causes. Being unemployed—dare I use the old fashioned phrase "out of work"?—is almost like being at the end of a long crocodile. One suffers desperately when things go wrong at the head and it takes a long time effectively to produce a cure. I see us today repeating many of the statements that have been uttered in the past without appreciating the fundamental changes which have taken place.
Our own economy has never been self sufficient. We may pretend, because it suits us politically, that government can do all things within a domestic market. But we see that that is wrong when we look at the changes abroad. We have seen our own rate of inflation fall very dramatically against that of other industrialised countries. We have even seen our interest rates start to narrow while those of countries like Switzerland and Japan have more than doubled. The pressures in other countries are perhaps as great or maybe even greater than our own.
We have seen the second world disappear and become third class or perhaps float somewhere. There there are two types of economy struggling to come together—that is to say, one that bases its economic development on the value of property or shares, and another which places no value on them at all. We have seen the strains that have been placed on West Germany. I believe that all these trends have an impact on us.
But we would be disillusioned if we did not recognise—that is, those of us who have been employed only since the last war—that we are living
570
through a period of monumental depression and anxiety. The optimist would say that this is the greatest time to start and build new businesses because history has shown that growth is always most profitable when you get in at the bottom.
However, the bottom never actually emerges. Nobody sells at the bottom and nobody buys at the top. It passes by. Governments will automatically seek information that proves that things have turned when, effectively, they are not in total control. I believe passionately that unless we keep inflation right under control we shall experience major problems in the future for our own economic development. If I were to be critical of the Government I would say that they had failed to assess the impact of interest rates which were suddenly way above the rate of inflation when for a long time we had been brought up to believe that they were below and that people did not have to save.
In general people have few savings at the moment. Savings have been eroded by inflation. Property owners felt pleased because the value of their house might have risen from £5,000 to £200,000 between the time when their children were born and when they grew up. We have forgotten how to manage recession. Many of us who have worked do not know the differences between feast and famine. We forget the lessons of the wise and foolish virgins and even of the La Fontaine fable La Cigale et La Fourmi—I hesitate to quote French as I cannot emulate my noble friend Lord Cockfield. His pronunciation of the language the other day gives me great hope for the strength of the British in Europe in future.
We do not remember that there were years of feast and years of famine. We became so used to growth that we took it for granted that it would go on. Then suddenly we experience a depression—for that is what it is at the moment; some of it is psychological and some of it real. People are perhaps less worried about money than they would have been in the Great Depression of the 1930s. In general, people who are now out of work are better protected though they may not be perfectly protected. They are certainly better protected in the short term.
However it is not that but the social aspects which cause me worry. We are experiencing a number of trends that we may forget. People are living longer. Suddenly they are forced to retire earlier. The young believe that they are trained to a certain level yet there are no jobs for them because perhaps they have not been trained long enough. In general we Scots spend an extra year at university as against the English. On the Continent people will continue being trained maybe for the first 25 years. It is almost as though you should train people until they are 25 and they should work in a bureaucracy, institution or corporate entity for another 25 years, but for the last 25 years they should go on being productive. There is no such thing as an unproductive citizen, either economically or socially. The difficulties—and I refer to the 53 per cent. mentioned by the noble Baroness—for those who are not so much worried about economic aspects, are social difficulties. It is odd how difficult it is to occupy people. Even at this time many of the people I speak to, and who may also speak to other Members of your

571
Lordships' House, are looking for something to do where their first consideration is not monetary. They ask, "What can I do to be constructive'?" "What economic or social benefit can I provide?"
At the other end of the scale we have those who have lost their jobs in large organisations where they had thought they were secure for life, at all levels. They had joined a big group; they were not well paid but they were protected. People joined at 16 and went out at 65; then it became 60 and then 57. Suddenly people were told that they must opt for premature retirement at 50 because it was a good thing to do. That dumped on the labour market, or perhaps on society, large groups of people who were well trained and had knowledge but who had no ability or opportunity to contribute to society. These are the worries that I think about.
Your Lordships' House is a strange place to me, after nearly 30 years here. Its mind is occupied throughout. In general the average age rises by one year each year because people are making more and greater contributions and learning from each other. It is the stimulus within society that I find as important as its economic aspects. A depression such as this—and I call it that again—provides opportunities because there is less economic activity. People have more time. There is a greater opportunity for those who know to teach those who know not. There is the chance within government or private schemes to look at how we can manage to train more engineers and more people in higher technology. Only that will help to revitalise the manufacturing sector.
We cannot compete in the world if we do not look at our labour costs. We have to say that untrained labour costs in this country are going to be higher than those of many of the new industrialised nations—if that is what we call them. I do not know who will fill the gap between first and third class in the future; it is a wide gap. Only seven or eight industrialised nations have reasonably strong currencies at the moment. The rest of the world will be looking to develop itself. We shall have from them underlying pressures of inflation that we may forget about. But in this moment of pause, where we have time, it is worth discussing and considering how we can involve more of our citizens, and not fewer, in economic and social activity. Many of those who say "I wish I could retire early" wonder what to do when they take early retirement. It is odd that in third world countries—if that is not a derogatory term—people look up to the old and the wise because they were alive at the time of major problems and recessions. Today, our younger people have not been through this before. They have seen their hopes eroded, and yet their own remuneration at the younger end of the workforce is probably higher relatively than it has ever been in history.
It is the feeling of insecurity that concerns me most of all, not the economic aspects. I do not believe that a government can reassure people, because government only has a relatively small role in the economic development of a country and I would agree that my own party has sought to make that role less. However, we have had a relatively strong period of prosperous growth We are not a weak economy. We are in a weak
572
situation but no weaker, and probably relatively stronger than many of our industrial competitors, if we go back a few years.
The difficulty facing us now is that we still seem to be looking for some form of future. We had a manufacturing base which was the basis of our industrial economy. We had an empire which was the basis of our trading economy. In those days we were effectively net importers of food, but with indirect or direct subsidies we have become net exporters. We have a breathing space, I believe, when it would be possible to change some of the attitudes that exist.
Noble Lords opposite have often claimed in the past that they represented the workers in society. I think we are all workers—those who are employed. Social attitudes have changed. We are moving much closer to an equal society, whether one looks at the cars in the workplace car park owned by people of different grades or at the attitudes of one man to another. I believe that, despite this depression, the Government have taken the right stance in terms of concentrating upon inflation. I hope that before very long there will be signs of return, which must be led by hope, and, with that, unemployment—or people out of work—will start to come down.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I found myself in agreement with much of what he had to say about both inflation and training. From these Benches I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for having introduced this debate. I had not intended to talk about the national minimum wage, to which she referred, but perhaps I owe it to her and to the House to say briefly what the attitude of my party is on that subject.
We do not favour a national minimum wage for two basic reasons. First, we think that so far from ameliorating unemployment it will result in the loss of at least some jobs. I believe that the Government grossly exaggerate the scale of those losses, but that there will be some losses is acknowledged even by many proponents of a national minimum wage. Secondly, we fear that it would have an adverse effect on inflation because of the need to preserve skill differentials.
We would nevertheless retain wages councils, to which the noble Baroness also made reference, for they are already in place. It is one thing to retain safeguards that are there now and quite another to introduce others that would have adverse effects, in whatever degree, on employment. Eventually, we hope that implementation of our tax and benefit plans would go a long way towards solving the whole problem of low pay. However, that is a subject for another day.
In preparing for the debate my mind went back to one which was initiated six months ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. At that time there were just over 2 million people registered as unemployed. Now there are more than 2.5 million. The increase applies to all kinds of occupation in every sector of industry

573
and commerce and every part of the land. The figures look like rising to nearly 3 million before they start to go down.
I realise that the underlying problems are deep seated and that the current recession extends far beyond this country. However, although I am not an economist I believe that the Government's policies—particularly during Mr. Nigel Lawson's time as Chancellor—have made the present situation a good deal worse than it need have been.
I am sorry that in the gracious Speech there was no mention of unemployment and the human misery that it causes. In the Autumn Statement, repeated in this House last Wednesday, the Chancellor is reported to have said:
"Consumer confidence has increased throughout this year as mortgage rates and inflation have come down, and is likely to go on rising as the fear of unemployment begins to abate". —[Official Report, 6/11/91; col. 237.]
How can it be thought that the fear of unemployment will abate while unemployment continues inexorably to rise?
However, I do not wish to dwell further on the factors that have brought about the unhappy situation in which we find ourselves. Enough has been said about that already. The fact is that we are in this mess together and what matters now is how we can best get out of it.
I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Ezra said in the debate last Thursday on economic and industrial matters; that in seeking to escape from the present recession we must take care not again to overheat the economy. My noble friend suggested that, in looking for the right way out, instead of restimulating consumer spending the Government should sow the seeds of long-term sustainable growth through a policy of capital investment directed particularly towards the promotion of exports. In my view, that policy of capital investment for the long term can and should be extended to the field of training. It is largely about training that I propose to speak.
In contrast to the now infamous leaked spending round letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in which it was suggested that the employment training budget should be reduced by a further £100 million in each of the next three years, my party considers that training and retraining should invariably be increased when unemployment rises; in other words, the skill level of the workforce should at least be maintained against the tendency of unemployment to reduce it. It is particularly important that training and work experience should be given before the unemployed person begins to lose self-confidence. Unfortunately, as we see it, the Government have until now done precisely the opposite in reducing spending on training in real terms at a time of rising unemployment.
Having said that, I recognise that last week it was announced that total planned expenditure on Department of Employment programmes is to increase next year by £470 million. I was particularly glad to learn that the Secretary of State considers that the resources committed to training will be sufficient
574
to meet the Government's youth training guarantee, for it is plain that in recent months many training and enterprise councils have been unable to meet that objective. Indeed, even last week when the Secretary of State was challenged in another place on the point he could only say:
"We have reached agreement with 78 of the 82 TECs that they have what they need to deliver the youth training guarantee".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/91; col. 219.]
If that is still the position, it follows that there must be at least four which do not yet have adequate resources for that purpose. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will tell us whether there has been any further progress in this matter. The general question was raised in exchanges at Question Time yesterday, but I do not think that that specific question was asked or answered.
In our previous debate on unemployment I suggested, not for the first time, that there was need for additional measures to be taken on the lines of the old community programme to relieve the plight of the long-term unemployed, particularly young people. Since then the Government have introduced the employment action programme aimed at providing work experience on local projects for 60,000 people in a full year and targeted on those who have been unemployed for six months or more, particularly in inner-city areas. In responding to that initiative I welcomed it as far as it went. But I believe that it should be taken further. In saying that, I realise that an additional £178 million was last week earmarked for that programme. Can the noble Viscount say what that means in terms of an increase in the number of people who could benefit from the scheme?
My noble friends and I think it is important that, in keeping with the long-term objective of sustainable growth to which I referred earlier, the employment action programme should as far as possible be concentrated on constructive projects geared, for example, to energy conservation and efficiency, which tend in any case to be labour intensive and which have also other beneficial effects for the environment. Expansion of the employment action programme would also help the increasing number of young people, particularly those living in inner-city areas, who find themselves marginalised in our society by the multiple problems identified in the recent report of your Lordships' European Communities Committee—the noble Baroness also referred to the report—as starting with a deprived home and background and leading through lack of education and training to unemployment, homelessness and sometimes even crime. Identification of those problems as being interconnected was of course the committee's main finding. Having been privileged to serve on the sub-committee which conducted the inquiry, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I was sorry to be unable to take part in last Monday's debate on the subject and I welcome this opportunity to say that I agree with that finding and am concerned about the consequences that may increasingly flow from such a vicious circle of problems.
There is one other step that we on these Benches think could be taken to tackle at the same time the

575
problems of homelessness and unemployment. I am sorry that it did not feature in last week's Autumn Statement. Funds already available to local authorities in the form of capital receipts from council house sales should, in our view, be used to finance non-inflationary infrastructure projects, especially the provision of low-cost housing. The building industry is at present suffering from a great deal of excess capacity, so such a project would not lead to bottlenecks, and the building of houses itself would help not only to provide jobs and reduce homelessness but also to open up the housing market.
In our debate last April I referred to a training centre in mid-Cheshire, where I live. It catered particularly for those with special needs—for example, to improve literacy and numeracy and for rehabilitation following a period in prison. I said then that to my personal knowledge that centre had during the previous five years performed admirably for the local community in providing training and obtaining employment for both young people and adults. At that time the manager had just been told that his employment contract was to be terminated. That was simply because of a government-induced cut in the centre's budget. Since then the training of young people in that centre has had to end altogether, and I very much regret it. It is when one comes up against such stark examples of the plight of those who are at the very bottom of the pile that the practical effect of government policies in this field comes home to one.
Part of the solution might be to implement the findings of a report published recently by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, in which it was recommended that public funds should be ring-fenced to accommodate people with special training needs and that TECs, employers and training providers should be given financial incentives to target those needs. I hope that those suggestions will receive careful consideration for I believe that in this area the stakes in terms of continuing social stability are potentially very high.
I remain convinced that inflation is public enemy number one, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in that respect. I am also well aware of intense competition which now exists for scarce financial resources. In conclusion, therefore, I should remind your Lordships that my party is alone in having said that, because we regard a major expansion in education and training as an investment for the future which this country cannot afford to postpone, we are prepared, if necessary, to countenance an increase in taxation to finance it. For some time, we have advocated that there should be compulsory education or training for all 16 to 18 year-olds who are in employment and that they should receive on average a minimum of two days' training or education per week. Perhaps more than any other single policy that should contribute to the long-term improvement in productivity, job creation and competitiveness which is so urgently needed to bring down the present unacceptably high levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I accept the fact that many new jobs have been created under this Government. When the Minister concludes the debate, he will no doubt give us the official figure of 2.6 million since 1983. But I would ask the question: what sort of jobs? Moreover, even the jobs which have been created have been neutralised by constant rising unemployment.
From all our previous debates, it is well understood in this House that our manufacturing industry has seriously declined and that skilled employment has fallen. The service sector has grown, hence we have a relatively higher unskilled non-productive workforce; for example, there are many waiters, service workers, and so on. Moreover, the erosion of our manufacturing base has taken our skilled production workers with it.
Service industries cannot be the backbone of a nation which has to survive on international trade. That policy, which is based on short-term expediency will, I feel, produce long-term manufacturing industrial starvation. Officially we have 2.4 million people on the dole. One even doubts whether that is the total figure. We have had massaging of the figures in the past. Of course, today many more youngsters are staying on at school. We have thousands of youths in training and more thousands of premature retirements and redundancies from our traditional labour-intensive industries of coal and steel. The true unemployment figure could be much higher.
However, we still have nearly 2.5 million unemployed and, unfortunately, the forecast is 3 million for the New Year. One very disturbing aspect in those figures is the growth in youth unemployment. In 12 months the number of unemployed young people between the ages of 18 and 24 rose to 706,000. That is an increase of 54 per cent. in one year, with the appalling prospect of the figure being I million next year—about one third of all those destined to be unemployed. What a prospect for the youth of our nation. During that time, demobilisation will begin and thousands of servicemen will be coming on to the labour market.
The Coal Bill heralds another pit closure programme, with privatisation in the offing if the Conservatives succeed at the next election. Then there will be the introduction of the EC energy tax. All that heralds another 30,000 miners facing the dole. I am afraid that, with the advent of the single European Market, the harsh winds of European competition will make it even more difficult to tackle and combat this rising tide of unemployment. This recession—or indeed, this slump—has been deep, long-lasting and it is still proving difficult to climb out of it.
I believe that the Government failed to create the right economic framework, bringing about a totally unbalanced economy with the crippling of our northern regions in which our real industrial strength should lie. Our major basic traditional industries have been shattered by the pace of rundown. It has been quite ruthless and inconsiderate. The skills of many productive workers have been thrown onto the scrap heap and steel plants have been razed to the ground,

577
with the odd shopping centre put in their place. There are still areas of dereliction, with thousands of prematurely retired mine workers and steel workers walking the streets 10 years before their natural retirement time. They have been wasted. There has been a loss of skills and productive effort. The whole process is taking the heart and life out of those regions.
One major factor in that process has been the cutback in regional aid. In the late 1970s, the Labour Government were spending £1.835 million a year on a range of regional industrial policies. That figure was halved to £989 million in the first half of the 1980s and cut further in the late 1980s to an average of £242 million a year. All that took place at the worst possible time—at the height of colliery closures when the financial needs of the northern regions were greatest. The lack of a positive regional industrial policy has caused much regional distress. In 1978–79, government regional assistance to Yorkshire and Humberside was £87.6 million, but during this last year it slumped to £27.3 million.
Allied to all that is the negative attitude of the Government to the question of development funds from the EC for the distressed regions. I believe that over £400 million was allocated to the regions last year from the various EC funds. But where did it go? It seems that the Government are totally ignoring the Brussels commissioner's determination of our depressed areas. The EC's survey and analysis of our regional distress is much more penetrating, much more understanding and, indeed, much more positive than that of the British Government.
It appears that the Government have been taking the cash from Brussels and that they have been dissipating these specially pin-pointed resources away from the EC's target zones and scattering the cash across the country on a number of government schemes, ignoring the plight of our most severely rundown areas. Even now, the Government, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry on the one hand and the commissioner responsible for regional aid on the other are at loggerheads. The result has been a severe deprivation of financial aid of up to £100 million to the United Kingdom coal and steel communities. That aid was allocated by the EC but blocked by Her Majesty's Government.
I believe that the hatred of the Labour Government's industrial aid strategy by this Conservative Government came about when they discovered some examples of aid propping up industrial failures. But are they not aware that this drastic alteration in regional policy with its severe cutback in financial support, and now allied to the Government's intransigence on EC regional aid, has exacerbated our problems, caused disastrous industrial decline, a major reduction in manufacturing capacity and an unnecessary high rise in regional unemployment?
There have been, and it is still evident, far too few resources to deal with the scale of the problems. I remind the House that the northern regions saw a decline in jobs of over 100,000 in the past decade. That
578
is some price that we are having to pay. Last year, in 1990, unemployment in south Yorkshire was 53,514 but now it is 71,440. That is an increase of 18,000 in less than 12 months. Similarly, last year, in the Barnsley travel-to-work area, 7,859 people were in the dole queue. Today the figure is 11,508—an increase of 4,000 in one town; in other words, 11.6 per cent. are unemployed.
There is undoubtedly a desperate need which the EC and the commissioner responsible for regional aid fully recognise, but what is the Government's position? They are squabbling over the definition of "additionality" and the use of RECHAR money—cash especially allocated to recharge the coal and steel areas of the United Kingdom—an EC policy brought about with the aid of the Coalfield Community Campaign, an all-party association of 80 local authorities from the coalfields.
The EC believes that an increase in the appropriation of funds will have a genuine additional impact upon the region concerned, the Commission having decided that the increase in the appropriation of funds results in additional economic impact. The RECHAR programme—moneys authorised by the Commission for a number of projects in South Yorkshire and other Northern regions—cannot go ahead. All those projects are blocked. That dispute was highlighted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 22nd October when in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee he said:
"We are actually having money withheld on the RECHAR programme in particular, where half of the RECHAR programme is intended for this country. We have the greatest problems resulting from the declining coal industry where those regions desperately need that money, and the greatest obstacles are being put in our paths".
What is the Secretary of State doing about getting rid of those so-called obstacles? What are they? Why are other Common Market countries such as Spain and Italy receiving their cash? Why not the United Kingdom? How do we break that impasse? Why not let the regions and local authorities involved deal directly with Brussels? What is the Government's reaction to that proposal?
It appears that in the past the Consolidated Fund has received the allocated EC regional aid. It is then paid out in the United Kingdom, but the question was, and still is: where does it go? Does it go where it is intended? On past experience, Brussels thinks not; hence our regions suffer while the Government sit back and the commissioner holds back the cash.
Many jobs are at stake. We need that cash urgently to develop our infrastructure—roads servicing industrial land and new factory buildings. With the full allocation of EC funds going directly to the earmarked regions we should have a better chance of economic revival. It is an injustice to the local authorities and it frustrates their attempts to put their regional economies on a sounder footing.
If we are to combat the serious and rising levels of unemployment and to re-energise the North, the RECHAR moneys should be released; and it is incumbent upon the Government and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to attend to that with the utmost urgency.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, as a lawyer I hesitate to enter the minefield of unemployment, but I must follow what my noble friend, Lord Mason, said and go north of the Border. What he said about EC funds was correct. It is a matter of some concern in Europe. The Government are proving to be so intransigent that money which should be released to the depressed areas of Scotland, in particular to Lanarkshire, is not being released. It is time that the Government explained why they are adopting that attitude
This is a sad but necessary debate to highlight the price being paid by the British people for Government policies after 12 years in office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calls himself Lamont with the stress on the last syllable. I understand that he is a Scotsman, and there is no such name in Scotland. There the stress is put on the first syllable of the name. Perhaps he does not know who he is. He said:
"Unemployment is a price well worth paying"
in relation to keeping down inflation. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who pays the price; it is each and every individual who is without work and to whom, irrespective of percentages and massaged figures—as my noble friend Lord Mason said—unemployment is the 100 per cent. factor in his or her life. When one speaks to young people one can readily see what unemployment is doing to the morale of this country It creates depression, a feeling that there is no point in life, low self-esteem, demoralisation and frustration, leading in some cases to anti-social behaviour and an involvement in drugs, drink and crime. It might be a good exercise for Ministers to meet the people, instead of pontificating from the cloistered surroundings of the other place and your Lordships' House. They should talk to young people to find out what life without a job is all about these days.
Involvement in crime sometimes happens because of unemployment, but that is not true in all cases. There is a popular myth that if people are unemployed they will automatically resort to crime. It is an insult to the unemployed to link them en masse with criminal activity. Most people want to work and look for work but are frustrated by the lack of opportunities available in this country.
The youth training scheme was no doubt well-intentioned, but it is an absolute disaster. It is an exercise in exploitation, paying low wages and giving people menial tasks. In the end, many young people are just thrown out of the back door because they are no longer of any use to the employer. I do not mean to be facetious, but in Scotland we now have two goalkeepers in the senior league who have come from the YTS. They are two examples of where the scheme has been a success, and no doubt it does have its successes.
After 12 years we are still discussing massive unemployment, but receiving no answers from the Government. The recession is with us and has been for a long time. It is an echo of the Government's failure to govern. One has to ask: what on earth are the Government doing?
580
The Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps climbing mountains, hoping to see a clear horizon on the other side. Each time he gets near to the top of the mountain, he finds another one. I sometimes wonder whether he is challenging the shadow Chancellor who is intent on Munro-bagging. In Scotland, that means climbing 300 mountains of over 3,000 feet. The Chancellor has a long way to go.
I do not propose to rehearse the statistics. Figures are now meaningless and, as my noble friend Lord Mason said, have been massaged. In so far as they have any meaning they are frightening, especially to the young people. He referred to people under 25. It is now estimated that 1 million under-25s in the United Kingdom will by next year have no job, no hopes and no prospects. Where is the country going? Of those, 100,000 will be in Scotland. It is impossible to give a figure for the teenagers—those under 18—because, as I understand it the Government will not publish figures for unemployed 16 and 17-year olds. They tend to push them into little doorways and keep them out of the statistics by saying that they are being educated or doing a course, and so on.
Unemployment among the under-25s in Scotland has risen by 13 per cent. which, to be fair, is less than the UK average; but, in general, unemployment in Scotland is reckoned to be running at 9 per cent. One startling and shameful statistic shows that in Glasgow 20 per cent. of the male population is unemployed. Scotland is a victim of its past success and the Government's present indifference. Had it not been for inward investment in high technology, Scotland would be a dead country. It is time the Government realised that the hi-tech base upon which Scottish wealth was founded is beginning to crumble a bit. It is beginning to look a little shaky.
There are also other problems on the horizon. There has been a lack of imagination, a lack of diversification and investment when things were going well and that can now clearly be seen. Shipbuilding is basically dead, the steel industry is basically dead. Mining is non-existent. Ravenscraig is in the final death throes of its strangulation by "Black Bob Scholey".
What happens now? At the beginning of this week we heard that British Rail is to bring a freight terminal to Mossend in Lanarkshire, right in the heart of the industrial area where no work exists because of what has happened to the steel industry. That was greeted by the Government like the second coming. It is not. It is based on the projections of the developers. The Government should realise that they must not use Mossend as an excuse for seeing Ravenscraig go. It demonstrates the Government's poverty of ideas that they think that the coming of one rail terminal, with the projected 10 to 15 years of development and 8,000 jobs, is the answer to Scotland's industrial problems.
Perhaps I may quote from a newspaper, the Glasgow Herald. AMEC is the developer. What does it say? When we get down to brass tacks, what is the development all about? The newspaper states:
"AMEC admitted their long-standing prediction of 8000 jobs is a 'best figure' scenario".

581
That is industrial gobbledegook. I do not know what it means. There might be 8,000 jobs, or there might not. The article continues:
"BR confirmed the terminal for sending Scottish goods to Europe via the Channel Tunnel in mid-1993 will employ only 150 people".
That is 70 more than are employed at present. It seems that only one train a day will go from Mossend to Europe, so it is not the great prospect that people think. Of course we in Scotland welcome it, but we must look at the proposal carefully. It depends on many things.
I quote the Scottish Secretary, Mr. Ian Lang, who this week called for,
"everyone to work together to ensure the maximum benefit for Scotland as a whole".
May we have an undertaking from the Government in regard to British Rail in Scotland and the Mossend terminal that they will put the proper capital investment into the developments to make sure that Scotland benefits from the Channel Tunnel and the presence of the freight terminal?
In connection with this debate perhaps I may mention the Western Isles, in which I have a family interest and a particular interest as a poll tax payer, if nothing else. The Western Isles have the highest unemployment rate in Scotland. What has happened there is an absolute travesty. A progressive, traditionally non-political council with a caring face, from which my family has benefited, working in a difficult economic area, has now had its face scarred by the BCCI scandal. Those of us who are connected with the islands were astonished to learn that in the capital account, which disappeared down the tubes of the BCCI, was £23 million. At one time, the figure was £29 million. How did the Scottish Office allow that situation to develop?
The people of the islands are humiliated and hurt by what has happened to them. Why should they suffer for the events relating to the BCCI scandal? Not a single individual in the Western Isles, I think, invested in the bank but it is the individuals who now have to suffer, possibly through a higher poll tax.
The best that the Government can do is to say to the Western Isles, "You can have £24 million in the meantime, but you will have to service it". With a population of about 30,000 people, we shall have to pay £3 million interest. Where will it stop? Is it not time that the Government faced up to the fact that the BCCI is a one-off affair which one hopes will never happen again in this country? It is time that they took a grip on matters and helped the islanders.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to inform the House whether he considers that it was a good investment by the Western Isles council?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am interested in that question. The answer is no, because it is not there any more, it has disappeared.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise for intervening once again, but perhaps the noble Lord could preface his remarks by saying that he would not have recommended that investment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am not in the business of recommending anything; the investment was made on certain advice. I am coming to the point that wherever the blame lies—whether with the Bank of England, the brokers or the Scottish Office—the community is what matters. It is for the Government to help the community. I quote the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise who said:
"The already fragile economy of the islands has been further threatened by recent events … the sad thing about the current problem is the effect it has on morale and confidence in the islands".
I can assure your Lordships from my personal experience, having been to the islands in September, that no truer words have been said.
To return to the general debate, it is clear that education and training are central to economic success, but only if they are allied to research, development and investment. These have not been strong characteristics of the Government's policy. People with degrees and qualifications spend less time on the out-of-work register which, at October 1991, was heading towards 250,000 in Scotland. Out of that, 21,000 were classed as managerial and professional, with over 1,500 teachers and 500 nurses on the register. The simple fact is that there are no jobs for these people. It is high time that the Government faced up to bringing in a proper programme of training, research and development, and so on, as has been debated before in your Lordships' House.
The situation not only in Scotland but in the whole country is a national disgrace. If real steps are not taken to reverse present trends the heart will have been torn out of the actual and potential workforce of the country. Emigration is a real prospect for many young people. They must have a vision for the future; without it, they will go. They are at a time in their lives when they are hoping to set out with commitments to work, family and social life. So far they have been betrayed and ignored by the Government. It is time for a change in direction towards positive training, investment, research and development. That will only happen with a change of Government. Meaningless courses and training with no end product achieve nothing for the economic and social life of the country.
This Government, always reluctant to publish real figures, will have trained more people to do nothing than any other government in the country's history. The gracious Speech last week gave Scotland the benefit of one sentence. There was nothing on assisting the Scottish economic situation. I close on this note. I see from the Glasgow Herald that the Prime Minister said:
"I do not doubt that we will increase our vote and the number of seats we hold in Scotland".
He may remember a lady with whom he was associated in the political sense who said, "No, no,

583
no". Perhaps I may say, "No, John; no, John; no, John. You will not get any more seats in Scotland; indeed, you will disappear".
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first I apologise to your Lordships that I shall have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. As I am going to talk to bankers about industry, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution today because I have a nervousness that as in my few speeches in your Lordships' House I have stressed that success depends on productivity, it may be thought that I have no anxiety for the unemployed. Let me assure your Lordships that I have every anxiety, enjoying for myself the privilege of a chance to participate in so many areas. I can think of few things worse than waking up each morning, not only having nothing to look forward to which creates a challenge or makes a difference to the day, but also having to confront the problems that unemployment brings.
Yesterday evening, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, we discussed the needs of the automotive industry. That is just one industry but the situation in that industry is typical of the situation in large companies generally. They will not return to the levels of employment of previous years.
Mr. Robert Stempel, the chairman of General Motors in the United States, warns that the European Commission agreement with Japan over trading cars in the single European market brings only a brief period in which to prepare for the real competitive contest that will come to Europe. He insists that so-called lean production methods have to be adopted by the world motor industry. This could mean using about half a traditional factory space and about one-tenth of the inventories. Lean organisation has achieved dramatically higher quality and productivity and more efficient and faster product development. If a leading motor manufacturer says that, we cannot hope for job creation in this quarter.
Many years ago the Massachusetts Institute of Technology drew attention to the fact that it is small and medium-sized companies which create jobs. A recent piece of research was published in the November edition of the Employment Gazette. It emerges from that research that roughly half the total net growth in employment—half a million jobs—came from firms employing fewer than 10 people, despite the fact that they accounted for less than one-fifth of jobs overall. Within that figure proportionately the greatest growth was to be found among firms that employ fewer than five people. Those firms, on the whole, have survived.
There are few upsides to a recession, but one is that large companies retreat to their core activities withdrawing from marginal activities and thereby leaving open niches for small companies to fill. There are also opportunities for sub-contracting to increase. Further, redundancy is not always totally bad news. It allows some people who have been frustrated by the corporate system for many years to take a small
584
amount of capital and invest it in a more creative and innovative way. That process again generates employment for others.
These start-ups are not large but they are real. The research featured in the Employment Gazette shows that small firms have a relative resilience in the face of recession, which is only common sense. If one is signing the cheques and collecting the debts, one has a much greater sense of cash flow than anyone who is five-removed from a finance director. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, records that this has been a record year for closures of small companies. However, the number of such companies that has remained in business is substantial.
It is particularly apt that we should discuss the future for employment in the run-up to the latest round of negotiations on Europe. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I believe participation in the single market gives us possibly the greatest opportunity to increase our output since the Industrial Revolution. The advent of the single market represents an opportunity and not a problem, but it has its dangers. We must take the lead to ensure that Eastern Europe does not become the most attractive venue for investment because of highly competitive labour costs and less restrictive environmental regulations. We must compete on skills and on quality and training must be directed to those aims.
I have a viewpoint on language training which usually leaves me out on a limb. I believe that as regards European market opportunities, language can be a hang-up and can prevent growth. If companies feel they have to wait until they have sufficient language skills before going out to the market-place, the deal will have been done by someone else. There is no way in which companies can decide in advance which language skills they need most. Before they carry out market investigation, how can they know whether the language their employees need to learn is Spanish, Italian, German or French? However, one could possibly assume that if one's company is competing with an indigenous French industry, it probably will not be the latter!
It is much better that people go out to Europe and appoint an agent, even if that goes against their normal operating methods. Let them get ripped off in the taxi from the airport—we have all done it, but usually only once—and maximise market opportunities. English has long been the common language in many fields. With the help of the Japanese and, I suggest, the Texans, English will be the common language in business in Europe. Of course we should speak the language of our customers, but we should get the customers first, not the language.
As a past chairman of the Marketing Group of Great Britain, I wish to emphasise the role that the service and retail industries play in creating jobs. We should all like to see blocks of manufacturing, but service jobs provide the cement around them. Many of those service jobs are jobs for which training can be given relatively quickly after which employees can grow within the company concerned. Service companies are also areas in which flexibility of employment is possible and where age is less relevant.

585
It is good to see the success of the B&Q outlet in Macclesfield where employment opportunities are directed at older people. Such people are normally excluded from those opportunities. My noble friend Lord Selsdon, who made such a thoughtful contribution to today's debate, would be pleased to witness that.
It would be wrong to talk about the future of employment without mentioning the role of women. I hope the myth is dead that women work for pin money. In today's social climate many women work to keep their family together and many are the single family wage earner. Business Strategies in its latest detailed labour market analysis—to be published on Sunday—suggests that by the end of the century half the jobs in the economy are likely to be done by women. It is also suggested that in many counties there will probably be tight labour markets before the end of the century. Counties such as Suffolk, Warwickshire, Berkshire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex, the Glamorgans and Grampian are likely to have unemployment rates below 2 per cent. by the end of the century. Analyses carried out by this company have not been proved significantly wrong on previous occasions. However, it seems unlikely that the pattern of women's employment will change quickly in the near future despite the efforts of Opportunity 2000 and the efforts that are being made in companies and in government departments.
A major programme is being conducted within the National Health Service—the largest employer of women in Europe—to allow women to move up the ladder quickly. However, it will take time for the results to become evident. That programme meets totally the requirement identified by researchers that the key to this aim is total commitment at the top.
A long time ago, Galbraith pointed out that working women create employment. Indeed I know many working mothers who think that they may well be working only to create employment by the time they have covered child care, house care, garden care and elderly relative support. Fortunately many of those responsibilities are variable from time to time in life cycles.
In an interesting study published recently on the characteristics of long-term unemployment in the North-East, it was identified that while women would accept a lower weekly wage than men, 50 per cent. of women as compared with 35 per cent. of men had vocational or educational qualifications. We must use women's skills more effectively. Although jobs will emerge for women and for young people, whom I hope we will have trained to fill the appropriate jobs, the difficult area of concern is the man who was traditionally known as the head of the household. Unemployment in a working household for that person is difficult. Until recently there were few opportunities. However, the programme of inward investment which the Government have supported has ensured that some of those people are now able to return to work and to supply quality products.
For those for whom this has not been possible, I suggest there are several important factors to be borne
586
in mind. If they are prepared to be retrained to become the maintenance person at local service outlets, we do not help them by referring to such jobs as Mickey Mouse jobs. If someone has been unemployed, paid work is paid work and pride in a job is crucial.
We should also make retraining more sensitive. Asking a 40 year-old machine tool maker to go back to school and sit behind a desk is not the best means of retraining such a person. Onsite retraining, in conjunction with local employers, is more attractive and more effective. I also believe there are opportunities for retraining parents with their children. We all know of families who became fluent in computer language as a result of the enthusiasm of their 13 year-old which subsequently spread to other members of the family. We should offer opportunities for mother and daughter together or father and son together to learn information technology or languages. That opportunity is still being missed in this country. The Open College and the Open University have much to offer to the unemployed. However, instead of "Educating Rita" perhaps we should have a remake as "Educating Albert".
An even greater difficulty than training is the placing of the trainee. If the training programme operates in conjunction with future employers, bonds can be built and criteria established which make it easier for placements to be successful.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one issue which is not often discussed. Much training is started and not finished. That is usually measured as direct failure. My own experience is that, certainly in the case of the construction area, much training is abandoned when the level of skill reached allows moonlighting to be profitable. That is a major issue. Trainees in all age groups will suddenly find opportunities for earning income and disappear to build what they can without qualifications. We have to get over the message that qualifications matter.
Also in the construction area there is still a long way to go in supporting the needs of trainees. Can there be anything more demoralising than building a window frame only to take it apart and rebuild it? There could surely be better liaison between such training courses and those with community buildings which need refurbishing and where, with correct supervision, worthwhile activities could be undertaken.
Training programmes are not easy to instigate and activate. However, we have—in the Midlands at least—stopped training a surplus of hairdressers and we no longer see trainers driving around in Porsches. There is an element of forward guessing in training. Sometimes it is easy; for example, if there is a road building programme or a major relocation. More often it is difficult. Training needs to emphasise adaptability in order to overcome that problem so that people can be retrained relatively quickly to meet the opportunities. In that area I understand that the Germans have something to learn from us.
It is important to look at employment on a worldwide basis, and unfortunately unemployment is rising across the industrialised world and in every member country of the European Community except

587
Spain. That reflects not only a recessionary period; it reflects permanent change. We need innovative solutions.
In the past few months I have found the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House to be even greater than I imagined. I have been impressed by the sheer amount of knowledge and experience on these Benches. However, there is one area in which I have felt uncomfortable. It is the manner in which noble Lords raise the issue of unemployment on a regular monthly basis. Our discussions would seem to be more statutory than constructive. I wonder what those people out of work think of us on such occasions. I believe that they would feel a little more optimistic if today we were debating not the levels of unemployment but the steps necessary to improve employment opportunities for all ages and both sexes. I am sure that such positive thinking is what we all wish for and will produce from today.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness in her concluding remarks, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down this Motion today and allowing us to concentrate on some of the problems of the unemployed.
As one who grew up in a family which suffered unemployment in the 1930s I am especially conscious of the fact that we are not discussing mere statistics. We are discussing the lives and the circumstances surrounding some 2.5 million to 3 million families. I am acutely aware of the feelings which accompany unemployment—lost pride, feelings of rejection, inadequacy, failure and even of shame—as well as the economic and social deprivation which unemployment brings, because I lived with them as a child.
I recall my feeling of dread when, as the war drew to its close, people said, "When this is all over we shall see lots of unemployment again". Fortunately, that was not so. It was another three-and-a-half decades before we again saw unemployment on the same scale. It is a reflection on our society today that we are again experiencing such unemployment and apparently have done so little about it.
This afternoon I wish to refer to one or two specific areas. The first is Yorkshire and Humberside, which comes about mid-way in the regional unemployment table but which is above average for the country as a whole. Much emphasis is being placed on the fact that it is in the southern regions that unemployment is biting hardest in the current recession. That may be so, but in the North, and certainly in Yorkshire and Humberside, we have not recovered from the recession of the early 1980s. Moreover, the structure of industry and the economy of that region means that the problem will remain with us for some time to come despite many excellent initiatives involving a partnership between local government and the private sector.
Manufacturing and the heavy industries of the North were badly affected in the early 1980s. The present recession is mainly affecting the service sector, on which our region—Yorkshire and Humberside—relies less for employment than some other regions.
588
Nevertheless, the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 per cent. in September 1990 to 10.6 per cent. in September 1991. Businesses are predicting that the knock-on effects of the recession are still to be seen in further job losses and bankruptcies of firms.
There has been an interesting spate of articles recently about the economic situation in Yorkshire. One bizarre article in the Yorkshire Post had as its headline:
"Better off North leaves South Behind".
It referred to Britain's most prosperous area being a "Northern Playground" stretching from the Lake District to York. That is a very narrow strip of playground. Dearly as I love the towns, villages and dales of north Yorkshire, they have never been typical of the region as a whole, either in terms of population or in economic and industrial terms. The area's lower unemployment rate—5.1 per cent.—has done little to reduce the unemployment level of the region as a whole.
A more in-depth article in the Financial Times on 8th November illustrates how the North-South divide has widened. According to that article the North's share of UK GDP fell from 47.4 per cent. in 1979 to 45.3 per cent. in 1989. It is forecast that between 1991 and 1995 it will vary between 45.9 per cent. and 45.6 per cent.
The CBI's recent report Competing with the Best—an aim to which we all subscribe—underlines the vital importance of the manufacturing base to our economy. It welcomes the fact that once again there is a growing awareness of manufacturing and that we no longer hear it being derided by government Ministers. That is to be welcomed, but something positive needs to be done about the manufacturing sector.
One of the conditions that the CBI stipulates is a government commitment to playing their part at home and within the EC by creating an operating environment for British business similar to that enjoyed by at least our main EC competitors. In other words, the Government cannot stand back and leave the economy to market forces: they must set the right framework and ensure that resources are available to support that framework. A revival in the manufacturing sector would be the best fillip for employment in the North. It would not only provide employment directly within that sector but also bring an equivalent spin-off in employment in the service sector.
Yet investment in manufacturing, which by 1988 had again just reached its 1979 level, has now fallen back. The infrastructure to support a revival in manufacturing also needs to be put in place. My noble friend Lord Mason spoke about the need for a clear government policy for the regions. I endorse completely what he said and in particular the concern which he expressed about money being available from the Community but which we have failed to take up because the British Government have been reluctant to match EC cash pound for pound to be spent in the deprived regions.
The chairman of the Bradford TEC is quoted in an article recently as referring to the cutting back of the budget for adult training. She said,
"We have only 170 places, yet we need 3,000 places".

589
A number of noble Lords and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, spoke at some length about the importance of training. That cannot be underlined too much. Investment in training is part of investment in manufacturing, part of investment in the infrastructure and absolutely crucial to our future recovery.
I turn now to a second area of comment. It is a matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, referred; namely, the employment of women. Again, I endorse completely her remarks when she said that we must make sure that we use women's skills more effectively. One of the problems in relation to women is that we do not know their unemployment situation. According to statistics, unemployment among women has risen, but at a lower rate than among men. However, we do not know the real situation. We do not know what the statistics represent because many women do not register as unemployed. If they are looking for work or are unemployed they do not register because they do not qualify for benefit and see no point in registering.
Despite what has often been said about the importance of women to the labour market, particularly in the light of the demographic changes which are taking place, women are still regarded as marginal employees. Forty-four per cent. of women workers work part-time and an increasing number of them are on contract work or in irregular employment. The majority does not share, even on a pro rata basis, the benefits available to full-time workers. Some 55 per cent. of part-time workers do not share the employment protection services that are available to other employees. One of the main causes of the downward occupational mobility of women which takes place regularly is the fact that they return to employment after a break for child rearing and they are not adequately re-absorbed into the labour market. On top of that, women represent the largest group of low-paid workers.
All that makes women very vulnerable in the labour market. As I said, we do not in fact know what their situation is. Yet their contribution to the family budget is vital. Unemployment for a woman, whether or not recorded in the statistics, brings the same hardship to the family. That is particularly true of one-parent families, something like 90 per cent. of whom are headed by a woman and who constitute the third largest group of people in poverty today.
The largest group of people living in poverty is the unemployed. The number of people in poverty has grown as the number of unemployed has grown, and sadly on present trends it will continue to grow in the coming year. Yet benefits in absolute and real terms have been eroded. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, the UK is the only country in the European Community not to relate unemployment pay to previous earnings.
There is much that could be done in the short term to alleviate the problems and the position of the unemployed. In the long term there is much that must
590
be done to restructure our economy so as to ensure that unemployment on the present scale is banished for ever from our country.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I was very surprised indeed when the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said that the one thing which has disappointed her since she came into this House is the fact that some noble Lords refer frequently to unemployment. I am probably more guilty than any other noble Lord in doing that. Apart from the fact that I table a Question every month on the day on which the unemployment figures are announced, I raise the matter on every possible occasion. Indeed, I suspect that the noble Viscount welcomes my Question because it gives him the opportunity to defend the Government, however inadequate they might be, and indeed he does it in a very charming way. I say to the House and to the noble Baroness that I shall continue in that way. The reason is this: I feel that at the moment there is nothing more important than unemployment.
I noticed that the noble Baroness made only very slight reference—I am sure that it was genuine but it was a very slight reference—to the effect of unemployment on a human being. A number of noble Lords made that point and I intend to say something about the matter later.
One of the most dispiriting features of the present disastrous unemployment situation is that the Government refuse to accept responsibility for any part of it. Even a slight hint that mistakes might have been made would be a welcome contribution to our debates and would add to the quality of those debates. A number of statistics have been referred to—properly so in a debate of this kind—but the three that worry me most of all are these: unemployment in the past year has risen by 800,000; 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership; and manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent.—a factor which has been mentioned already by a number of noble Lords. In those circumstances it is incredible that the Government should adopt the role of Pontius Pilate. They have had no problems with the trade unions and they have not imported inflation for a considerable time. I concede that they could place some responsibility on the recession in America, but I have not read one economic commentator who has said that that was a significant factor affecting employment in this country.
The Government are rightly concerned about inflation. However, it cannot be said too often that the Government may boast about the reduction of inflation, but it was largely their policies in recent years that brought about the high level of inflation. The Government's insensitivity to unemployment is epitomised by the now classic remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago that the high level of unemployment is a price worth paying to reduce inflation. Two noble Lords have already referred to that. I can assure the Minister that from this side we shall continue to remind the House and the country of that remark.

591
The sheer despair, and the effect on health and family are factors which the Government never recognise. I may be wrong, but that may be because so few noble Lords on the opposite Benches have been subjected to unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment.
Last month when I asked my usual Question about the unemployment figures, the Minister, and presumably the Government, took considerable comfort from the fact that the increase was smaller than it had been for some months. It was not that much smaller. However, the Government have more serious questions to answer. For example, when will there be a decrease, not a mere slowing down in the rate of increase? When will it return to the figure of 1979 when the Government took office? I remind the House that when the Government took office there were 1.3 million people without a job. When are we likely to return to that figure? The Government say that it is not possible to forecast even an approximate date.
The Minister will of course again tell us today of the thousands of jobs that have been created under this Government. That is a legitimate point and it is important. What I fail to understand is why the Government should consider that an answer to the present calamitous level of unemployment. The Government cannot complain about lack of time to implement their policies which, as they never fail to tell us, have produced an economic miracle. They have now had more than 12 years in which to put matters right. We are now in 1991 with the Government still thrashing around for new excuses to blame someone else.
When the Minister replies perhaps he will answer this question. Every economic indicator and commentator states that unemployment will continue to increase until at least mid-1992. Many say that it will continue for the whole of that year. Do the Government accept that unanimous view? Does the Minister deny that the figure is likely to be about 2.8 million? Two speakers have referred to 3 million but most forecasts indicate that the figure will be about 2.8 million.
The Government continue to refer to the reduction in inflation when dealing with unemployment, not least by comparison with Germany. Germany seems to be their favourite model for comparison, perhaps for good reasons. However, they always avoid one comparison. Germany has an inflation rate of 4 per cert. and a growth rate of plus 4.1 per cent. Britain has an inflation rate of 4.1 per cent. and a growth rate of minus 2.5 per cent. This is the second slump that the Government have taken us through in 10 years.
How many times have the Government changed the method by which the unemployment figures are calculated? That is a genuine question because I recently read that the method has been changed 19 times. On another occasion I read that it has been changed 29 times. As the second digit is the same it may have been a misprint. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House wish to have an accurate answer. The question is not new; it has been asked many times. However, today's debate is an appropriate occasion to
592
ask for a definitive answer. The Minister might consider placing a document in the Library with an explanation as to why each change was made. Some consider that the reason is simply to benefit the Government by indicating that the increase has not been as high as it otherwise would have been. We ought to know that fact.
The Government frequently talk about the economy recovering. However, like everyone else outside the Cabinet, I see precious little evidence of that. I mention that matter because we are in election territory these days and I am anxious because the Government rely on an increase in consumer demand to bring down unemployment. I suggest to noble Lords that experience with all governments in this country and abroad proves beyond doubt that such booms do not bring about strong and sustained growth—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
A number of factors would assist in bringing about that strong, sustained growth. We hear little or nothing from the Government about such policies. In the spirit of constructive debate, let me mention three factors although there are many others. The first factor is the introduction of a tax regime which would encourage the installation of new plant and machinery. That seems crucial as a basis for long-term stability.
The second factor is to allow local authorities to use the money that the Government make them lock up, and therefore waste, at a time when it could be of use both socially and economically. Millions of pounds arising from council house sales ought to be used to house our thousands of homeless people. House building is one of the most effective means of stimulating the economy because a wide range of products are required not only in the building of new houses but also in connection with the contents. It is a classic example, as the economists would say, of the multiplier factor. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to that too. I should hate to think that I was becoming a Member of the Liberal Democrat Party but it is nice to know that there is widespread support. It seems an obvious point that the Government should consider.
The third concern is that civil research and development has been reduced and is falling dangerously behind that of our European competitors; and that is on the eve of the single European market. New figures from the OECD show that, taking inflation into account, UK Government funding for civil R&D fell 5.3 per cent. between 1985 and 1989. That compares with a 10.1 per cent. rise in Japan, a 17.2 per cent. increase in the USA, and a huge rise of 63.2 per cent. in Spain.
I have referred to government funding. However, in the private sector—which makes up more than half of the total civil R&D spending—this country is also lagging. I give two examples. For every £1 per employee spent by a UK company, US companies spent more than £2 in 1990 and German companies closer to £3. I hope the Government agree that adequate R&D is an essential component of a strong and durable economy; and that it is important that

593
fiscal and other financial incentives be introduced if R&D is to make its contribution to a reduction in unemployment.
Yesterday at Question Time I raised the serious criticisms made by the Auditor General and the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment about the work of the training and enterprise councils. Those councils are the key to the Government's policies on training. The need for proper training in relation to employment is no longer in question. I shall not repeat what I said yesterday, but it is evident that the TECs as a whole are not fulfilling their objectives. However, I say at once that I recognise that many are making a valuable and constructive contribution to training.
I was astounded to read in the Auditor General's report that one TEC, desperate to meet Government training targets, diverted almost £350,000 to two companies to pay for training programmes and that those companies were already providing the training without the need for public money. It is evident, to put it mildly, that training is not receiving value for money; a concept near and dear to the heart of this Government.
As a northerner, like my noble friend Lord Mason, I am deeply concerned about what is happening in the regions. The Government have made great play of the fact that the North has not been affected by the recession. It is true that during the first months of the recession the region was not hit as hard as the South East. That is no longer the position. The northern region continues to have the highest level of unemployment in the country; the national rate is 9.9 per cent. while the rate in the North is 12.2 per cent.
In those circumstances one would expect that regional aid would at least have been sustained or more logically increased. But what has happened? In this country as a whole regional assistance has been cut by £1 billion and in the North by £200 million. I recognise the fact that the Government are making a valuable financial contribution to the Northern Development Company, a body formed by the local authorities, employers and trade unions. It is a splendid example of self help. That is to be welcomed, but the Government refuse to provide the necessary incentive and resources for the setting up of a northern development agency. I must tell the House that the Labour Government will put that right after the next general election.
Recently the Prime Minister has had a great deal to say about freedom and choice. They are fine words but meaningless to unemployed men and women. It is small wonder that there is so much cynicism among those without a job when they hear such phrases constantly repeated by government Ministers who do nothing about the obscene increases in the salaries of the already well-paid chairmen of British Telecom, National Power, Thames Water, Welsh Water and a dozen other companies of which your Lordships know. If the Government really had the welfare of the country at heart they would do something to change the fact that unemployment now costs the country £20
594
billion a year in terms of benefits paid and taxes lost. I am pleased to hear a few Tory voices being raised in another place against that terrible waste.
That is the economic aspect, but we cannot measure in such terms the effect of unemployment—in particular long-term unemployment—on a human being. The fact that the Government have chosen to put all our eggs in the unemployment basket in order to reduce inflation demonstrates not only their lack of competence but their lack of compassion. It is to be hoped that for once in regard to a fundamental issue the Government will act on the serious criticisms and constructive proposals which have been made today by so many Members of your Lordships' House.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I listened with fascination to the speech of the noble Lord from the South East. It appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke with the authentic voice of the people of the South East. He told us, almost in the words of the Beatle's song, "Yesterday", that they had been lulled into a false sense of security. He said that they believed growth would continue but that one morning they woke up to find that the depression was with them. The South then began to suffer. I sympathise with the noble Lord and with the southern people whose eyes had been closed to what was happening within our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said that he believed our debate on unemployment would become an economic debate. That is right because unemployment is the source of the economy.
The people of the South thought that they could go on but suddenly the depression was upon them and they were losing houses and jobs. They thought that it was strange and it came as a shock. It came as a shock only to people in the southern half of the country; it was certainly not a shock to people in the northern regions.
I give an example of unemployment. During the 1930s I served my time in the building trade. I was working on a small, privately-owned house in the south of Liverpool. The owner was beginning to establish a nice standard of living. Overnight the job was cancelled—we could convert his house no longer. Why was that? In 1935 the White Star shipping line was taken over and all the trade went to the Channel ports. That was my first experience of what was happening in this country. It was not unique; it was happening to thousands of people.
During that same period in our history the Jarrow people saw that there was something wrong about this nation. The answer was that it was becoming a nation of inequality and disparity. Many people will not know about the Jarrow marchers because they are too young, and others will have forgotten. When they marched on London Parliament kindly consented to adjourn for 15 minutes while the Prime Minister went out to meet the marchers. He then returned and Parliament resumed. Unemployment was an affliction in the North and it really had nothing to do with Parliament; it was the operation of the kind of society that had existed for a long time.

595
The fundamental change that took place in our society in 1979 was that a certain lady decided to return to that kind of life. The decision was to let rip private enterprise and we certainly have had private enterprise ripping. The trouble is that it has ripped off the North and only now are the consequences being felt in. the South. We have been told that if we have skill training everything will be all right and we shall be able to prosper in the North. There is no lack of skilled people in Merseyside. The only trouble is that they are exercising their skills either in the South or in the East of this country. If anyone requires proof they should go to Lime Street Station in Liverpool on Monday morning and see the number of people who are moving out for five days in order to work. Do not tell me that the Liverpool people do not want work. I can give the House examples of couples who get married in Merseyside and elsewhere in the North. It is generally accepted that the husband must travel to work and will not see his new wife for a week. That is the pattern of life that is developing. Do not tell me about skilled people being able to resuscitate an area—they will not.
The issue of the Western Isles was raised and the Minister responded by asking my noble friend whether he thought there had been good investment. Another question should have been asked in relation to the, Western Isles and the BCCI matter. Why were the Government not more careful in vetting the BCCI? Why is it that everyone in the world appears to have known what was happening in BCCI except the Bank of England? That was another reflection of the kind of society in which we live. People were out to gain a quick buck no matter who would be damaged. That is why the Western Isles finds itself in its present position. To try to say that there should have been the expertise to know what was going on inside that organisation is rather harsh, coming from this Government.
I am concerned about unemployment and its effect upon the unemployed, but that is not my only anxiety. I am also worried about its effect upon some of the employed. In Runcorn, which was once the centre of the chemical industry of this nation, people are worried. They are in employment but they know that a thousand jobs must go and they are all wondering whether they will loose their jobs. That writing has been on the wall for a long time. If you had wanted to read the book, you could have done so years ago.
I remember when the famous man of Liverpool, Mr. Heseltine, came to see me in Runcorn when I was chairman of the Runcorn Development Corporation. He asked whether we had any ideas as to what was the problem in Merseyside. I told him that the reason for Merseyside's existence had gone. It grew on the basis of being the channel of communication between two mass continents. That had gone thanks to air traffic and the movement of shipping away from Merseyside. Therefore, Merseyside required a new reason for the existence for its existence. I told him that he could do that by providing for Merseyside all the civil service jobs which were making life miserable for all concerned in London. That was pooh-poohed. The room was full of bureaucrats and civil servants. It was
596
rather optimistic of me to think that they would listen to that argument. After all, Mr. Heseltine and those same people had been responsible for taking away 3,500 civil service jobs which the Labour Government had previously agreed should go to Liverpool. Therefore, it was rather optimistic of me.
I said, "There is another thing you can look at for the future. ICI was centred in Runcorn because of the proximity of the salt beds in Northwich but modern technology has now established that the chemical industry need not be based on the salt mines of Northwich. When it seeks better markets it may well be that ICI will move from Runcorn. You had better look at that problem, otherwise there will be another major problem on your hands in regard to Merseyside". Was that accepted? No, it was considered to be much too extravagant. How could it be believed that ICI was under threat? The 6,000 people now employed by ICI are now beginning to realise that economic activities move in response to markets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, read out a list of areas where unemployment is expected to drop to 2 per cent. Coincidentally, the areas which she read out were, with one exception, in the South and East of this country. Since the First World War there has never been a real attempt to establish an examination of our national problems in relation to the regions.
I give another example. In 1940 I was employed in a factory where there was a typically difficult job to be done. I met a chap whom I had known socially. He had just become employed in 1940 to work in what were known as the drying houses of the factory where timber was dried. I met him when he came through the gate at 8 o'clock in the morning. At 8.30 I saw a coffin being taken out and his body was in it. The last time that that man had had a job was in 1919. He had been unemployed since that time. Therefore, it is no shock to us in the north that unemployment is a scourge which should be removed.
When Michael Heseltine finally looked at Liverpool, he gave it a garden festival on the Albert Dock. The garden festival came and went and now there is a big area of land on the Mersey bank which has nothing on it, nothing is being done to it, and it is not providing pleasure or anything else for anybody. The Albert Dock now has some flats, a few shops and many people coming and going mainly because there is free parking adjacent to it from where one can walk into Liverpool.
The National Audit Office looked at the position after about two years and was extremely anxious as to whether we were getting value for money in regard to the jobs being created, because it is jobs which are needed to rejuvenate Merseyside. The NAO was extremely anxious about the high price which was being paid for jobs. We had to establish the goodwill of the Government and that the Government were doing something. At the same time, millions of pounds were put into the London Docklands. There is no problem about the London Docklands, is there? That is a very successful venture. Money is coming in from all over the world. No proper consideration has been given to its effect on the rest of the economy. As I said

597
last week in the debate on the Address, estate agents in London are now having a rough time because of the existence of the London Docklands. That was not thought about or, if it was, no action was taken.
We are now going a step further. A study is being carried out by the same person as to how we can develop the east of London to the estuary along the Thames. Has anybody given any consideration to the effect that will have on the rest of the economy—of course not.
There are no such things as regional problems. There are national problems of unemployment, deprivation, poverty and scarcity in certain parts of the nation. Until we learn to look at those individual problems through the eyes of the nation we shall never solve them. It is my plea that whichever party is sitting on the government Benches should look at the problems of the regions as problems of the nation.
I give another example, and in doing so I shall try to keep within my limit of 15 minutes. The real truth is that the peripheral areas of this nation are dying, as surely as anybody who is lying in his bed dying of cancer is dying, because they are suffering from a sort of cancerous growth. Recently I heard the Government boasting about their loyalty to the union—and I do not mean the Transport and General Workers' Union but the union of Great Britain. The Government like to stand on a platform and say that we must keep the union of Great Britain. We must not worry about devolution for Scotland, or about Scotland and Wales looking after themselves. They say that they believe in the union.
In Northern Ireland there are 4,500 vacancies. I shall not give many more statistics because there should be no need for anybody to give statistics about the deprivation which is being suffered in the regions. There are 4,500 vacancies in Northern Ireland as compared with 47,600 in the South-East. That is enough to be going on with. Is that the way in which the union is to be preserved?
Northern Ireland is being torn apart because of a stupid demarcation argument between individuals. At the same time there are 4,500 vacancies as compared with 47,600 vacancies registered at job centres in the South-East. We know that that is an under-estimate of the number of vacancies. How many employers in the South-East go to job centres to fill a vacancy? They do not. They go to private job centres. The probability is that that figure could be doubled and we may be talking about 4,000 vacancies in Northern Ireland against 90,000 possible job vacancies in the South-East. And all the while in the South-East of England there are 360,000 people with two jobs. Think of that! I suppose those are the jobs which the Government boast of creating. It is obscene that anyone should boast about safeguarding the union when one weighs up the disparities that exist in the regions of this country.
I conclude on this note. It was suggested that we talk too much of unemployment. I apologise to the Chamber that over the past two years, due to personal circumstances, I have not been able to attend as much as I should like. Had I attended over the past two
598
years your Lordships would have heard this story over and over again. It is not a civilised life in London and the South-East. It is not a civilised way of earning a living to be herded into railways complaining about the underground and transport system in order to get to a job, and then do it all over again to get home in the evening. That is not civilisation. The only reason it happens is that there is too much self-interest in London and too much preservation of its jobs.
When the depression lifts—I hope that will be soon—the South-East will lull itself back into a sense of security; it will close its eyes once again to the real sufferings that exist in this country and will allow the peripheral areas to go further down, as they have been doing for the past 50 or 60 years. That is the future pattern unless we can instill into people in the South-East, in government and private trade, an understanding of the problems of unemployment and get them to do something about them.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I could correct one misconception. We Scots feel that Merseyside is to the south. He was directing his barbs at me on the assumption that I was responsible for all the ills of the South. I am actually a Scot.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing the debate. There has been a great shift of economic power and income from labour to capitalists. We can now use machines for all sorts of things which once required labour. That clearly reduces the demand for labour and may reduce its remuneration. Oddly enough, that is not the fault of the Government. But it is the Government's business to deal with those changes in the real world.
I am afraid that it may be thought inevitable that there should be a high rate of unemployment. A new term used by economists is NAIRU, or "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment". It means that one can have a degree of unemployment and inflation without inflicting great damage on the economy. That may be true. However, I take it that the unemployment is transient and that the inflation is within the limits of the extra production produced in the country. That is very different from an unemployment rate of 2.5 million.
There is a danger that somehow or other we are lulled into believing that inflation is inevitable and can be ameliorated by paying the bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for each month raising the subject of unemployment. It is the most important social evil from which we suffer and I am astonished how little attention it receives from the general press.
Apparently it is assumed in conventional capitalist thinking that in times of depression one must lay off labour. It is also constantly said that that happens the world over. I hope that the Government will not put too much reliance today on the fact that unemployment may be as bad or worse in Germany, America or

599
anywhere else. It is no comfort when one has been run over by a bus to be told that many other people have also been run over by buses.
It is not acceptable that the automatic reaction to bad times should simply be to lay off labour. I do not believe that it is inevitable. I shall give three examples of industries where it did not happen. The first is the Scottish inshore fishing industry. Its takings fell between 1977 and 1981 from £185 million to £123 million. But few people were laid off. The numbers in the industry fell from 7,600 to 7,300. The next example concerns the co-operatives at Mondragon in northern Spain, which I understand make consumer durables—washing machines, refrigerators and so on. Between 1976 and 1986, when there was a considerable depression in parts of Spain, total employment in the Basque area fell by 150,000. However, Mondragon increased its workforce by 4,200. The same pattern can be seen in America where Allied Plywood, for instance, has never laid off anyone for economic reasons.
The characteristic of those operations is that they are worker controlled. The workers not only receive most of the benefit but also take most of the decisions. That means that they feel that they employ the management and that the management share in their ups and downs. I do not believe that it is healthy in this country to see top management and directors, who are already extremely well paid, receive increases of 50 to 100 per cent. at a time when labour is being laid off right and left. I do not believe that this disparity between the treatment of top management and owners, at a time of depression, and the treatment of labour is tolerable in a decent society or a decent economy. I should like to know whether the directors of the Clydesdale Bank, mentioned by the noble Baroness at the beginning of the debate, which laid off 700 people last week, suffered any reduction in their emoluments. Clearly, the bank cannot be doing as well as it was. One would have thought that all ought to share.
Reasonable justification for believing that a share ownership economy works is given in a book by Dr. Weitzman, The Share Economy. Dr. Weitzman is a professor at Harvard. One may feel that he is a theoretician and therefore not to be believed, at any rate not in this country. But he partially made an interesting convert in the person of Mr. Nigel Lawson, who introduced some of Professor Weitzman's ideas into his budget. He did not push them very far. However, he did introduce the idea of profit-related pay. I ask the Government whether they are pursuing that line. A Minister has recently said that it is an increasing factor. I would like to believe that the Government intend to pursue the matter with energy.
If' one asks whether the Weitzman thesis has met with any success, I draw attention to an article by Drs. Saul Estrin and Keith Bradley of the London School of Economics. That is an institution which is widely admired at least on this side of the House and can be taken as reputable. Drs. Estrin and Bradley examined the John Lewis Partnership and came to the conclusion:
600
"John Lewis has managed a stable pattern of employment growth compared to fluctuations in sales which it attributes to a high degree of profit sharing".
I am not saying that that is the only way in which one can reduce unemployment. I am saying that in the circumstances, when the country should he getting much richer and when, above all, we should have unity of action in industry, it is very important to look at these developments which appear to make sense against the changes in the modern world.
There should also be some dignity given to labour. What I find most upsetting about unemployment is that it strikes at the dignity of those who lose their jobs. They are treated as being on the dole and having charity handed out to them. They are "laid off", as it is called, when the company does badly. If we are to go to the root of the matter we must change our attitude towards the unemployed and their status. In addition, in a modern world, remuneration must be spread. The degrees of inequality that were once tolerated are not to be tolerated any longer. But they are getting worse and not better. That has to be cured. I approach the question of a national wage with some simplism. However, I believe that we shall come to a national minimum income. That would make sense in distributing the wealth which is produced more and more by machines and which in essence belongs to the whole country.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Turner referred in her speech to her visit to British Leyland and the closing down of that factory. I have a personal interest in that matter. The British Leyland factory at Bathgate was closed in the middle 1980s. That factory had been tooled-up to provide 10,000 lorry kits for Nigeria. However, because of the drop in oil prices and the decline in the Nigerian economy, Nigeria could take only 2,500 kits. The Bathgate factory closed. I remember that I had a televised debate with the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, on the question of overseas aid. We sent a team to Bathgate. It took a picture of the closed gates and the locks, and then interviewed two of the workers who had been made unemployed. At the same time pictures were taken of the deprivation in Nigeria and of the foodstuffs that would have been supplied by those lorries.
That is a most graphic illustration of the inhumane and stupid economic system of which we are a part. That took place in the mid-1980s. Since then the situation as regards the third world countries, particularly Africa, is that the flow has reversed. They are financing our standard of living and providing in interest on debts a greater amount each year than they are receiving in aid from the industrialised world. It is the poor who are subsidising the rich in the world today.
Yet since the mid-1980s the situation has become even more desperate and much more deeply significant. We are facing an era in which human life on this planet can be made progressively impossible unless certain specific and radical measures are taken towards the environment. That applies more particularly to the third world countries than to the

601
rest of the world. I have quoted before the fact that the Chinese Government have promised their 1.2 billion citizens a refrigerator in every household. If that refrigerator is of the present conventional type just think what effect that will have on the ozone layer. But there are refrigerators that are comparatively environmentally benign and do not release CFCs into the atmosphere. That is only one of many challenges that are facing us today.
What are we in Britain doing in order to meet that challenge? Surely there is a clarion call for a massive concentration on research and development. What happened was that the United Kingdom was the only country of the 23 OECD countries where, during the 1980s, the number of people in all sectors of R&D actually fell. We are the only country where that has happened. What are we doing about the opportunities and the demands that are there for trade with third world countries? According to the Government's own figures, in the years 1975–78 inclusive this country's exports were between 27 per cent. and 28 per cent. to the developing countries of the third world. Last year that figure was 15 per cent. Similarly, as regards imports, during the same period in the 1970s, the figure was 22 per cent. to 25 per cent.; last year it was 12 per cent.
That is not only immoral, but also mad. These are the markets of today and of the future if we will only see that. In the 19th century this country built its economy on opening markets all over the world and in taking technology to people who were able to use it to develop their own standards of living. That demand today is surely much greater than it was in the past century. Yet if noble Lords refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology and its report Innovation in Manufacturing Industry which was published earlier this year, there is a relevant quotation which it gives concerning this assessment:
"There was virtually no net investment in manufacturing industry during the 1980s…. If market forces alone are to determine the course of events it is conceivable that we will end up with no significant British-owned manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom".
The report goes on to attribute this dire state of affairs to a lack of government support for industry in stark contrast to our overseas competitors. In reference to our lamentable performance in R&D it again says that this was the result of the reduction in government support for R&D.
So when we hear the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, talking about the state of the economy, it is not an act of God. I welcome the opportunity of debating this across the House with the noble Lord because both he and I were on the Aldington Select Committee together and we heard the evidence which showed where the causes of our manufacturing decline came from. We forecast at that time the depression from which we are now suffering. We forecast not just that it would happen, but why it would happen and what could be done to prevent it. Those measures were not taken, as the noble Lord must know.
The noble Lord talked about the paramount importance of reducing inflation. Who raised inflation? Was it an act of God? Did it have nothing
602
to do with the policy of the Chancellor at the time, Nigel Lawson, who as the noble Lord will remember, we questioned very thoroughly about the causes of the kind of depression which we then forecast? Had it nothing to do with the way in which that Chancellor not only ignored, but spurned the advice that our committee gave? As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out, this is the second depression in 10 years. It is not an accident: it is the logical consequence of government policies. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that everything cannot be put down to government. But that does not mean that nothing can be put down to government. When we see two deep depressions of this kind within 10 years, when we see the mounting inflation figures, the mounting figures of interest rates, one cannot simply say, "Oh, this comes from the outside and the Government are quite helpless to do anything about it". That, I suggest, is a complete exposure of the fraudulence of the Government in claiming to be competent in running our economy.
The noble Lord must know that if we compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in those of our major competitors, again it is not an accident. There is a difference of policy. I understand that if one looks back over the past 10 years manufacturing growth in this country has been 6 per cent. Of the industrial countries only Greece has a lower increase in manufacturing growth. The Germans have 26 per cent.; the Japanese have 62.7 per cent. These are not accidents. This is the consequence of government policy and of government incompetence in running the economy.
The noble Lord's speech raises an issue which I have asked the Government to answer for over 10 years and I have never had an answer. Where do the Government stand on the use of public expenditure—public investment? I have asked this question specifically and I am asking it specifically again today. Do the Government consider that public expenditure is a cost to our economy, or an investment? I apply that point to certain specific areas. It is government that determines the level of overseas aid. Overseas aid, in percentage terms of GDP, has fallen to about half of what it was when this Government took office. The last figure was 0.27 per cent.; in 1979 it was 0.53 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will bear me out when I tell the House that during the sittings of the Aldington Select Committee we constantly questioned leading industrialists like John Harvey-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, as to the relation between the level of overseas aid and the level of British exports to third world countries. On every occasion—and this was repeated and brought up in front of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson; I brought it up myself—the answer was, "Yes, of course. Overseas aid is important; it is crucial to our export industry".
I shall make one short quotation from the evidence given to that committee by Mr. MacPherson, of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. He said:
"Of course we have to expand to get new markets because, my word, if we do not get into new markets and if we do not ensure that other countries in the world, nations which are not

603
major industrial markets now become so, I believe the whole theory on which we base our economy will begin to fall to the ground".
Later on I received a letter from an export group of construction industries, which had this to say:
"This country needs to persuade itself that we can afford more aid because it will be good for Britain as well as for the beneficiary country and that the return outweighs the aid in a ratio of about 5:1".
Where do the Government stand in the relationship between the provision of overseas aid and the export industry on which so much of our economy depends and on which employment within our manufacturing industry also depends? It is the Government's responsibility so far as aid is provided. It is the Government's responsibility when they reduce the resources of the British Overseas Trade Board. It is the Government's responsibility when they reduce the number of commercial attaches in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and throughout our diplomatic services.
Yes, this is the Government's responsibility, and I ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether he will explain to us the Government's attitude when they see our exports to third world countries declining; when they reduce government provision to assist those exports; when they reduce overseas aid to those countries that are now suffering.
Finally, I shall just meet the question which should come, and probably will come: what would you do? I would say that there are three immediate measures that should be taken to rectify this rapidly declining and disastrous position. First, we must reverse the 18 per cent. decline in manufacturing investment by providing investment tax breaks. Secondly, we must abandon the privatisation of the British Technology Group. We should set up campus-based trusts to develop and expand our research. We should then apply the research, which has been provided by our universities and technical colleges for so long, instead of, as so often happens, allowing it to be taken abroad and developed there. Thirdly, as has already been said by a number of speakers, we must develop agencies in England for regional economic growth.
The challenges have never been as great or as solemn. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply will tell us how the Government intend to reverse what has been their disastrous policy of running away from these challenges.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Macaulay said that this debate was a sad occasion. I strongly agree with him and enter the debate with great dismay—dismay that it should have to be taking place at this time.
In the late 1940s, when I was beginning my professional life and starting to become active in politics, it was generally felt on all sides that one of government's main aims and responsibilities was to attain and maintain full employment for its citizens. That was a major goal of government. There was a postwar consensus along those lines. There was also consensus on the provision of adequate housing and
604
the sustaining of health. What is sad is that that consensus seems to have declined and in some respects withered away.
There was considerable debate in those days as to how full employment was to be defined. I believe I am right in saying—perhaps noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will correct me if I am wrong—that when Lord Beveridge wrote his report on full employment he had in mind a figure of around 3 per cent. I seem to recall that, not long after, Hugh Gaitskell, as Chancellor, accepted that 3 per cent. was a suitable figure in defining full employment. With the mass of statistics we have today we have to realise that the 3 per cent. figure would now be somewhat lower. I am not sure how much lower—perhaps it would be 2 per cent.—but at all events it would not be zero. We all accept that a certain measure of unemployment is inevitable and we all hope that it will be transitory and will pass away rapidly.
In the 1950s and 1960s the figure fell to 1.5 per cent. or 1.6 per cent. That was in all probability too low because it concealed a fair element of overmanning in industry. There were what one might call pensioners in industry who should really have been pensioners in the social security system. That consensus has now disappeared, and instead of it being a goal of the Government to remove unemployment, it has become one of their main economic weapons in the combat of inflation and the defence of sterling. We know that the combat of inflation and the defence of sterling are necessary, but on this side of the House we do not believe that unemployment should he the major weapon.
I agree with the general comments of my noble friends Lady Turner, Lord Hatch and Lord Sefton about unemployment. However, for the purposes of this debate I wish to concentrate on the narrow area of the construction industry, in which I have spent a lifetime. Recent figures show that 250,000 building workers out of a labour force of around 1.7 million are unemployed. That is nearly 15 per cent.—far too high and a long way from anything that might be described as full employment.
The construction industry is now one of the Government's economic regulators. The strength of the industry is no longer based on the country's obvious need for housing and infrastructure. It is no longer based on manufacturing industry's need for capital investment. Instead of responding to the needs of the nation, the construction industry is merely one of the Government's regulators—one of their weapons. The level of activity in the industry relates not to need but to the Government's requirements in controlling the economy.
During this recession—as my noble friend Lord Hatch said, the second recession of this Government's three Parliaments—the construction industry has faced one change. We all know that ordinary building workers have been hit hard yet again, but in this recession the construction professionals have been harder hit than at any time since the early 1930s. By construction professionals I mean architects, civil engineers, quantity surveyors, building managers, structural engineers, heating and ventilation engineers

605
and interior designers—all those professionally engaged in construction. Workers in all those professions have been hit much harder in the current recession than they were 10 years ago.
One may wonder to what extent that matters. It matters in the sense that construction professionals form a central part of our overseas earning capacity. According to the British Consultants Bureau, which was set up in 1966 or thereabouts, British consultants—engineers, architects and so on—are the second highest earners of invisibles. Their contribution to the balance of payments is outstanding. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, an export effort of that nature can be based only on a sound home market. But is the home market any longer sound? The Institution of Civil Engineers reports that the number of its members who are unemployed has doubled in the past year. A well-known firm of consulting engineers, one of the most successful in the world, has made 90 staff redundant. Another firm has made 71 staff redundant. The Chartered Institute of Building has been obliged to set up seminars on redundancy to advise its members on how to deal with unemployment.
It is possible that architects have been the hardest hit. Indeed, the Royal Institute of British Architects told me this morning that 5 per cent. of its members are unemployed and another 19 per cent. are underemployed. That is four times as many as at this time last year. Incidentally, underemployment is a euphemism. As noble Lords will know, the work of architects is carried out largely by relatively small groups of people. Of course, there are some big firms but the pattern is of the small practice—the kind of small business about which the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was so pleased. She was right in that view. Small businesses do create more jobs than big businesses in total. However, when such firms go out of business they also lose more. That is what is happening. Underemployment among architects really means that a small practice has no work to do. Its principals dismiss two or three employees and they themselves pick up what scraps they can obtain from brother architects who are still economically active.
Interior designers have been badly hit by the recession. In the past, I have been unkind about them in the House. I do not take back what I said. However, they have been hard hit. A designer I know quite well, whose practice has been very successful and who is well respected—indeed, one can see his work in at least two of the terminals at Heathrow Airport—has dismissed all of his six employees. He is twiddling his thumbs, waiting for the recession to come to an end and hoping that he can survive it.
Noble Lords may wonder why I have concentrated on a relatively small part of a large problem. It is because, in a sense, the construction professionals are in the same boat as the construction workers. They deserve at least as much sympathy. As I said earlier, their contribution to our overseas earnings is quite remarkable. It is a contribution which is not making things; it is a contribution of the intellect of designing and managing things and causing them to be built.
606
There is another important matter. I refer to the issue of training, which has been mentioned once or twice during the course of the debate. If one thinks of the nature of training such professionals, it becomes extremely important that jobs should be available. I say that because an architect is trained by taking a degree and going into a firm where he works at the drawing board, or whatever it is they have these days, as a designer learning "at Nellie's knee", to use the old phrase. He then returns to college and takes his final RIBA qualification. Civil engineers are trained in a somewhat similar manner. They take a degree and then join a firm recognised by the Institution of Civil Engineers where they are trained under agreement by the company for a period of four years. At the end of that time, they are able to become corporate members of the institution and are then qualified engineers. A similar system operates for architects.
However, the key to that mode of training is that firms must be able to take on trainees. In present circumstances, it is very difficult for them to do so. Indeed, many firms have cut back on their intake of graduate students, while a good many firms have cut them out completely. Without that training there will be a lack of opportunity for young people. In addition, we shall see an important and almost unending decline in the quality of engineers and architects who pass through the system.
I know that the Government will probably say that a great deal is being done. Over the past year or two mention has been made of the fact that very large sums of money have been devoted to motorways, railways and so on. We hope that that money will actually result in work becoming available. The sum of money involved is not important; the important thing is a hole being dug in the ground, filled with concrete and then something being built upon it; in other words, that the work is actually started. Such government proposals are on the horizon. But, as noble Lords will notice, the Channel Tunnel rail link which is unfortunately taking the wrong route and going to the wrong place for the wrong reasons has been put off by about eight or nine years. Therefore, although these investments are on the horizon, I believe that they are on a very far horizon.
I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hatch about what ought to be done. He is certainly right in what he says. He will no doubt enjoy agreeing with me. But, fundamentally, what is required from the Government is a return to the post-war consensus or notion that full employment is a goal for the Government and not merely a by-product of their ideology.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for giving us the opportunity to discuss unemployment. I find myself somewhat handicapped in discussing this matter because I am an economist. I spent far too many years of my youth reading about unemployment and studying it. Therefore, if now and again I sound didactic I beg

607
your Lordships' forgiveness. I shall try my best to keep partisanship firmly under control, but I fear that I shall not succeed in that aim.
I shall begin by saying that, even if we discount the current recession, one cannot deny the fact that the level of unemployment over the past 10 years or so has been much too high. In 1970 we had a government in power which bore the label of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—the "Selsdon man" was in power. We had a government which panicked when unemployment reached the figure of 1 million, and quite rightly so. Noble. Lords may remember that we had a consensus at the time. It seemed that an unemployment figure of 3 per cent. or more was intolerable and that the public would not stand for it. But, nowadays, an accusation that the unemployment figure is about to go beyond 2.5 million is thought to be a sticking point and we fight about numbers around that figure rather than around the figure of 1 million.
Obviously something has changed. It is not all the fault of the present Government. I shall deal with that which I consider to be their fault in a moment. We have to admit that something has changed over the past 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or NAIRU as it is called. It is something which, for many years, economists have tried to understand and estimate. They are trying to find some notion of employment which is not full employment, as we understand it, but is at a level that will not accelerate the existing inflation rate, whatever it is. My colleagues Professors Layard and Nickell, and Mr. Jackman have been slaving away over that problem for many years and have just published a book called Unemployment from which I shall quote.
Economists try to calculate the equilibrium rate of unemployment. Two or three things are true about it. First, the equilibrium rate has risen in the UK. We discount the recession, but in the 1960s it was roughly 2.5 per cent.; in the 1970s roughly 5 per cent.; and in the 1980s roughly 8 per cent. We are currently above that rate because we are in recession. Although the rate has risen here and elsewhere, it has not risen the same everywhere. While some increase in unemployment may be structural, we can choose how to get it down. In a booming economy we do not have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent.; it is more likely to be 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. It is not as a result of an act of God or an act of nature that the unemployment rate happens to be whatever it is; nor is it something thrown up by the market. The market does not throw things up. Policies designed to reduce the unemployment rate, working with the grain of the market, rather than against it, would bring it down. It is important that we understand how it can be done.
When the Government came to power in 1979 they believed genuinely—I did not agree with them and still do not agree with them—that the cause of stagflation in the UK was the power of the trade unions and the fact that our wage rates were too high. It was thought that o combination of policies—control of the money supply, a change of trade union laws, the introduction of wage flexibility and so on—would lower the equilibrium rate of unemployment. That has not been
608
the case. Changing wage bargaining, controlling or not controlling the money supply, whichever it was, and taking an average—good years with bad years—unemployment stuck at about 8.5 per cent.
In contrast, in the United States the policy was different. It was a much more aggressive macroeconomic policy and monetary and fiscal policy. It relied upon decentralised wage bargaining. The equilibrium rate of unemployment has not risen much and the current unemployment rate is not high. Sweden offers the best example. In Sweden, the equilibrium rate has risen from about 1.2 per cent. to about 2.6 per cent. It has doubled of course, but it is nothing like ours. We can make choices. We can ask what it is that makes unemployment an especially obstinate problem in this country. We should be patient and tackle the problem with goodwill in good times and in bad.
I am conscious of the fact that in six months we shall be on the other side of the Chamber. It will be our problem and not that of the Conservative Party. We will have to face the problems. I am sharing my thoughts, fully realising that we shall have to solve the problem.
During the 1970s and 1980s there was a global shift from manufacturing to services and from the North to the periphery. Jobs have moved. Manufacturing productivity has not been matched by the growth in manufacturing in all developed capitalist countries. The manufacturing sector has shrunk. Jobs in manufacturing have declined. They have declined more in this country than elsewhere, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Despite high productivity, manufacturing is not absorbing as many jobs now because of the lack of growth, and so we rely more and more upon service jobs, small businesses and self employment. Those jobs are much more liable to cyclical fluctuations than manufacturing jobs. In some senses, the impression that manufacturing jobs are more solid is true. They are more solid. If manufacturing industry is profitable it will retain jobs. To the extent that we no longer rely on that type of technology, we have a much more volatile and fluctuating employment pattern. When we think of policies—demand-side or supply-side led—we must remember that those jobs are susceptible to fluctuations in interest rates and taxation. Much more fine tuning is necessary when we have that type of employment.
There are two problems. One of the problems is to create and sustain jobs without them leading to inflation. How do we create more jobs? Secondly, if there is umemployment how do we get people into jobs without affecting inflation? Economists have concluded that the relationship between real wages and productivity and the flexibility of the labour market are important factors when trying to create jobs. The United Kingdom economy is doubly unfortunate. We do not have the decentralised wage bargaining that the United States has, nor do we have the centralised wage bargaining with powerful unions and employers' organisations that Sweden, Germany and Austria have. We have the worst of both worlds. That is why as our employment increases it feeds

609
inflation much more than it does in other countries. If we maintain the economy at the capacity rate of growth—about 2.5 per cent.—we can create non-inflationary employment. As soon as we dash for growth or re-election—whatever it may be—we build in inflationary pressures. Once that happens we use unemployment to bring down inflation.
Unemployment is reluctant to come down once it is high. It is very sticky. Once unemployment is high it takes a long time to bring it down. We must find a way to sustain the economy at the capacity rate without increasing inflation. Many economists say—not all agree—that given that income policies have been discredited—I have a sentimental fondness for them—we need some form of co-ordinated wage bargaining. The Government should not tell people what to do, but we need some symmetry of timing and information to be used by both sides in wage bargaining so that the macro-economic consequences of micro-economic decisions are made clear to those who are bargaining. We would not then have the leap-frogging or the relativities battles that we had. The German Bundesbank's reputation for controlling inflation has not so much to do with the fact that they are tough on monetary policy; it has more to do with the fact that they are sustained by a wage bargaining process upon which they can rely year after year to give them a wage bargain which is credible and which will stick.
Obviously such institutions cannot be created overnight. I do not say that miracles can happen, but that is one point about which we should be thinking and perhaps we can make some progress in that direction. In the medium term, however, if we are to reverse the global restructuring from which we suffer we shall have to move on to manufacturing new products and research and development-intensive products, which will ultimately require a much better educated, better trained and constantly retrained workforce than we seem to have at the moment. Again, I make the point in the context of the longer run that a developed country like ours survives in manufacturing only if goals are constantly shifted to new products. The old products can be better made by South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and so on. We must always be moving on because that is the nature of competition.
If we do not move on, if we do not put money into research and development we shall fall back. It will be no one's fault—not that of the unions, the Government, the Labour Party, or the Tory Party—but a structural problem of the economy which will be hard to tackle.
Lastly, I come to the tricky problem of the long-term unemployed. Again, I do not want to get into a numbers game. Over the past 10 or 15 years the problem of long-term unemployment has become serious. The age distribution of the long-term unemployed is badly skewed towards the very young and the very old. The gender distribution is bad because young women are more likely to be unemployed in the long term than are young men. There are problems.
610
The trouble with long-term unemployment is that if we increase the number of the long-term unemployed it gives us no bite on the anti-inflation fight. We have been assured quite extensively by economists that increasing long-term unemployment does not achieve success in combating inflation or the rate of earnings, or anything like that. It is a problem which must be tackled in such a way that if there is an opportunity to take one person out of unemployment, it should be the longer-term unemployed person rather than someone who has entered unemployment but who is not likely to stay very long. Again, we have sufficient relevant information to know what kind of person becomes unemployed but does not stay unemployed long because he or she is in and out of the unemployed pool quite quickly. However, there are people who get into unemployment and cannot get out.
Again, it is important that we concentrate our attention on how we can tackle the problem of long-term unemployment because not only is it immensely demoralising but it is economically wasteful from the macro-economic point of view; that is, it does not achieve any anti-inflationary bite. Nor does it solve the micro-economic problem of making the labour market more flexible.
I do not necessarily share the view but some people have suggested that we examine the Swedish system of unemployment benefits. In it, people have a guarantee of one year's unemployment benefit during which time every effort is made to retrain them and give them new skills. At the end of that year they must be offered guaranteed short-term employment and be taken off the long-term unemployment benefit register. It is a complex problem and I do not have time to go into it, ' but those are the issues we should examine.
The problem of unemployment will not go away very easily. We are coming out of the recession. It will be sluggish and slow but we ought to be thinking of how we can get the economy down to an unemployment level of—let us have a modest ambition-6 to 7 per cent. rather than 10 to 11 per cent., as at present.
6.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, like everyone who has contributed to the debate, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating it. Many speakers have said that it concerns one of the most, if not the most, important economic and social problems facing us at the moment. As I calculate it, we have had 13 speeches. Curiously enough, almost all have been on this side of the House. There have been two speakers clearly from the other side making extremely interesting and worthwhile comments. However, I have been listening carefully and up to now I do not believe we have had a speaker from that side of the House answering the attacks which were made upon the Government's policy by the noble Baroness. I think we can assume that the noble Viscount will do so when it is his turn, and unless he answers the attacks no one will do so.
Therefore, it falls to me to some extent to try to anticipate the answers the noble Viscount might give, because we have not heard them in the debate tonight

611
although we have had a whole range of arguments. I wish to be as non-controversial as I can. It seems to me that there is a large area of agreement between us or anyway potential agreement. We agree about the size of the problem and that there is an unemployment level of about 2½ million, just under 9 per cent. The Government have provided us with the figures and therefore we agree that if we recalculate the figure on the basis of the pre-1983 calculations, if we put back the people who were taken out because they were over 60 and take out the Army and the self-employed, the figure for the unemployed would rise to about 3 million. The percentage figure would be about 11.25. The importance of that is that it takes us back in terms of measurements and comparisons to the level of unemployment we had in the early recession in the 1980s. That is where we are now and we can agree about it.
We are agreed that we are among the worst in Europe and in the western developed world. I can say that—and the noble Viscount must agree with me—because it comes from a Written Answer to a Question which I asked the Government on 21st October. The Written Answer told us that our level of unemployment was 10 per cent., using a common base across the countries in the EC. That is 15 per cent. above the EC average and 45 per cent. above the OECD average. In case the noble Viscount was going to say that those who are worse than us have statutory minimum wages, let me say that that is true—two do. But then so do nine out of the 11 who are below us. They have statutory minimum wages as well.
We know the size of the problem; we know that it is pretty bad; and we must agree that it will get worse before it gets better. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, there is a disagreement about how much worse it will become before it gets better. The best recent calculation of the options available was in the recent report of the Select Committee on Employment of the other place which said that most people said that unemployment would not turn down until late 1992. By that time it would be about 3 million. That is the best estimate we have as to how much worse it will get before it gets better.
Finally, of the things we can agree about, we can agree that it is not all the Government's fault. Most speakers on this side of the House said that, including the noble Lords, Lord Dormand and Lord Mason. The Government themselves say that it is not all their fault. The Secretary of State in another place and the noble Viscount have once or twice stressed how long we have had unemployment. The latter used to say, before I asked another Written Question, that unemployment doubled every time we had a Labour Government or every time we have had a Labour Government since 199. The Secretary of State now says that it "rose" under every Labour Government since 199. What they do not say is that it also rose under every Tory Government since 199, except one, and we have had more Tory than Labour Governments. It rose under every government since the war.
The significant point is what happened in 1971. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howie,
612
made because before 1971 it was below 3 per cent., below a million. It was when Mr. Heath went through the barrier that we found ourselves in a condition of serious unemployment. So increases in unemployment before 1971 do not count in the sense that most people would say that we still had a reasonable level of employment. It is the level of unemployment that has existed since 1971 that is the problem. Several noble Lords on this side of the House have discussed that matter in some detail.
Is there anything else we can agree on? I think so. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, or the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who referred to my next point. I do not think that this level of unemployment, or the rise in unemployment over the past 18 months, has been anything but a surprise to the Government. I do not believe that it was intended.
One could argue that the unemployment of 1979, 1980, 1981, 198, 1983, or 1984 came out of the policy that the Government were following, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. But the present situation is an accident. That is why, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer the present Prime Minister said, only a year ago,—when unemployment had not been rising for very long—that the Government were "coming back on track". That is why a year ago in the Autumn Statement the Government assumed there would be no increase in unemployment this year. That is why the Government have failed to do anything about the rise in unemployment in terms of what they were prepared to do about the rise in unemployment in the early 1980s. I want to concentrate on that.
Most of the other points that we on this side of the House wanted to make about our general economic policy differences have been elaborated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The failure of the Government to maintain regional aid was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. The Government's failure to use EC aid to the regions was stressed with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and others. All those matters have been attended to on this side of the House. I therefore wish to say a few words about the way this Government failed to match the return to unemployment that has occurred over the past 18 months with any special measures. That factor has been quite remarkable.
We on this side of the House have always complained that even in the 1980s the Government did not introduce enough special measures to tackle unemployment. In 1983 a report of a Select Committee was published. That Select Committee, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, recommended expanding the special measures for dealing with the long-term unemployed. However, if we look back, we can recognise that the Government introduced quite a few measures in this regard. In 1979 when unemployment was 4.7 per cent., the Government claimed that their special measures took 57,000 people off the unemployment register. By 1985, when unemployment was 13.5 per cent., the Government claimed their special measures took 674,000 people—that is 495,000 people net—off the register. By 1988, when unemployment was falling, the Government were making even greater efforts to

613
reduce the number of unemployed. Their measures took 78,000 people, or 594,000 people net, off the register. However, at that point everything went wrong.
The Government became optimistic. They believed unemployment was falling and they were under pressure due to the cost of the community programme. At that point the Government abolished the community programme, ran down their other measures and invented employment training as a general solution to the problems of the long-term unemployed. It was due to those actions that the Government got themselves into the present mess.
In March 1991 the Employment Gazette published a table under the heading Number of people benefiting from Government employment measures. That table, table 9.1, referred to a figure of 57,000 people. By October 1991 a figure of 49,000 people was mentioned under one government scheme, 981 under another and 147 under another for a total of 50,18 benefiting from all the Government's special measures. In other words there is now virtually no job creation. All there is is training with allowances. There are 60,000 people involved in youth training. There is ET, such as it is, and there are endless interviews. There are interviews and more interviews. There are more Restarts than a Ford Cortina. The Government solve unemployment by means of interviews at a time when 491,000 people have been unemployed for more than six months and 59,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months.
That is not the end of the matter. The future prospects are still more uncertain. Something is badly wrong with ET. I hope the Minister will tell us what it is. The Department of Employment spent the greatest sum of money three years ago. Real cuts have occurred since then, at the rate of 8 per cent. a year. This year the cuts amounted to £245 million. Next year, according to the Autumn Statement, the Government promise an increase in the budget of the Department of Employment of £.5 billion. If one assumes certain things about inflation, one can see that that represents a real increase of 6 to 7 per cent. However, the Government want to initiate many measures. They want to initiate additional training credits, vocational education and career guidance. Bearing in mind also the increased cost of unemployment, I must ask the Government whether there will be a real increase in job creation this year. Will more money be spent on ET and employment action in real terms, and how much?
How much will be spent on the Government's measures, and how many people will be involved? How many unemployed will become involved in the Government's deathbed form of cut price job creation employment action? That is our real criticism of the Government. On this subject, we made three points in relatioo to the Budget. We said that the Government should restore all the cuts made in the training budget. We said that they should restore and extend a new form of community programme and spend £340 million on it. We also said that they should spend another £300 million on skills training.
614
Virtually everyone outside the Government believe that with levels of unemployment significantly above anything which should be called full employment, a permanent part of any rational, sensible and decent government policy must be to advocate what the Seear Committee referred to as long-term, group specific, net job creation. It will take a number of years to achieve that, but the Government must make a start. That is now the view of the Opposition, of the Liberal Democrats, of the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment and of all kinds of people who belong to various non-party groups such as Campaign for Work. As already mentioned, it has even been adopted recently by the Adam Smith Institute. There is a feeling everywhere that the Government must declare themselves committed, before the election, to a policy of long-term, group specific, net job creation. It is because we believe even now that the Government will not adopt such a policy that we table Motions of this kind.
6.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this debate on unemployment. I also thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been an interesting and lively discussion. However, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not say more about the help the Government are providing for the unemployed to return to work.
Many noble Lords have spoken with compassion and sympathy about the plight of the unemployed. I wish to respond in detail to the points that have been made. However, before I do so, I must comment on Britain's economic performance. In the past decade our economic performance has been one of which the whole country can be proud. In the 1980s our GDP and investment grew faster than that of either France or Germany. Between 1979 and 1989 our manufacturing productivity grew by an average of 4.1 per cent. a year, the fastest among the major industrialised countries. In the 1960s and 1970s we were bottom of the international league in the growth of manufacturing productivity. That underlines the scale of our achievements.
Our inflation rate also compares well with our European competitors. Retail price inflation is now just 4.1 per cent. That compares with a European Community average in August of 4.9 per cent. We now have inflation levels on a par with those in Germany. Who would have thought that even a year ago?
That is unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. The Government are determined to defeat inflation because defeating inflation is the key to improving our international competitiveness and ensuring lasting economic success.
We have had a difficult few months, and I am very aware that many people are still suffering from the results of the recession. However, September's rise in unemployment was the smallest for a year, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said. That provides

615
confirmation that the rate of increase in unemployment has eased considerably in recent months. There is evidence of increasing activity in the labour market, and in September about 359,000 people left unemployment, the highest monthly total in the past year. In September unemployment in Scotland actually fell.
There are now clear signs that the recession has bottomed out. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week in another place, growth is expected to start this year and accelerate next year, accompanied by a rise in exports. Recent surveys, such as those by the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors, show substantial improvement since the start of the year.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me to respond for the Government. I do so, even as an army of one. To my noble friend Lord Selsdon, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, it would be right to indicate the Government's employment strategy. The Government cannot create jobs. Industry and commerce do so, through improved competitiveness and by producing goods and services which customers want. The Government's role is to establish an enterprise economy which will generate sustained economic growth and jobs by encouraging enterprise and helping small firms and self-employment, removing burdens on business, modernising training systems and helping the most vulnerable groups into work through youth training for young people, Restart and employment training for the long-term unemployed. The Government have provided £2.8 billion in 1991–92 on enterprise, vocational and employment training measures.
As a result of our legislation, the law now protects jobs and businesses against secondary strike action and secondary picketing. For the first time in our history, strike ballots have become a generally accepted feature of British industrial relations. Few now question the role our legislation has played in reducing the number of strikes to its current level—the lowest for at least 60 years.
That transformation in industrial relations during the last decade has been an important factor in our record job creation in the 1980s. The number of working days lost in the latest 12-month period to August 1991 is the lowest of any 12-month period for at least 60 years. That is a far cry from the United Kingdom's record in the 1960s and 1970s.
Our greatly improved strike record, coupled with low business and personal tax rates and a skilled competitive workforce, makes the UK very attractive to overseas investors. Inward investment is good for employment, exports and growth. We all appreciate the jobs which foreign-owned companies have brought to the United Kingdom. New United States investment in the United Kingdom in 1990 alone created or safeguarded over 15,000 jobs. Those companies bring more than just jobs; they also bring technology transfer.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon said how important it was to control inflation. He also painted a picture
616
which I do not recognise. He suggested that we have four years feast and four years famine and we have not yet learnt to live with that. He said that we need to improve the economic activity of our citizens and that we have a feeling of insecurity.
In answer to my noble friend, and also to the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Mason of Barnsley, I should say that I believe that that cannot be the picture if the United Kingdom remains the favoured location for investment. That is testimony to the Government's achievements in creating a climate of enterprise and initiative. Inward investment, no matter from which country, endorses the skills, productivity and trainability of our workforce.
Over half of all Japanese inward investment in the European Community came to the United Kingdom in 1990–91. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that a report from Nomura published last month estimated that by 1995 Japanese investment alone could add £4 billion to our trade balance, 2 per cent. to output and provide over 400,000 new jobs. Cumulative Japanese manufacturing investment will increase from £1.3 billion in 1990 to £7 billion by 1995. Most of that investment has been in the regions. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would agree that that has helped the North.
I am only sorry that at this year's conference, instead of recognising the huge benefits which that investment can bring the United Kingdom economy and people, the TUC overwhelmingly condemned Japanese investment as alien.
I must agree with my noble friend Lady Denton, who stressed the importance of the share of GDP represented by services, which has risen from 52 per cent. to 64 per cent. over the past decade. Between 1979 and 1989 both manufacturing and service output rose in absolute terms. Manufacturing output rose by 12¼ per cent. Growth in the service sector was even faster at 33½ per cent., causing its share of GDP to rise. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I believe that jobs in the service sector are just as good and durable as jobs in manufacturing.
My noble friend Lady Denton suggested that this debate should be on the help that we can give to the unemployed. I entirely agree with her. The Government take their responsibilities to help unemployed people very seriously. We are determined to provide as much assistance as we can to help every unemployed person back to work as quickly as possible.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we have a wide range of measures available which are designed to meet the differing needs of all unemployed people. A new framework for advising unemployed people is now in place throughout the country. This provides comprehensive help and advice geared to the specific needs of the individual, whether they are newly unemployed or have been out of work for some time.
My department is making 840,000 opportunities available to help unemployed people this year and that will rise to almost a million next year. Those include the new programme called employment action which provides temporary work of benefit to local

617
communities. There is also employment training, jobclubs, job interview guarantees, Restart and Jobsearch seminars. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, may rubbish them, but those measures amount to more practical help and advice than ever before to help unemployed people get back to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about the additional funding for Employment Action over 1992–93 and onwards. The additional funding announced in the Autumn Statement means that we can now offer 62,000 places on Employment Action—that is 22,000 more than will participate this year. We shall also be able to offer Employment Action throughout the next three years.
It is always highly regrettable that unemployment has risen and it is likely to go on rising for a while yet. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the Government are not in a position to estimate when employment will go down. We make no forecasts about unemployment. We on this side of the House, just as noble Lords in all parts of the House, do not underestimate the difficulties that unemployment and the threat of unemployment create for many people and their families. Rises in unemployment have not been confined to Britain. There have been recent increases in unemployment across the industrialised world, including the USA, Canada, Japan and Italy; and in France unemployment has reached record levels.
I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that even after the recent rises, the rate of unemployment among young people in the United Kingdom is below the European Community average and almost half that of Italy and Spain. Almost every other member state—Denmark and Luxembourg are the exceptions—has a higher proportion of long-term unemployed than does the United Kingdom.
I say to my noble friend Lady Denton and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that of all the European Community member states, only the United Kingdom has a lower unemployment rate for women than for men. Economic achievements, supported by the Government's flexible approach to the labour market, have been good for employment. In comparison with the rest of the European Community, we have a much higher proportion of citizens in employment. According to OECD figures, 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom's working population are employed compared with the EC average of 60 per cent. Of other EC member states, only Denmark has a higher rate. Among EC member states we have the highest number of women in employment.
I believe that the signs of recovery in the economy, coupled with a very real commitment from the Government to provide individual help for the unemployed, mean that the prospects for people who are looking for work are brighter than they have been for a while. I have stressed the number of people leaving unemployment and recorded the figure for September. About one-quarter of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within a month; about half leave within three months; and after six
618
months two-thirds will have left unemployment. Those are figures which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Desai, brought to the attention of the House. That is why the Government concentrate their efforts on those left behind.
I hear the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, say "interviews". There are many other programmes that the Government have set up. I do believe that interviews and Restart help the unemployed to find work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, speaking for his party, I believe, said that noble Lords on his Benches do not favour the national minimum wage and believe that it would adversely affect the number of jobs. The Labour Party's policy for a national minimum wage set at half median earnings could destroy 750,000 jobs even if pay differentials were only half restored. If noble Lords would like to dispute those figures, let me repeat the offer made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. If the Labour Party will publish its own figures of how many jobs would be destroyed by their minimum wage policy, I shall have the figures checked by employment department officials and we shall publish the results.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question. In fact what the Secretary of State said in another place was that he knew of no evidence, other than the evidence that he had, which justifies figures like 750,000 or 2 million. In fact there is a lot of other evidence from Daniel, Craig, Disney, Bushell, Caro and the IRRU study for the IPM, which demonstrates that statutory regulation does not cause any loss of jobs at all.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall come on to that point in a minute. The Labour Party itself has said that no jobs will be lost as a result of the introduction of a minimum wage but if jobs did go it would have a look at it. It also tell us that minimum wages have not destroyed competitiveness in Germany and the rest of Europe. Of course there is no damage in Germany—there is no national minimum wage in Germany.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will give way for a moment. My understanding is that in Germany there may not be a legislative national minimum wage but there is a national minimum as a result of collective agreements which are observed throughout the country.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that to be true. I am told that there is some statutory national wage-fixing machinery in Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Holland and Portugal. There are only two countries that have a single statutory minimum wage as proposed by Labour; namely, France and Spain. The remaining five countries have no national minimum wages—that is, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? The Secretary of State is letting him in for it again. The Secretary of State chooses his words very

619
carefully. He said "like the Labour Party proposes". In other words, those other countries do not have systems which are exactly like ours but they have systems which are just as effective. For example, they have legally enforceable rates agreed by industry. They have been agreed by collective bargaining, and are legally enforceable. The only country without a scheme of this kind is Ireland.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord bandies words with me but I must tell him that the Government's warning of the risk to jobs from such a minim urn wage policy has been backed by an ever-increasing chorus of expert opinion. The IMF has suggested that in several countries a reduction in minim urn wages would help to reduce unemployment among young workers. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the OECD report on the minimum wage in France. Perhaps I may quote from that report:
"France's unemployment record compares unfavourably with that elsewhere … the problem is substantially more severe for youths, older workers and the unskilled … the national minimum wage seems in part to be responsible for this outcome".
The noble Baroness shakes her head. Those are not my words; they are the words from the OECD report.
As a result of concern about its effect on the labour market, the Dutch minimum wage was cut by 3 per cent. in 1984 and then frozen until 1989. Is that the way to make the poor richer? I believe not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also tries to confuse us with her vision of the home market. I have said before and believe it to be true that Europe is ever more our home market and we cannot live outside it. The volume of UK exports in the past 10 years has grown faster than that of Germany, France or Italy. We now export more to Germany than we do to the United States, which was previously the UK's largest export market. The UK car industry is increasing its market share in most other European Community markets.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, exports are growing substantially without the help of aid—they may be going to different markets but I believe that that demonstrates the changing nature of the marketplace. For instance, manufactured exports have increased 54 per cent. over the past decade or so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about the youth training guarantee. Under the YT guarantee all young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in a job or full time education are guaranteed the offer of a place on YT. The Government are fully committed to the guarantee and will continue to deliver it. The noble Lord suggested that there may be a problem with four TECs. I do not wish to go into the detail but I can say that no TEC will be prevented by lack of resources from meeting the guarantee.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that we hid the unemployment figures for 16 and 17 year-olds. For those not wishing to stay on at school there is a place guaranteed on youth training. Therefore, there is no reason why young people should be unemployed.
The noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Dormand of Easington, brought to the attention of the House the problems faced by the northern
620
region. However, Nissan has announced plans to employ a further 1,000 workers, with a target of 4,000 production workers by the autumn of 1992. It is also taking on another 280 staff at distribution headquarters and 70 at parts of the warehouse. Up to 1,000 jobs will be created by the DSS complex at Longbenton as part of plans to set up a national insurance contributions agency by 1991. The Newcastle headquarters already employs 7,000. Newcastle and Middlesbrough were selected as two of the winners of national city challenge initiatives. I believe that the regional policies supported by the Government have been extremely successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, also asked what was happening to the RECHAR programme. It is the Commission, not the United Kingdom Government which is blocking the release of RECHAR funds. The Government maintain that money from the structural funds is genuinely additional expenditure and levels of public expenditure in the United Kingdom are higher than they would otherwise have been as a result of the European Community money. The United Kingdom Government and the European Commission are discussing ways in which that disagreement can be resolved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene since he appears to be leaving that point. In the northern region we welcome all the additional jobs to which the noble Viscount referred. Will he comment on the number of pits which will undoubtedly close over the next year or so? Such closures make a terrific dent in the employment of the northern region. The Minister may say that that is a matter for British Coal. Is that another Pontius Pilate effort by saying, "We welcome all the jobs that have been made but it is too bad for the people of the North if more pits are being closed"; and they continue to close as he well knows.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, whether pits are opened or closed is a matter for British Coal. I thought the noble Lord would like that reply! However, the point of the development corporation in the North and regional policy is to make certain that when industries require restructuring there are funds and methods available to bring jobs to the region or to the county in order to undertake that restructuring. The noble Lord cannot believe that the number of jobs in any one industry can be protected indefinitely. We have seen that during the period of a number of governments. Therefore, I do not believe it right to suggest that they can be protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, will welcome the fact that unemployment has risen less in Scotland than anywhere else in Great Britain. It is another factor that has proved the usefulness of the regional policy and the funds made available to the regions. For instance, Scott Lithgow in Greenock has won a £3 million contract from BP, providing 300 new jobs. Tandy is opening a plant in East Kilbride, providing 130 jobs. Motorola is to build a £100 million plant in Livingston, creating 1,500 new jobs

621
when at peak production. I could continue. However, I believe it indicates that there is a tremendous amount of investment not only in plant and equipment in Scotland but in the creation of jobs.
The noble Lord was also interested in what was going on in the Highlands and Islands. He queried what might be done by the Government because of the sad state of affairs from the BCCI developments. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has invested the following amounts in employment and capital goods in the past few years. The total is £7.54 million. That is a considerable investment. I do not believe that the noble Lord can say that the Government in Westminster are ignoring the Islands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, also referred to the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside. Again, I can quote a number of jobs which are being created in those areas. Another 2,000 jobs will go to Leeds in the early 1990s as posts are dispersed from the DSS London headquarters. Outline permission has been granted for a £100 million airport and business park in Sheffield. Up to 3,500 jobs could be created by 1993. It demonstrates the dynamism of the economy in the North and the number of jobs being created.
Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, whether he will put the same Question down month after month, even when unemployment is falling, to demonstrate his continuing care for the unemployed? I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to reach a position where we have no unemployment. I therefore believe that he has a lifetime's occupation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks a question; I shall answer. Yes, I shall put down a Question and I shall congratulate the Government on adopting policies that we have advocated from this side of the House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope that we shall soon hear those words from him.
The noble Lord also asked how many times the unemployment count has been changed. The United Kingdom adult seasonally adjusted unemployment statistics are a continuously consistent series. There have been two main changes and a number of minor ones. Each change has been explained publicly in the Employment Gazette. An article in the Gazette in December 1990 explained the basis on which the count is made and the basis of the changes. I understand that a copy of that Gazette is in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about the pay of directors. We have always said from this side of the House that pay is a matter for the business concerned and for the shareholders; only they can decide the level of pay appropriate for their needs. The Government do not condone excessive pay increases either in the boardroom or on the shopfloor, as the Prime Minister has made very clear.
The noble Lord also asked about profit-related pay. I agree that it can improve industrial relations by giving employees more interest in the profits of the business. The number of employers in the scheme is up
622
50 per cent. on the same time last year and it has become a quiet success. There are 1,329 schemes at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, admitted that he was an economist. He spoke warmly about the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. I have listened carefully to him as I have to a number of economists, and they do not always agree. I fear, too, that governments of all parties are guided by economists. However, I am not persuaded that they have the answers or the solutions. I disagree with some of the conclusions put forward tonight by the noble Lord.
This has been an interesting debate and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to answer many of the important points and questions raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may apologise to those whose questions and observations I have not been able to respond to.
I do not underestimate the anxiety and uncertainty of those who are unemployed at present about how long they will be unemployed and how quickly they can return to work. We must not forget that when we are talking about the unemployed we are talking about individuals with differing needs and expectations.
Signs of recovery in the economy, coupled with a very real commitment from government to provide individual help for the unemployed, mean that the prospects of people looking for work are looking brighter than they have for a while. The Government are determined to ensure that the unemployed have the best possible individual advice and support and, where necessary, special help to put them on the road back to a job.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he will explain to the House why he says that the Commissioner for Regional Development, having allocated RECHAR moneys to coal and steel communities of the United Kingdom, should be holding the money back? What is the truth of the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that it was a problem in the Commission and not a problem in this country.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate which has been extremely interesting. I also thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he dealt with the questions raised on all sides of the House. I agreed with most of the comments that were made in the debate. That is not surprising because most of them came from Members on this side of the House. It is a matter of regret that only two noble Lords from the Back Benches on the other side participated.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has remained in his place and I thank him for his contribution. Although I did not agree with everything that he said I did agree with his conclusion that many more people should be involved in economic activity. That is what the debate has been

623
about. We wish to see everyone in our country involved in economic activity because we want a prosperous environment. We know that we shall not achieve a happy environment and a happy social situation unless that occurs.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is not present. I agree with her comments about women in the workforce, and I thank her for raising the issue. However, I did not agree with some other points that she made.
As I expected, the Minister emphasised the Government's view that we have lived through an economic miracle and that our economic performance is something of which we can be proud and so forth. Whether one congratulates the Government on their economic performance depends on where one is within the social scene. If one is a member of the increasing mass of unemployed people one may not be in a congratulatory frame of mind at present. Of course the Government are happy that the inflation rate has fallen. However, during today's discussion I and of her contributors have emphasised that we are paying a high price for that in terms of unemployment. I concluded my remarks by saying that I believe that we are paying far too high a price.
I regret to say that the Minister did not say a great deal about research and development. The subject was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, as a matter of great anxiety. Unless we spend money in those areas we shall not develop the kind of economy and competitiveness that everyone, including the Minister, says we need.
The Minister appeared to think that the legislation—the extremely unwelcome legislation from our point of view—on industrial relations has contributed to the so-called economic miracle. I believe that in every country the number of strikes has fallen. One of the reasons why there has been a reduction in trade union membership and in trade union militancy has been the threat of unemployment and of recession. Throughout the eighties the threat of company closure and redundancy has existed. In my opinion that is the main reason for the reduction in trade union militancy and in trade union membership. In addition, there has been a decline in the manufacturing base and in the size of the manufacturing sector where there was a substantial union membership. If the sector has declined, so has the trade union membership. Therefore I do not believe that the legislation that was introduced—legislation which was the least helpful to organised labour in any EC country and which certainly ran counter to a number of ILO conventions—has contributed a great deal to our economic performance.
I must reply to the Minister's suggestion about the attitude of the TUC and the trade union movement as a whole to Japanese investment. It is true that the matte' was debated at the Trades Union Congress. I must point out that trade unions have been most anxious to obtain for this country Japanese investment and the building of Japanese factories to provide employment. Only two weeks ago I was asked to show round your Lordships' House the managing
624
director and European manager of a large Japanese textile firm. I showed them round and took them to lunch. We discussed industrial relations in this country and also spoke about parliamentary procedures; a subject in which they were interested. I was acting at the behest of my union which was anxious to ensure that the firm built a factory in Mansfield providing employment for the people in that area. I would not have done so had the union not asked me. Of course the union paid for the visit. Afterwards the managing director announced that he was happy with what I had told him and it was hoped that as a result something would emerge. It is not true to say therefore that the trade union movement in this country is totally opposed to involvement by the Japanese or to Japanese inward investment.
We have heard many comments about the minimum wage. Indeed, we could have a full debate about the minimum wage. I do not agree with the Minister's comments. I understand that the quote from the OECD was from a general study which drew on a particular study of the effect of a statutory situation. The general study does not suggest any direct evidence of job loss. It is my belief that any impact on employment would be limited and narrowly based. Any problem is likely to be felt only by the most inefficient and marginal of employers who now pay less than a living wage. As I said in my opening contribution, I fail to see why the social security system, through benefits such as family credit, should subsidise low-paying employers as is the case at present. The Minister did not address that aspect in his reply.
One of the most important points made by Members on this side of the House was the need to build up support for manufacturing industry. It is clear that we must do so. The CBI agrees. I have before me a headline from the Financial Times:
"CBI hits out at lack of support for manufacturing industry".
One of the most telling points made in the debate came from my noble friend Lord Howie. He drew attention to the fact that during the years following the war there was a consensus around the idea that governments should target the idea of full employment. That policy objective was followed not only by post-war Labour governments but by post-war Conservative administrations. Everyone knows that there cannot be total full employment but we must return to the policy of achieving at least a 3 per cent. level of unemployment.
I repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Offenders in Prisons
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve the position of sex offenders in prisons.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I raise the urgent matter of the treatment of sex offenders in prisons, for

625
whom the Government of the day have a direct responsibility. I do not wish to inhibit other noble Lords who may desire to deal with the subject of sex offenders generally. Like other noble Lords, I do not forget for a moment the victims of sex offences. However, that raises an issue for another day.
I rise in a spirit of cautious benevolence, less waspish than on some recent occasions. Not long ago the Government produced the most important statement of intention with regard to sex offenders which has been produced up to the present time in this country by any government. That statement by the Government has been given a cordial, if guarded, welcome by all who care about the treatment of sex offenders. I am pleased that in the lamented absence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is to reply to this debate. If he has been instructed by his uncle, David Astor, he will know a lot about this subject.
As I proceed, I shall explain the reasons for the cordiality and guardedness of the welcome. It is common knowledge that unless steps are taken to protect sex offenders or the nature of their offences is concealed, they receive a very bad time in our prisons from fellow prisoners, usually under the name of "nonces". The problem of helping those sex offenders and trying to secure justice for them is complex and controversial. No doubt for that reason it has been totally neglected up to the present time. I believe that this debate is long overdue.
I present my credentials briefly to the House. I have visited a considerable number of the most relevant prisons in September and October: Wakefield, where there are 400 or more sex offenders out of 700 prisoners; Littlehey, where there are 250 sex offenders out of 550 prisoners; Whatton, where there are 160 prisoners who are nearly all sex offenders; Maidstone, 100 sex offenders segregated in one wing out of 500 prisoners; Grendon, on which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, speaks with unique authority—and I am glad that he is to speak in this debate—has 50 sex offenders out of nearly 200 prisoners. I visited also individual sex offenders in Wandsworth where there are 250 sex offenders. I visited individuals at Belmarsh and Chelmsford. I also visited the Gracewell Clinic. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is associated with that clinic, cannot be with us this evening. Many of us consider that the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham provides the most advanced form of treatment for sex offenders.
The Government programme to which I referred earlier seeks to concentrate sex offenders in the limited number of prisons under three headings: assessment; core treatment for the great majority of prisoners; and specialist treatment for those who seem to require it. The cordial welcome to which I referred earlier is for the priority which the Government seem to be giving to sex offenders rather than for the details of their programme. There is a general readiness to use the Government's programmes as a basis for progress.
I should explain to those not versed in this subject—that is, the vast public awaiting news of this debate—that the Government plans will be restricted in two
626
ways. They will be confined to those serving more than four years in prison—perhaps two-thirds of the total. The noble Viscount may tell us the figure is higher than that. However, that is the majority of prisoners. There will be a considerable residue who will not be offered any treatment under the Government's plans. I hope that the Minister can tell us what steps will be taken to make sure that the excluded minority are properly cared for.
Secondly, treatment will be confined to those who are willing to receive it. That is rather a difficult issue. For some prisoners there is a reluctance to accept that way of stating the matter. In some prisons the governors say, "If you go about it in the right way, you will persuade most people to accept treatment". I believe that the best formulation comes from the chief psychologist at Wakefield. I think the Government may accept that approach. I suggest that no one should be forced to undergo treatment but every attempt should be made to persuade sex offenders to accept it.
To illustrate this problem of whether or not sex offenders are ready to accept treatment, I refer to two prisoners in Maidstone who reacted differently to the idea of treatment. Both have been convicted of a number of offences against boys. The first one is an intelligent man, and he wrote me a long essay on the subject afterwards. He could see nothing wrong in his relationship with boys aged 15 or so. He saw a positive beauty in it. We must take that on board. I am not saying that it is true of all sex offenders; but quite a number do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. It is no good becoming angry about that because it is a fact. We must cope with people who have that state of mind.
When I left the prison this gentleman handed me a document which said:
"I intend to write about child love, paedophilia, because I myself love boys. Let me make it quite clear that paedophilia means love of children. It does not include cruelty of any kind. or sadism; nor abduction nor prostitution nor murder".
Let us take this very coolly. I am not saying that that is the right point of view. It does not fit in at all with my concept of ethics but it is a point of view sincerely held.
When released, that particular man intends to make his way to a country where sexual relations are permitted with boys of 12. That is an intelligent man who was at public school—although I do not know whether that is in his favour in this House. However, he is intelligent and he argues in that way. Unless one says that he is bonkers and should be shut up in a home, one must study his problem.
The other prisoner felt guilty about the relationship which he had enjoyed with boys between the ages of 11 and 15, if only because he had been abused at that age. That gentleman had no desire whatever to cease to be a homosexual but he felt that if he had proper treatment from a psychologist, which he was receiving, he might be enabled to raise his sights and to concentrate on males who were above the legal age limit. He felt that the treatment could assist him in that way. Many people believe they can benefit from treatment; and many believe that they cannot.
I should say in passing that a sex offender whom I met last week is a very intelligent man. He was a school master and his school still holds a good opinion of him. He had done counselling for many years and is now in prison for improper relations with boys. He claims to be innocent. One may not accept that, but whether innocent or not he is a man of considerable experience not only of teaching but also of counselling. He has also had considerable experience of sex offenders in prison, where he has found himself for some time now. He takes the view that what is known in the social services as "counselling" is likely to do much more good than official psychological training or the kind of group therapy which is provided.
I give the House that example as an up to date opinion which should be floated. Of course every variety of sex offender is to be found among the 2,000 in prison. I take the opportunity of recommending to noble Lords an invaluable booklet published by the Prison Reform Trust. Although I do not agree with all its conclusions, the main facts are there.
Before coming to the principal thrust of the Government's proposals, I must say something about the all-important issue of segregation versus integration. It is not an issue which the Government seriously tackle in their statement. It is not likely but it is just possible that a Member of this House could have a friend who had committed serious sexual offences and was committed to prison for several years. That is not inconceivable. How would a Member of this House wish his friend to be placed? In what sort of prison? In what sort of situation?
The friend may be kept under Rule 43 in Chelmsford or one of many other prisons where he would be in semi-isolation. He might be placed in a segregated prison environment such as the Thanet wing at Maidstone where 100 prisoners, almost all sex offenders, are segregated. He may enjoy the same kind of segregation—protection, safety—in Whatton Prison. He may be placed in a semi-integrated prison such as Littlehey. That is held up by the Prison Reform Trust as something of a model. As I say, I have visited all these places. Half the sexual offenders in that prison are placed in a separate wing but mix freely with the other prisoners for the purposes of education, work and so on. The other half live the ordinary life of the prisoner. That is another solution.
The same situation exists, roughly speaking, at Grendon, about which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may say a few words. We all know about Grendon, the famous psychiatric prison where much more specialist treatment is available. The friend in question may serve his time in a fully integrated establishment such as Wakefield Prison, where the sex offenders are in the majority and the other offenders—the minority—are inclined in my experience to feel hard cone by though not actually persecuted. If he is lucky the friend may be sent to the Gracewell Clinic instead of prison, where specialist treatment is provided for a relatively small number of sex offenders.
I will not spend time this evening on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. However, it is
628
high time that they were laid before Members in this House and we were given a chance to bear them in mind and perhaps come back to them on another occasion. It may be that the Minister will have something valuable to say on the subject. I shall not be upset or critical should he adopt a fairly guarded attitude on the question of segregation versus integration. He may say that we must await the results of the application of the Government's programme. It would not be unreasonable if he did so.
Perhaps I may say a few words in regard to the Government's proposals. The crucial fact commented upon by every critic of the proposals is that there is no promise of extra resources. I shall repeat that. No extra resources will be available. Therefore, should the Minister say that things will be better in the future, he will have his work cut out to do that without spending more money. Nobody believes that is possible. However, many people are encouraged by the Government's proposals because they believe the new priority will lead to more resources being available. But they are not being promised now.
We must regard the proposals as pie in the sky; but pie in the sky is better than pie nowhere! I shall leave aside resources for the moment and ask what is the principal snag in the Government's proposals. It lies in the fact that the so-called core programme which applies to the great majority of prisoners will be basically operated by prison officers with hardly any training. When I visited Maidstone a prison officer of obvious capacity had just returned from a course of 12 hours' training. I said incredulously, "You mean 12 days". He said, "No, 12 hours' training". That was the course. It was a weekend's training.
I am delighted that prison officers should be involved in the work in any way. It is vital that they should feel part of the whole process. But no one can seriously argue that a prison officer, anyone else or even one of your Lordships, could be regarded as a trained therapist after 12 hours' training. One is aware that prison nursing officers receive six months' training. I suggest that in order to make prison officers, for whom I have spoken on recent occasions, into effective therapists, they should receive far more training. Ideally, before one becomes a sex therapist in prison or plays any part in that work, one should receive the same kind of training required to become a nursing officer.
That brings me back to resources. To speak of more adequate training for prison officers we must realise that we are thinking in terms of more prison officers being turned on to this work. Let us take Maidstone as an example. Maidstone has 26 prison officers to deal with 100 prisoners. That is a low ratio compared with many prisons. It had been thought possible up to now to spare only two of those officers.
I should like to receive the Minister's attention. I realise he understands the gist of my remarks but he may not have them all in his head and may want to hear them again.
In Maidstone only two prison officers are spared for the work of therapy. It is reckoned that to do the job properly in the way the Government intend it needs at least another four. That will cost money

629
unless they are taken off other work. Therefore in practice it comes down to this: does one take them off another job—supervision of work or education—or is one ready to do the decent thing and provide extra resources?
Perhaps I may be allowed to point in a direction. Perhaps the Minister has heard of the Gracewell Clinic. At any rate, he cannot hear of it too often. If he has time to spare, he could do much worse than to visit that clinic in Birmingham. It is generally assumed that that is the most advanced kind of sex treatment in this country. Other people may say it is not perfect, and of course it is not. Nevertheless, it is very good compared with anything else.
I asked Ray Wyre, the consultant, whether the Gracewell Clinic used any of the best-known models of treatment. He said that they were eclectic. They drew on any method that was likely to be fruitful. I gather that drugs are not ruled out but they are not a main feature. He added that one-to-one therapy is often necessary but group therapy can be still more effective. The staff is professionally qualified. The rank and file are probation officers who are trained much more than prison officers in the ordinary prisons. Of course no one can say that the Gracewell treatment cannot be improved upon. I am not suggesting that tomorrow one could provide that treatment with that ratio of staff and release probation officers for the whole sex offender population in prison. Nevertheless, it provides a model, an aspiration or an ideal to which we can work. I am very glad to recall that when I was last there I was told that the Home Secretary has now indicated that there will be a second Grendon. Many of us have said again and again that there should be more than one.
In all the prisons that I visited on this occasion I asked whether there was any message which they wished me to deliver in opening this debate in your Lordships' House. The answer was always the same; namely, resources. They begged me to implore the Government to back up words with deeds. I cannot expect an earth-shaking pronouncement from the noble Viscount this evening; but I ask him to give us some solid ground for hope that tomorrow if possible, and not the day after, sex offenders will for the first time be treated as belonging to the same human race as ourselves.
All these possibilities are open. Mr. Peter Thompson has done so much for the Matthew Trust and all those on the borderlines of crime and mental illness. He says that the ideal must be that we make sure that we provide safety for people in the first place. That means segregation. Then we move to integration with the general population. However, we must always remember that these people are human beings. They are treated with contempt by fellow prisoners. I hope that we shall not have any contempt expressed for them this evening.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for once again introducing one of these very difficult prison debates. The first
630
thing to be said about serious sex offenders is that they inspire a feeling of contempt and hatred in other people which I believe that we all feel to a greater or lesser degree. As he pointed out, that leads to a desire for vengeance, the bringing back of the cat and that kind of thing. Those feelings are intensified in prison because the majority of prisoners are what one might call good, honest offenders pursuing the ordinary results of greed without the slightest interest in the people they affect. However, they say with pride, that they do so without any sexual overtones.
They can say to themselves, "At least I am not vicious like those nonces". That is a help to the prisoners. All of us who have been concerned with prisons have met that situation. The result is that prison life for the serious sex offender becomes unbearable and the relief of Rule 43 has to be sought. The son of an acquaintance of mine was in prison for a sex offence. I went to see him and asked whether he had had any trouble. He said, "Yes, they ganged up on me in my cell and I only saved myself by yelling 'help!' so loud that the screws came to my rescue". He was then isolated under Rule 43. That is a terrible thing. I wish to associate myself with the noble Earl in congratulating the Government in at least acknowledging the existence of this evil and in saying that they are going to do something to try to put the matter right. That is a great step forward. I do not believe that that has been publicly said in that way before.
We are speaking of men rather than women who are convicted of serious sex offences. In my opinion they are nearly always dreadfully ashamed. The noble Earl gave some instances of one or two unusual people who were not ashamed. My experience is that people who have been convicted of ugly sex offences which they really have committed and who are not claiming innocence, always suffer from shame. Almost invariably they wreck their family lives and their careers and they should not be subjected to further persecution beyond the punishment of a long sentence. I believe that a long sentence can be justified in these cases because the possibility of a change of attitude is extremely uncertain as we know from the psychologists.
The good news is that the Woolf Report supports the view that such offenders can be helped by specific treatment. The Government are now at last accepting that and they are going to try to make a comprehensive effort to provide it. I do not believe that it was said exactly what they are going to do so I shall run through it very quickly. The problem is one of 3,000 offenders who have been convicted. About two-thirds of them have been convicted of serious offences for which the sentence has been over four years. The proposals apply only to them for the moment. As regards the over four years' cases, on conviction the men will be sent to one of six prisons which are to be provided with professional facilities for assessment. After assessment the offenders will be allocated either to the assessment prison or to one of 20 other prisons which are to be equipped as treatment centres.
The noble Earl spoke about counselling. Every treatment centre involves counselling. One does not

631
have to speak in psychological terms because one is a psychologist. At Grendon there is a great deal of general counselling apart from anything technical. So far so good. These arrangements will not be at all easy to get going and certainly not easy to get going very quickly. The noble Earl referred to the personnel for six assessment centres and the fact that they will take some finding. They cannot be just anybody. To find enough people to man 20 treatment centres in 20 different prisons will be very difficult. At Grendon we have a number of nursing prison officers who have had some training, but they are very few. There are not enough of them. I am worrying about how these provisions are ever to be met, but as long as it is said that it can he done then it should be tried.
These factors have to be reconciled with the ominous comment which emerged from the Home Office that the whole plan will be "resource neutral" which is officialese for getting no extra money. Are they really trying to do this for nothing? I hope that the noble Viscount will tell us that that is a false rumour. It will really not do. A long-term plan of this kind must cost a great deal and cannot be cheap. I beg the Government not to let their good intentions fail, as they so often do, because of the lack of proper financial support. The excellent intentions of Fresh Start came off at half-cock simply because of mean financing provision. Therefore, let us at least find out how the offenders are to be accommodated. Are they to be segregated in a separate wing, for example? Is treatment to be voluntary or can they refuse it? The noble Earl raised that point.
Our experience at Grendon is perfectly clear. If one has a centre which is a therapeutic one, it is no good having people who reject the treatment. They will be better elsewhere. I urge very strongly that only prisoners who are prepared to accept and co-operate with treatment should be made available. I believe that in nearly every case they will because it will be evident to them that anything is better than an ordinary prison where they are bullied by everybody.
I shall stop asking questions, but I wish to make one positive suggestion. In my opinion the only way to deal properly with people of this kind—difficult cases—is in special small prisons of not more than 100 inmates. Twenty prisons for 2,000 people is out of the question in anything under about 10 years. But at least we could start right. I would immediately find and either erect or adapt one small prison adjacent to a main local prison, as recommended by the Woolf Report on community grouping. I should send the most perplexing cases there for a start. They should be asked to accept and co-operate in treatment, and should be sent hack to ordinary prison if they breach prison rules or if they fail to co-operate. We know from Grendon that a prison based on therapy willingly accepted, can be run for—in this case 25, or is it 30 years?—without escapes or riots. When I was at Grendon, the most dreaded sanction was the "Ghost Train", on which inmates who had failed to co-operate were sent back to a normal prison. Finally, every district should have such a prison in its prison group. The long-term plan should aim at that.
632
I believe that a prison of that kind would be much more effective than any other method and would succeed well enough to persuade the authorities to arrange for more. After all, with Grendon's success over 25 years they are already talking of a new building. So we cannot start too early to show what is right if it is to be copied and multiplied.
While welcoming the Government's recognition of these difficult problems, I beg them to consider their present proposals as a temporary expedient, to be gradually replaced by special prisons specifically designed for this purpose.
I have spoken for long enough. But there is a further question which needs to be dealt with, and that is what to do with the balance of prisoners after the severe cases have been removed and dealt with specially. The answer is that there should be more than one—probably 10 or 12—Gracewells scattered about the place. These people should go there as an alternative to prison, on a probation order, and they should be subject to immediate return to imprisonment in the case of a breach of behaviour.
Perhaps I may say something about Gracewell. It has no public money from the Government. That is half-baked. I think it should be given as much money as it needs to expand as far as it can. I think the Government should, within the year, start to open at least two others. It is perfectly simple to do. The Government can find out how to do it and suitable people can be found. In that way we could begin to deal with the less serious cases.
I shall say no more. I genuinely welcome this new and satisfactory effort, and I wish it every success. I repeat what my noble friend said: it depends wholly on being properly financed.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Earl's Unstarred Question raises a number of issues which have been causing increasing concern to those of us who practise at the Criminal Bar, and who have in recent years found ourselves spending an increasing part of our working time engaged in crimes involving alleged sexual offenders.
In the past 10 years it is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion in this category of offences. As an illustration, some 10 to 15 years ago perhaps two or three of the trials taking place at any given time in the Central Criminal Court were involving sex offences. On the last occasion that I was there earlier this year over half the courts in that building were trying cases which involved either sexual attacks of one form or another, or forms of child sexual abuse.
This explosion reflects, in part, a real increase in the commission of this type of offence. Very few women today are unaware of and are unconcerned about the real dangers of even simple operations such as collecting a car at night from an unlit car park, walking home alone at night after dark, or running out of petrol—not just on isolated country roads but even on a motorway hard shoulder.
But the increase in court cases also reflects a real increase in the reporting of sexual attacks and abuse as

633
a result of wider publicity, wider public knowledge about these matters and also the encouragement and the support of various groups such as the Rape Crisis Centres, Women Against Rape, and Childline.
The nation has become more conscious of sexual offences and sexual offenders, and the Government must respond to that anxiety in the way in which they now approach those convicted of these crimes. The increased seriousness with which the nation now regards these offences has been reflected in the past few years by steady increases in the penalties which are not only available to the courts in dealing with such offenders, but which are now reinforced by stricter guidelines to the judiciary. So there is less occasion for public outrage when offenders are seen to be treated lightly.
The benefits of that are obvious. Victims receive more encouragement and support to speak out and they receive help. Also one does not, or should not, now find a rape victim sitting alone on a bench outside a courtroom waiting to give evidence, exposed to the hostile stares, or worse, of the friends and relatives of the accused—as once happened.
But there are disadvantages too. As it is easier for victims to come forward and speak out about their attackers, so it is also easier for unfounded allegations to proceed to trial.
It is regarded as a heresy by some of the support groups to say so, but unfounded sexual allegations are not infrequently resulting in men standing trial because the prosecuting authorities are under pressure to prosecute in every instance where there is a prima facie case. Cases which hitherto would not have been pursued because the chances of conviction were limited now take place. At trial the proportion of people acquitted in sexual cases, particularly rape and child abuse, is consequently a high one. But in the course of this debate it must be remembered that very often accused men are remanded in custody, accused of sexual offences, for many months before trial, and after trial they may well be found to have committed no offence.
The noble Earl's Question asks about improvements to the position of sex offenders in prison. But it must not be overlooked that a significant number of those awaiting trial in custody, and subject to Rule 43, will, at the end of the day, be found to have committed no offence whatever. Therefore, my first anxiety in this matter is that remand prisoners firstly should be protected. I am particularly anxious to know what steps the Government have taken and are proposing to take to ensure their physical safety, not just on a day to day basis while they are in custody, but when they are travelling with other prisoners to court appearances—where violence often occurs—but most particularly in the event of prison disturbances.
In the prison disturbances in 1990 a young man whom I subsequently defended—accused of sexual offences against a former girl friend and on remand in custody in Pucklechurch on Rule 43—was saved from being lynched only by the intervention of convicted
634
Dartmoor prisoners who had been moved to Pucklechurch following other disturbances. He still bore neck injuries when I saw him months later.
Even after that attack, he was moved by the prison authorities and housed together with other Rule 43 prisoners in an unlocked room protected only by a notice on the door which said, "Keep out. Rule 43 prisoners", which guaranteed that he was subject to a further night of terrifying abuse and threats by other prisoners. Can the Government give an assurance that such events could not occur again and that vulnerable prisoners are now adequately protected? It must be no part of our penal system that such prisoners should endure not just deprivation of liberty but should also risk death and serious injury while they are in the care of the prison authorities.
My second concern follows conviction. In my experience it is now almost standard advice given by prison officers at court to a convicted man in a sex case that he should "go on the rule." Between 1983 and 1988 the male sentenced population increased by just under 17.5 per cent. while those on Rule 43 increased by 156 per cent. While personal safety must be the first priority, Rule 43 does not provide the appropriate form of protection for convicted men in this category of sexual offenders. It deprives men of normal association. It can prevent them from having access to facilities for work, education and recreation. It often means that the prisoner is not allocated to a prison near his home and family. Worse still, it effectively confines the prisoner to the company of other sexual offenders which too often reinforces the very attitudes and inclinations which led him into trouble in the first place. In effect it makes these prisoners into the victims and focuses their minds on their own condition and situation and not on what they have done to their victims.
In some prisons these policies are being addressed. Grendon is the shining example, but Grendon is exceptional. What steps are the Government proposing to take to implement the recommendations of the Woolf Report to which previous speakers have referred? Housing vulnerable prisoners in small units with other prisoners, within a liberal regime, with close supervision in those units and the penalty of withdrawal of the benefits of that regime for those who victimise sexual offenders is seen by Lord Justice Woolf as a way forward from Rule 43 with, in effect, a mini-Grendon in each local prison. I hope—and I know that I am not alone in hoping—that the report and recommendations of an enlightened Lord Justice and one of the most outspoken and effective Inspectors of Prisons for many years will not be allowed to collect dust at the back of a shelf.
My concern does not simply relate to the condition of those convicted and serving their prison sentences. My concern goes beyond that, to the effect that government policy on this matter has ultimately on the community and, in particular, on past and potential future victims of such offenders. Some two months ago I received a letter from a young woman whom I had had to cross-examine in the course of a trial. She had been raped at knifepoint by a burglar who had entered her flat during the night. He was

635
under 20 and had received six years' youth custody. She asked what she could do to ensure that this young man received some treatment so that on his release no other woman should go through what she had suffered. I welcome the proposals in relation to offenders who are sentenced to terms in excess of four years, but there are many who fall below that level of sentence who would benefit.
For many years we have been failing to provide facilities for offenders who were anxious for help and were asking for it. Time and again in court we have seen judges read reports prepared by the defence and we have heard them express the wish that the prison authorities should arrange treatment. Time and again nothing has been done. The prisoner has ultimately been released without treatment and there is another victim and another prison sentence. I have just such a case awaiting hearing later this month. The judge's observations in that case on the last occasion were ignored. We have no means of knowing whether treatment might have helped and prevented a repetition because, tragically, it was never tried. This time the offence committed after release is of such seriousness that a life sentence is likely.
Another Grendon, which is promised, and more Gracewells, which let us hope we see, will be welcome but they will not be sufficient unless the Government make a commitment as soon as they can to providing treatment for all convicted sexual offenders who wish it. Lark of resources cannot be an answer to this problem. If we fail to provide the resources for this treatment, we shall simply have to provide even greater resources to have yet another prisoner housed in prison when he is released, reoffends and is reconvicted. We owe it to victims like my letter writer and those who will be victims unless we act. The improvement of the provisions for sex offenders is at the end of the day in the interests of all of us.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: God knows, my Lords we live in a sex-sodden society. The pressures and provocations around us need no description from me, and the feminist movement has done well in reminding us that much of what we read, watch, hear and see every day is exploitative and degrading. It is also powerful and pervasive. It is not surprising that the weak, wicked, the inadequate and the deviant fall into crime and commit often hideous offences against vulnerable and innocent people. God is their judge, but, on Earth, so are we, and they are rightly punished when convicted. But it must needs be that offences come.
As we all know, when they are in prison they receive little sympathy from their fellow prisoners. Under Rule 43, many sex offenders are kept separate from all other prisoners for their own safety. The number of adult male prisoners held on Rule 43 for their own protection has increased nearly threefold since 1983; from 632 in that year to 1,835 on 31st August this year. Approximately 70 per cent. of all Rule 43 prisoners are sex offenders. They do not have an easy time. Not only are the conditions for many Rule 43 prisoners wholly unacceptable, there has hitherto been
636
far too little treatment available for such offenders' deviant sexual tendencies. Such treatment and therapy as is available is often undermined by the development of a self-reinforcing culture among sex offenders in Rule 43 units. They are segregated together and they reinforce each other's tendencies.
The Prison Officers' Association, whose members have the unenviable and unlovely job of looking after and protecting these people, believes that in general terms the regimes provided for prisoners segregated for their own protection are still woefully inadequate. The extent to which sexual offenders are encouraged to participate in therapeutic schemes designed to challenge their violent and/or sexual tendencies is at best, across the whole system, patchy and at worst non-existent. It is clear from the high levels of reconviction for sex offences that imprisonment does not of itself stop men from sexually reoffending once they are released.
The central point in all this is that sex offenders, after conviction, must be offered treatment and must be persuaded by all legitimate means to accept it. To do nothing, or simply to exercise passive control, is negative, unintelligent and expensive, since recidivism in this group is so high and the cost of keeping one man in one prison for one day is usually compared with the cost of putting him up at the Ritz. That is why we welcome the Government's positive response to the recommendation in the Woolf Report that greater emphasis must be placed on the need to make therapy available, so that sex offenders can be confronted with their offending.
I congratulate the Government on their new programme and on the speed with which it has been devised and with which it will be introduced. But three things need to be said about the availability of therapeutic treatment for sex offenders after sentence. First, the Rule 43 procedure is very expensive and does nothing, so far as we can see, to reduce the rate of recidivism. If anything, it does exactly the opposite. Secondly, the Government's new programme, welcome as it is, constitutes no more than a first step down a long road on which it will be expensive to travel. I hope that we shall hear some reassuring news from the noble Viscount about the costs of this new programme and how they are to be met. The Prison Service publication, Briefing No. 36, has commented on the new programme in these words:
"Sex offending can be controlled but treatment cannot guarantee a cure. Random or ill-considered treatment can increase the risk of re-offending. But there is growing evidence that treatment programmes of the type planned by the Service—based on sound theories and carried out by well trained and motivated staff—can reduce sexual recidivism by about half".
That is its view: that such treatment programmes can reduce sexual recidivism by about half. However, as we have heard, the programme will apply only to those who are serving prison sentences of more than four years. It would make sense to make increasing use of therapeutic programmes as an alternative to imprisonment for many of those who now receive the shorter term custodial sentences.
We have heard from almost every speaker—I join them and make no apology for nagging on about this—about the work of the Gracewell Clinic in

637
Birmingham. That has illustrated the potential value of this approach in enabling offenders to accept responsibility for their behaviour, to acknowledge the serious damage which it has caused to their victims and to control their deviant sexual tendencies. Since the clinic was opened in 1988 it has had 109 residents for assessment and/or treatment. Not all those residents have been able to continue into treatment and, to date, 49 residents have completed a minimum period of treatment of three months. Some residents stay in treatment for 12 months or more.
Thirdly, the methods, results and costs of the Gracewell Clinic must be studied because they are at this moment the best available practice in this country. Quite simply, the Gracewell Clinic is the Rolls-Royce of the system and it is being driven to the very frontiers of knowledge. At present it can accommodate no more than 21 residents at any one time. It is registered with a local authority as a nursing home. Its fee for assessment and treatment is £495 per week. It is not cheap; but answers to this question are not going to come cheap. It is worth noticing that the clinic has maintained full occupancy since the middle of this year and it now has a waiting list stretching well into 1992.
Clearly the operation is a great success: there can be no question about that. But perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to one crucial fact. To date, as I have said, 49 residents have completed a minimum period of treatment. To date, and so far as research can reveal, not one of those men has been accused or convicted of a sexual offence. The Gracewell Clinic does not reduce recidivism by about one half—it has a 100 per cent. record.
However, if treatment options of this kind are to be available to the courts an injection of central government funding is essential and badly needed. At present, the Gracewell Clinic receives no central government funding. Since it was established it has depended heavily on the financial generosity of a single individual benefactor. We have spoken many times in your Lordships' House about the Gracewell Clinic. Yet the view of the Home Office seems to be that it will not provide direct central funding for the clinic until its effectiveness has been rigorously evaluated. I submit that a 100 per cent. record over 49 people is not a bad start.
That is not the approach which the Home Office has taken towards financing other types of worthwhile experiment; indeed, there is plenty of precedent for the Home office arranging to fund experiments in order that they may be evaluated. When the noble Viscount replies can he tell the House why the Home Office did not commission a full, evaluative study of the Gracewell Clinic long ago? How many Ministers and officials have visited the clinic, and how recently? Moreover will he, as a matter of urgency, consult his right honourable friend with a view to evaluating the clinic's work so that it may receive government funding as soon as possible. Surely the Government are fortunate to have a success like Gracewell attached to the prison system. In the words of the poet, W.H. Auden:
638
"Why spit on your luck?"
8.17 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl and to my noble friend for not putting my name down to speak. But, having had an interest in the subject in the past as a Minister responsible for the Prison Service, many of the remarks which have been made this evening have struck something of a chord with me.
I very much agree with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, especially in relation to the plight of Rule 43 prisoners. I, too. found the application of Rule 43. on the dozens of visits I made to prisons throughout the country, to be variable. The reasons for it being variable are difficult to pin down—or, at least, that was the case in 1985–86 when I then had a specific responsibility. Of course, I recognise the difficulty of trying to achieve uniformity in the way that that rule is applied throughout the entire prison system and in the variety of different prison systems which exist. I also very much agreed with the noble Baroness in what she said about the provision of suitable facilities—the equivalent of Rule 43, so to speak—to enable those who are on remand for sexual offences to be properly safeguarded. I believe that that is a very important consideration.
I visited Grendon some time during my period of duty as a Minister. I was especially struck by the work which was done. The work then was experimental and has no doubt developed a great deal since that time. It seemed to me to have very many attributes. I am very glad to hear that that work has continued. I was also impressed by a visit I made only last year to Littlehey. That prison has adopted rather different techniques to try to cope with the problems of many of these prisoners. I found its work equally impressive. No doubt that has also been developed over time.
I believe that the problem is an extremely difficult one. The subject does not lend itself to any description, such as the fact that it may be a perfect science; indeed, it is certainly not. But the same to a very large extent has been true of mental health. Again, that was a subject in which I became deeply involved as the Minister in the DHSS, as it then was. There, some of the most striking improvements have been achieved through a great deal of imaginative effort. I think that "imaginative" is the right word in this respect. I believe that both Grendon and Littlehey are just two examples of what can be done.
Although I have heard about it, I have not visited the Gracewell Clinic. It sounds impressive, and I hope to visit it one day. I do not think that it even existed in my day so I was unable to visit it, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would have had me do.
Of course resources are not limitless. They have to be properly applied. There is evidence to suggest that the kind of approach which has been almost universally recommended in the debate tonight may save much grief without excessive cost.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am happy to be able yet again to support my noble friend Lord Longford in his call for an improvement in a particular part of our penal system. What makes his request for an improvement in the way we deal with sex offenders so important is that over recent years the number of sex offenders in prison has increased incredibly. It was up to over 3,000 in 1990. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu spoke with great authority from her experience in the criminal courts. She spoke of the increase in the number of sex offences which are now reported and which may not have been reported previously. She also spoke of the odium with which the public views such offenders and the consequent danger of wrongful convictions. What she said about the present Rule 43 was of great value. I hope that the Minister listened carefully.
I shall speak about the present system and the new proposals which the Home Secretary announced in June. I reiterate what all my noble friends have said. I include the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, although he has left the Chamber, among my noble friends. The present system of sex offenders being incarcerated under Rule 43 or being at the prey of other prisoners is hopeless. It offers no hope of prison having a remedial effect upon their offending. There is therefore a danger that they will prey on further victims when they leave. That was the central point made about the danger of the present system of dealing with sex offenders.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson proposed, as did others, that there should be separate small units or prisons for sex offenders. In its evidence to Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry, the Parliamentary All-party Penal Affairs Group said that such offenders should be segregated from the rest of the prison population. It recommended that there should be separate accommodation for vulnerable prisoners like that which exists at Maidstone, Wakefield and Littlehey. Treatment for offenders with deviant sexual tendencies cannot be administered while they remain under Rule 43. No treatment, counselling or cure can be given while they remain in those conditions.
That leads me to the second part of the debate which relates to the initiative announced by the Home Secretary at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust conference. It was an important conference. The initiative was a response to one of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations: that a new programme for the treatment of sex offenders should be put into operation. That initiative was described clearly by my noble friend Lord Donaldson.
I join all noble Lords in the welcome that they have given to that initiative. I share the fears of many speakers about certain aspects of the programme. Foremost among the anxieties is the question of how the programme will be resourced. That is a point that I hope that the Minister will address, even if he merely says that it will not be resourced. That was the central worry of all speakers. As has been said, the Home Secretary was careful not to commit himself to providing any significant increase in resources to fund the programme when he announced it. Indeed, he said
640
that the initiative is to be "resource neutral". That has a hollow ring. The assumption appears to be that the programme can be run by the existing complement of prison staff.
I, and all noble Lords who have spoken, believe that that assumption is unwise. Although in some prisons there is an existing tradition of work with sex offenders and staffing arrangements which take that into account, in many other prisons comprehensive programmes of work with sex offenders will be a new departure. The introduction of the new programme will mean the reallocation of staff time and the cutting of existing activities. In prisons such as Wandsworth, where the regime is already extremely restrictive—we have often debated that prison—it is hard to see what can be cut to enable the programme to be run.
That leads to the subject of training. There are some indications that the Home Office is willing to resource specialist training for prison staff. However, as other training initiatives have shown, the problem lies not so much in providing the training as in freeing up staff to attend the courses. Lord Justice Woolf recognised that fact when he wrote that in order to accommodate his recommended increase in training:
"The Prison Service will need to recognise that, for a short time at any rate, additional staff will be required".
Given the complexity of the issues relating to, and the dangers inherent in, work with sex offenders, the provision of adequate training is vital. Additional staff will be needed if the treatment is to be provided.
There are also questions about the selection of the specialist prisons. In each prison providing the programme it is crucial to establish that it has the right ethos to allow such programmes to flourish. All the prisons identified as assessment centres have considerable experience of housing large numbers of sex offenders. However, few of them have a record of doing extensive work with such offenders. At least two of them—Dartmoor and Wandsworth—have reputations for harsh and repressive staff attitudes. They would find it hard to move to a system of working in a remedial way with sex offenders. In such an atmosphere it will be difficult to counter the tradition of staff/prisoner antipathies and to create an environment which will encourage prisoners to be open and honest about their offending, something which will be fundamental to the new treatment.
The answer to most of the other anxieties expressed will emerge as more details of the scheme are made known. The Minister may tell us some of them today. Perhaps he will tell us what will happen to the sex offenders who do not wish to participate in the treatment. At what stage in a prisoner's sentence will treatment be offered? What guidance will be issued to the judiciary? I do not believe that this point has been mentioned but it is important since judges may well be tempted to pass sentences of over four years on sex offenders simply to ensure that they will automatically be offered treatment. That is a possibility and therefore guidance to the judiciary seems important.
I would have spoken about the Gracewell Clinic, but it has been well covered by all previous speakers, in particular by my noble friend Lord Morris. I stress the point that he described. The importance and value

641
of the work of the Gracewell Clinic is that it enables offenders to accept responsibility for their behaviour. Before that can happen, no treatment can be of any use. If one can persuade offenders of any kind to acknowledge the serious damage which they have caused to their victims then it will be a start on trying to cure and to change their sexual deviancy.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about Gracewell. We all believe zthat the Government should provide financial support for it. As my noble friend Lord Morris stated clearly, the evaluation of its effectiveness must have been proved by the success rate which it has had.
I hope that when replying the noble Viscount will clarify the points raised today. We wish to know about the Government's new treatment programmes because we welcome the initiative. We wish it well and want it to work. As speakers have pointed out, the present system is totally inadequate. The Government recognise that, and anyone who has been involved in the prison system and penal affairs will agree that from a remedial viewpoint offenders of this nature can only leave prison in worse shape than when they came in.
I look forward to the noble Viscount's response and hope that we shall hear good news about this excellent new initiative that the Government have proposed.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the opportunity which he has given to the House to consider the treatment needs of sex offenders in prison. In his comprehensive report on the prison disturbances of April 1990, Lord Justice Woolf recognised that the management of sex offenders creates considerable difficulties for the Prison Service. This is because of the hostility and aggression shown to such prisoners by other inmates. The debate this evening has addressed how the situation of sex offenders in prison can be improved in, I believe, a most helpful and constructive way.
The problem of sexual offending commands a great deal of public and media attention—and rightly so. Sex offenders often have many victims. They strike at the most vulnerable in the community. There is now much greater appreciation than in the past of the incidence of rape and child sexual abuse. There is also a growing awareness of the crippling long-term effects that sexual assaults can have on the victims.
The first priority of government must be public safety and the need to protect potential victims. The courts must have adequate powers to deal with sex offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 accordingly strengthens the powers of the courts to impose custodial sentences where this is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. It empowers Crown Courts to impose longer sentences than would otherwise by justified by the seriousness of the offence, if this is required for the protection of the public. For most sex offenders convicted of serious offences, an immediate and lengthy sentence of imprisonment is appropriate and inevitable.
642
However, incarceration is not enough. The conditions in which many sex offenders are currently held—segregated from other inmates under Rule 43 of the prison rules and with little access to regime facilities—are likely to aggravate their problems. Without treatment, they may leave prison as dangerous as—if not more dangerous than—when they entered. That was rightly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend. As Lord Justice Woolf said:
"When Rule 43 prisoners are subject to assaults or worse that makes them feel, with justification, that they are the victims. It focuses their attention on their own condition and away from what they have done to their victims. Those offenders need to be assisted to avoid offending again. They must be required to confront their criminal conduct".
The Woolf Report acknowledged the work that was already being undertaken within the Prison Service. At prisons like Wakefield, Grendon, Littlehey and Leyhill, sex offenders had been absorbed successfully into the prison community. At many prisons individual counselling and group therapy was taking place. But the provision was unco-ordinated, dependent upon individual initiatives and inconsistent sometimes in approach.
That is why, on 7th June this year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the new strategy, to which noble Lords referred this evening. In the coming weeks, the Prison Service will be progressively introducing structured programmes for sex offenders in prison.
One of the key features of this strategy is that sex offenders will be concentrated in fewer prisons. This is not just to provide them with a safe haven. The treatment programmes offenders undergo will be demanding and stressful, particularly in the initial stages. They will involve breaking down the offender's denial of his behaviour, getting him to recognise the effect on the victim and inducing guilt for his actions. It is essential, if such programmes are to succeed, that the prisoner is in an environment that can sustain him through this period and support the rehabilitative process.
Such an approach also makes it easier to ensure consistency in the running of the treatment programmes. It makes more cost-effective use of resources and skills. By allowing prisoners to admit and take responsibility for their offences in a supportive setting, it overcomes the legitimate concern about the practice under which some prisoners are effectively encouraged to lie about their offence to enable them to survive on normal location.
Sentence planning will be introduced for sex offenders and priority for treatment will be given to those who are likely to represent the greatest threat on release. I can confirm to noble Lords that this will include prisoners serving less than four years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I understood that the Government's programme would not cover such people. I am not saying anything against it, but is that a change of policy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not it is a change, but I can confirm to noble Lords this evening that it will include prisoners serving less than

643
four years. I am not entirely sure myself what initial views were taken but that is certainly the case now. I am sure that the House would accept that early attention must be given to those longer-term prisoners whose release date could be adversely affected if their offending behaviour is not addressed.
Assessment will be introduced following conviction and sentence to determine which prisoners are most in need. This will take into account an inmate's previous convictions, evidence of inadequacy or addiction, and evidence of sexual deviancy. It will also reflect his behaviour during the assessment period when he will undergo psychological tests, have individual counselling and participate in group work.
Two main treatment programmes will be available in the Prison Service. A core programme, which does not require significant specialist resources, will tackle offenders' distorted beliefs about relationships. It will enhance their awareness of the effect of sexual offences on the victim, and seek to get inmates to take responsibility for and face up to the consequences of their own offending behaviour. The programme will also get inmates to develop relapse prevention strategies, identifying the nature of their offence cycles and how high risk situations can be avoided.
The extended programme, for those who represent the greatest risk, will be run at establishments with appropriate specialist resources. This will, in addition, tackle problems of deviant arousal, inter-personal relationships, communication skills, anger and stress management, and substance abuse.
Further details of the programme are set out in a document Treatment Programmes for Sex Offenders in Custody: A Strategy produced by the Prison Service. I have arranged for copies of this to be placed in the Library of the House.
The intention is to have these programmes running in up to 20 establishments next year. Thirteen establishments have teams already undergoing initial training. The core programme has been finalised and pilot programmes are being run in prisons. The Government believe that these programmes represent a significant advance in meeting the treatment needs of sex offenders in custody. They are practical. They recognise the difficulties and constraints of delivering treatment programmes in prison. They are deliverable and, we believe, can be sustained over time. They will be fully evaluated.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked about the use of prison officers to deliver these programmes. We believe it is essential that prison officers are directly involved in this work. They bring a wealth of practical knowledge of what goes on in prison to supplement the professional skills of the psychologist, the probation officer and the teacher. They will need—and are currently receiving—initial training. They will need training on the job, sitting alongside, for example, a probation officer running a group. With experience, prison officers can and do make an extremely effective contribution.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this point is absolutely crucial. Will prison officers be provided
644
with adequate training or will they receive just a few hours training? A few hours training is better than nothing; nevertheless it is a nonsense.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, they are receiving initial training. However, training will also be given on the job. It will be a continuing process.
Noble Lords also asked whether sex offenders can be compelled to take part in the programmes. They cannot be compelled, but they will be encouraged to do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to the work of the Gracewell Clinic in Birmingham. There is certainly an argument for the provision of residential community-based programmes which can complement the work of the prison and probation services. I know Lord Justice Woolf was impressed with the evidence he received about the clinic's work. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mrs. Rumbold, recently visited the clinic to observe its programmes for offenders. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will visit the clinic shortly.
The view of Lord Justice Woolf—the Government share that view—is that the clinic's programme should be evaluated. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the 49 people he referred to constitute a small sample studied over a short period of time. The number of people involved is small and the period of time involved is short, so the sample cannot be considered representative of all offenders. However, a government-funded research study into a number of community-based programmes, including that at the Gracewell Clinic, will commence shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the protection of remand prisoners. The prison service seeks to provide protection for vulnerable prisoners in all circumstances, both in prison and when they are travelling to and from court. Prison governors are aware of the threat to such prisoners and do all they can to protect them. That was clear during the disturbances at Manchester and elsewhere. However, we appreciate that there is a difficulty in this regard when control breaks down completely. The noble Baroness also asked about advice on Rule 43 prisoners. Prison governors may currently advise prisoners on Rule 43 status, but we wish to move to a situation where prisoners can be held in a more supportive environment. They may need to be held in a specialist prison or unit.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, raised the issue of resources. Certainly we shall be addressing the resource needs of the prisons that will be running the programmes. The Autumn Statement announced that there would be additional resources in 1992–93 for the Prison Service. But we need also to ensure that existing resources are used effectively. Many prisons are already devoting resources to this area. These need to be rationalised. For prisons holding large numbers of sex offenders, we need to ensure that this work is given appropriate priority.

645
I wish to conclude on a slightly cautionary note. The strategy which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 7th June has been warmly welcomed. There is evidence that treatment programmes in prison can reduce levels of re-offending. But let no one imagine that, however successfully these programmes are implemented, sex offenders can be cured.
Treatment does not permanently eliminate the attraction of deviant sexual acts for sex offenders.
646
They are always at risk of repeating their behaviour. Treatment can enable an offender to recognise a situation in which he is likely to re-offend and teach him how to control his behaviour in these situations. But whatever it is possible to accomplish in prison can only lay the foundations for work that has to be continued after the inmate's release into the community.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before nine o'clock.