Sitting of 7 December 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    National Agricultural Advisory Services
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many administrative officers and how many field officers were on the strength of National Agricultural Advisory Services in June, 1970, and how many of each category are currently on the strength of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): On 1st July, 1970, in the separate services now embodied in A.D.A.S., there were 489 officers with substantial managerial responsibility out of a total staff of 5,391. The corresponding figures for 1st October, 1971, were 487 and 5,393. Within the total there has been a significant reduction in staff in the agricultural advisory service which has been offset by increases in supporting staff required for brucellosis work. Many of the managerial staff also undertake some field duties.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the much-heralded claims that the Minister would slash the staff available to his Department, these figures show that he has not done so but that he has succeeded in shattering the morale of one of the finest agricultural advisory services in the world?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my
    1098
    answer, in which I said that there had been a significant reduction in staff in the advisory service, which has been offset by the need for staff for brucellosis work.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the increase has been in the level of food prices from 18th June, 1970, to the latest available date.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food has risen in cost since June, 1970.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): Between 16th June, 1970, and 19th October, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 11·6 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these figures are nothing short of a total disgrace and that, unlike Ministers and Members of Parliament, whose percentage increases can be calculated in thousands of pounds, the percentage increases of millions of pensioners and working-class people on low incomes are calculated in shillings? How can they afford to pay for this massive price increase?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman always has a Question down to me about this. He will know, from his memory of the last Question he put down, that the figure has not changed.
    Mr. Carter: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider future price increase arising out of the point which I have put to him before—namely, metrication? Is he aware that, according to the Metrication Board, metrication in the food-producing industry is likely to be completed by 1975, yet in his last answer to me he said that it was a long way off? In view of what happened over decimalisation, does he not think that closer controls are necessary?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Member's knowledge of metrication in the food-producing industry being completed by 1975 is certainly not the information that I have—and is certainly not correct.
    Mr. Farr: What does my right hon. Friend forecast the prices of seasonal foods, such as turkeys and plum puddings, will be this Christmas compared with last?
    Mr. Prior: The price of turkeys may be up slightly, but not much, and the price of chickens will certainly be down—and there is a plentiful supply of both.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in retail food prices has occurred during the 17 months from July, 1970, to November, 1971, inclusive, or the nearest convenient dates; and whether the levelling out of food prices from July to September is continuing.
    Mr. Prior: Between 21st July, 1970, and 19th October, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 11·2 per cent. Short-term trends are considerably affected by the incidence of seasonal factors but, between 20th July, 1971, and 19th October, 1971, the Food Index fell by 0·3 per cent.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But do not all these figures confirm my suggestion to my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago—since his last answer was 11·6 per cent., his answer to Question No. 3 today was also 11·6 per cent. and this answer is 11·2 per cent.—that we are entering a period of relative stability in retail food prices, compared with the disastrous hangover from Labour?
    Mr. Prior: There are some signs in support of my hon. Friend's view, including the fact that in the last three months the non-seasonal foods index has risen by only 1·4 per cent., which is a considerable improvement on recent months.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the levelling out of food prices due to seasonal factors between June and October of this year was similar to that which occurred during the same period of last year, but that that was followed by sharp increases in the rest of the year? By how much does he hope to see the rate of increase in food prices reduced in the period June, 1971, to June, 1972, compared with the 12 per cent. by which food prices rose in the previous 12 months?
    Mr. Prior: I do not intend to forecast the future and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. Seasonal food prices have not dropped as much this year as they did last year by quite a considerable amount, and non-seasonal food prices have not been rising at anything like the rate of rise of recent months. There is also the factor that between July and October the index of food items mainly manufactured in the United Kingdom, which is over 40 per cent. of the total in the general index, rose by only 0·6 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Mills: By how much per pound has butter gone up recently? Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably the main factor for this rise has been the drought in Australia and New Zealand, which shows how unwise it is to rely too much on overseas supplies and the need to produce more of these products at home?
    Mr. Prior: I certainly agree that we should be producing more of these products at home, and the sooner we can get our milk production up the better I shall like it. The price of butter has risen since June, 1970, by about 80 per cent., and that has been due entirely to factors beyond our control, such as drought in the Southern Hemisphere and the shortage of supplies in the rest of the world. Of the total increase in the index of food prices since the General Election in 1970, about one-fifth of it has been due to increases in the prices of dairy products.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), observations which make him the biggest Walter Mitty of the year? There can be no question of prices levelling off when one is talking in terms of increases of 11·6 per cent., which the right hon. Gentleman gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). What is likely to be the subsequent price rises when we have to take into account value-added tax, import levies and entry into the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Prior: I have never thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) as a Walter Mitty character, and what my hon. Friend said is perfectly correct.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen in the last full 12-month period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on movements in food prices during the past year.
    Mr. Prior: Between 20th October, 1970, and 19th October, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 11·7 per cent.
    Mr. Price: Why does not the Minister give up and go home?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman got a headline the last time I answered Questions. I hope he does not get one today.
    Mr. Morris: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what angers the housewife is not only the swingeing increase in food prices but the widespread impression that the Minister does not care? Has he seen the highly specific Press reports that there will be a further increase of 7 per cent. next year? Would he care to comment on those reports?
    Mr. Prior: No, and, as I said, I do not intend to forecast the future. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I care every bit as much about this is he does.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Has the C.B.I. initiative on prices had any effect on manufactured food prices?
    Mr. Prior: I think that since the C.B.I. initiative in July we have been seeing a considerable improvement. Manufactured food prices are up by only 1·4 per cent. over that period, and, as I told the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), mainly manufactured items are up by only 0·6 per cent.
    Mr. Morris: On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of all the Minister's replies on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes occurred in the cost of food
    1102
    between 15th June, 1971, and the most recent available date.
    Mr. Prior: It should be noted that this is a period of the year when seasonal factors are favourable, but between 15th June, 1971, and 19th October, 1971—the latest date for which information is available—the Food Index fell by 0·3 per cent.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to a feature in a group of Essex newspapers in which the same food has been purchased week by week since June, 1971? Is he aware that the average weekly shopping bill shows a drop of 6p in six months? Would he agree that both from the point of view of official statistics and by this practical example at least we can see that the trend is now in the right direction?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his information [Interruption.] I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite share his pleasure.
    Mr. Lamond: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement by the Chairman of the Decimalisation Board that decimalisation made no difference to prices?
    Mr. Prior: I am being very careful here. The Board was giving its views, and I stick to mine.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated rise in the price of foodstuffs between November, 1970, and November, 1971.
    Mr. Prior: It is not the practice to speculate about the future level of the Food Index prior to publication which in the case of the mid-November figure will be on 18th December.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since we have had a good many categories this afternoon, could the Minister give the figures for non-manufactured, non-seasonal food, which is the basis of any shopping basket?
    Mr. Prior: I do not think that I can give that figure without notice.
    Mr. Dalyell: Over any convenient period.
    Mr. Prior: May I let the hon. Gentleman know by letter?
    Mr. Kaufman: How can the Minister be so complacent about the whole question of cost-of-living increases when the International Monetary Fund said yesterday that the increase in the cost of living in this country remains higher than in any other industrial country in the world?
    Mr. Prior: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have a hangover from something for which he had a certain responsibility.

    Rotary Milking Parlours
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why, for purposes of Farm Capital Grant, a rotary milking parlour is treated differently from a traditional herringbone parlour.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The rotary parlour is a machine, and so it is eligible for tax allowances but not for grant. The building which houses the parlour and the services is, however, eligible for grant, and accounts for a substantial part of the total cost.
    Mr. Edwards: Would my hon. Friend agree that to distinguish between machinery and buildings in an integral piece of equipment of this kind is somewhat arbitrary? Does not the present system therefore tend to discourage the use of the most modern and efficient equipment?
    Mr. Stodart: I agree that we are getting near to no man's land, as it were, between machinery and buildings. A revolving platform driven by a motor is certainly a machine, and the associated fixtures are part of it. However, there is no indication that there is any restraint on people installing this equipment.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a progress report on the discussions that are taking place between representatives of the horticultural industry and officials of his Department on the subject of possible Government assistance to those sections of that industry that could
    1104
    be adversely affected as a direct consequence of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Prior: The exploratory talks which my officials had with the National Farmers' Union before the Parliamentary vote in favour of joining the E.E.C. are continuing.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the genuine apprehension felt not only by growers of apples and pears but by growers of early strawberries, and particularly by those in scattered and isolated rural areas such as the Tamar Valley, where any decline in this industry would have adverse social as well as economic repercussions?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the point my hon. Friend makes, particularly about Tamar Valley strawberry growers. It is too early yet to say how the negotiations which we are having with the National Farmers Union will turn out. Some of the problems in areas like the Tamar Valley are not caused by the import of strawberries but by new ways of producing strawberries in other parts of Britain.
    Mr. J. T. Price: If we can get away from the Tamar Valley for a moment—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Why?
    Mr. Price: —and from the Vale of Evesham, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that in Lancashire we have possibly the biggest section of the agricultural industry in Britain under glass and that I am informed by the N.F.U. in Lancashire that if the terms of entry into the E.E.C. are carried out in accordance with the prospective treaty arrangements with the Six, the industry in Lancashire will be completely crippled? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fear of the Lancashire industry of the dire prospects that are likely if the Government's policies in this matter are carried out, fears that have been expressed in letters to me and which I will willingly give the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Prior: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the letters—
    Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman already knows about this.
    Mr. Prior: —and I will do my best to give him an answer. However, I do not believe that the defeatist attitude which he and some of his growers are taking is borne out by the attitude of the industry as a whole.
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the latest developments in the fisheries negotiations with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Prior: I received a letter yesterday from the Fisheries Organisation Society Limited, on behalf of the inshore fishermen of England and Wales, emphasising views they had previously expressed to me.
    Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter which the Prime Minister is reported to have sent to the Norwegian Prime Minister prior to the last set of negotiations suggests that Her Majesty's Government are more concerned with completing the fisheries negotiations in time to sign the Treaty of Accession than they are about getting the best possible deal for our fishermen? May we be assured that the Government will not accept an agreement on fishery limits which is of temporary duration and will press for a 12-mile limit?
    Mr. Prior: I totally refute the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. We have had constant Questions and answers about this problem—
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not answers, just Questions.
    Mr. Prior: —and the negotiations are still continuing. No decision was reached at Brussels a week ago, and I think it is better to leave it at that.
    Mr. Nott: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing admiration and respect for the strong and determined efforts which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister are taking in protecting this country's inshore industry?
    Mr. Prior: If hon. Gentlemen opposite would see the fishermen they would hear exactly the same thing.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is still approaching these negotiations in the manner of a joint approach with Norway, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press for a 12-mile limit as a matter of principle, if necessary independently of Norway? In other words, if Norway opts out, will Her Majesty's Government continue to press for a 12-mile limit?
    Mr. Prior: Our approach is a joint approach with Norway, Ireland and Denmark and we shall hope to continue in that way. It would be a great mistake to be hypothetical on what may happen if any of these countries should fall out. We hope that that will not be the case.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in policy have taken place recently in the common agricultural policy and what will be the effect of these changes and future trends.
    Mr. Prior: There have been no such changes since the Council decided last March to introduce measures to improve the structure of agriculture, which have yet to be implemented.
    Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there are bound to be changes, with four new members coming into the Community, and that we have a part to play in these changes? Does he agree that, in any of these changes, the basic principles of British agriculture, such as the Milk Marketing Board, the hill cow subsidy, and the like, which we hold dear, must be maintained?
    Mr. Prior: Yes.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact that food prices in the Community are going up and that this gives the lie to the confident prediction of the Government's Common Market White Paper that the gap between world food prices and those likely to be encountered in the Community was getting narrower?
    Mr. Prior: No. In fact, exactly the reverse is true. The gap is getting narrower and has been getting narrower since the publication of the White Paper, but much will depend in the next few months on what happens in the Community.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the negotiations being conducted by his Department in seeking to ensure that the Six accept British standards of hygiene and humanity in the treatment of farm animals.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: These matters have not formed part of the present negotiations.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about this matter? Will he not make it clear to the Six that our standards of hygiene and humanity are high and frequently much higher than the standards applying in the Six? Can he give a clear assurance that when harmonisation takes place it will not have an adverse effect on practices currently very satisfactory, or approaching that, in Britain?
    Mr. Stodart: As to hygiene, I believe that on many matters the standards in the Community are as high as ours. On animal welfare, there is a convention before the Council of Europe on this matter of intensive rearing and we shall help to draft that, if we join. I certainly hope that we would allow no lessening of the standards we have at present.
    Mr. Marten: As we have had to give way on so many points about the Common Market, could we not make this a test case on the question of humanity and say that we will not go in until they amend their rules to our standards?
    Mr. Stodart: Until we see what the convention is, I think that that is a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that animal welfare conditions in Europe are much more lax than here? Will he make it clear here and now that ours are right and theirs are wrong and, if no change can be brought about in their conditions, will he ensure that there are adequate tariffs to protect British farmers who have to conform to higher standards?
    Mr. Stodart: I hope that we shall take possibly a slightly more liberal approach than that.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the Minister state clearly that the aim of the
    1108
    Government will be to obtain harmonisation up to the standard of our animal welfare codes and not to be satisfied with less?
    Mr. Stodart: I said in my first answer that I was most concerned that we should not allow any lessening of the standards that we have.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to use to control the level of the United Kingdom pig population during any transitional period before European Economic Community membership.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is proposed to continue existing measures which form part of the guarantee arrangements for pigs prior to accession and into the transitional period.
    Mr. Deakins: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the flexible guarantee arrangements for pigs will continue unamended until such time as they can be replaced by equally effective safeguards as part of Community legislation?
    Mr. Stodart: The changes in the guarantee are a matter for the next Price Review. We shall adopt the Community system in the first year of membership, and as market prices are increased farmers will increasingly get their return from the market, and deficiency payments will be phased out. The details of this are still to be worked out.

    Frozen Food (Health Risks)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek powers to require instructions in regard to adequate thawing and cooking to be printed on the wrappers of frozen food in cases where failure to carry out such measures can lead to health risks.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Most frozen foods involve no greater risks than fresh products, but for frozen chickens and turkeys informative labels on thawing and cooking are helpful. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are watching the position. At present, through voluntary action by the trade, the great majority of birds do provide instructions. I hope that this practice

    1109
    will soon become universal without the need to consider using powers available under the Food and Drugs Act.
    Mrs. Butler: But since the appropriate Minister has said that frozen poultry is safe only if adequately thawed out and cooked, and since there were 36 samples out of 100 examined by the Consumer Association recently which were found to contain salmonella poisoning organisms, does not the Minister feel that it is not good enough to leave it to a voluntary scheme among producers? Ought he not to exercise his powers to make it a requirement in order to protect the public.
    Mr. Stodart: The National Association of Poultry Packers says that 80 per cent. of its members label. In fact, 90 per cent. of turkeys have labels and instructions on them. The Public Health Laboratory Service is doing research on this matter and we expect its report soon.
    Mr. McCrindle: Can my hon. Friend give a little more detail about the voluntary labelling to which he referred?
    Mr. Stodart: If my hon. Friend is referring to the instructions, my information is that some birds give different instructions from others. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should get hold of a couple and see where their instructions differ.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Can the Minister say how many people have suffered poisoning as a result of eating unlabelled frozen birds in the past 12 months?
    Mr. Stodart: There is no evidence of an increase in food poisoning from the failure to thaw out food properly.

    Orchard Grubbing Scheme
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the uptake of the new apple grubbing-up grants in the current year.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Judging by the rate of application during the first three months of the new Orchard Grubbing Scheme, application for between 3,000 and 3,500 acres of apple and pear trees may have been received by the end of 1971.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this rate of uptake, and does he consider that it will have the desired effect in retaining a reasonable price for the fruit from those orchards that are left?
    Mr. Stodart: Already, since 1st September, there have been over 1,600 applications and over 1,100 approvals. This is an encouraging start, and if the pace is maintained—and there is no reason to suppose that it will not be—my right hon. Friend's target will be met.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister mentioned 3,000 to 3,500 acres. Can he say what the cost of that will be and whether it is included in the overall cost to the Government of entry into the Common Market?
    Mr. Stodart: The rate of grant is 100 per cent. of the standard grubbing costs. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question about what that standard rate is, I will reply.

    Cheese
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department are taking to promote the consumption of English cheeses in Europe.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I am confident that the English Country Cheese Council and the trade as a whole are alive to the export possibilities. We shall make sure that within an enlarged European Economic Community the trading arrangements, both in the transitional period and later, provide a fair opportunity for the development of our trade in cheese.
    Mr. Farr: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, is he aware that there is almost total ignorance of the quality of English cheeses, such as Stilton and Leicester, on the Continent, and will he take steps to promote an export drive to make these qualities better known?
    Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend may be encouraged to know that exports of cheese from the United Kingdom were 29 per cent. up in 1970 over 1968. The consumption of cheese in the Community is very high. The Dutch eat twice as much per head as we do, and the French

    1111
    three times as much. The market has tremendous possibilities.
    Mr. James Hamilton: As a Minister who represents a Scottish constituency, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are also very good Scottish cheeses and will he ensure that they, too, make a tangible contribution in this regard if, by some misfortune, we do enter the Common Market.
    Mr. Stodart: I will undertake to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Brucellosis
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give special help to farmers in brucellosis eradication areas, whose herds have an exceptional incidence of this disease.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend and I have already agreed with the Farmers' Unions that heavily infected herds may present a special problem and that we will review the position next summer in the light of our experience in the initial areas to see whether herds of this kind need any additional assistance.
    Mr. Morrison: While thanking my hon. Friend for that satisfactory and helpful reply, may I ask whether he can say whether assistance to farmers would be retrospective if the Review showed it to be necessary in the light of hardships or difficulties over re-stocking?
    Mr. Stodart: I am glad to be able to assure herd owners in the initial areas that if improvements are made in the terms for heavily infected herds as a result of next year's review, they will be applied retrospectively to all such herd owners taking part in the area eradication scheme. I hope that this assurance will remove any doubts those herd owners may have had about coming into the scheme.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his efforts to eradicate brucellosis.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Since we introduced the increased incentives last April
    1112
    voluntary accreditation has made excellent progress with nearly 47,000 herds now taking part in the schemes. On 1st November we made a start on our area eradication programme which will be progressively extended as more herds come into the voluntary scheme.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: if present progress is maintained, when should the existing eradication scheme be completed?
    Mr. Stodart: That would be a rather dangerous prophecy to make. But, being an optimist, I certainly hope that we shall stamp out brucellosis within 10 or 15 years.

    Drainage Schemes
    Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the number of drainage schemes being grant-aided by his Department is adequate, in view of the importance attached to this work in the report on soil structure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: New field drainage in England and Wales continues to increase steadily. This is satisfactory and I hope that farmers will continue to take full advantage of the advisory, and financial assistance available from my Department for drainage work.
    Mr. Brewis: In view of the considerable backlog of drainage work throughout the country, is my hon. Friend doing enough to bring to the notice of farmers the very favourable rates of grant in operation?
    Mr. Stodart: The fact that there are so many applications for grant while the existing supplement is in operation is proof of the fact that farmers are well "clued up" about the importance of getting on with it.

    Meat Inspection
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about meat inspection in this country, in view of the advice given by the British Veterinary Association, details of which are in his possession, that foreign meat is safer than home-killed meat.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I do not accept the Association's view on this. All home-produced red meat in this country has to be examined by properly trained officers of the local authority and I am satisfied that the standards are entirely sufficient to safeguard public health.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While I welcome very much the Minister's statement, may I ask him to confirm that our standards as carried out by the health inspectors are at least as good as if not better than those on the Continent?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, that is our view.
    Mr. Peter Mills: While I agree with what my hon. Friend said, is he aware that only 60 out of the 2,000 slaughterhouses in this country are licensed for the export of meat to the E.E.C.? Would he further agree that there is a long way to go to bring our slaughterhouses up to standard?
    Mr. Stodart: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the majority of the failings of slaughterhouses in this country are on details and not on substance. One frequent reason for failing to conform to E.E.C. standards is something such as the separation of pig slaughter lines from others. It is not a question of hygiene.
    Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the assertions of the B.V.A. are part of a long campaign to take over the meat-inspecting functions of the country? Will he also admit that these assertions have done a great deal of harm in damaging the confidence of the general public in the existing service?
    Mr. Stodart: I should like to reaffirm with great emphasis that I believe that the job done by the public health inspectorate is absolutely first class. Members of the inspectorate have to pass examinations set by the Royal Society of Health, and we are entirely satisfied with them. I hope that the general public will be reassured by this.

    Perishable Foods (Date Stamping)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will initiate discussions with food packers and wholesalers in order to secure the adoption of a standard system of date-stamping perishable foods
    1114
    readily comprehensible by retailers which will enable them to avoid the risk of unwittingly selling stale food.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and others on 2nd March, 1971, the Food Standards Committee is reviewing the whole question of date marking of food. Evidence has been received from many interested parties, including consumers, food packers and wholesalers.—[Vol. 812; c. 1377 –80.]
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that retailers, particularly small retailers, are faced with a problem in deciding, or trying to remember, whether stocks came in fresh or with a time lag on them? Will he ensure that proper account is paid to the difficulties experienced by these people?
    Mr. Stodart: That is one of the reasons why the Committee is anxious not to hurry through a complex subject.

    Bread
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will, in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, initiate a scheme whereby his Department purchases bread at wholesale prices from the large bakery organisations and distributes this at cost price to all those on social welfare benefits.
    Mr. Prior: No; the Government believe that those receiving social welfare benefits can be helped much more satisfactorily through direct means.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has now reached the stage at which eggs, butter, milk, meat, bacon—most of the basic necessities of life, including bread—are becoming so prohibitive in cost that with bread for instance, it is becoming as expensive as caviar and ordinary old-age pensioners cannot afford to buy it? Would he do something to see either that the price of bread is reduced or that the poor, sick and disabled can afford to buy it?
    Mr. Prior: All I an tell the hon. Gentleman is that the real value of the pension this Christmas will be higher

    1115
    than it was after the last pension increase under his Government and certainly higher than at any previous Christmas.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crouch, Mr. Money, Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Rankin—
    Mr. Rankin rose—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Question No. 25, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is better if hon. Members rise when they call their Questions.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need have no anxiety. His Question will be called next.

    Food Supplies
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what in pounds per head per annum is the food supply available, on average, for consumption by persons in the United Kingdom; if he is satisfied that it is sufficient; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: Details of average food supplies available for consumption by the population of the United Kingdom are given in an article in Trade and Industry dated 15th July, 1971. The nutrient and energy content of these supplies is well above the average needs of the population.
    Mr. Rankin: I do not ask for an answer from the paper which the Minister quoted. Is not it a very slick practice for the right hon. Gentleman to quote from a newspaper which he cannot show us to prove his statistics and to use it for the purpose of deceiving a Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—who has waited for over half an hour for an answer? The right hon. Gentleman could have told me that when I came into the House today. Does he agree that the figures are available, that the source is in his control in the House, and that the figures show—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that fish, meat and butter are all selling at 8s. a pound? Does he believe that the old folk can become very festive when they have to pay those prices for their food at the festive season—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even Nestor occasionally had the closure applied.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman first made a speech and then asked about three supplementary questions. The Minister must now be allowed to answer.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance—
    Mr. Speaker: Not yet. The Minister must be allowed to answer.
    Mr. Prior: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that I was trying to deceive him. I was afraid that my answer might be as long as his supplementary question. The figures are available in the Library in the publication I mentioned. I will send them to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to have them.
    Mr. Rankin: I have got them.
    Mr. Prior: One of the comments made in the paper was that the major manifestation of poor nutrition in this country is more likely to be an excessive energy intake in relation to requirements leading to over-weight in some people.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Scott-Hopkins.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall try to raise the matter before Christmas.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard you call my name for a supplementary question before you heard the point of order of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter must rest where it now does.

    PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 15th November on economic matters in the Library.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 16th November, Sir.
    Mr. Sheldon: In that speech the right hon. Gentleman called for a big increase in industrial investment. Will he reconcile that demand with the figures in the latest estimates by the National Institute, which show that there is likely to be a further fall in manufacturing investment next year, when it will be 6½ per cent. less than the appalling figures achieved so far this year? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that that emphasises the importance of what I said at the Guildhall. The latest investment intentions survey suggests that manufacturing investment may begin to rise during 1972.

    HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING
    Mr. Urwinasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Houghton-le-Spring.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Urwin: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be a feeling of great sadness in Houghton-le-Spring when it learns that he has no intention of visiting it? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is missing a valuable opportunity to talk to several hundred pensioners living on the doorstep of poverty and several hundred young people who will be denied the opportunity of white collar jobs as a result of the Government's decision not to go ahead with a P.A.Y.E. centre at Washington, which is within five miles of my constituency, which would have provided several hundred jobs in an area of great need?
    The Prime Minister: I had an opportunity to discuss these problems with members of the North-East Development Council when I was in the North East in September. The computer centre was involved in the review of P.A.Y.E. procedures and processes, and the Government have come to the conclusion that we should not be justified in going for the nine regional centres which were previously planned. That accounts for the change in the North East.
    Mr. Pentland: Is the Prime Minister aware that an 800,000 sq. ft. site was
    1118
    made available by the Washington Development Corporation for the centre? Will he now investigate the possibility of bringing other Government Departments there to take over the site?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That question is already under examination. When we came to office we started a new and complete review of the possibilities of moving Government staffs into other parts of the country, including the North East.

    MINISTERS (CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEMBERS)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his Administration concerning Ministers' replies to letters from hon. Members.
    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in our practice, which is to consider such letters carefully and to reply as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is quite common for hon. Members to wait four or five weeks for a reply? I recently had to wait for two months, in spite of sending several reminders. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a gross discourtesy to the House and that the image which the Government like to project of themselves as slick, efficient businessmen is completely false? Will he intervene personally to try to expedite replies?
    The Prime Minister: I will consider any examples brought to my notice. It is the intention of every Government Department to answer Members' letters as soon as they can. I believe that there are three instances concerning the hon. Gentleman. In his speech on employment he said that he had written to me and had not had a reply. He has since been courteous enough to send me a letter saying that that had been a misunderstanding, and that he had not written to me about the matter. The second case involved Peterlee, and it was necessary to discuss the matter with the Peterlee Development Corporation. The third involved a constitutent who was at sea at the relevant time, and it was necessary to await his return to deal with the matter. In both cases the Department concerned apologised for the delay. If the

    1119
    hon. Gentleman has any other cases, I will gladly look into them.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Prime Minister please look at this in a general sense? Hon. Members on both sides of the House write to Departments asking for verification of certain points, and it takes three or four weeks for an answer to come back, usually confirming what the hon. Member knows to be the case but on which he likes to get Ministerial confirmation, although that could be done almost by return of post. This is very annoying, because hon. Members want to get the official reply from the Department to send to their constituents.
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, writes to a Department about any matter on which he wants confirmation of facts, it is necessary for the officers in the Department to investigate the facts and either to confirm or to deny them. No Department can be expected to do less. During my short period of office a large number of replies have been sent by me to the hon. Gentleman but he refuses to take notice of any of them.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the general experience of hon. Members is far from that described by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), and that there has been a significant improvement since this Government took office? The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite often forget to send the letters they write.
    The Prime Minister: Without wishing to go into a comparison between the procedures under the different Administrations—because there has been no change in procedure—I think that most hon. Members will agree that, considering the very large amount of correspondence between hon. Members and Departments, the number of occasions on which there are slip-ups or complaints is remarkably small.

    UNEMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Liverpool on 20th November on unemployment represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Would the Prime Minister care to clarify the Government's policy? At the moment they appear to be increasing public expenditure to deal with the appalling level of unemployment, whereas last year's White Paper on Public Expenditure indicated that there would be substantial cuts in public expenditure to achieve economic growth. What has happened to that policy?
    The Prime Minister: Procedures carried out by the Government enabled cuts in non-productive public expenditure to be made to bring about decreases in taxation. The Government are now bringing forward public expenditure of a productive kind. If the hon. Gentleman does not want the nationalised industries to bring forward their expenditure for productive purposes, he had better say so clearly.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Did not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry make clear in his speech that, while it was not Government policy to bolster up incompetent industry, the Government would help those firms which offered a reasonable chance of success? Is it not important to provide real jobs and not sham ones?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Kelley: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reinforce the "lame duck" theory, will he state that it is now the Government's intention to allow every industry to rely upon its own resources?
    The Prime Minister: It has always been the position that, where particular industries, through no fault of their own, need State help of various kinds, either because the scale of the project is too large for one firm or nation to undertake, or because of particular individual circumstances, it is possible for the Government to help them.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (REDUNDANCIES)
    Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministers responsible for the nationalised industries and the Secretary of State for Employment on dealing with

    1121
    the problems caused by redundancies in the nationalised industries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Any decision to declare redundancies is one for the nationalised industries themselves: but the Department of Employment does all it can to assist those who lose their jobs to find alternative employment.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of workers are due to be made redundant by the nationalised industries during the next six months? In Scotland alone the British Steel Corporation, British Railways and the National Coal Board between them during the next three or four months will make between 1,000 and 2,000 workers redundant. Does the Prime Minister agree that those workers have hardly any chance of obtaining an alternative job, and will he use his good offices to press the nationalised industries to implement a freeze on redundancies until unemployment falls to more reasonable levels?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be right for the Government to insist that nationalised industries should freeze their existing situation. The responsibility must be on the boards of the nationalised industries, whether it is coal, which may be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman, or whether it is the railways or steel. The steel industry was nationalised, on the arguments of the hon. Gentleman's party, to bring about a rationalisation. The railways have a particular problem. On coal, which particularly concerns the hon. Gentleman, I understand that most of the workers engaged in the colliery which has been closed have been put into other jobs in collieries.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was as a result of the policies of the Labour Party that the Scottish-based steel companies were replaced by the nationalised concern, which has since, to the complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite, been removing jobs from Scotland? How can their complaints on this matter be reconciled with their demand for an extension of nationalisation?
    The Prime Minister: It is their job to reconcile them. The other aspect is
    1122
    that the nationalised industries are at the same time putting a massive amount of money into fresh investment.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Surely the Prime Minister cannot hope to get away with that reply. He must accept that interference in the pricing policies of the nationalised industries, particularly steel, is advancing many of the redundancies which are arising this winter?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to argue, when the Government have said to the nationalised industries that they should carry out the same policy as the C.B.I. of keeping prices down, that they are thereby creating redundancies. Actually, the reverse is true.
    Mr. Ross: Who is co-ordinating with whom about the Barassie workshops in Ayrshire, and with what result?
    The Prime Minister: That was a decision of the British Railways Board, who carried out their undertakings to consult the trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries went further and saw the unions and fully explained the position to them. This was, therefore, a decision of the Railways Board, after carrying out the obligations they had undertaken of consultation with the unions.

    RUGBY
    Mr. William Priceasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Rugby.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that his answer will be fairly widely welcomed in my constituency? If he should change his mind and come to Rugby, will he explain away the Government's achievement of turning the West Midlands into a depressed area? If that is to be the fate, under a Tory Government, of the most prosperous region in the country, what hope is there for Scotland, Wales and the North-East?
    The Prime Minister: The wholly unemployed rate in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is well below the national average. On the one occasion when the

    1123
    total register was high, it was due to those who were temporarily stopped because of disputes.

    BEXLEY
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Bexley.
    The Prime Minister: I am frequently in Bexley, and shall be there next Friday, when I shall be visiting the Re-Instate factory, established for the rehabilitation of men and women recovering from certain illnesses.
    Mr. Davis: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he say how many more visits he is likely to make to Bexley before he leaves for lusher electoral pastures? When will he announce his bunk from Bexley?
    The Prime Minister: I have had a very satisfactory relationship with my constituency and my constituents for 21 years, and we have achieved it without the meddling interference of the hon. Gentleman.

    REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what further exchanges he has had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic about matters of common concern; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Lynch made a formal call upon me for a short time yesterday afternoon. In the course of our meeting we touched on a number of matters of common interest, but this was not the occasion for discussions in depth or detail.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Was it made clear to our always welcome visitor that, despite the recent utterances of the Leader of the Opposition—not to mention the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—the bipartisan pledge remains that Northern Ireland will not be separated from Britain against the wishes of its Parliament? Would not the best expression of Irish unity today be a common strategy against forces which are at least
    1124
    as dangerous to Mr. Lynch as to Mr. Faulkner?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Lynch fully understands the nature of the 1949 Act and the undertakings given by successive Prime Ministers since then—undertakings which were repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the debate on Northern Ireland last week.
    Mr. McNamara: Did the Prime Minister of Ireland expound on any of the suggestions in my right hon. Friend's speech—in particular, did he speak about the need for international discussions as between the two countries on the future constitution of Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I explained to the Prime Minister of the Republic that the Leader of the Opposition and I had a private discussion since the debate about the manner in which the talks might be organised. He told me he had been considering the way in which this could also be done in the Republic.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter arises because the Table Office has said that it proposes to remove a Question of mine from the Order Paper. It will be appreciated that once a Question is removed from the Order Paper it cannot be restored. The Question was tabled yesterday, 5th December, and I admit that it is arguable whether it is in order. The Question seeks to ask what is the average rent of Greater London Council dwellings in my constituency and what will be the average rent in five years' time under the Minister's proposal. I freely admit that in dealing with the Question the Minister would be in order just to say that he could not or would not answer it, but what I submit is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remain very technical on this point. He must not go into the merits of the Question or Answer.
Mr. Jenkins: I was not intending to do that, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that I freely admit the Minister may choose, for whatever reason, not to answer the Question. However, I am suggesting

1125
that it would be wrong that I should not be permitted to ask it.
The reason I should be permitted to ask it is this: first I agree that this is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether Questions are taken off the Order Paper or are transferred must be matters between the individual Member and the Table Office and myself. I do not think they are matters of order. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member takes up the matter with me and I will see what can be done.
Mr. Harold Wilson: This must be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Table Office bearing in mind your responsibility for the Table Office. In looking at the kind of matter my hon. Friend has described, would you, Mr. Speaker, consider the precedent of a large number of Questions which were tabled and answered. I think they were Written Answers, that this happened on Friday, 6th March, 1970, and that the Questions then were of a similar character. They would appear to set a precedent.
Mr. Speaker: I will go into this matter.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one final point which is important. I am happy to accept your invitation to discuss this matter afterwards, and I wish to make it clear that, in raising it I intend no criticism whatever of the Officers of the Table Office, who have a very difficult job to do. In this case they happen to have made a mistake, which any human being can make.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you direct your attention once again to the device employed by hon. Members, legally and perhaps properly, of getting down Questions to the Prime Minister? There are today four Questions of this sort tabled to the Prime Minister, one of which—
1126
No. Q12—is perfectly proper, but two of which are, in my view, not designed for the purpose for which a Question should be tabled. In Question No. Q6 when the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) received the answer "No", he said he was delighted that the Prime Minister was not going to his constituency, when in his original Question he had specifically asked the Prime Minister to go to his constituency. In the other Question tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), the hon. Member not only breached the convention of the House but clearly breached the lowest standard of this type of Question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must consider this matter. The content of Questions and the Answers to them is not a matter for the Chair. There are certain rules under which Table Office operates in trying to deal with hon. Members. These are matters which should be investigated in another way rather than by points of order at Question Time. However, I will go into the point raised by the hon. Member.

BILL PRESENTED

  IRON AND STEEL
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Sir John Eden, Mr. Maurice MacMillan, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make new provision with respect to the finances of the British Steel Corporation and to clarify the Corporation's powers and duties in respect of iron and steel activities.
  And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44].

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  DEVELOPMENT AREAS (ENGLAND)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Pearl: We recently had a major debate on unemployment; it was a debate of a general character which covered the whole of the United Kingdom. However, we all recognised that unemployment, with all its social consequences and associated human tragedy, affects different parts of the United Kingdom in different ways. Its intensity varies from area to area, from region to region, and also between specific parts of regions; this is true not only of development areas but also of special development areas.
  If we look at the general picture we see that for mid-November the total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom totalled 970,022. For Great Britain alone the total was 839,430, or 4 per cent. of the total employees. These figures are the highest recorded at any time since before the war—the previous post-war record occurred under a Conservative Administration—in February, 1963—and this shows the national problem which we now face.
  As to the periods when the Labour Government had responsibility for dealing with unemployment, I admit that in June, 1970, the seasonally adjusted figure for Great Britain was 561,000, some 2·4 per cent. This was a matter of deep concern to the whole Labour Government. Yet this total, which provides the most accurate comparison of all, has now risen by well over 50 per cent. The unemployment figures tell only part of the story. We must take into account the large numbers of workers who do not register. They include the elderly and semi-retired workers, the self-employed and married women.
  We shall concentrate in this debate today on the regions and development
  1128
  areas, since in periods of economic recession the depresed regions of the United Kingdom experience exceptionally high levels of unemployment.
  To take the Northern Region, which I know well—I have lived there most of my life and have represented the area in this House since 1945—the figure of wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers, and seasonally adjusted for November, 1971, represents 6·1 per cent.; the North-Western Region 4·4; Yorks and Humberside 4·2; East Midlands 3·1; West Midlands 3·6; and South-East 2·2. In the South-Western Region the figure is running at a rate of 5 per cent.
  The Northern Region includes a traditional industrial area with its own peculiar problems. I am thinking specifically of the coal industry, which has a very high call on unemployment. I agree that it is not quite as high as it is in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. None the less, we in the Northern Region believe that it is a serious problem which is bringing hardship and difficulty to many of our fellow citizens. I highlight the Northern Region because we are dealing specifically with England today.
  Another worrying feature is that this huge increase in unemployment has been matched by a sharp fall in unfilled vacancies. We have the spectacle of more workers chasing fewer jobs. The total number of unfilled vacancies for adults in Britain is 114,000, and that has to be compared with a total of wholly unemployed, again excluding school leavers, of nearly 840,000. In other words, for every job available there are more than seven men and women out of work.
  I can remember arguments in the 1930s about 11 men chasing 10 jobs. That was a philosophy sometimes advocated by certain callous leaders who thought that this was the only way to discipline the workers. I hope that no hon. Member on either side of the House will accept that philosophy today. Nevertheless, there is the spectable of a decreasing number of jobs available, of more people being thrown out of work, and of great difficulties for large sections of the population.
  The number of unfilled vacancies is still falling. The total dropped by 5,200 between October and November. Looking again at the regions, it will be seen

  1129
  that the position varies. I have figures for each region of the number of unfilled vacancies for men and women. The Northern Region has 4,900. The North-West has 11,750. The East Midlands has 7,350. The West Midlands has 7,500. The South-East, strange to say, has 50,750.
  If we look at the numbers unemployed for each available job, we see that in the Northern Region the number is 17, in the North-West it is 11, in the East Midlands it is 6, in the West Midlands it is 15, and in the South-East it is 3. So again we see that in the Northern Region and the North-West we have an exceptionally serious problem.
  Analysing the figures still further, it becomes clear that of the recorded increase in wholly unemployed since June, 1970, of 318,000 approximately 80 per cent. is accounted for by increased male unemployment. There are no fewer than 11 men unemployed for every available job.
  We have another serious problem to consider when we examine the unemployment figures, and that is the position of school leavers and of younger people who are unemployed. Here again, there is a continuing fall in the number of vacancies. In the Northern Region there are fewer than 1,300 vacancies. I believe that this is one of the most serious problems that we face in the development areas. It is one which I know from my own intimate contact with my constituents, who present me with some of their worries and difficulties. The problem of the young person leaving school and of the younger worker is one which worries parents considerably.
  There are other occupational aspects, quite apart from those affecting young workers. Unskilled workers have been hit badly. A greater proportion of them are unemployed. Even as early as June of this year, skilled workers, too, were beginning to find that jobs just were not there and that the number of jobs available for men were far fewer than the number unemployed.
  If we analyse still further the figures affecting the regions, we see how the pattern affects different sections of workers who are unemployed. For older workers, too, the pattern differs in each region. The problem is very serious in
  1130
  the Northern Region. In terms of the percentage of men over 40 who have been employed for more than six months, the average for Great Britain as a whole is 47. The percentage for men over 40 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months is 29. In the Northern Region the corresponding percentages are 59 and 43. In other parts of the North-West the percentages are 43 and 26. In the West Midlands they are 43 and 24. In the South-East they are 37 and 20. So again we see that there are serious problems for older workers in some of our important industrial areas, especially in our development areas. Again, I quote specifically the North—
  Mr. J. T. Price: Serious as all these figures are, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, while the position in the Northern district is extremely grave and a source of great anxiety to us all, the figures for the North-West are almost equally bad? I have the honour to represent a constituency in Lancashire where large areas have unemployment figures which are more than 50 per cent. higher than the national average and where there is no protection in the shape of development area status. I have in mind, for example, the central Lancashire area surrounding Wigan, where the figures are very serious.
  Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend. I mention the Northern Region because I know it so well. I have quoted figures for the North-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) will concentrate on the North-West and on other regions. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has made his point. It shows that we have an extremely worrying position in many parts of the country. It shows the way in which the industrial area which has been mentioned has been affected by the general recession, which has had serious consequences.
  The position varies from region to region, as I have illustrated. It also varies in different parts of an individual region. I have some figures for West Cumberland. In my own constituency, Workington, on the latest figures available, which are for November, the percentage of unemployed is 6·3. In Aspatria, next door in the constituency of the Leader of the

  1131
  House, the percentage is 8·1. In Mary-port, again in my constituency, the percentage is 9·5. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham), the percentage in Cleator Moor has gone up to nearly 13. Even within some of the development areas there are specific problems, and they have created considerable human difficulties for the families concerned.
  Dealing with the North-East, one has only to see the number of firms which are cutting down and the way in which redundancies are increasing. I have before me an excellent survey which was carried out by the Journal, a Newcastle newspaper. It cannot be described as a Socialist paper. I think that my hon. Friends from Tyneside and the North regard it as a Conservative paper. I hope that Ministers have seen it. It gives a fantastic account of the tragedy, and reports how there is now a growing queue, with firm after firm, small and large firms in various industries, making redundancies.
  I shall not weary the House with this list. I am sure that every hon. Member representing a constituency in the Northern Region knows it very well. But the Government must be made aware of it. In my constituency there are examples of factories which, because of rationalisation and perhaps because of recession and a lack of confidence in the Government's investment policy, have had to close down. I think, for example, of the Cumberland Cloth Company. It is a story which is repeated on a much larger scale in the North—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman refers to lack of investment because of lack of confidence in the Government's policies. However, the right hon. Gentleman ought to place on record that, as regards action within the orbit of the Government, no more has ever been done by way of tax reliefs and so on than that which we have seen coming from the present Government.
  Mr. Peart: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because he knows that the Government are responsible for it. His Government have that power. They have reversed certain
  1132
  policies which were achieving success in the development areas. We want to know what the Government will do about investment grants, regional employment premiums and other matters affecting the development areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my plea for some specific action now before we have a major tragedy and unemployment gets out of hand. I am sure that hon. Members who know the areas will be able to show similar figures for the North-West, the South-West, and other areas where there is now a high incidence of unemployment. The Government have had a negative approach to the development areas and the regions where help is needed.
  The Minister for Industry should be aware that it was his Government which abolished investment grants in favour of a system of tax allowances. That decision is not better. It has created harm in the regions and discouraged investment on the part of certain firms. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the long list of firms there and speaks to people engaged in industry he will find that what I am saying is right.
  The Government announced the cutting of the regional employment premium in 1974. This, again, has created a measure of uncertainty. We need some statement today about the Government's intentions on the matter.
  Moreover, the Government have relaxed controls on industrial and office building. That means that the development areas are not placed in such a favourable position compared with the more prosperous areas.
  We have the Government's attitude to public expenditure, which affects infrastructure. There have been periodic announcements about expenditure on infrastructure works in the regions. I know that these announcements have been made, but it has never been clear whether these were genuine additions to public expenditure programmes. Infrastructure in the regions is important. In the North—I am sure the position is similar in other regions—we need to speed up road development and improve amenities and the social services. By improving the areas in this way we can attract other industries. That is good policy. We want to know what the Government intend to do.

  1133
  Specific matters have been raised today with the Prime Minister. We had the Government's scrapping of the planned Inland Revenue Computer Centre at Washington. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), who, when Minister for the Northern Region, sought to speed up development. There was then a measure of urgency which is now lacking in the Government's administration. Here are some examples where there are difficulties.
  I ask the Secretary of State for the Environment: why start to boast about new town development in the South-East and the Southern Regions? Is it not time to concentrate more on some of the regions where we could profitably have some new schemes? Why should we have this imbalance, this dangerous imbalance, with the development of the Channel Tunnel and possible entry into the Community? However, I will not deploy that argument.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Why not?
  Mr. Peart: There is a fear on the part of many people in the fringe areas that attraction to the South would harm the North and other regions. I do not want to develop that too much.
  Mr. Price: I apologise for intervening again. Since my right hon. Friend is deploying his argument so forcefully about the lack of investment and lack of drive on the part of the Government in encouraging investment, why not use the valid argument that the unsettlement caused to investors and the people who control finance in this country by uncertainty about the Common Market has been one of the biggest unsettling factors in the process of pouring the necessary capital into new investment to provide new employment?
  Mr. Peart: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made a very effective speech. I do not dissent from it. It is his second contribution today, but very effective.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many hon. Members who want to speak.
  Mr. Peart: Regional development affects not only pure industry but agriculture, an industry in which I always
  1134
  take an interest. Why did the Government destroy the Pennine Rural Development Board which was set up to encourage not only farming but tourism in the important hill and upland areas? It was an action of petty political spite and prejudice. The Minister knows it and must accept as much responsibility for it as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That was a scheme which I thought would help to rejuvenate a very important part of the Northern Region. It was backed by the landowners, the farmers, the farmworkers and all shades of political opinion. Yet this Government destroyed something which, in the end, we shall need if we are ever to develop these areas and areas in Mid-Wales and the South-West. Why did they do it? This is the kind of attitude which we have witnessed time and again—a casual approach to a major problem with no positive policies in the real sense forthcoming.
  I suggest that the Government should reverse their attitude towards investment grants and that there should be a definite statement on the regional employment premium.
  I note that in the Financial Times of Thursday, 2nd December, there is a report:
  "The Government is believed to be in two minds about its decision to scrap the Regional Employment Premium in 1974."
  That is contained in a report of the meeting of the N.E.D.C. on 1st December. Let us know today. Surely the Minister, when he replies, can end people's anxieties on this matter.
  Added incentives should be given to firms already in development areas which wish to expand existing industry. I know that in Cumberland new jobs have been created in the past by improving the older industries in the area, and the new jobs created have been about equal to those which have been created by bringing in new industries.
  Will the Minister take note of what the T.U.C. has put before him? The T.U.C., as reported in the Financial Times and other national newspapers, has suggested certain positive proposals which have been presented to the Prime Minister and to the N.E.D.C. Will the regional economic planning councils be given a more positive rôle? We need a more vigorous regional policy to

  1135
  restore business confidence. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and Ministers should not be doctrinaire about public and private enterprise. In my constituency a new factory has been opened in partnership between British Leyland and the National Bus Company. Here is an example where, through good partnership between two sections of industry, public and private enterprise, we have a valuable project which will bring more work to an area which is seriously affected.
  In the debate on the Gracious Speech I referred to the Bolton Report on Small Businesses. Is there to be any action on that? After all, many of the firms in the development areas in the Northern Region which provide employment are small firms, sometimes employing fewer than 200 people. These small firms have been going through a very difficult period. The Bolton Report suggested that a special section should be set up in the Minister's Department. Will it be effective, and which Minister will be responsible? [AN HON. MEMBER: "It has been set up."] We have not heard of it doing anything yet. I pressed this matter during the debate on the Queen's Speech, because it is a matter which must be given more publicity. Even though a letter has been written to my hon. Friend on this issue, I believe that it must be publicised much more, and that we must be told what incentives are to be given to small firms.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a fact which he seems to have missed? My right hon. Friend asked me to undertake this responsibility, and I have frequently commented upon the Bolton Report. It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to read the newspapers rather than accuse me of not having given publicity to this issue.
  Mr. Peart: The impact has been minimal. Small businessmen do not know the extent of the Government's activity in this respect.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If the Under-Secretary of State claims to be responsible for this matter,
  1136
  why does he not answer letters sent to him by hon. Members instead of being so dilatory about doing so?
  Mr. Peart: Last week the T.U.C. called for a £1,000 million boost to the economy, and it was right to do so. We can deal with the problem only by getting the economy right at national level. That is the way to reduce unemployment and sustain growth. Development area policy can work effectively only if the economy is not static but dynamic and there is sustained growth accompanied by positive investment.
  A return to recession will hurt all the regions, and more especially the development areas which, traditionally, have presented difficult problems because of the structure of older industries and weaknesses in the infrastructure supporting the industrial complex. At times people have thought the problems intractable, and that no solution seems possible, but I believe that we must never despair. The problems can be solved if we have the will to solve them.
  I know that hon. Members have different views about how we should approach the problem. There is a fundamentally different political and philosophic approach by the two sides of the House. There is, inevitably, a conflict between those who seek a market approach—the argument being that only a free competition economy will in the end allocate resources, manpower and capital where we want them to be—and those, mainly on my side of the House, who advocate a much more interventionist policy under which the Government have to take specific, planned action.
  Successive Labour Governments have favoured the latter course. Their aim has been to take more jobs to the workers and to remedy industrial weaknesses in specific regions. I make no apology for the Labour Government's records from 1945 to 1950 and from 1964 to 1970. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite promised to deal with the problem quickly—virtually at a stroke. Indeed, six weeks before the General Election the Secretary of State for Employment said that if the country could get back to Tory policies the unemployment situation would be a great deal better than it was at the time.

  1137
  The Secretary of State for Employment has promised to do something, but we are extremely suspicious about what will be done, and that is why we want a specific statement from the Government today. This is, after all, a human problem of great magnitude, and we have to ask whether history is to repeat itself. Are we again to see the tragedy of the old distressed areas, which many of us knew so well? The Government cannot escape their responsibility. It is their policies which have failed. I believe that the Government must change course now, or get out.
  4.4 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I know that when the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) speaks on this topic he does so with sincerity. I believe that both sides of the House want early action to reduce the unemployment figures. I know that the right hon. Gentleman represents an area of high unemployment and that for virtually all his life he has lived in an area which, in spite of the efforts of both parties, has remained one of high unemployment.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it would be a mistake to think that the regions which have suffered from high unemployment for 30 or 40 years cannot be transformed and become areas of vigorous growth with a good quality of infrastructure. I believe that it should be the duty of all Governments to try to achieve that objective, and I shall endeavour to illustrate that this Government have done a great deal that will assist in the long-term development of the regions.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Administration and he knows that his Government, during their last period of office, witnessed a considerable increase in unemployment in the development areas. From 1966 to June, 1970, when they went out of office, unemployment in the South-West rose from 2·3 per cent. to 3·8 per cent. On Merseyside, it rose from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent., and in the northern area it rose from 2 per cent. to 4·3 per cent. I agree that unemployment is higher now, but the fact is that the Labour Government, with all their good intentions, and despite the efforts they made, experienced
  1138
  a substantial increase in unemployment levels in all the development areas.
  I recognise that the figures have increased since we have been in office, but I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that the main periods of improvement, in industrial terms, for the regions have always been during periods of national economic growth, and nobody can argue that this Government inherited a period of fast economic growth. Indeed, we inherited considerable economic stagnation, but already there has been a major turn round in certain spheres of the economy.
  When I first took office as Minister of Housing and Local Government, the building industry was extremely depressed, bankruptcies were increasing, and the housing programme was in sharp decline. All that is being reversed. When we took office the motor industry, which is an important employer, both directly and through all the subsidiaries surrounding it, was in a considerable period of depression. Indeed, there was a great deal of speculation about whether, in the long term, the motor industry would remain in business at all. That situation has been turned round, and the motor industry is now booming.
  The figures for consumer spending, published only yesterday, show a considerable upturn, and I believe that the country faces a unique opportunity, in economic terms, of getting a period of sustained growth. I say "unique" because the balance of payments position is strong—for a variety of reasons—reserves are strong, and the basic capacity to improve the productivity of British industry is considerable. It is against that basic background that one has to look at what policies it is right to pursue in the development areas.
  The right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of improving the infrastructure of the regions. That is fundamental to the real long-term prospect of the regions, because we shall not get the movement of industry and economic activity to regions that are ugly and crippled by the industrial scars of the past. A great deal of progress needs to be made there in a period of high unemployment, and when we have the resources to enable us to take action it is the Government's duty to do so, and I should therefore like this afternoon to

  1139
  tell the House of some of the considerable changes which are taking place, and which have taken place over the last 18 months in this respect.
  Recently, I toured the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and discussed with local authorities the problem of clearing derelict land. Despite all their good intentions, the clearing of derelict land declined during the last three years of office of the Labour Government.
  In 1967–68, 1,003 acres of derelict land were cleared. In 1968–69, that figure was reduced to 790, and in 1969–70 it was further reduced to 608. When I took over the problem of dealing with derelict land, I believed that the subsidies and grants provided and the knowledge possessed by my Department were such that we should do everything possible to encourage local authorities to go ahead, on a massive scale, with clearing derelict land. I cleared the programme for loan sanction and put it in the priority area. I said to local authorities that there was no limit to the amount of loan sanctions they could have.
  Further, I decided that the six counties with the worst problems should be activated at both district and county level to do more than they had in mind. I organised six conferences, one in the right hon. Gentleman's own county, in which I am glad to say that the county councils and the district councils all co-operated. I discussed with them the variety of problems and snags that they encountered and I urged them to set ambitious targets and promised them that, if they did, the high targets would be maintained and that there would be no problems as regards loan sanctions. I have already visited Durham, Cumberland, Lancashire and Northumberland. These changes are having a dramatic effect.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not seeking to be deliberately unfair in talking about the progress which he claims has been made in clearing derelict land since he took office. However, was there not a continuous upswing in the programme, at least in the previous two years, and was there not a momentum which would have continued regardless of anything that the right hon. Gentleman did?
  Mr. Walker: I have given the figures—1,003 acres in 1967–68, 790 acres in 1968–69, and 608 acres in 1969–70. I am talking about clearance in the development areas. Therefore, in that period there was a decline in clearance in development areas.
  A transformation is now taking place. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in the first six months of this year we have approved the clearance of 50 per cent. more derelict land than was cleared in the whole of 1969–70. It is a very substantial change when in six months we do 150 per cent. of what was done in the last complete financial year under a Labour Government. Therefore, nobody can complain that we have been lethargic or that we have not done everything possible to speed up schemes for the clearance of derelict land.
  Grants paid this year will be double what they were in 1969–70. There are no financial restrictions. I have urged everybody to fix as ambitious targets as possible.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The Secretary of State is being rather unfair in comparing approvals with the amount of clearance done.
  Mr. Walker: I am telling the House about clearance done. Grants paid this year will be double what they were in 1969–70—that is, for work actually done. For approvals the figure is very much greater. Nobody can deny—the hon. Gentleman, with his interest, would not want to deny—that we are achieving a substantial acceleration in the clearance of derelict land. The more local authorities set ambitious targets and multiply the figures, the more I shall be pleased and the more the Department will be willing to help.
  Another topic of immense importance to all of the development areas is that of housing, which in both the private and the public sector was in decline when the Labour Government left office. In the private sector it is now substantially increasing month by month.
  In the public sector there are now two spheres of help that we have made available in terms of finance which should be able to transform expenditure in this sector. The first is the new slum clearance grant which I back-dated to this year. Local authorities in all of these

  1141
  regions can now go ahead as speedily as possible with slum clearance knowing that there is every financial incentive for them to do so.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in the discussions that took place with the T.U.C. last week I stated my anxiety that local authorities should get on with this and the T.U.C. has co-operated in every way through its local trade councils by urging local authorities of whatever political complexion, to get on with slum clearance.
  Within a day of the Bill being published, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction wrote to the 133 local authorities with the worst problem of slums and also wrote individually to the leaders of those councils aking them to bring forward as fast as possible their slum clearance programmes in the light of this subsidy being available.
  I have conveyed the list of areas to the T.U.C. I know that the T.U.C. will co-operate with me and will bring pressure to bear on all local authorities to undertake this task as speedily as possible. This could have a considerable impact in the development areas.
  One of the remarkable improvements of this Government in terms of infrastructure has been the decision we made as regards development areas substantially to increase for a two-year period the improvement grant on older properties. We estimated that this would cost £40 million over two years. I put a two-year time limit on that intentionally, because I wanted everybody to speed up the process and get on with the job to take advantage of the existing levels of unemployment, to take up as much labour as possible, and to reduce unemployment in the building industries.
  The effects of putting a two-year limit on and of increasing the grant in this way have been dramatic. In the development areas in England, already local authorities have decided within the two-year period to modernise 103,000 prewar council houses. In the Northern Region, in the first nine months of this year the improvement grants granted are 40 per cent. up on the first nine months in 1970. The improvement grants in the first nine months of this year are double
  1142
  what they were in the first nine months of 1969. In every part of the country where these extra grants have been available there has been a very considerable upturn.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Manchester has one of the very worst housing situations in the country and that Manchester's latest unemployment figures show that there are more workers out of a job in the construction industry than in any other industry. Therefore, why will he not help us in housing and employment by extending the increased improvement grants to the Manchester area?
  Mr. Walker: Because I believe, in keeping with the Labour Government's policy, that it is right to give specific additional incentives to the development areas. This was the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party. It does not come well from a member of the Labour Party, when the Tory Government discriminate in favour of such areas, to accuse the Ministers concerned of not giving exactly the same facilities to the other areas. We are injecting £40 million in home improvements to these areas. The extra impetus nationwide that we are putting behind improvement grants means that in Manchester, as elsewhere, there is a substantial upturn on the previous figure.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: This is a very sore point with the greater Wigan area, which gets no grant to help it to overcome its unemployment problem. The social dereliction there makes the area more unattractive and it gets no help to deal with urban renewal. There are 85 areas receiving grants to deal with the unemployment and which benefit from the extra grants for urban renewal although these areas have a lower rate of unemployment than has the Wigan area. Therefore, Wigan is discriminated against on both counts. Is not this patently unfair?
  Mr. Walker: It could be argued that every incentive that has been given to a development area was unfair to areas immediately outside that area. This applied under the Labour Government, as under this Government. Already a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom is within development areas. The more that area is extended, the less the

  1143
  total effect on redressing the imbalance. I recognise the difficulties that some of the surrounding areas have.
  The result of the increased grants announced only on 22nd June last has been that in Sunderland there have been 317 applications in the private sector since June, compared with 163 from the beginning of the year to June. The council has decided to improve 2,400 council houses and complete them within the period of the grant—that is, June, 1973, instead of June, 1975.
  The North-East Housing Association has decided to improve its 200 houses within the same period. Barrow has 500 applications in hand as a result of these measures and has had to take on extra staff to deal with them. In Wallasey there has been a great increase in applications, and they are now coming in at the rate of 100 a month. Wallasey, too, has had to take on extra staff to deal with the applications which have come in.
  We are making massive progress with the improvement of older houses in development areas. That progress is being made as a result of direct decisions by this Government.
  Mr. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman says that progress is being made in house modernisation as a direct result of the efforts of the present Government. This is fallacious. The vehicle to enable progress to be made was provided by the Labour Government—the Housing Act, 1969—and that vehicle is being used by the right hon. Gentleman. He has simply increased the grants. We should like to know how much of the additional grant has been eroded by inflation since the right hon. Gentleman took office.
  Mr. Walker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's interruptions are designed to be helpful. He is right to refer to the 1969 Act, but the enormous upturn to which I referred has come as a result of this Government having increased by 50 per cent. the grant which the Labour Government considered to be adequate. That is the difference between the two sides.
  I come to a number of other important matters which should be borne in mind. One is a problem from which all industrial areas suffer, and that is the industrial
  1144
  pollution of rivers. Here again the Conservative Government, my Department, have decided that in this period of substantial unemployment it is right massively to increase investment in these localities. [interruption.] I heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say that it has taken a hell of a long time. It has taken us a lot less time to do something whereas the Labour Government sat for six years doing nothing. [Interruption.] When I came to office they were dithering on every decision that needed to be made to improve our rivers.
  Mr. Bob Brown rose—
  Mr. Walker: In their last year, when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) was a Minister, the Labour Government agreed to expenditure on sewerage schemes in development areas worth £4·6 million. We are agreeing in the coming year to treble that figure as a result of decisions we have made affecting the development areas. To argue that we have taken 18 months to treble their figure of expenditure, when they took six years to achieve the miserable total of £4·6 million, comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  We have made considerable capital investment in improving the basic infrastructure. The Labour Government, following the example of their Conservative predecessors, quite rightly agreed that there was a need for tremendous improvement in communications in the North-East. A great deal was done in road building, and a high level of expenditure was reached. I pay tribute to them for that achievement.
  We are not only continuing that high level of expenditure but in addition are planning to add £19 million by bringing forward schemes under our infrastructure proposals, and £25 million will be provided in the recently announced measures by my Department to bring forward the maintenance programmes on trunk and other roads. Thus, in addition to the programme of road building for the development areas which the Labour Government considered adequate and which they laid down in public expenditure programmes, we are adding over the next two and half years further expenditure of £44 million.

  1145
  In a period of high unemployment in these regions one should take advantage of the situation by going forward on a massive scale with infrastructure programmes, and that is what we have done and are doing. I will be examining with local authorities other ways, perhaps by more minor infrastructure improvements, of achieving these ends.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were members of the Labour Administration will know that one of the difficulties of bringing forward schemes of this kind is that major capital works take time to get into operation. However, there may be a range of minor environmental improvement schemes that can be brought into operation and done more immediately, and I am entering into discussions with the local authority associations to see if we can find a formula for doing this.
  I come to a number of major industrial questions which are of considerable importance to development areas, one affecting the constituency of the right hon. Member for Workington who rightiy mentioned the important Leyland National Bus Company development which was started by the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was no reason to be doctrinaire about it. I agree with him. I hope that the scheme will succeed, certain decisions made by the present Government will considerably help it to succeed.
  I have in mind two particular decisions that I made. The first was the decision to double the bus grant. The second was the decision to make sure that the National Bus Company was provided with funds to ensure that it did not run into cash flow difficulties in ordering a lot more buses. This has enabled the National Bus Company to order 500 buses in the first two years of the operation, which will provide jobs for 400 people In the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  I do not claim credit for the factory because that was achieved by the Labour Government. However, I do claim credit for having made a substantial injection of public expenditure by doubling the bus grant which the Labour Government set, ensuring that the finances of the company are adequate to place a subs
  1146
  tantial order, so getting the factory off to a good start.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: On the question of the Leyland National Bus Company development at Lillyhall, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of the A66 development? Can he explain why that part of the road which has not been the subject of objections—the part from Lillyhall to Cockermouth—has not been given the go ahead immediately? This would have served two purposes, first to expedite the completion of the project and second to provide much-needed employment this winter in West Cumberland.
  Mr. Walker: I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it is difficult to settle the matter until one knows the total route of the road. The whole question of tendering and contracting is involved. I have tried to speed up the public inquiry, and that will now take place in January. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I realise the importance of a decision being made in this matter, and I promise that I will do everything I can, within my Department, to hasten the decision-taking process.
  What I was saying about our decision on the bus grant is of considerable importance to employment in the North-East. It is also important from the employment point of view nation-wide because this doubled bus grant means that a lot of public transport will become viable when certain bus services might otherwise have ceased to continue.
  Another industrial decision to which I referred is of immense importance to the North-East. This is the decision to place an order for two destroyers and two fleet tankers with Swan Hunter on Tyneside. The bringing forward of this decision will provide 1,400 jobs direct and a considerable amount of indirect employment. Earlier in the year the Cammell Laird yard was provided with an order for two destroyers.
  A number of other decisions have also been taken. For example, considerable financial assistance has been provided for mineral development, and this will help with the problems of the South-West. Likewise, the decision to continue with forms of financial grant for the hotel industry in the development areas is of

  1147
  importance to the South-West and will give encouragement to tourism in other areas. An encouraging feature in the North-East is the steady improvement in the hotel facilities that are being made available. Hon. Members on both sides will agree that the substantial growth that is taking place in industrial training is vital.
  I argue, therefore, that in all the spheres in which we can make improvements substantially and speedily in the infrastructure of the development areas, the present Government have acted more effectively, more in total and more speedily than any of their predecessors.
  Mr. John Nott: The road programme is a major infrastructure problem in the South-West. We are therefore delighted with the preparation pool for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. However, what is confusing to us is that we get letters from the Ministry indicating that the priorities are by no means decided, and we seem constantly to learn that although we are in the preparation pool, we have no idea when we will get into the programme.
  Mr. Walker: When I recently announced the major programme which affects the South-West I made it clear that all the schemes that we were announcing were intended to be completed by the early '80s. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, therefore, that all these schemes will be completed by that time. The setting of priorities and of dates when projects shall start depends on a number of factors, such as public inquiries and the compulsory purchase of land, some of which are not within our control.
  I understand the claim of hon. Gentlemen opposite that in a period when unemployment in the development areas has risen sharply, it is correct for them to urge that much more should be done. But I must remind the House—
  Mr. Peart: I asked specifically about the regional employment premium. Are we to have a statement on that today?
  Mr. Walker: In terms of regional employment premium and any matters of this kind, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will comment on the various industrial
  1148
  incentives which will continue to bring expansion.
  The unemployment situation was rising and in some areas doubling during the last Administration. I hope that hon. Members will compare the action of this Government with those winter works programmes which the previous Government considered adequate to meet the rising unemployment in those periods.
  This Government can say that, in 18 months, we have tried to bring about a much faster expansion of our economy, reduced taxation by £1,400 million, reduced Bank rate, which the previous Government increased, ended the credit squeeze which the previous Government introduced, and abolished the hire-purchase restrictions which they imposed. We have injected, additional to the programmes which they had in mind, £160 million extra on infrastructure, £40 million extra on house improvements, £70 million extra on naval shipbuilding, £150 million on accelerated depreciation allowances, £100 million on bringing forward the investment programmes of the nationalised industries and £60 million on the additional benefit of Government expenditure—a total of £660 million of additional expenditure, which compares remarkably well with the odd £17 million and £20 million which, during a winter's unemployment, the previous Government considered adequate.
  Therefore, although I accept that everybody should be concerned at the rise in unemployment, they should also accept that this Government are doing more to reverse that trend than any previous Government.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The Secretary of State obviously came out of his corner with the intention of making his speech coolly, quietly and apparently reasonably. He maintained that attitude until the last few moments. When this Secretary of State is being most reasonable, most quiet and cautious, he is no less formidable. He was deliberately keeping the temperature low.
  When the right hon. Gentleman gives this information, he cannot then "do a Pontius Pilate" and say that the problems of the development areas are being dealt with. He cannot come here only

  1149
  as the Secretary of State for the Environment. The problems of the development areas range wider than his Department. Whilst we accept and welcome many of the things he listed, they will help mainly in the long term and not very much in the short term. The environment is a long-term consideration.
  This debate should be an opportunity to discuss not only the problems of the development areas but their opportunities, possibilities and advantages. I am often annoyed to hear glorious parts of the countryside described as "grey", "assisted" areas or "intermediate" areas.
  Naturally, this debate is an extension of our two previous debates on unemployment, this time concentrating, I hope, on specific geographical areas, which we call development areas. We will not forget that there are more than 1 million unemployed, more than 3 million underemployed and many millions more fearful about their present or future employment. This is the price for Conservative policies, or lack of policies, or changing policies over the last 18 months. In Worcester, Bexley, Altrincham, Bournemouth, even in Cirencester and Tewkesbury, people are beginning to count the cost.
  With no disrespect to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, even Knutsford was more prosperous with its last Member outside the Labour Government than with its present Member inside the Tory Cabinet, and Knutsford is one of the more prosperous parts of the North-West.
  There is a bitter irony in the fact that the tragedy of unemployment lies heaviest on those areas, those parts of the country, those countries within these islands, which were and are most loyal to the Labour Government—Scotland, Wales, the North-East, the North-West, Merseyside and the North Midlands. Perhaps this is one reason why a few weeks ago the Minister for Industry said that "we should not get obsessed about unemployment." Perhaps he was facing reality and acknowledging that the unemployed are hardly likely to vote for this Government in any way.
  That was some weeks ago, and the Government's policies have changed much since. It has amazed me to see
  1150
  hon. Members opposite asking their Government, in debate after debate, to do more, to spend more money, to abandon the policy of non-intervention and cutting public expenditure. They were asking in November for different policies from those which they had supported when this Government came to power. Yet these were the non-interventionists, the hard-liners and the champions of cutting public expenditure.
  We were told just a few days ago that the Government are now entering their "adaptable phase", that their policies are "being adapted". We and the country know that the long-term problems of unemployment and of employment will be solved only with a Labour Government committed to using all the resources, skills and abilities of all the people all the time.
  On 26th November I put down a Motion about Liverpool and Merseyside—a wide and reasonable Motion which could have been accepted even by this Government—drawing attention to the pride, the abilities and the achievements of Merseyside. So often it seems that when we call for more help for these areas we overlook the advantages, abilities and achievements which are already there. The Motion put in balance some of the things for which I hoped.
  The main reason for the Motion was the simple fact that Liverpool and Merseyside are "news". Almost anything that happens there is reported on the six o'clock news and in the daily papers. If 20 people strike on Merseyside for a very good reason, the fact is featured on the news—although the reason is seldom given. If 2,000 people come out in Cheltenham, no one hears about it. The picture which is presented is not all that it should be. The daily papers are sometimes a daily horror: good news is not news and bad news is news.
  Of the major industries on Merseyside, three are motor cars, the docks and construction. Some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), have more knowledge of these than I. Those three industries are particularly prone, because of the nature of their management and organisation, to industrial troubles. The record of any of the three is no worse on Merseyside than in any

  1151
  other comparable part of the country, but we hear about industrial trouble on Merseyside and not elsewhere. Those engaged in managing these industries would also say that when we are working, as we are 99·99 per cent. of the time, our output, quality and workmanship are second to none in the United Kingdom. Many industries on Merseyside have been established there for 10, 20 or 30 years and are expanding.
  Mr. McGuire: It is right to discuss this Merseyside labour image. A very large proportion of the population of Skelmersdale in my constituency are Liverpudlians. They are so conscious of this bad and maligned image of Liverpool people that some of them have told the shop steward in a textile works that, come hell or high water and no matter what the provocation—and they have endured a lot—they will not strike again, even though in the past they have been driven to it. That should be put on the record.
  Mr. Ogden: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The House will be aware that many of the people from Liverpool and Merseyside have established themselves in Skelmersdale in my hon. Friend's constituency and as good workers. Quite apart from the industries already in this area, there have been industries on Merseyside for many years which have every intention of staying there. Their industrial relations record is excellent and they are expanding. Equally, many new industries have come into the area. Too often the impression has been given that all we do in the development areas is to wait for help from outside; what we are doing, in fact, is to ask for more aid to help ourselves; we are not sitting about waiting for charity from outside.
  Let me give one example which has emerged from correspondence and some publicity, for which I am grateful to the Liverpool Post and Echo. It concerns a firm called Sanders Tube Crafts Ltd. of Burscough, Lancashire. Six years ago there was a danger of redundancy of steel fabricators and structural engineering contractors in a tube company in Merseyside. Four of the employees decided to form their own company. They found a disused airport, acquired an old hangar
  1152
  and now have contracts all over the country and are already exporting.
  In the letter to me the four directors said:
  "Our industrial relationship record speaks for itself, never a stoppage or strike since we commenced production six years ago. We opened the factory with a work force of eight and now employ fifty, fabricating all the products of Tubewrights Ltd., Kirkby, and are now producing to our own designs and providing design services to others.
  Most importantly we have retained on Merseyside the high skills and craftsmanship of Tubular Fabrication which we are certain has a great growth potential, and in a small way contributed to providing employment for workmen which are second to none.
  Our main reason for writing is because we feel our employees are truly representative of the workers of Merseyside, mainly unheard of, but carrying out a grand job of work which press and television seem to fail to publicise. No doubt this story applies to many other firms in the area."
  That is a record of achievement of which to be proud.
  Great cities have great needs. We know the facts of economic life in the North-West. In an area which has done so much to create the wealth of the nation and which has had so small a share of that wealth, it is right that some should now come back to us.
  I would suggest two courses of action to the Government. Let us take the case of the North-West Industrial Development Association, a first-class organisation which is supported by chambers of commerce, local authorities, trade unions and industry. It receives no Government help or grant for the work it is doing. The Association carries out work which is complementary to that being done by the Department of Trade and Industry; it puts out publicity, the same kind of literature and programmes, selling industry without Government help. Some other development associations receive such help. A sum of £10,000 for the North-West Industrial Development Association would be well spent in that particular way.
  Communications are vital to economic success. In Liverpool and Merseyside we are at the hub of communications. Half the population of the country lives within 50 miles. Half the industry of the country is within 50 miles of our

  1153
  area. Communications—the M6 and rail—are good. There is the proposal for the Lancashire—Yorkshire motorway, parts of which have been completed, and it is within the right hon. Gentleman's powers to speed up the Liverpool—M6 link, to create better rail communication between the new Seaforth Terminal—into which Admiral Peynton sailed yesterday—the M6 and the Channel Tunnel.
  There is one other way in which the right hon. Gentleman could help, and that is with Government contracts. How often have hon. Members from the North-West picked up the telephone only to be told that:
  "The 'leens' from Lenden are engaged; please try later."
  If such communications could be improved, this would help not only Plessey. English Electric, but also the post office, and encourage the expasnion of industry out of the South-East. Plessey has received a contract for £9 million, which will undoubtedly help the present unemployment situation; at least it will not permit it to get worse, but Plessey will not be able to take on another worker.
  Office employment is the great growth industry of today. We have in the centre of Liverpool an office block like an advance factory waiting for tenancy. The Ministry of Defence has a lot of people in Liverpool. The Government could transfer more to Merseyside. There should be a speed-up in grants to Liverpool Corporation to enable the City to go ahead with building the civic offices complex. It would be a helpful injection of capital, and bring employment at once.
  I turn now to a more controversial subject, and I must be careful about the words I use—the Common Market. My understanding of the official policies of the three major parties in this House is that the majority in all three are in favour of entry and full membership of the European Economic Community on acceptable terms and subject to the sovereign will of the British Parliament. That "sovereign will" was contained in the 1969 Labour Party National Executive statement. With a Labour Government we would have had interim legislation to make the transitional period
  1154
  more acceptable and to provide the help that ought to be provided.
  Accepting the uncertainty of the future of any legislation and the risk that if legislation is delayed some industrialists will delay investment, thus affecting employment I believe that, whether we join Europe or not, the attraction of Europe will become greater. The assistance to the development areas will have to be greater than in the past if we are merely to be able to stay where we are. My hon. Friends have made many approaches to the Government, and it is apparent that the Government are now on their "adaptable" phase.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot merely say that he is doing all he can on environment but that he has no responsibility for other Departments. We have made many good suggestions. Some have been accepted. We hope that the Government will have the good sense to accept them all.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). He is not as good as he might have been at impersonating that horrible voice on the telephone telling him that lines from London were engaged. He did it more nicely than she did.
  I take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the Common Market. During the month of August I spent a great deal of time with industry in my constituency, which is not far from his, asking about the situation. I found that the general public had a fear about this attraction of the South-East, the Channel Tunnel—what I call the Golden Triangle of London, Paris, Bonn. It was the industrialists of Lancashire who drew my attention to the fact that the main port of export to the Common Market would be Hull and we in the North-West are extremely well placed, especially with the motorway complex being provided for us. The Common Market does not start at Calais, but has tended to move round to the north and the east because of the enlargement of the Common Market.
  I would follow the hon. Gentleman in his description of the image of Merseyside. I am the first speaker from the

  1155
  back benches in this debate whose constituency is not in a development area. Therefore, I do not want to join in what I call the "me, too" syndrome. I have never belonged to this. There is no point in creating more and more development and special development areas, more intermediate areas because the only result would be that the effect of development area status would be minimised. That is common sense. Equally, I have never been sure that the money spent in promoting development area status has necessarily done as much as it might have to cure chronic unemployment.
  I almost apologise for mentioning this next matter, but I have never had a satisfactory answer to it. I refer to the English Electric Napier factory at Kirkby, in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. That factory was receiving all the development area status help it could get—regional employment premium, everything. Yet when General Electric took over English Electric, instead of concentrating its efforts there where it would get all these benefits, it closed the factory. If special development area status means so much, why did General Electric not take advantage of it?
  Mr. Ogden: The simple fact was that when General Electric took over English Electric it decide to concentrate all its turbine blower equipment manufacture in one place. The Kirkby factory was manufacturing about one-tenth of this equipment and the other factory the remaining nine-tenths, so it made sense to move the one-tenth to the nine-tenths.
  Mr. Redmond: That does not answer the point I was making. Here was a large factory by any standards, getting all the development area benefits. However, it is a more sensible answer than I have received. In the past I have been told how people went to see Weinstock and the Prime Minister and so on, and I was almost tempted to say that
  "All Harold's Heffers and Wedgwood Benns Couldn't put Napier together again."
  If a line is drawn on a map and it is said that the area on one side is a development area, then this can only be to the detriment of the area on the wrong side of the line. The last Government ought to have accepted the recommendations
  1156
  of the Hunt Commission, which would have given intermediate area status to a wide area of South Lancashire and at the same time included Merseyside in that area. That would have meant relegating it from development area status to intermediate area status.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is probably right, and he has certainly done a jolly good public relations job for Liverpool and Merseyside this afternoon. I know that Merseyside has its problems, but at the moment—and I stress those words—I do not think that any form of special development area status or whatever will be much help to Merseyside. I say that more in sorrow than in anger. My experience of talking to industrialists in London and the South is that they would not move to Merseyside at any price. I have not met a single industrialist who would even consider Merseyside for a new factory or for expansion.
  It is a wonderful thing to hear the truth about Merseyside, and I was glad that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) came in as well. I have good reason for saying that, because Merseyside is rather near to Bolton and I do not want any of this bad image rubbing off on to Bolton. I would rather have the good image which the hon. Member has given.
  Mr. McGuire: The hon. Member's last point highlights why it is necessary for us in Lancashire, who know that the figures about industrial unrest on Merseyside are much exaggerated and that the Merseysider is much-maligned, to speak up in defence and rebut this canard. The statistics about industrial unrest are much exaggerated. In my constitutency the labour figures are marvellously good, and 90 per cent. of that labour force is from Merseyside.
  Mr. Redmond: I am supporting the hon. Gentleman, and whenever I meet industrialists from the South I try to persuade them to consider Lancashire for expansion, bearing in mind that, naturally, my first priority is to Bolton. I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency well, I worked in it and close to it for a long time, and he is absolutely right. Like most Lancashire places, it has the finest people in the world, and I do not want there to be any argument about that. There are far too many people down here

  1157
  who think that the world stops at the Watford by-pass.
  Let us not talk too much about Merseyside; let us come to the hinterland, to Bolton, Wigan, and such areas. We have an industrial record second to none in the world. I am proud to have spent all my industrial working life in Lancashire, and extremely proud to have the honour of representing Lancashire people in Parliament.
  We might also pay a tribute to what has been done by the local authorities in some Lancashire towns. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I mention my own constituency again. There is a gentleman called Mr. Albert Parkinson who is the industrial development officer for Bolton, and he has done an enormous amount to help industrial development in the town. Because of such work the town has been able, until recently, to absorb the redundancies arising from the rundown of the textile industry.
  Once the Government's measures begin to bite, Bolton will recover its position, but we have to do more than that, we have to overtake the situation now developing because of the textile rundown. Places like Bolton need help. I do not say that they should be given intermediate status, development area status or anything else. It has always been my view, and I have been saying since before the General Election—
  Mr. Ogden: Just before.
  Mr. Redmond: —that the Department of the Environment has more to do for places such as Bolton than the Department of Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has told us a success story today. The great trouble with towns with no special area status at all, such as Bolton, is the existence of ancient buildings, the "dark satanic mills", which need to be cleared up. If we could do this we would have sites available for new industry in what is already the most attractive place in the world for industry. I have been told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that if the greater Bolton area could be given about £500,000 it would do a great deal to achieve a forward surge in the improvement of the infrastructure of the town.
  That figure should be compared with the sums of money mentioned in a
  1158
  Writen Answer yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) which show that the nationalised industries have received no less than £9,562 million from the taxpayer since 1945. Of that, £2½ million has been written off, and I would hazard a guess that a great deal more will be written off before we are much older. How many jobs has that money created? If it has created any, how much has it cost per job? What has it done for the infrastructure of the regions, which is the main problem?
  I have said that the Department of the Environment can help Lancashire more than the Department of Trade and Industry. I have a copy of the Local Employment Bill, presented recently in another place by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. This, I understand, is a consolidation Measure and does not create any new law. Clause 8(6) derives from the Industrial Development Act, 1966, and the Local Employment Acts, 1960 and 1970. The subsection says:
  "Where the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is of opinion, with respect to any locality in Great Britain, that the economic situation in the locality is such that the exercise, in relation to land therein, of the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section would be particularly appropriate with a view to contributing to the development of industry in the locality, he may by order specify it as a derelict land clearance area, and those provisions shall have effect, in relation to land in a derelict land clearance area as they have effect in relation to land in a development area or intermediate area."
  That suggests to me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could do a great deal more to clear derelict land in the non-development and non-intermediate areas.
  If I have any criticism of what is going on it is that everything—the housing legislation, the bigger improvement grants and so on—goes to the development and intermediate areas, and nothing goes to areas that may well have greater dereliction and bigger problems than the development areas have. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will try to clarify the position that I have outlined and tell us whether my interpretation of the Clause is right.
  I have a further suggestion as to how we might get rid of the redundant, dark, satanic mills in our region. [Interruption.] I have seen many dark, satanic

  1159
  mills, and if we can only get them down that will be a great improvement.
  Mr. Ogden: The mills about which Blake wrote were the mill wheels of God, grinding slow but exceeding small, not the Lancastrian mills, which Blake had never seen. There are times when a good, sound, old cotton mill is a very good first step for development.
  Mr. Redmond: Fair enough. We have some jolly good, solid, first-class buildings in Bolton which have been up for quite a long time and make excellent factory premises now. But there are also some dark, satanic mills of the type I have in mind, whatever the original author may have meant.
  I suggest a dual policy of a stick and a carrot. Let us talk first about the stick. We should introduce legislation saying that derelict industrial premises which are out of use and empty will be rated in, say, three years' time. Then we introduce the carrot, which is to tell the firm owning such premises, "If you demolish them within three years we shall lend you the cost of the demolition and clearing the site—on the understanding that if you redevelop or sell the site you must repay the loan." That would clear sites fairly quickly, and remove some of the mills which are nothing more than playgrounds for vandals and could eventually become dangerous.
  I am certain that in the long term the best way in which we can help industry in Lancashire and other parts of the country is not so much by having development area status as by giving help to the smaller firms. During the recess I spent a great deal of time talking to industrialists in my constituency. I found that the growth areas were among the small companies, some of which had not been going for very long. Their great problem is that they have to generate their own risk capital. I am sure that the entrepreneurs of Burscough will agree that they cannot go to the markets for money but must make it, and we must let them keep it. We had a good start in the reduction of corporation tax, and I hope that that can continue.
  The Government are right not to yield to pleas for wider and wider development areas and other special status. We
  1160
  should not necessarily have everything going into development and intermediate areas. There are other areas, Bolton in particular, that need some help.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: This has become a very melancholy debate. We had a slap-happy speech from the Secretary of State for the Environment without a single constructive, original thought. In reply to his peroration, I will say only that larger doses of the wrong medicine are unlikely to provide the cure.
  It is time we realised that development area policy and our whole approach to the problems of the development areas must be much more comprehensive and direct. The B.B.C. recently gave a disgracefully distorted picture of Sunderland on television, which led my constituents to think that the B.B.C. could not care less about our difficulties. It is not a sufficient answer merely to complain. If we are serious about regional policy, we should be calling for the restructuring of the B.B.C. and the breaking of its monolithic, London-based structure in favour of a vigorous regional organisation.
  We have also recently suffered from the decision to locate the V.A.T. headquarters in Southend and the decision not to proceed with the computer centre at Washington. Again, it is not sufficient merely to complain about these decisions. If we are serious about regional policy, we should insist that we disturb the concentration of civil servants in London and get a rational dispersal of the Civil Service.
  It is fashionable nowadays to talk about infrastructure, but it is not sufficient to talk about it in terms of marginal palliatives, as the Secretary of State did in talking about the preferential treatment we receive on improvement grants, for example. We want a basic application of development area policy in the drawing up of Departmental programmes. We want the application of development area policy in school building programmes, hospital programmes and the rest and even, for example, in the remuneration of doctors and dentists.
  It should be our deliberate aim, planning perhaps over 10 years, to remove the unacceptable disparity between the

  1161
  deprived and the privileged regions. We have now, and for a long time have had, geographically two nations—the regions that are development areas and those that are not. We should acknowledge that the development areas are also the deprived areas, and it is their deprivation which is the major discouragement to their full development.
  But we should not only be more comprehensive in thinking about development area policy; we should be more direct and more interventionist. I acknowledge that we have already spent enormous sums in financial aid to the development areas, and that that aid has not altogether been without effect. But I am sure that if it had been given more discriminatorily, more selectively, it would have been far more effective. Sunderland needed after the war, and needs today, a new, large-scale industrial complex. To achieve this the Government must be prepared to put in millions of pounds but they would be millions far better spent than the millions already wastefully spent in attracting dubiously viable, variegated, footloose industries to the region, and far better spent than the millions so thinly spread as to have only marginal effects.
  We should also think about the social effects of what we are doing. Average earnings in the North-East are only 79 per cent. of the national average. This is a result of the new industries we have attracted to the region; we now have men unemployed and women working. The fact that we have these low average earnings compared with the rest of the country affects our service industries and the whole character of the region.
  In the recent debate on unemployment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pleaded for a new advance factory building programme. I support him; this is a more direct development area policy, but we must also recognise the present position. In my constituency there are already three advance factories empty and idle, and several smaller factories empty and idle. The time has come to be realistic and to put production into those factories. If private enterprise fails—and the Minister assured me yesterday that it has failed and that there have been 57 unsuccessful applications—we cannot afford to allow this public capital to stand idle and we
  1162
  must intervene and put in publicly-financed production.
  I welcome the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the nationalised industries. I urge him to go further, to take a leaf out of the Italians' book and to direct nationalised industries to place their contracts in the development areas. He should direct the major Government spending Departments to do the same. This would be a great fillip to the development areas. Much more important, we should recognise that what is good for the nationalised industries is equally good for private enterprise. If it is for the good of the country to direct the nationalised industries to expand their capital investment, so it is for the good of the country that large-scale private enterprise should expand its capital investment.
  Our major need is to devise ways and means of supporting investment in the private sector and providing for partnership. The need for this is clearly shown in the shipbuilding industry. The implementation of the Geddes Report was successful, but only as a holding operation. Meanwhile, we have been outstripped again by our competitors, who have been able to formulate ways and means of serving a national purpose through a major industry. We need this sense of purpose in British industry today. It means the acceptance of public participation and leadership in industrial enterprise. It means a recognition that we should not try to arrest technological innovation and change, but also a recognition that we shall not succeed without structural unemployment unless there is a measure of public intervention.
  The major issue which the Government should be considering now is the ways and means of doing this. It cannot be done by civil servants with red tape and bureaucratic formulae. I put this suggestion again to the Government. Let us have an experiment in the North-East; let us have a North-East development corporation; let it be grant-aided so that it will have the widest discretionary powers. We are always being asked to help ourselves. Give us a chance to do so.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Sutcliffe: I welcome the opportunity to

  1163
  follow the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of his speech in which he advocated a North-East development corporation. I take him to be advocating in the regions more power, more authority and less advice only. I could not agree with him more in what he said on this, and in what he said in other parts of his speech.
  Over the last 10 years the Government have pumped not far short of £450 million into the Northern Region as a whole, and Tees-side has shared in this infusion. I must speak on behalf of Tees-side because there is no one else on this side of the House to do so. It is no good our making nice calculations of a little less or a little more by way of incentives, calculations as to whether the Government should be thinking in terms of grants rather than allowances. Such nice calculations will not now answer our regional problem, certainly not in the North-East, and I doubt whether they will anywhere else. The latest figures for Tees-side show that nearly 12,000 men are out of work as against 533 vacancies. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will excuse my pointing this out, the unemployment figure on Tees-side is now higher than it is on Tyneside.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am delighted for my hon. Friend to point out anything that is accurate. On the North-East I try to help him in the same way as he tries to help us, but I must point out that Tees-side has greater possibilities for the future than the Port of Tyne. Tees-side has, I understand, much more land. I want to know what is to be done for the Tyne as well as for the Tees, so that we get a proper balance.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I was not trying to pick a quarrel with my hon. Friend. She is far too formidable for me to seek consciously to do that. I take her point. Obviously, one has to look at the prospects, but I wish she had waited to hear what I had to say.
  Although Tees-side does not have the special development area status which Tyneside has, and although Tees-side now has a greater unemployment problem than Tyneside, I do not believe that it
  1164
  is the lack of S.D.A. status which is creating this excessive unemployment on Tees-side, nor do I believe that the unemployment will be cured by giving Teesside this status.
  I ask the Government to do four basic things. They relate to the decision which is about to be made on the British Steel Corporation investment programme, the decision on North Sea oil, the dispersal of the Civil Service, a study of which has been proceeding for some time, and the underlying imbalance in the structure of the Tees-side area.
  First, on the British Steel Corporation investment programme, Tees-side in the foreseeable future must continue to depend on basic industry to provide jobs for men. The situation for men over 40 is particularly tragic. Half of all men unemployed in this area are over 40, and they are the hard core of the men who have been unemployed for a year or more. It would be wrong to make this vital decision on the B.S.C. investment programme on political grounds, but, if it were to be made on political grounds, the social problem on Tees-side is as grave and gives as great cause for concern as it does anywhere, either further north or further south.
  If one looks at the decision in the light in which it ought to be made, on commercial and technological grounds, no one could deny that there is an overwhelming case for siting the whole of the proposed steel complex alongside the new Redcar ore terminal. I ask the Government to make this decision, to make is quickly and to go for Tees-side.
  I ask the Government for another decision which is equally important, and that is to ensure that the North Sea oil is brought ashore in Tees-side. This is important for the country at large and vital to our region.
  These two decisions will do an immense amount to restore the regions prospects. However, these decisions by themselves are not enough.
  I come to the point which has been made both by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North in regard to growth prospects in office employment. In one year, in the period to April, 1971, some 3,485 Civil Service jobs were dispersed from the

  1165
  South-East. This figure does not particularly impress me since it scratches only the surface. There are hundreds of thousands of non-industrial posts which are not connected with policy-making but which are functional. These are equivalent to the old administrative and clerical grades. These jobs are concentrated in the South-East.
  I have had correspondence with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department—and I wish he were on the Front Bench to hear this debate—which leads me to feel somewhat gloomy about the results of the study being made into the dispersal from the South-East of Civil Service Departments. My hon. Friend said that it would be important for there to be face-to-face meetings with Ministers, but added that it would be difficult in the present state of communications to see how Government Departments could operate from as far North as Tees-side. I do not see why give could not set up a television network in which there could be face-to-face meetings between Ministers in London and civil servants in the North-East. Although the North-East may be a long way off as a matter of distance, it is no longer a long way off in terms of time. When one sets against these arguments the enormous savings to be made in cost of accommodation, living expenses, and so forth; when one remembers the enormous benefits in development areas flowing from an infusion of this kind of Civil Service white-collar work in terms of jobs for those leaving school and others; when one bears in mind the better balance that it will bring to the community in our area, particularly in Teesside—it seems to me the Government must not let us down when it comes to announcing their decision on any dispersal of the Civil Service following the study which is now being undertaken. Tees-side in the last four years has not had a net increase in this kind of work of more than 100 lobs a year at the most.
  My last point relates to the desperate need for an infusion of Civil Service work in Teesside in order to correct the imbalance in the whole social structure of the community there, because this affects our ability to help ourselves and to attract manufacturing and other pobs. We have not in Teesside a university, nor do we have a research establishment, nor
  1166
  proper employment opportunities either in public or private administration or indeed in finance, commerce and the professions generally. As a result, the social scene is lopsided. We are a society which is out of balance. This fact is reflected in the average income per head, which is only 79 per cent. of the national average, and the gap is widening. The level of income in an area such as Teesside and in the Northern Region as a whole is depressing the whole environment. It makes the local authority standard of provision for our people lower, and the area in general is made inferior by a lower level of wealth and consumption.
  It is here that regional policy has basically failed, and it will continue to fail even though a growth or expansion in the economy is achieved such as has not been achieved during the past eight years. This is why I so wholeheartedly agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, and, indeed, this is why we have to go for a new tack, for a radical change, for decentralisation, for authority to be given to the regions and for a minimum reserve of powers in London. Out of greater responsibility and greater power to spend money will come the kind of results for which we have been asking, and, indeed, for which we have been pleading with every Government over the past 10 years.
  It is not that we do not know what needs to be done in the North; we know this only too well. Perhaps we have not all the answers to help us to achieve what we want to see, but at least if we know the problem and see what is happenip on the spot in the North-East we shall get better results than those here in London who have other areas on their minds and do not know our problems as we ourselves know them.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn; Like many of my hon. Friends, I was struck by the sudden change of tempo towards the end of the Secretary of State's speech. He protested too much. But his protests amounted to little more than what has come to be a customary catalogue on these occasions of the actions which the Government claim to be taking to revive the flagging economy.
  The right hon. Gentleman used the word "injection" over and over again; it seems to be the "in" word on the Government side. He said that there

  1167
  would be an injection of this and an injection of that. The right hon. Gentleman reminded me of a doctor standing over the body of one of his patients, vigorously protesting that he had injected more chemicals into the corpse but had no responsibility for the poor man's condition although he had died from neglect. Although the patient is not dead, the economy shows singularly little sign of responding to any of the measures which the Government claim to be taking. If the economy is not dead, the lack of reaction takes a great deal of explaining.
  But I do not simply want to make party points, and, indeed, I would not have done so had it not been for the last five minutes of the Secretary of States speech.
  I wish to speak more in the vein of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), and, in a constructive way, to approach the problem of a constituency which is trying to find practical solutions. While we did not welcome the hon. Gentleman's entry to this House, ready tribute must be paid to the way in which he has worked with other hon. Members with constituents in the area. It has always been customary for Labour Members representing Tees-side constituencies to work closely together, but my colleagues and I appreciate how the hon. Gentleman has crossed the party boundary on constituency matters and been only too ready to work with us. We respect the hon. Gentleman for that, even though we shall fight against him on other occasions, not as a person but as the representative of a Government and a party which we abhor.
  I look first at the problems of my constituency east of Tees-side, at those of the East Cleveland area. It is necessary to point out, when one is discussing the problems arising from coalmine closures in Durham and in other parts of the country, that the last of the ironstone mines which explained the very existence of the steel industry on Tees-side closed a decade or two before closures in the Durham coalfield began. There is a lingering problem of unemployment as a result which recently has been worsened by the understandable but none the less unwelcome decision of the British Steel Corporation to cease its iron and steelmaking activities at Skinningrove, even
  1168
  though the finishing stages of production are being retained.
  The two together add up to a massive problem for the area, and the Government did nothing to help by their action over investment grants and the Cleveland Potash Company. That company is providing essential work in the area and will supply minerals to the country, resulting in import savings, when the plant is in full operation, of over £30 million a year. The company has been crippled as a result of losing £6 million in investment grants by a decision taken arbitrarily, without justification, and against every speech from the Government side as well as from this side both in Committee and in the Chamber.
  The people of East Cleveland recognise that, the nature of the area being what it is, the need to travel is inevitable. However, if people are expected to travel, they need reasonably decent roads over which to travel. While I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment, if he has gone back to his Department to hasten decisions on one or two of the matters to which I am about to refer and which other hon. Members have requested we shall forgive him.
  Mr. William Rodgers: He needs it.
  Mr. Tinn: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman needs it. For that reason, I shall be generous to him. I was very glad when the right hon. Gentleman announced the other day in reply to a Question of mine his approval of the compulsory purchase order for the South Tees Parkway. But there are other projects. On the A173, for example, there are two. The first is a link between Skelton and Brotton and the second is between Guisborough and Skelton. Local authorities in my area feel that these developments are crucial to the future wellbeing of the area, together with the proposed extension of the A174 to Brotton and Loftus. The Guisborough by-pass has been on the cards since 1966. I have urged the previous Government and the present Government about it. I hope that my efforts will meet with success very soon. It may be that we shall receive some assurances this evening.
  Cleveland is a quickly expanding area, and these antiquated roads are a seriously inhibiting factor to it, as they are to the

  1169
  development of Teesport, which is not only important to the Northern Region but already has achieved national importance with a volume and value of dry cargo handled, ignoring its considerable oil imports, which makes it rank very high in the list of United Kingdom ports. Whatever may be said of Liverpool, Tees-port is second to none in terms of labour relations. There are no strikes, and there are very good productivity agreements.
  Moving to the western part of my constituency and Tees-side, I echo what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West said in countering the common impression which is too often shared, even in the North, that Tees-side is a naturally prosperous area. Anyone making a helicopter journey over the area will see signs of prosperity on both sides of the river. The area contains the largest petrochemical complex in the world, and there are oil refineries on both sides of the river. It has an aura of prosperity. It has the appearance of a place which is going somewhere. To some extent, it is.
  However, the development which has been coming to Tees-side for the last decade or so has been very heavily capital-intensive. The result has been a serious unemployment problem throughout the area. Under the present Government it has worsened rapidly. For the first time in my recollection, the unemployment rate on Tees-side is higher than that on Tyneside. It may be that I shall be told that there are still twice as many workers actually unemployed on Tyneside. That is quite true. However, in Wearside, which was so vigorously defended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the numbers in the area, recognised to be a serious problem, are lower than those of Tees-side. By any standards, Tees-side has a problem, whether it be looked at in terms of absolute numbers or of the unemployment rate. Yet it is denied special development area status. The Government cannot continue to dodge the issue. Until now they have referred to Tees-side as an area having special problems. Of course it has special problems. But saying that they are simple does not wish them away. We want to know what the Government propose to do about them.
  The special nature of Tees-side's problems is, first, the capital-intensive nature
  1170
  of the industry. Arising from that, perhaps, is the fact that a different kind of labour is beginning to be necessary in order to operate and service these highly technological industries and their equipment. Major industrialists on Tees-side feel strongly that we need to be looking at the kind of industrial training that we provide. It is no longer just a matter of training in the traditional skills for an area such as Tees-side, but of training men in technological skills and to service the new technologically-based industries. Furthermore, we need some expansion of the technical colleges in the area, and I hope that sooner rather than later we shall have a favourable decision to go ahead with a university on Tees-side.
  I enter again, as I have done before in this Chamber, an urgent plea for a favourable and early decision, preferably before Christmas, on the British Steel Corporation's proposal for a multi-million pound steel complex at Redcar. There is a site which has been cleared of slag-heaps. An ore terminal is being constructed. There are deep-water facilities. There is a labour force which has co-operated in the nationalisation of its industry to its own cost in terms of jobs, on the implicit understanding that steel has a future on Tees-side. That future must be called in question if this major development goes anywhere else. If the Minister can give me some encouragement or hope on at least this point, he will make not only my constituents but everyone on Tees-side much happier tomorrow morning when they read about it.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I hope that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) will not think it remiss of me if I do not get involved in his local controversies vis-à-vis Tyneside versus Teesside and, indeed, versus Wearside. I represent a constituency in the South-West which has its own parochial problems vis-à-vis Devon and Cornwall and Plymouth, and so on. It is to these areas that I wish to address the majority of my remarks.
  Approximately 75 per cent. of the Bodmin parliamentary division is located within the South-West Development area. The remainder is situated within the Plymouth Intermediate Area.

  1171
  The South-West Development Area is a region characterised by higher than average levels of unemployment, lower than average levels of income, a limited variety of employment opportunity, and with few modern growth industries represented. But, above all, it is an area where the rate of population growth is low and where large numbers of young people annually leave the region, in many instances never to return to live and work.
  Because of these factors, and as I am by profession a geographer who lectured on such subjects before entering this House, I warmly welcomed the acceptance in the early 1960s of the introduction of the concept of regional planning and development in this country, since the primary purpose, as I see it, of having effective regional policies is to bring about a more balanced economic development in the country as a whole, so that each and every one of our regions both contributes to and shares in the national prosperity.
  It is thus with genuine regret that I have formed the opinion that the South-West Region has not been allowed to reap the rewards which enlightened regional planning could have brought it. This is largely for two reasons. The first relates to the basic regional structure of the South-West. I am sorry that on the Government Front Bench there is no Minister from the Department of the Environment, because this concerns that Department.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I should not like my hon. Friend to feel that my right hon. Friend is being discourteous. He has had to leave for another engagement. I hope my hon. Friend understands that anything he says will be listened to and faithfully reported by me to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hicks: It was in no way meant in that light. However, in my subsequent remarks I shall be developing the question of the definition between the Department of Trade and Industry on the one hand and the Department of the Environment on the other relating to regional aids, techniques and policies. Hence, my paraphrasing remarks.
  1172
  The South-West Region, as at present defined, is in my judgment far too large. Very little imagination and foresight was shown when the original boundaries were drawn up. It comprises six counties: Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. The regional capital is Bristol, which is nearer to London than to Penzance in its own region. Therefore, as we go about our work in the Bodmin Parliamentary Division Bristol is just as remote to us as Whitehall ever is.
  I suggest that the region is, in fact, two regions: an eastern part, based on Bristol, Bath, Gloucester, Cheltenham and Swindon, urban and industrially based, including a fair share of growth industries, and a western section largely dependent upon agriculture and horticulture, fishing and tourism, with only scattered pockets of industrial development. To suggest that these two sections are complementary to one another and so should be designated as one is, I believe, a mistake.
  Furthermore, now that the Severn Bridge is in operation there is increasing evidence that the Bristol-Severnside industrial region will move much closer to the South Wales industrial region. In fact, I predict that within the next 20 years this latter region, Bristol, Lower Severnside and South Wales, will form a great and formidable industrial complex whose economic hinterland will cross and completely ignore the existing regional boundaries as they now stand. In other words, what I am asking the Government is: How can one hope for the various regional measures which we must have to achieve the desired effect if the basic framework for the implementation of these policies is lacking in the context of the South-West Region.
  The existing situation confirms this trend. Within the South-West Region the present level of unemployment is 4 per cent., but within this very large geographical area there are marked variations with one obvious characteristic: that is, the further west one travels within this region the higher the incidence of unemployment and the lower the average level of earnings, so that in Devon there is an unemployment figure of approximately 5½ per cent. and in Cornwall the figure approaches 7 per cent. In fact, within my constituency

  1173
  the average level is, regrettably, of the order of 7½, per cent.
  It was in recognition of this situation that the previous Government designated most of Cornwall and parts of North Devon as development areas. Subsequently, the area covered by the Plymouth exchange received intermediate status, and recently the Government have extended that intermediate area to include the Tavistock and Okehampton exchange areas.
  This leads me to my second main criticism of the Government's regional policies and development area concepts: namely, the form of that Government assistance.
  At the end of the previous Government's tenure of office, it was estimated that about £300 million was being fed into the development and intermediate areas mainly in the form of grants of varying kinds, S.E.T. rebates, and regional employment premium. I seriously question whether that is the most efficient and most effective way in which to use this vast sum of money, particularly in the South-West Development Area. We are not an old industrial region whose traditional economic activities have declined. We are an area which is largely rural in character and is based upon occupations such as agriculture, fishing and tourism, with only scattered pockets of light industry. That is why techniques such as the S.E.T. rebate and R.E.P. were not really appropriate to solving our difficulties. Hon. Members will recall that, originally, to be eligible for those payments one had to be involved in manufacturing, but the fact is that only about 20 per cent. of the 88,000 males employed in the South-West Development Area are engaged in manufacturing.
  That is why I welcome the change of emphasis by the Government, to spend more money on improving the infrastructure of the region itself. It allows the Government greater powers of selection and greater flexibility. What I am trying to say is that it is preferable to spend money on improving the physical framework of the region itself—roads, housing, home improvement grant schemes, schools, training and re-training programmes—so that the region itself is made more attractive to industrialists, while at the same time there is an improvement
  1174
  in the standard of living and in the levels of employment opportunities for the people already living there. It also helps to reduce the number of employed in the area. Furthermore, it helps to improve the quality of the environment for those living there.
  This evening I want to take this opportunity to stress to the Government that this is the correct approach to the problems of the South-West, but to stress also that time is not on our side. Our greatest single need is for improved communications. I appreciate that the total expenditure on roads in the South-West during the current financial year and for the next four years will be about £200 million—that is 11 per cent. of the planned road expenditure, and is a big improvement on the previous situation—but I remind my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends that roads are the lifeblood of the South-West, whether one sees them in the context of industry, agriculture or tourism. My plea, therefore, is for the Government to quicken the pace of our road development programme.
  We are promised that a dual carriageway will link Plymouth with the motorway network sometime in the middle 'seventies, but my plea this evening is that this road should be extended into Cornwall as quickly as possible. Work on the Liskeard bypass is due to start in October, 1972. I gather that the preparatory work is well advanced. Why cannot we quicken the pace for the start of this programme? I understand that later this month draft proposals are to be made for the Bodmin bypass, and again I ask why cannot we quicken these up? Hon. Members who have spent a holiday in Cornwall will no doubt recall the hours they spent trying to get through the Borough of Bodmin itself. In addition to those two major schemes, there are other major and minor schemes involving the A30 and the A38.
  Apart from the question of communications, there are a limited number of precise proposals concerning the South-West to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, and about which I know from personal experience as a Member of Parliament. The first concerns the need for the Plymouth exchange area to have full development area status. That

  1175
  was recommended in the Tress Report—Professor Tress being the former Chairman of the South-West Economic Planning Council. I believe in the concept of growth points, and, although I serve a constituency on the western side of the Tamer, I recognise that in the economic context Plymouth is a major growth point. If Plymouth is doing well, then we in the surrounding areas derive the benefits of the economic spin-off.
  Second, consideration should be given to the siting of Government offices in the South-West.
  Third, I ask the Minister—and he will be aware of my motives for doing so—to examine the techniques whereby financial assistance is given to companies already located in the area. The Minister will be aware of the position of two companies to which I have drawn his attention since 18th June, 1970. Both companies are major employers of labour, and one hopes that with an increased cash flow they will be able to get over what I hope are short-term difficulties. After so much money, time and care has been spent on siting factories in development areas, it would be a shame if they were to go to the wall at a time when the nation as a whole was going through economic difficulties.
  My fourth and final point relates to Government training and retraining centres. This topic has already been mentioned, not only today but in earlier debates, and I hope that the South-West will not lose out when the new places are created.
  The South-West Development Area has two main priorities. The first is the whole question of communications. Both the A30 and the A38, which are our lifeblood, need improving at the fastest possible rate. Our approach should be: Help us with the means, and we can put our own house in order.
  The second need is for the formation of a genuine South-West economic planning region comprising the counties of Cornwall and Devon and the western parts of Somerset and Dorset. There is a good precedent, for in my right hon. Friend's statement on Thursday last about river authorities, in creating area No. 9 he created a genuine South-West region for
  1176
  water. I hope that we can do likewise for economic planning purposes.
  There is a feeling in the South-West that we do not have either the ear or the understanding of Whitehall and Bristol. People need a lead, and they are looking for one. If, therefore, there were a genuine South-West economic development council, it would serve the needs of an area which requires some form of assistance. Let us remember that the fundamental purpose of regionalism is not only to provide more economic activity and to act as a brake on centralised bureaucracy, but also to establish in our regions a genuine association between men, decision-making and local life.
  6.0 p.m.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: At the time of the debate on regionalism last February—almost a year ago—which took place on a Motion referring specifically to the Northern Region, we gained the impression that the Government were sanguine about their regional policies. Indeed, we were told that the Motion was rash and ill-conceived and had no bearing on the facts and on what would happen in the regions.
  Today the Secretary of State concentrated almost wholly on statements about improving the infrastructure of the regions. Much more important and pressing in the short-term are measures to provide new employment opportunities.
  Since the Government came to office we have seen, as we said in February and as we have continued to say, a weakening of their attitude towards a positive philosophy of regional development in terms of employment opportunities. For instance, there has been a weakening in I.D.C. control. This was highlighted in a Question I put to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Anthony Grant)—about the number of jobs created in the Northern Region this year as a result of I.D.Cs. I challenged the hon. Gentleman then. I ask him now either to confirm or deny that the Government have issued two certificates to firms for development in Milton Keynes which will provide more new jobs there than they have provided in the whole of the Northern Region in the first nine months of this year. I should be happy if the hon. Gentleman could deny that. If

  1177
  he cannot, he is bound to admit that what we say is correct and that the Government have loosened their control on industrial development certificates in the regions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) mentioned the question of the regional employment premium. This produced a distinct advantage for development in the regions. Given the dreadful situation we face, the Government must look at this measure again.
  I have made it clear to my constituents that we are now talking not about employment this winter, but about employment next winter, because the situation will, if anything, be worse. This view is confirmed by a recent survey by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which was reviewed in last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Times Business News. The Institute is not particularly sanguine about growth in the coming years and is very unhappy about employment prospects.
  The Secretary of State said today that the best thing that can happen for the regions is an upswing in the economy. That is fine, and we all want to see it happen, but it is nonsense to suggest that that alone will solve problems which have existed in the regions for up to 50 years. It is nonsense to say that after all this time we can get by without a realistic approach to the creation of new employment in the development areas.
  The whole question of the Government's philosophy was highlighted in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). I agree with many of the remarks they made. I hope that even if the Minister will not take it from this side he will accept it from his own supporters that the situation is serious and that drastic action is called for.
  The long-term measures that have been discussed today for improving the infrastructure are undoubtedly important. Nevertheless, in the last few months the Government have twice had to update their views even on those proposals and have made supplementary announcements about their programme.
  1178
  The Government have been almost totally deaf to the arguments expressed from this side of the House on behalf of the regions, so much so that it might be said that Quasimodo could have been marketed as a high fidelity listening system by comparison. The Government have been deaf, not only to our arguments about employment, but also to our arguments in terms of educational development, health development and social welfare development in the regions and in terms of the number of subregions, such as the area in which my constituency lies—West Cumberland—the local economies of which are undergoing a crisis.
  We have pleaded time and again with the Government. At one stage the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry promised us a thoroughgoing review of regional policy. We are entitled to ask: where is that review? On what basis were the changes made? Apparently the Government came to office determined to make changes without even conducting a review. Then they contradicted themselves and decided to have a review. We are still waiting.
  The unemployment situation is very serious in my constituency, particularly in Millom and Cleator Moor in the Ennerdale rural district area. Unemployment is at an unacceptable level also in the Borough of Whitehaven itself.
  Some months ago, when an existing advance factory was let in Millom, the Government decided not to go ahead with the provision of a second advance factory in that town, contrary to a promise which had been given by the Labour Government. I am pleased to say that after months of arguing the Minister changed his mind. It is sobering to think that had the Minister not taken the wrong decision in the beginning, people in Millom could now be in jobs at the second factory if it had been built and subsequently tenanted. I understand that it will not even begin building until next spring.
  We were told by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the February debate that he expected total spending on regional incentives to increase this year. We know already that spending on advance factories has fallen. I await with interest the figures for the whole year on all the measures.

  1179
  The philosophy that we are arguing about is one of destroying the myth which surrounds the metropolitan area of Britain and which leads people to think that the regions, where 30 per cent. of the population live, are awkward appendages to the rest of the country which must not only take second place but should be content to do so. I do not accept that concept and I hope that a future Labour Government will not accept it.
  Mr. Anthony Grant indicated dissent.
  Dr. Cunningham: I hope that that indication of dissent means that the Minister does not accept the argument either.
  This is what makes so important the argument which has been put from both sides this evening that the whole attitude of the Government towards the devolution of Ministries and other Government establishments must change. There is not one Government establishment of any size in the whole of Cumberland or Westmorland: not one. I would like the Minister to look at that.
  Secondly, we had a statement about infrastructure this evening. Will the Minister also look at the possibility of major improvements in the West Coast road from Workington to Whitehaven and Millom and down to the Furness district in Lancashire? That, too, is critical for development in West Cumberland.
  Thirdly, will he also now start looking at what is happening in terms of oil exploration in the Irish Sea? He will know that for some time there have been proposals that Whitehaven harbour ought to be developed. If that is to take place in time to meet the needs of oil exploration in the Irish Sea, the Government ought to be thinking about this now.
  Finally, I am not sanguine about the employment opportunities in my own constituency or, indeed, in West Cumberland. The Government cannot dodge responsibility for the worsening situation, a situation which is certainly much worse than it was last winter when we had the last debate. I am afraid that unless I hear something to the contrary this evening I must say to the people who are constantly writing to me about employment opportunities, "This year, next year, sometime, never"—never, it seems, particularly
  1180
  in the case of men over 50, many of whom have been looking for jobs for months and months and months. Are we really going to say to them, "You will not again in your working lifetime get an opportunity of a job in Cumberland"? That really needs to be answered.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: The unemployed in the development areas, if they read this debate in their spare time, cannot but fail to feel let down and disappointed. It has, I think, from the word go been a somewhat desultory, parochial debate, largely I suspect because we did not have with us the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor did we have the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It marks an extraordinarily complacent or bored attitude on the part of the Government to indulge the House in a debate on unemployment in the development areas at this time of all times without the chief organ-grinder himself, because it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his measures since June, 1970, which have resulted in the immense increase in unemployment in the development areas.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: I really must correct the hon. Gentleman on this. First, it is not our debate. It is a debate which the Opposition chose for this Supply Day. Secondly, it is a debate on development areas in England only. A short time ago there was a full debate on unemployment and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a full part in it.
  Mr. Pardoe: However many debates we have had, the unemployed still remain unemployed, and there are rather more of them. I would have thought that whether it was England, Scotland or Timbuctoo unemployment in this country was worth the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Secretary of State for the Environment is no substitute for either of those right hon. Gentlemen. Indeed, I cannot think what he is a substitute for.
  The debate has been to a large extent a "whodunit" on unemployment. I do not want to indulge in too many recriminations because this is not the first Government to have got their economic forecasts wrong. Nor can we discuss unemployment in the development areas

  1181
  entirely separately from the national picture. All of us must realise that the first incentive to any firm to move to a development area is shortage of space or shortage of labour in the overcrowded area from which it proposes to move. It does not start to look for investment incentives or other aids until it has reached the point at which it feels the need of space or labour. It is essential, therefore, that we make some comments on the national position.
  There seems to be in some parts of the House and, indeed, among some economists a feeling that there is a mystery about unemployment and about low investment. The Secretary of State for Employment is the arch proponent of this mystery. He raises his hands in despair and wonders how on earth it came about. I do not think there is any mystery. Unemployment is at its present level because successive Conservative and Labour Governments have deliberately set out to create it. There is no doubt about this; they created it through the squeeze which was introduced by the Labour Government before devaluation when they tried to stave it off, and after devaluation, and the squeeze was continued by the present Government when they came into office, until a short time ago when they conducted a complete volte-face. We have had seven years of stagnation and seven years of very high interest rates; and high interest rates are designed to keep investment down and to stop employment from growing. There is indeed a perplexity among some economists why we have this unemployment, and there are even those who ask whether Maynard Keynes was wrong.
  It is perhaps erudite to question a fundamental economic truth, but Keynes knew only too well that there is a period of time which elapses between reducing taxes and increasing credit and the subsequent employment. He said this very clearly:
  "It is not easy to revive the marginal efficiency of capital, determined, as it is, by the uncontrollable and disobedient psychology of the business world. It is the return of confidence to speak in ordinary language which is so insusceptible to control in an economy of individualistic capitalism."
  He showed clearly that he realised that this at least would take time.
  The question now is, what should be done about it? How is unemployment to
  1182
  be brought down? I have already said that we cannot possibly do this in the development areas alone. We can only do it, or only begin to do it, by getting unemployment down in the country as a whole and so creating that demand for labour and space that will get the economy in the development areas going. The change which we must make is one related to exchange rates, because if the Chancellor is going back to fixed parities unemployment will be with us for ever and anon.
  The right hon. Gentleman made an explicit statement about the economy on 2nd December, when he said in reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann):
  "I said in my statement that the discussion which we had was concerned with the conditions necessary for a return to fixed parities. It is the view of all the members of the Group of Ten that this should be the ultimate aim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 672.]
  I hope it is not the view of the present Government, because if it is they are going to perpetuate low investment and unemployment. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on 23rd November asking whether he was aware that the floating pound was about the only sensible policy in the economic field which the Government had so far pursued and that to ditch it now would be a total disaster. He said he disagreed, and that if one discussed it with businessmen and others who took decisions one realised that the uncertainty created by the present situation was one reason for the lack of confidence which we were experiencing.
  A return to fixed parities would mean one thing and one thing only to businessmen thinking of moving to development areas. They would be certain that when the Government came up against the next balance of payments crisis they would resort to a credit squeeze and tough fiscal policies and would stop expansion. That is what is holding back investment, and that is what is really creating this uncertainty. We shall get no sustained growth and no sustained business confidence unless the Chancellor makes a statement very shortly at the next Group of Ten meeting that this country will stick to a floating exchange rate, come what may.
  The second thing which the Chancellor must do to increase investment immediately is to get rid of the uncertainty

  1183
  which exists in businessmen's minds as to whether Bank Rate has reached its lowest level. Too many people are staving off investment decisions in the belief that Bank Rate may drop another 1 per cent. or so this Thursday, next Thursday, some time, never.
  I would say, with the Economist, that there is no level of Bank Rate which I would regard as too low. A 3 per cent. rate would at least convince business that it was not going any lower and would get investment going rapidly. If these two things are done nationally, there are enough tax cuts in the pipeline to get growth going.
  We have a great responsibility. At last, for the first time for probably a decade, we have a chance of at least three to four years' uninterrupted 5 per cent. growth. But the Chancellor seems to be behaving like a man lost in the woods. He has finally given up going round and round and has gone to sleep; he wakes up to find himself in another part of the woods facing a signpost pointing the way to go—and he refuses to believe it.
  Britain has had a lucky break, and I do not want the Government to spoil it. When that expansion gets going, the problem of the regions can be solved, but we must then question whether the existing regional incentives will ensure that the regions will get a satisfactory share of the increased growth which will undoubtedly come if these policies are adopted.
  I do not want to overstate the problem of the South-West. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) has already outlined some of these problems. Since November, 1968, the number of men unemployed in the whole region—I share the hon. Member's views about the geographic and economic nonsense of a region extending from Gloucester to the Scilly Isles—has risen by 50 per cent., but the number unemployed in the development area has risen by 33 per cent.
  I would not describe that figure as "only" 33 per cent., because it is a substantial rise, but at least the difference between those two figures may show some sign that the measures of regional development which have been taken over the last six or seven years are paying off to a limited extent.
  1184
  But the present Government have enormously reduced the effectiveness of the incentives introduced from 1966 onwards and they cannot run away from the fact. In June, 1970, the disparity between the investment incentives in the development areas and the non-development areas in the United Kingdom was the widest in Europe; today, after the 17 months that this Government have been in power, it is the lowest disparity in Europe.
  That is the magnitude of what they have done in this short period. They must have set out to do this intentionally. They have intentionally sabotaged the wherewithal that the regions were given in that short period of five years in the latter part of the Labour Government to get themselves up by their own bootstraps.
  How have the Government done it? First, there was the October Budget, which replaced investment grants with less generous depreciation allowances. They followed that in July with a cut in corporation tax and a strengthening of the depreciation allowances in non-development areas from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. Unless this disparity is widened immediately, the development areas will not get the benefit of any growth which is coming to the country as a whole.
  The first requirement is that the Government must return to investment grants. It is extraordinary that a Government which came to power committed to negotiating our way into Europe should at almost the first stroke have destroyed one aspect of European regional policy which they will inevitably have to accept when we get in. They are busily preparing to launch us on the value-added tax because that is part of European policy—rightly or wrongly—but they have already dismantled the investment grants to which they will have to return when we get in. The Government did this, of course, for a purely political reason, to cut nominal public expenditure. But it is only a book transaction and it is enormously affecting the economic efficiency of the development areas.
  Second, the Government must announce that they will keep the regional employment premium. The hon. Member for Bodmin suggested that it was not

  1185
  very important to the South-West development area. I beg to differ. It is immensely important to the manufacturing industry in the South-West. I agree with him about incentives to service industries but do not want to perpetuate a situation in which that very small percentage of the employed population which he quoted is employed in manufacturing industry. I want to extend it, and if the hon. Gentleman wants sustained employment all the year round he must also want to extend it.
  A possible variation on the regional employment premium is that the Government should pay a part of the money now being given in this way to people in the development areas as an allowance for getting to work. One of the major disincentives in an area of low incomes like Cornwall is that if one subtracts from income the high cost of getting to work—because there is no public transport, it is virtually mandatory to have a car—one is left with a net return for getting out of bed and going off to a day of eight hours or more which is less than if one did not go to work at all. My suggestion would be a very effective incentive to labour in the South-West, particularly because of is rural character.
  A good deal of money has been ploughed into public works, and the Government are continuing to do this. I question the effectiveness of some of this expenditure. The Government were very critical of their predecessors' waste and criticised the high cost of creating a new job. Perhaps in some cases they were right. Some of the projects which were announced in a recent package by the Chancellor were magnificently described by the Economist last week as "boondoggles". Whatever that means, it signifies my attitude to them—[Laughter] It is onomatopoeic, anyway.
  I am also concerned about the Government's policy towards public works contracts for local firms. In a list of recent capital works in Cornwall, the lowest tenders amounted to £3,354,000 and they were tendered by non-local firms. The same jobs were tendered for by local firms and their total amounted to £3,673,000. So there is a difference of £319,000—in other words, less than 10 per cent.
  I am advised that those jobs would have required 735 men over 18 months.
  1186
  The difference amounts to £5·56p. per week per man. Some of the outside firms use local labour, but even then 25 per cent. of those employed are in administration and tend to come from head office. But a large number of these firms did not use local labour at all; they brought in the labour from outside. And wherever they get their labour, the profits go outside the area.
  I should like to refer to those who will remain unemployed whatever we do, particularly the older unemployed. I am thinking in particular of two cases from my constituency. The first is of a 62year-old mining engineer of many years' experience and strong physique, who was forced to return to England for family reasons. The moment anyone knows he is 62, he cannot get a job. Therefore, he is unemployed and lives on supplementary benefit. He would rather have his pension than, as he sees it, beg for supplementary benefit. I believe that he should have his pension and that we should reduce the age of retirement.
  The second case is that of a manager aged 59, retired forcibly for health reasons with a small occupational pension. He will get the dole for one year and then will have to go on supplementary benefit. He has already obtained a summer job for the summer of 1972, for 16 weeks, so he will get the dole during the winter—but only for three years because, euphemistically, he has "opted" for seasonal employment for three years. He has not opted for it: he has been forced into it. In Cornwall, he has no option. There is no other kind of employment and we should ensure that people of this sort are paid the dole in the winter months.
  When I look at the future, I am not over-depressed for the economy of the nation as a whole. However, we are increasingly London-oriented and even if growth comes there will still be a basic regional problem which we shall not solve unless we reverse this London orientation and bring power back to the people.
  The Government must change their development area policy or these areas will not share in the prosperity which is coming. If they do not change this policy, they will be ensuring that when growth comes, the resources of labour in the development areas will be wasted because the boom will be brought to a halt by

  1187
  the bottlenecks for labour that will build up in the overcrowded areas.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is helpful when hon. Members keep their speeches reasonably brief. I understand that about 14 hon. Members are still hopeful of catching my eye during this debate. If hon. Members are fairly short. I shall be able to call most of them. Mr. Proudfoot.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: This debate is a disappointment to me because having been out of this place for six years, returning is like watching the late late movie. Nothing seems to have changed in those six years, despite our nearest approach to joining the Common Market, the prospect of which must have a considerable bearing on this debate.
  The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), who represents the constituency which I used to represent, talked of ironstone mining in his constituency. He need not have bothered because he has not had any during his time as the hon. Member for that constituency. All the ironstone mines were closed down when I represented it. He had six years of Socialist Administration in which to put things right.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to speak about roads in Cleveland. As I listened to him I thought that he might have lifted his speech from an Adjournment debate which I had on the subject eight or nine years ago, and I wager that I had more success in getting better roads in his constituency when a Tory Administration were responsible than he achieved during six years of Socialism.
  I was on television recently with two trade union leaders and I have to report that they cursed both the Conservative and Labour Parties for their efforts, or lack of them, on behalf of the regions over the years. One hon. Gentleman opposite said that both parties had tried for half a century to do something about the regions. It is time that we admitted that we have both failed to do as much as we want to achieve.
  It is clear when we look at development areas throughout the world that we in Britain have not done less well, or
  1188
  certainly no better, than any other country in this matter. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will look ahead further than the meagre four or five years for which Administrations in this country are elected. I have total confidence that the Conservatives will win the next election and the one after that. I therefore encourage the Government to look very much in the long term at regional problems.
  May I in passing refer to you, Mr. Speaker? I recall that when you had a different rôle I sat next to you at a conference at which I said, in effect, "Let us stop using the words distressed areas'", which was the phrase then in use. "and use a more dynamic term such as 'development areas'", and I am glad to say that that has been done.
  The only time that I can recall any success having been achieved in regional policy, it was brought about as a result of the Hailsham Report. The Conservative Government of that time began to implement the recommendations of that report and Labour carried on. It was as a result of those efforts that the boss word "infrastructure" entered our everyday vocabulary. A great deal was done in the North-East and anyone driving through that area will realise how much was due to the Hailsham Plan for the North-East.
  I was surprised at some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and I got the impression that he had visited none of the old industrial areas, South Wales or the North-East. That observation leads me to welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment opened the debate because it is also an environmental problem which these old industrial areas face. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, because he does not understand the need for this environmental approach, comes from a particularly pleasant part of the world.
  To an extent, therefore, both sides of the House have over the years been guilty of a certain amount of political gerrymandering. As soon as the Labour Party came to office they changed the development area status concept from what it had been and greatly widened it. They spread the jam more thinly in the North-West and elsewhere. They did not do

  1189
  a thing about the unemployment problems of those areas and it is clear that we must now go for growth points. In other words, the Government must bring out a new and radical plan not just covering the next three or four years but a plan containing policies that are framed with an eye on Europe.
  I fear that this House does not know enough about unemployment in the regions to be able to read the figures correctly. One hears all sorts of stories. On the train going home last week I heard of five men who had applied for one job in Newcastle. All refused the job at £21 a week and said in effect "The job is worth having for another £10 on the side". [Interruption.] I understand that it is a true story.
  I am an employer in a minor way in a development area. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that although I have advertised for staff they are not easy to get. I speak from personal experience. This is why I say we must analyse the figures. I come from a seaside resort and it is clear that many people who have retired to that and similar areas are drawing the dole because they retired before the age of 65. I suggest that a service that we could perform for the development areas is to analyse the make-up of the unemployment figures relating to those areas.
  I was pleased for another reason to see the Secretary of State for the Environment open the debate. In Committee upstairs we have a Bill to reform local government. In my view this Measure will help to solve the problem of regional unemployment more than anything we have done in recent years because it will identify the estuaries. I was a Member for a Teesside constituency when Greater Teesside was formed. That concept has done wonders for Teesside and I look forward to the same thing happening on Merseyside and Humberside. I sincerely hope that Whitby, a town near to where I live, will not wish to stay out of Greater Teesside. It would be a mistake if it did.
  I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to an article by a gentleman calling himself the Earl of Lauderdale—I do not know him; the only Lauderdale I know is Fort Lauderdale in Florida—in which he gives some extremely intelligent arguments in favour of the development
  1190
  of the estuaries—Humberside, Teesside, Harwich and Felixstowe. He suggests that work of this kind is in project behind a veil in the Ministry. I hope he is right because if we can achieve growth points along the East Coast and elsewhere and have deep water ports, we will be on the right track to curing much of the regional unemployment that now exists.
  Giant steelworks must come. The same article identifies the sites of eight such major steelworks which, the writer considers, will be built in Europe by 1985. I appeal for one site to be established at Redcar but I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make it an absolutely "clean" steelworks. The only such works to be established so far anywhere in the world is Houston in Texas. It costs a lot to make a steelworks "clean"—that is, to ensure that it does not pollute the environment—but it is worth it and makes for a great deal of employment at the end of the day. I therefore plead with my right hon. Friend to make it "clean" and ensure that no harm is done to the environment.
  Although the establishment of such a steelworks will provide a great many jobs, one must be frank and admit that the establishment of a giant works where I have recommended one should be established would carry with it the finish of the steelworks at Consett.
  When speaking of the development of the East Coast and the estuaries the development of the roads must come at the same time. I am referring not to local roads being dollied up but to new main motorways to the ports being constructed. My own constituency of Brighouse and Spenborough would be helped by that. It would be an insurance policy for the future. The first road which must be finished is the M62. I appeal to the Government to push ahead as rapidly as possible to get the rest of the contracts out to Hull and Humberside to complete the M18 which joins the M62 and goes to Humberside, where the bridge was thrown in as a result of a by-election pledge.
  We want to ensure that Humberside, which has real ramifications for the West Riding, Teesside and other parts of the East Coast, will get ahead. I also hope

  1191
  that we shall not forget that our standard of living is going up. Therefore alongside the motorways which will carry the heavy traffic to the ports there should also be leisure routes. I am delighted to see that the A64 will soon bypass Tadcaster, York and Malton, which is a good thing for the people of the West Riding. Access to the coast must be available, and this is the way to drive ahead.
  I now turn to the Bolton Report. I was amazed at what the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said. He cannot have read beyond page three. There are nine categories of small firms. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned only one category. I believe that that report contains the seeds of an increase in the number of jobs in development areas. It will be seen from the report that small firms employ a larger number of people than large firms. I am delighted to see that small firms employ more women than large companies and that they are more likely to employ people over 65 than large companies. The Bolton Report is, in my opinion, a real indicator of how to help some of the development areas.
  I was shocked to hear the right hon. Member for Workington say that the present Government had done nothing about the Bolton Report. He is quite wrong. He has not done his homework. I have seen the Minister with that responsibility and have made two suggestions to him. One is that small business scholarships should be set up. These would not require men to leave their businesses for up to a year, but only for days or up to two or three weeks, to attend seminars. We should have programmed learning for people in small businesses so that they can stay at their places of employment while they are learning.
  I am delighted with the results of the campaign which I carried on for free depreciation. The Chancellor went a long way towards it but he went further than I asked. I asked for it until entry into the Common Market. I believe that we are on the edge of a boom. A detonator might be needed to set it off. That detonator may be a reduced Bank Rate, and I accept everything that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said about that. I do not think, however, that the detonator could be operated until after Christmas. If it were it might bankrupt
  1192
  some businesses, especially if it were done on purchase tax.
  For 50 years neither party has been successful in the development areas. We must get radical about this. The Government should go ahead because they have 15 years at their disposal. They will succeed.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. David Reed: Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I am sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment had to leave for another engagement, but I am glad to see a Minister from his Department on the Front Bench. The last time the right hon. Gentleman intervened in a debate on the regions, in which I followed him, I had occasion to compliment him on his abilities as a practitioner of public relations.
  What the right hon. Gentleman was doing then was a favourite trick of this Government in their early months—totalling up a few measures over four or five years, and producing them, like a rabbit out of a hat, as something good for the regions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that anyone who knows public relations will confirm that one trouble about it is that one can go on promising but eventually one has to produce the goods. That is what this Government have failed to do.
  When I heard the Secretary of State's catalogue of stale news I could not believe that that was all that this Government could offer the country with a situation in which 1 million people are likely to be unemployed this winter and in which in the Northern Region the figure will approach 100,000. We can only hope that the Under-Secretary will offer us something else, because what we have been offered so far will not even scratch the surface of the problem in the North-East.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) spoke about the ways in which Governments of both parties had tried a stick and carrot policy to attract new industry to the regions. There is nothing to be gained from a discussion of the variations in such a policy. In fact, the only way to judge the effectiveness of any Government's regional policy is for help to be provided in the ways which are really needed. As far as the

  1193
  North-East is concerned, the help needed now is new jobs.
  I do not want to sound as if I am complaining about the environmental and infrastructure improvements which this Government, quite rightly, are pushing through. These things are welcome, but what we really need is new jobs.
  If one looks at the figures for the first few months of this Government's term of office, and compares these with a similar period under the previous Administration's stick and carrot system, it is easy to see which of the two parties was the more successful. If one compares January to September, 1970, with the same period this year, it will be seen that in 1970 in the Northern Region 185 industrial development certificates were granted and the estimated number of new jobs was 15,700, and over a similar period this year we find that only 80 I.D.C.s have been granted and a total estimated number of 4,179 new jobs found. What counts in the North-East is the number of new jobs, but the help which the Government are giving has brought about a three-fold deterioration since this Administration came into office.
  I have heard the Government's case for this—that their measures have not yet had time to take effect, that reflation is on the way; that investment will follow, and that their inducements will start to bite and attract new industry into the regions. I have doubts, however, whether that will happen, because before the measures can take effect the Government must restore industrial confidence in their own determination to tackle regional problems which was destroyed by over-hasty measures in October last year.
  Even if the Government do this, they will have to go a long way to restore the differentials between development and non-development areas which they have done their best to cut back over the last 18 months. What concerns us in regions like the North-East is that we shall never get the sort of employment we need unless there is a Government which are prepared to offer blatant economic discrimination in favour of development areas, in favour of those regions with the worst unemployment problems. I am sorry that this Government have given no
  1194
  indication that they take the problems of regions such as the North-East so seriously.
  Whatever their position may be, and we have heard a lot about that during the debate, there are six short-term measures which the Government could take almost immediately to help with the short-term unemployment problems in the North-East. At the top of the list I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West. He was right to call for urgent action on the Government's dispersal policy with their own Departments.
  I have good reason to be worried about whether the promised review has been a thoroughgoing review and whether every Department has been included in it. This is why I have tabled Questions to all major Government Departments which will be appearing on the Order Paper over the next week or so asking what their contribution will be to the dispersal policy.
  We want a positive decision by the Government to get as many as possible of their non-essential London-based Departments out of the city, and when we talk about out of London we do not mean to Home County locations; we are talking about development areas.
  This is so important because not only would the dispersal of Government Departments help in the creation of new jobs in the right sectors, where there are few opportunities now for school leavers, but it would also be an indication to private enterprise that they were taking the regional problem seriously and doing what they could to tackle it.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the regional employment premium which the Government are due to phase out at the end of 1974. I add my plea to that of others that they should reconsider this decision seriously. The premium not only has the advantage of being an inducement for new firms to come into the regions, but it is also a great help to firms already there. If we look at the number of new jobs created in any year in any of the regions it will be seen that normally much more than half of the total comes from firms which have already got roots in the regions and are expanding. The R.E.P. could help a lot here.

  1195
  There are other things that the Government could do. There is absolutely no reason why the sort of financial inducements that they offer, watered down as they may be, could not be offered to firms already in the regions. Again, they would be helping in terms of what the regions need.
  Fourthly, the Government should produce, and it would be for the first time, a detailed assessment giving their own positive views on what the likely effects of entry into the E.E.C. will be on the regions. I am sure that many investment decisions have been held up as a result of firms not knowing what changes entry to the E.E.C. will mean in regional inducement policies or what changes there will be to the economic life of Britain as a whole. The Government owe it to their friends in industry to publish an authoritative review setting out the likely effect of entry to the E.E.C. upon the regions.
  Fifthly, the Government should reverse their most disastrous single decision to locate the new V.A.T. headquarters at Southend. More than any other single decision, this has undermined industrial confidence in the Government's determination to put right regional problems. If when the Government have an opportunity to establish something in a development area—and I would prefer it to be the Northern Region, but any of the development areas are eligible—they do not do so but instead establish an enterprise which can provide up to 10,000 new jobs quite deliberately in an area such as Southend, then private enterprise has a right to say, "If the Government will not help the regions, why should we?"
  Sixthly, the Government have been honest recently in admitting to the House that their earlier economic forecasts were wrong, that they had made mistakes—probably because of the advice they were getting—when it came to handling the economy generally. When it comes to the regions, why cannot the Government be equally honest and say, "All right, we made a mistake during the early period of our Government"? As has been shown by the number of new firms moving in and the new jobs being created, the Government's regional policy is failing and they should
  1196
  have the courage to come to the House and admit it.
  None of these suggestions is outside the scope of the Government. They can start doing something now. If anything practical is to happen during their term of office and they are to provide the new jobs, the Government will have to show private enterprise that they have the political will to tackle regional problems. There are likely to be 100,000 people out of work in the Northern Region this winter. There is a limit to the length of time that they can go on simply living and hoping, waiting for promises to come true. The people have a right to demand some action from the Government, and I only hope that the Government will have the courage to respond to their request.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. David Mudd: It is interesting that tonight the House has unwittingly embarked upon a rare piece of parliamentary history for West Country Members in that of the last six speakers no less than three of us have the honour to represent Cornish constituencies. It is equally inevitable that contributions from three Cornish Members will produce no less than three different assessments of the problem confronting Cornwall and three completely different theories as to how they can best be tackled. Without commenting on the varied points made by my colleagues so far, I would hazard the suggestion that the current unemployment problem in Cornwall is as much due to a social, industrial and economic change within the county as it is attributable to a political reason.
  If we look at figures between 1959 and 1969 there is growing evidence of a swing away from the extractive industries and a growth of employment in the manufacturing industries. For instance, between 1959 and 1969 there was a 30 per cent. increase in the number of jobs available in Cornish manufacturing industries. The figures rose from 15,638 to almost 20,000. Although this increase of 4,000 jobs was offset by the loss of 6,000 jobs in the extractive industries, creating a crude deficit of 2,000 jobs, the important factor is that the swing from extractive work to manufacturing work led to higher pay packets with the result that the Cornish economy

  1197
  became that much stronger and the county moved towards the state of economic self-sufficiency that must be the basis of its economic survival.
  Although the national trend in the extractive industries is one of gradual decline, the renaissance of tin-mining in Cornwall is already having a dramatic effect, so much so that many of us can hardly believe that it is happening. In September, 1969, the total labour force employed in Cornish tin-mining stood at 1,028. Only a year later it had gone up to 1,270 and at the end of November this year it had leapt to 1,557, a 50 per cent. increase over two years. It is worth noting that the area manager of the Department of Employment is on record as having said recently that tin-mining is the only bright spot in a very depressed employment situation. Certainly the opening of one major tin mine in Cornwall in October and the probable opening of another early next year undoubtedly gives rise to a degree of optimism about employment particularly in the western half of the county.
  Cornwall has had certain conspicuous successes in the attraction of industry, notably over the past 12 months, and here I take issue with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). For example, at the end of 1970 there were six blueprint projects on offer to the county. Three are now in operation with additional jobs for 360 people and a fourth is now a firm proposal with an additional 300 jobs. This year alone, despite the alleged economic disincentives, another five projects have been decided for the county. They will provide more than 1,400 jobs in all, mainly in the Camborne-Redruth and Falmouth-Penryn areas. Unfortunately these new jobs, together with the expansion of employment in the mining industry, are still not sufficient to offset the growing number of redundancies in Cornish industry generally.
  I wonder whether the Cornish unemployed men and women are receiving the support to which they are entitled from certain local councils and planning authorities. One local authority in the western part of the county has already become notorious for its virtual refusal even to look at improvement grant applications in excess of £2,000, with the result
  1198
  that much-needed work is being denied the building trade at this critical time.
  The Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council is, with some justification, annoyed at the decision of the Western Area Planning Authority to give planning permission for factory space, which could provide up to 200 jobs, to be used as a wholesale food warehouse which will provide about 30 jobs.
  It is against that background of attracting industrial expansion to Cornwall that we come to the glossy penny-dreadful produced by the Department of Trade and Industry and circulated today. Fingering with excitement my way past its cover, which carries a motif of creeping coral, I come to page 24 which deals with South-West England. I am a little worried about this page for two reasons. First, it contains two blatant inaccuracies. Anyone who is likely to take action on or to be interested in an official publication is likely to be a little sceptical if he finds that it contains inaccuracies. The first of these is the spelling of Camborne, which here includes a "u". Second, a caption to a photograph refers to messing about in boats off Falmouth when the photograph shows it to be no such place. It is nearer Truro than Falmouth.
  On a more serious level, I believe that the document is dangerous because it implies two questions that should not be implied in a document designed to sell a region. For example, it says that two-thirds of the unemployed are in West Cornwall,
  "which has a long industrial tradition".
  The incoming industrialist might justifiably ask himself why, if it has been so long a traditional area of industrial employment, it now carries a major burden of unemployment. That in itself could be a disincentive to proceed further with initial investigations.
  Second, the document is perhaps dangerous in overselling the area under the heading of "Leisure". It lists the various amenities, the magnificent coastline, the holiday tradition and the sport enjoyed all the year round. The incoming industrialist might well ask "What hope have I of getting planning permission to set up in the first place, let alone expand, in this heaven beyond the Tamar?" There is a danger in this glossy over-selling. It is necessary to sell the area but not to that extent.

  1199
  To conclude, I shall try to be constructive but what I have to say will be controversial and will probably be equally unpopular on both sides of the House. It seems to me that with the terrifyingly high level of unemployment that the country is now enduring, both within the development areas and beyond their boundaries, the time might well be coming when, until the level of unemployment is reduced by at least 500,000, the Government should set up a regional labour force recruited, paid for at union rates and utilised by the Government to turn the great skill, ability and determination to work of the unemployed into key public works for the benefit of the environment and the infrastructure generally. That would utilise all the skills of all the types of people who, although no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. It would restore to them their right to work, their dignity and their hopes of further employment. It is not too difficult a task at least to be considered by the Government.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Everyone is happy when a sinner repents. While the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) has not become a convert to the Labour Party and socialist concepts in making the statement he has just made, he has taken a small, haltering, faltering step in that direction. All hon. Members were very interested in his proposition, which is very much in line with what many of us have been arguing for some time, that we need increased Government intervention and a full-scale public works programme to deal with the immediate problem, particularly in the regions.
  I want to speak primarily about the problems of regions, not in isolation from the overall unemployment problem but recognising that even if the Government carry through a full-scale reflationary policy there will still be areas like Merseyside, the North-East Coast, the area of which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken, South Wales and parts of Scotland with particular and peculiar problems requiring a regional policy by the Government to create conditions of full employment.
  It would be an illusion to believe that merely by reflating the economy and by
  1200
  creating full employment in areas like Birmingham and the South-East we shall solve the problem of the regions with their deep-seated difficulties, many of them going back to the days of the deep depression of 1929 and the 1930s. Let us take my own area as an example. The North-West was the cradle of the industrial revolution. Anyone travelling through some of the Lancashire towns can see by the way the earth has been torn up, the great slag heaps and the derelict cotton mills that that was where the industrial revolution was born. It is here that we are reaping the harvest of the dragons' teeth sewn in those days, and it is here that we require full Government assistance to overcome our problems.
  In my own area of Merseyside we have 53,000 workers unemployed, 7 per cent. of the working population. Nearly 11 per cent. of the males are unemployed in one of the most highly concentrated industrial conurbations in the country.
  There has been a decline in the shipbuilding industry and in the traditional industries. Over the years the Labour Government and, to be fair, even the previous Tory Government did a great deal to introduce new industries into the area. There are great motor-car factories which did not exist before 1959 and other industries which are complementary to the motor-car industry. In the 10 years from 1959 to 1969, 69,000 new jobs were created on Merseyside. Yet in 1959 there were 30,000 unemployed, in 1969 there were 35,000 unemployed and today there are 53,000 unemployed. We have brought in these new industries but we have been running fast in order to stand still in the position in which we were in 1959.
  The Labour Government, of course, did far more than any other Government have ever done in creating new employment in areas like Merseyside. The Government's policy on investment grants and industrial development certificates, and the doubt about what will happen to regional employment premiums, have all created uncertainty in the area and aggravated a situation which was already a difficult one. We have to learn that lesson. We have to say, frankly and honestly, that even all the efforts that were made by the Labour Government,

  1201
  magnificent as they were, did not solve the problems of the regions. Even a general reflation will not solve the problem of the regions. Additional action must be taken.
  First, we must get back to the policy of investment grants, continue the regional employment premium and reverse the Government's policy to the policy of the Labour Government. There are some things which we must do immediately. I should like to see developed a general public works programme, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, although I do not accept everything he said, to ensure that labour-intensive work is available for the unskilled and the semiskilled who make up the great bulk of the unemployed. These are the short-term, immediate measures we should take.
  There is no point in coming to the House and making a great speech about the terrors of unemployment without producing positive ideas on how to deal with the long-term problem. I suggest that there should be set up a Ministry of Regional Development which, under the next Labour Government, would become part of a new Department of Economic Affairs. To solve the long-term problem we must have active Government intervention.
  We shall have to go further than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) recently made a speech in the House, with which I agree, suggesting that purchasing by local authorities, nationalised industries and the Government should be geared to the development areas. We also need to develop new publicly-owned industries. I am not arguing that we should necessarily take over existing industries. There are many Government research stations which produce excellent new ideas which sometimes hang around for years without being taken up by private enterprise. The Government should take up those ideas, develop them and use them in the publicly-owned industries. New publicly-owned industries in areas like Merseyside could be geared to help the underdeveloped countries and these two purposes could be complementary one to the other.
  1202
  When the Bill to deal with the shipbuilding industry comes before the House we must be sure that the Government will not be tied by their doctrinaire policies of the last 18 months. The Government have already had to accept more intervention than they wanted to accept. I hope it will be recognised that the Government will have to help the shipbuilding industry by subsidies and financial aid, as is done already in Japan, in the Common Market countries and even in that citadel of capitalism, the United States of America. The Government must get away from laissez-faire capitalism and stop looking to the past. No modern industrialised country can hope to solve these problems without economic and political intervention by the Government.
  The Labour Government did not solve this problem entirely although they made great strides towards solving it. Previous Tory Governments have not solved the problems of the regions. The present Government have for the last 18 months aggravated the problems to such an extent that there is now the disastrous possibility of there being almost 1 million unemployed by Christmas.
  There is a lesson in this. Many of my hon. Friends and I have argued for Socialist policies. Some people think that Socialism has to be looked at from a distance—rather like looking at a ship through a pair of binoculars—and has no immediate relevance. Laissez-faire capitalism has not solved the problem, a mixed economy has not solved the problem. When we have a new Labour Government the regional problems will be solved in the only way in which they can be solved in the last analysis, and that is by a full-scale Socialist economic plan which will be not only an indicative but a physical plan on the basis of our Socialist convictions.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer), especially because I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) through having to attend a meeting of a Select Committee. I find myself in agreement for once with some of the things that the hon. Member for Walton said. Before he mentioned the words, I wrote down

  1203
  on a small sheet of paper "running fast to stand still", and that is the position in which we find ourselves on Merseyside.
  I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about direct labour, nor indeed with those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) on this topic, since I believe that direct labour means making losses; but I am in favour of public works.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Walton said about shipbuilding. There may perhaps be too many shipbuilding yards in the world today, and not a great many shipbuilding companies making money. One thing that surprises me in this country is how few, if any, of the shipbuilding yards are interested in building oil rigs for the extraction of oil from the North Sea. It is surprising that they do not appear to be interested in building rigs since in Singapore, for example, one finds a whole shipyard given over to building them.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On what does the hon. Gentleman base that assertion? I could tell him of a group of yards in the Upper Clyde which would be delighted to build oil rigs.
  Mr. Tilney: I do not know what the Upper Clyde is doing in this instance, but when I asked the Government how many oil rigs were being built they were unable to tell me. It is high time that statistics were kept on the building of oil rigs in this country.
  Unless we have more public works I believe that unemployment will rise almost every year. Fewer and fewer people are able to produce more and more wealth. Once people's working hours are reduced they obviously have much more leisure, but when people have leisure they want much more money to spend. Therefore, if the amount of work is reduced one will have to pay people more. This is a major problem and it is difficult to predict how to solve it.
  I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Walton about the regional employment premium. It may be that many companies which operate in the
  1204
  development areas depend to some extent on this premium for their profit. Unless profit exists, money cannot be ploughed back to pay for the modern equipment which is necessary to continue to provide employment. I am worried that unemployment may stand at a much higher figure in future than the figure which has operated in the past. Certain major undertakings should be looked at by Her Majesty's Government.
  A good deal has already been done to improve communications although the South Lancashire motorway is not anywhere near completed, and the North Cheshire motorway link with the new tunnel has not been completed because we are still examining the box girder bridges. This will be a major cost to be placed upon our community and I hope we shall receive Government help.
  I believe that the country should consider undertaking great public works such as the Channel Tunnel. Lancashire does not want to be on the periphery of Europe. It must have good communications, and this is why the Channel Tunnel might be good for Lancashire.
  Another piece of public work on which we should decide at once is the reclamation of the Dee. I remember 20 years ago urging that action should be taken to get our plans for such a reclamation scheme. A Minister of the day, who is now dead, said "I do not think we shall ever have unemployment again." Times change. We should have had a blueprint for such a scheme many years ago. But the Government still have not made up their minds about it.
  We have heard much about dereliction, and one has only to go round the South Docks at Liverpool to see a massive area of dereliction. I do not know what will happen to that area. I hope we shall get Government help to develop the area once the docks are closed and the Port of Liverpool moved further north.
  I think I should mention the question of schools. I know the Government are doing a great deal for primary schools but I recently paid a visit to the Corinthian Avenue school in my constituency, a school that was built in the 1920s. There are three other such wooden schools in Liverpool. I appreciate that the Government say they are dealing with all the primary schools which were built before

  1205
  1903 but there are many schools built in the last century which are better than the school in Corinthian Avenue. With so many men in the building trade out of work on Merseyside such schools should be banished from the earth and far better ones put in their place. That particular school I saw is a disgrace.
  One of the problems of Merseyside is its image. I believe it is getting better but over a number of years the image has been one of strikes, although only perhaps in certain quarters. I understand that at present there is a go-slow in the docks at Garston and that those docks are making a loss of £150,000 a year. How can those docks be expected to continue if the extra Liverpool award is given to the dockers there? If the docks are closed down—I hope they will not be closed—the dockers there will find other jobs, but the 300 men in the industry who are not dockers may be out of a job for the rest of their lives. It worries me that action by a limited section of the community can affect others to their great detriment.
  Mr. Heffer: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for the increase in the number of strikes in the last 10 years is that the motor car industry was brought to that area? When that happened the average worker in the area, who had been poorly paid in his own industry, realised how low paid he was. The last great dock strike ended only when the figure was brought up to the London level. Those workers were getting £4 a week less than London workers.
  Mr. Tilney: There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says, but no industry can go on making a loss. I am in favour of high wages and high productivity. One sees this in Europe, and, indeed, I saw it only a fortnight ago. This is why I believe we should go into the Common Market.
  I urge the Minister to do what he can to move offices from London out to the provinces. We have superb office clerical labour on Merseyside. We also have comparatively cheap office accommodation which is ready for occupation. If there is to be a bigger bureaucracy following entry into Europe, let part of that staff he situated in the North-West or in the North.
  1206
  I should also like to make a plea for more training. Many young people seem to think that training is not worthwhile because it is said that some who are trained are now out of a job. However, I feel that as many young people as possible should learn a trade, but I am told that there are many vacant places in our training schools. The more the Government can do to fill those places, the better. So much for the immediate decisions that are required.
  In the mid-term, cannot a decision be made on steel? Nothing would be better for Merseyside than a decision to put a new steelworks at Shotton. I know that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) wants it in his constituency. I want it in North Wales because I believe that it would produce cheap steel for the whole of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
  In due course, cannot a decision be made about the reclamation of Morecambe Bay or even of the Solway Firth? This country will be needing water in increasing quantities. Oddly enough, as a Conservative I am in favour of the nationalisation of water. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone some way towards that end, I want to see a water grid throughout the country.
  For the long term, for the next depression, when we have spent ourselves out of the present one—
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth. I assume that he means the barrage scheme.
  Mr. Tilney: Yes, I mean the multipurpose scheme for transport, for fresh water and for recreation. The Dee barrage scheme would help in the provision of amenities for my part of the world, where many people want recreational facilities.
  For the long term, cannot the Government think up further blueprints for, say, a Channel bridge after the Channel tunnel is built and for what the Dutch would have done long ago on the Lancashire coast, which is to shorten the coastline for transport and to reclaim a lot of land?
  I shall not comment on the Common Market, although I was there a fortnight ago and I found no fewer than 20,000

  1207
  Britons working and 70,000 Turks. Once the decision is made for Britain to go in, there will be massive investment here. In the meantime I trust that the Government will go ahead to improve the country's infrastructure. I realise that we have to pay our way but we must take greater risks in the future if we are to have the solid level of employment which everyone wants.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) raised, among other interesting matters, what may possibly be two major issues. He spoke about the training of young people. Against the background of the unemployment figures that we are discussing in this debate, one of our first requests to the Government about training is that those young people who are unemployed, through the fault of Government policies and the accumulation of employment policies of the post-war period, should be given the opportunity of training in some sort of trade or calling during the period that they are unemployed. By that, I do not mean the limited number of training centre opportunities which are available; I have in mind a big extension of training centre opportunities.
  Of course, it must be remembered that we have to deal not only with youngsters who are unemployed, school leavers and others, some of whom have been unemployed for two or three years. Having dealt with them by a rapid expansion of training centres, those centres should then be made available to workers in the higher age groups. I mean the over-45's and over-55's, who are in need and who in some areas are demanding re-training to adjust themselves to the new industries moving into their areas.
  Those of us who have been in this House during the past decade have watched the two Front Benches grappling with these problems. We have seen figures and statistics marching and countermarching between the two Front Benches. In this debate, we are almost back to where we started. While there have been tremendous achievements in certain areas in attracting new jobs, successive Governments in the post-war period have to admit to failure, not that they did not tackle the problem of unemployment,
  1208
  but that they underestimated it and only began tackling it when it had become a major problem.
  Reference has been made to Lord Hailsham's visit to the North-East in 1963 and the report which followed it. I do not intend to deal with much of the political in-fighting on this subject, but it is necessary to remind the Government that this is almost precisely where they came in. In 1963 a Conservative Government had been in power for 12 years. It was only then that we began to get some action. Indeed, 1963 is not without significance, because the present Prime Minister was successively Minister of Labour and President of the Board of Trade in that Administration. I remember a visit that he paid to my constituency to open a new factory. He chided me and the chairman of the local council with the efforts being made to bring new jobs to the area by saying that the area had been oversold and that very soon there would be a shortage of labour in South-East Northumberland. Some eight years later we face the same percentage unemployment figure in terms of the national average as we experienced then.
  We have heard a great deal of talk from both Front Benches about the measures needed to deal with this problem. We have to go beyond the measures adopted in the post-war period. Tonight we are not pleading for work for the development areas. We are pleading that the development areas, with the undoubted skills, abilities and aptitudes that they have at their disposal, should be given an opportunity to make a contribution to the nation's well being.
  The hon. Member for Wavertree spoke about losses which were being sustained in certain quarters. The greatest loss that this nation can sustain is to have more than 900,000 people unemployed and their skills not utilised to give the nation the standard of living that it needs.
  Mr. Tilney: Surely it should be possible to employ many of those at present unemployed and still make profits, or enable us to have the communications which produce the infrastructure that the country wants.
  Mr. Milne: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. When I spoke about losses, I was not being drawn into the controversy about profits or losses.

  1209
  I was illustrating that the greatest single loss that we can sustain is by not using the manpower and skills available to us to give us the standard of living that we need. In almost every single constituency in the land there are schools to be built, there are hospitals to be built and expanded, and there are slum areas to be cleared. The solutions to all these problems lie in our hands. We need only skilled manpower to solve them. Instead, we neglect that skilled manpower.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that when we are talking about booms and the expansion of industry we must remember that we are living in a hungry, underdeveloped world. The nations of Africa, Asia and elsewhere could be the means by which we could solve our problems as well as theirs, because aid to the developing countries can also be used as aid to the development areas of Britain. The small tractors and agricultural equipment which they need to provide foodstuffs for the hungry nations of the world could, if matched with each other, solve a great deal of the poverty, hunger and misery which now exist.
  The will to carry out this policy, as I reminded the then Government eleven years ago in my maiden speech, means that the Government must turn their backs on the traditional policies which they expounded in the General Election in 1970 and have been endeavouring to put into operation since. They must realise that if we are to deal with Britain's jobless, particularly in South-East Northumberland, they must start talking about directing industry to areas where the manpower is available and seeing that industry goes into the development districts. When we talk about development we really must mean what we say and intend to carry it out.
  Many people believe that if we direct industry we must direct labour as well. I am willing to take the risk. Throughout the industrial history of this country, the people I represent and people in the development areas generally have been directed anyway. Every time one of my constituents takes a single ticket to go to work elsewhere in Britain he is being directed. I do not see why labour directed in that way cannot have as an alternative the directing of industry
  1210
  which we so greatly need. It is not merely that factories are needed in the Northern Region, particularly in South-East Northumberland, but that the nation needs the wealth which these people can produce. They have demonstrated, by their ability to adapt themselves, that they are capable of handling any new industries which may go to the Northern Region. Indeed, a wide range of industries has already appeared.
  In about ten years there has been a loss of over 30,000 mining jobs in Northumberland. We know that there are difficulties because this industry is labour intensive whereas most other industries are capital intensive and not capable of producing the jobs which the older industries created. Nevertheless, the direction of industry must have top priority in the Government's programme for the immediate future.
  The attraction of new industries, which has gone on apace since the late 1950s, must be assisted. We have had reference to the Hailsham Report and its application in 1963. But that report was preceded by the courageous act of the Northumberland County Council, despite Government hostility at that time, in creating a new town at Cramlington which has attracted a considerable number of industries of national and international renown. I ask the Government to look at the existing factories and to discuss with managements and others concerned with their running how they can be expanded to attract new industry and create more jobs quickly. One of the blank spots in the Government's policy is that, while they are prepared to invest money in the attraction of new industry—we do not complain about that; in fact, we are asking them to do a great deal more—if an existing factory wishes to expand and create new jobs, difficulties are put in its way.
  We are facing a new situation which must be tackled very quickly. We must deal with the direction of labour, there must be a thorough examination of the possibilities of expanding industries already operating in the areas—the quickest single way of creating new jobs—and we must deal with and encourage confidence returning to the development areas and the question of full employment being regarded as a real possibility by this or any Government which may

  1211
  succeed them. We have talked about full employment only when we have needed the labour force. We have done little planning to create the full employment to which both major political parties pledged themselves in the immediate post-war period.
  We are really dealing with the crisis of the post-war period. We are not dealing with the Government's failure to provide jobs. We do not want a repetition of comparisons between the records of different Governments in post-war Britain which have failed to solve the problems of the development areas by giving people the full employment which they and the country need. When we have thrown aside the arguments and counter-arguments we have to get back to the basis that any Government which want to survive in future must have the slogan of full employment emblazoned on their banner.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: I will not follow the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) by commenting immediately on his speech. I agree with much of what he said, but I will raise one or two of his remarks during my speech.
  I had not intended to speak in the debate. However, all five Members for the County of Cornwall will be participating and I should not like to be the only one on this occasion who did not speak up for Cornwall.
  I have not much to add to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) because they covered the ground very well indeed. I did not hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe); he can always be expected to be provocative and to speak up for that part of Cornwall which he represents, but sometimes his views are not quite as sound as those of my hon. Friends.
  Unemployment in Cornwall and the development areas has been persistent. Indeed, we have the same problem in Cornwall and the South-West development area as has plagued Scotland and Wales for a very long time.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Blyth that no Government of any party has
  1212
  come anywhere near to solving the problem of unemployment in the development areas. We need a radical reappraisal of the policies which all Governments have followed since the war.
  I think that Cornwall should demand more parity in parliamentary time. Scotland's problems are constantly being debated in this House, and it seems to have become the practice to have innumerable debates on Wales. Yet, unemployment in the South-West development area is persistently higher than in Scotland and Wales. Unemployment in my employment areas in Cornwall is 13 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively. In St. Ives itself unemployment represents 15 per cent. of the labour force. That situation has continued for many years, and it does not seem to Members from Cornwall, even accepting that there are only five of us and there are 35 or more Members representing Scotland, that, relative to our numbers, we get parity in parliamentary time.
  Indeed, we would also like to demand parity in Government spending. I represent perhaps some of the most outlying islands in the British Isles, the Isles of Scilly. I am aware of, and watch closely, the subsidies and advantages granted to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am conscious that the Isles of Scilly and my constituency in West Cornwall do not receive in Government subsidies and in cross-subsidisation anything like the kind of help that is received in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
  This is not purely a Government matter. It is also a matter for the public corporations. For instance, when I last looked at it, I found that B.E.A. were subsidising Scottish air services to the tune of £½ million a year, whereas in my constituency we do not even have an air service apart from a helicopter link with the Isles of Scilly. In fact, I believe that in travelling time my constituency is considerably further from this House than are the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland, simply because we do not have the communications which Scotland has in terms of direct access from London to Aberdeen, to Glasgow, to the islands of Scotland, and so on.

  1213
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said one thing which surprised me very much. It surprised me because I agreed with it. He said—and I hope I am quoting him correctly—that it was not just a question of pumping more money into the economy. The problems of the development areas go beyond the problems of further reflation of the economy. I listened to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) talking about the T.U.C.'s plan for further reflation. I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. When inflation is running at 8 per cent., and when prices are rising at 8 per cent., what on earth is the point of reflating? Why should anyone want to add additional inflation—which is all that reflation is—to a situation in which prices are rising at 8 per cent. and more? That seems to be a recipe not for greater real growth but merely for faster rising prices.
  What we want to achieve is not a greater rise in inflation, but a greater rise in real demand, and I think that there is a constant confusion in our debates on unemployment—and I think that this is a confusion which exists in the mind of the T.U.C.—that, somehow, if value sales are increased, so are volume sales. They are two different things. It does not help the country one little bit to sell 110 instead of 100. With inflation at 10 per cent., the country is no better off. It is unit sales, and unit demand that we want, and those will not be increased by reflating the economy further. It is real growth that we are all after on whichever side of the House we sit.
  The problems in Cornwall are very different from those in many of the other development areas. I should not like to generalise upon the problems of the regions, because it seems to me that there is too much generalisation about regional problems, and each development area has special problems of its own. That is why I think the principal remedy for our problems lies in the decentralisation of power from Whitehall. Whitehall, with its all-embracing power and arrogance, believes that it knows what everybody wants. I am not getting at my hon. Friend. He knows that I never ever get at him. It is a question, in the last resort, of the decentralisation of regional policy,
  1214
  and that is something to which I shall return.
  Our problems in Cornwall derive not from the decline of our principal industry—though that may be the problem in other areas—but from the very success of it. Agriculture is the major traditional industry of the county, together with tourism and mining. Our unemployment derives from the rapid increase in productivity in agriculture, which has been far more rapid than in industry generally since the war. It is the very success of our leading industry that has displaced people from their jobs. In that respect our problems are different, and derive from different reasons, but they are no less serious for that.
  I have considerable respect for the views of some of my hon. Friends. Whom can I quote? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is the best example. I do not think that he really believes in regional policies at all. He believes—I hope that I express his views correctly—that the market will sort out the problems. The market mechanism would, indeed, sort it out, in time but there is a confusion between the public sector and the private sector. If one wants to justify a regional policy, one has to look at the costs of public sector enterprises as well as of those in the private sector.
  If private industry declines, costs in the public sector—electricity supply, water supply, road and rail charges, and so on, rise because there is over-capacity in the public sector and the optimum size of both sectors is put in jeopardy. I am in favour of regional policies because, although I believe that the market mechanism will in the last resort sort the matter out, I want to cut down the time-lag, and that means some kind of Government intervention.
  The hon. Member for Blyth said that we must go in for more direction of industry. I cannot agree with that, because I wonder whether a study has been made of the number of companies which have not expanded their facilities at all because they have not obtained an I.D.C. Has there ever been a study into those industries which have been told, "You

  1215
  cannot build another plant in Birmingham, or in the area where you wish to expand, alongside your other facilities. You have to go to Scotland, to Wales or to Cornwall"? How many industries have then said, "If we have to put a factory at the other end of the country where we shall have much less control over it, we shall not expand our facilities at all"? My guess is that there are many companies in just that situation.
  When we talk about I.D.C.s and the direction of industry, in the last resort we have to think of the efficiency of the economy as a whole, and it cannot be for the Government to know whether an industry in the private sector will be more efficient or less efficient by putting up a factory 400 miles from where the people who are running the business want it to be. We must look to the efficiency of the economy as a whole and not go overboard on the question of regional unemployment and say that, because there is high and unacceptable unemployment in the regions, that is a reason for diminishing the industrial efficiency of companies generally by sending them to places to which they do not wish to go.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: When did the market mechanism solve the problem? Many of us believe that it created the problem in the development areas?
  Mr. Nott: I have already explained that I believe that the Government should have regional policies. I want to go on and explain where I think the Government should act. I do not disagree with the proposition that the market mechanism has not solved the problem. I said earlier that the market mechanism by itself is not sufficient.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the I.D.C. system should be abolished, or does he agree that I.D.C.s can be effective only in an atmosphere of growth when business wants to grow and does not say, "We will not grow, because an I.D.C. is refused"?
  Mr. Nott: I.D.C.s will be more effective in an atmosphere of growth. I am not in favour of abolishing the I.D.C. system altogether, but I do not want a tighter I.D.C. system than what we
  1216
  have at present, because that would lead to a great deal of additional inefficiency in industry. I can think of factories which would never have expanded had they not been allowed to build an addition to their plant alongside their existing facilities.
  There would be no problem if the United Kingdom did not have an economic and monetary union. If we had floating currencies, if Scotland had its own currency, if Wales had its own currency, if Cornwall had the Cornish penny or whatever it might be, and if all those currencies floated against one another, there would be no regional problem, because it would have a self-adjusting mechanism. However, we have an economic and monetary union and, therefore, the only way in which we can help these areas is by subsidies.
  In the last resort I do not think that subsidies—I use the word "subsidies" in a global sense meaning all the incentives, cash grants and investment incentives—are solving the problem, because what the subsidy is effectively doing is propping up industries which otherwise might well have declined faster and given place faster to a new and more modern industry.
  The problems of the regions are not improved by the system of subsidies from central Government. In the long run the problems are aggravated by subsidies, although subsidies are something for which all governments go simply because they are concerned with the immediate short-term problems of unemployment. But short-run remedies are detrimental often to long-term needs. If there had been no subsidies in Scotland, an area which I do not know, I should not be surprised if new industries would not have set themselves up there rather quicker than they have. However, no one can know the answer to that.
  I believe that the solution to regional problems lies basically in politics, not in economics. I say again that the major problem lies in a lack of decentralisation of power. I speak for Cornwall when I say that if Cornwall had been given half the amount of money that the central Government have poured into it over the years since it became a development area we would have been much better off than we are today. We should have had a

  1217
  proper road down to Cornwall and proper communications 10 years ago if we had had half the amount of money which has been spent on us by the central Government. We have always known that that is what is wanted.
  We had to wait for this Government to come to power before any Government promoted the programme for a proper dual carriageway right down to the end of Cornwall. Far 25 years we have been saying that this is necessary, but we have had to wait until now to get it into the Government programme.
  Mr. Bagier: The hon. Gentleman is living in a fool's paradise. The North-East has the finest road system in Britain but still has very high unemployment.
  Mr. Nott: I said that I thought that all the regions were different. I am referring specifically to my own county, which I know better than the hon. Gentleman does. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comment is accurate, but I am not referring to the North-East. If we had been given the money and been told to get on with it all those years ago, I am sure that our priorities would have been better than those of Whitehall, because we know better than Whitehall what we want: we live there and we know our problems.
  We would have spent the money, second, on building a conference centre. If we built a conference centre, we could extend the tourist season in my area and fill the hotels and boarding houses for an extra month. However, we cannot get a conference centre. We are not even allowed to have loan sanction to borrow the money for the local authorities to build a conference centre. There is no way to get the money, not even by borrowing it, because there is no mechanism which allows local areas to pursue their own schemes, even if they borrow the money.
  Therefore, I ask first for greater decentralisation in regional decision-making.
  Again speaking only of my own part of the world—Cornwall—the only mechanism which came close to what was required was the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1962, when he was Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of
  1218
  Trade, to form what he described as a Committee of Six in the South-West. The Six were to be representatives of the area who would make recommendations to the Government about what the South-West wanted in terms of development. Then the Labour Government came in and set up the framework of regional economic development councils.
  I do not have much knowledge about the regional economic development councils in other parts of the country, but I can certainly talk about the South-West one. The permanent officials of that one are very worthy and knowledgeable men, but they have no power. They work to Whitehall. The South-West Regional Economic Development Council is situated in Bristol. Bristol is further from where the real problems are in the South-West than it is from Dover. Penzance, which I represent and where my centre is, is further from Bristol than Dover is. However, the development council is situated at Bristol and it has not been the slightest good to us because it is a powerless creature of Whitehall. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) looks as if he is getting a little bored with my speech. He is not the man to look like that, because on many occasions over many years I have heard him speak at inordinately greater length than I have spoken. I shall therefore continue for a few more minutes. We know in which direction the hon. Gentleman's talents lie in the House. I have sat and listened to him and learned certain parliamentary tactics from him. I cannot say that I am very adept at the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary skills, but I have watched them not with admiration but with astonishment on more than one occasion.
  My last point on solutions is that there must be a senior Minister to co-ordinate this matter. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were put into the Cabinet tomorrow and told to get on with the job. However, the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Then there is the Secretary of State for Employment. Then there is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The whole structure is a complete shambles. There is no one to co-ordinate it. There

  1219
  must be a senior Minister to co-ordinate the Departments and to put some real flair, purpose and direction into this matter.
  Lastly, where the Government have power to help they have not exercised it. I refer not only to this Government but to all Governments of all parties. What the Government have done is this: they have poured money into giving incentives, cash grants, to the subsidiaries of American corporations and to capital-intensive industries to set up their plants in Scotland and Wales. I suppose this policy has brought some employment to these areas, but there has been a huge pouring out of money. Each job costs £2,500 or more to create. Where the Government have power, as hon. Gentlemen have said, is to move one of their own offices to another area. To a very large extent the unemployment in my constituency is among people 40 to 50 years old, and they could be helped if only the Government would move one of their thousands of offices to my constituency.
  Mr. Bagier: The Cabinet.
  Mr. Nott: Not, I think, the Cabinet. I do not necessarily want that, because I think the Cabinet is too large already. What we want is an office to mop up some of the unemployment in my area where we have many clerical people, who are trained. This is where the Government have power to do something. We have been asking successive Governments for twenty years. As someone has pointed out already, the V.A.T. office goes to Southend. That really is not satisfactory. There may be good reasons why the V.A.T. office should go to Southend, but we want the Government to disperse their offices to places of high unemployment and where there are clerical people who could be employed. No doubt there were very good arguments for sending the V.A.T. office to Southend.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to intervene on this point just in case it should be overlooked in the wind-up. My hon. Friend should be aware that only part of the V.A.T. office is going to Southend, probably not more than one-fifth, not more than 25 per cent., just the headquarters.
  1220
  There will be many substantial parts of the office besides.
  Mr. Nott: I was only making a general point about the dispersement of Government offices. I do not know the facts about that particular office. The point I am making is that an office of 1,000 people would completely wipe out the unemployment problem in my constituency, a problem which has been there for the last twenty years—and this is where the Government have the power to do something; but yet nothing has happened in twenty years.
  Then, in the far South-West we are a marvellous area for a teacher training college. We have all the leisure and sporting facilities, the boarding houses, and there is an enormous amount of winter accommodation in the area. Yet we cannot get a teacher training college down there. It goes to Plymouth, which is 60 miles away. We have a marvellous technical college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, the Cornwall Technical College. If we could get that up-graded to a polytechnic—or the University of Cornwall, which is what we would really like—that would be of great help, and it would not cost the Government very much more money immediately, and we could fill up all those boarding houses and guest houses in their off-peak season. The Government should turn our area into an educational area: there are great opportunities, and it would not cost very much at all.
  Then, when are the Government going to pay mobility grants? If a chap uproots himself to move to another area—to Birmingham, for example—to work there, there is great social cost. If a man is really prepared to leave his area, Scotland or Wales or Cornwall, and move to Birmingham to get a job—where there may be work available for his particular skill, of course—why not give him a mobility grant? Why not give him £10 to help him move, or £20? We have redundancy pay. If people are prepared to help to solve unemployment problems by moving elsewhere temporarily to work, let us give them financial assistance.
  I do not want Cornwall to change its character, but it has a really serious and continuing employment problem. I appeal to the Government to look carefully at my several points: first, loan

  1221
  sanctions for our own developments; second, decentralisation of control to local men; third, a senior Government Minister to co-ordinate all the Government Departments which have responsibility in these matters; fourth, new educational facilities which we could offer to the country as a whole; fifth, a dispersal of Government offices to the region; and, sixth, a new road, quick. In this way we would, at last, be on the move, and it would cost very little extra money beyond what is already committed to our cause.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has broken what up to the time of his speech had been a continuing self-denying ordinance among back benchers to contribute only essential points in about 10 minutes each. I think the good will which I normally have towards the hon. Gentleman evaporated when he exceeded his 10 minutes. I do not want to take up many of his points, but I must refer to one. After all, this is a debate and we are supposed to refer to one another's speeches.
  The hon. Gentleman interested me when he said that he felt that the problem in Wales and perhaps Scotland had got a bit too much attention in this House. I would not agree with that, but I would say that Lancashire Members at any rate should now be demanding a greater share of the attention of this House in order to spotlight some of the problems of Lancashire. I am conscious that a lot of my colleagues on the back benches have, like me, been here all the afternoon and want to take part. I shall be brief, but I want to spend a few minutes on Lancashire's problems.
  We are sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place—we understand the reason—but today he mentioned amongst other things that £160 million had been poured into what I would call the urban renewal programme. Perhaps the Under-Secretary who replies will help me, because I want to know how much of that sum will be spent in the greater Wigan area. The hon. Gentleman will know, having received a deputation from Wigan, the concern which is felt in the greater Wigan area about the discrimination which exists against areas such as Wigan which do not receive any Government help in their unemployment problems
  1222
  and which are further discriminated against in that the key to getting aid for an urban renewal programme is the unemployment problem. Wigan is therefore discriminated against on two counts: it does not get money to help with urban renewal and it does not get money to help solve the unemployment problem.
  I know from the answer to a Parliamentary Question which I put down that there are 85 areas in the country which have a lesser unemployment problem than has Wigan and which receive aid to overcome their unemployment problems. We have the problem of total and industrial dereliction in the North-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that if one walked or drove through Lancashire one would visit places which were in the van of the industrial revolution, and we bear some of the scars of that. The Labour Government were at fault to some extent, but it is the present Government who say that they will give aid to tackle the problem of unemployment but not give further assistance to non-development areas to tackle social and industrial dereliction.
  That was a point which was made very forcefully to the Prime Minister when he met the North-West Industrial Development Association in Manchester on 29th October. I think that the Town Clerk of Wigan, if he has done nothing else, qualifies for entry into the Guinness Book of Records because at that meeting he rendered the Prime Minister speechless for the first time ever. The Prime Minister was a bit petulant at first because there had been a leak about the agenda but when he had simmered down, when he had had a cup of tea, when he found that he was amongst people only wanting to help him to get his priorities right, he became a bit more benevolent and Mr. Craik, the Town Clerk, very forcefully put to him the question about discrimination against the Wigan area. The Prime Minister, after a few moments' pause for thought, said Mr. Craik had produced some very valid arguments. The Prime Minister was not stuck for words at most of that meeting and was even giving replies to people before they had asked him questions. On this one, however, he was stumped. I ask the Minister to be fair on this. If an area has specific problems, like urban renewal, on top of unemployment it is

  1223
  unfair to withhold the high assistance because that assistance is linked to unemployment, especially when people in Wigan know that 85 other areas have less unemployment than they.
  I return to the problems of Skelmersdale new town in my constituency. It is about the fourth time that I have raised the problems of "Skem" in the last two months, but I make no apology for that because we are in a very serious situation. We have a higher unemployment rate than the area from which people came to get away from the problem of unemployment.
  I have outlined sensible measures to help. One has been mentioned tonight. A number of Tory Members have come round to the view that if the Government mean to help the development areas, a proper Government dispersal policy will have to be implemented. I have outlined how this should be done for Skelmersdale.
  If we had an office block for 2,000 or 3,000 people many workers would be attracted and there would be sufficient capacity to take up the slack of the many unemployed boys and girls who, after leaving our marvellously equipped secondary modern schools, cannot use their skills. It is a poor start to have their bright hopes dashed. The Government could do something here. They could also get cracking on the hospital building programme. We have been told that Skem is the best buy for a new hospital site.
  The Government could also help those firms in the new town which are dithering about expansion. One or two firms which are as well established as firms can be in a new town after five or six years, have cut back on their expansion programmes. If they really mean business, the Government should ask what help they need to expand. Their expansion would obviously create more prosperity. If the Government did this with all the firms which are wondering what to do, it would be a move in the right direction.
  I repeat that the Government must make up their minds about the regional employment premium. It is vital to announce that it will continue for a good period of years. They should also consider establishing a Government training centre in the new town, which has the
  1224
  capacity to fill it. We have the highest unemployment rate, I think, in the North-West.
  These things—a Government training centre, a big new office block, a hospital and R.E.P.—along with the abolition of the barmy plan to abolish allowances for grants, which we know the Government will have to reverse when we enter the Common Market, would much improve the prospects for Skelmersdale new town, which I am proud to represent.
  8.25 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: This has been an interesting debate because it has got down to many constituency points on which all who are concerned about unemployment are anxious for information. I assume that we are dealing with a short-term policy. I agree with my Government that there will be a major break-through not only in Britain but also, once we take the plunge and enter, in Europe.
  I should like to deal with some of the short-term policies which could help deal with the rising unemployment. First, I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is a very quick-acting Minister with an open mind. He never misses a trick. [Laughter.] It is very important to have a Minister who can delegate. This leaves him free. I have never found any difficulty in getting a quick answer to any problem from my right hon. Friend. This is very important in our present situation.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) mentioned the hospitals which are forecast, and said that they are vital in many areas. I asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services about this. He immediately told me that the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board had been told that it could have £8 million if it dealt with hospitals which were on the road, with finance already arranged. I thought that the hon. Member would have found out from his own hospital board what money it has been allocated.
  I hope that I shall not tread on anyone's corns when I say that everyone talks about the unemployment created over the last few years, but I recall when I was first elected in 1931 the rate of unemployment which resulted in the defeat of the Labour Government and the creation of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's

  1225
  Government. I know something about history—
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: Talk about today when we have one million unemployed.
  Dame Irene Ward: The policy of the Labour Party, supported by the Liberal Party, created unemployment when they were first in power in 1931. In a part of my then constituency of Wallsend 84 per cent. of the employable population were unemployed. I have spent nearly all my political life trying to remedy matters. [Interruption.] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen opposite to be rude. They sit on those benches without having any real knowledge of what caused unemployment years ago. It may be important to have that knowledge if we are to cure it now.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently spoke of the need to arrange proper industrial training courses, particularly for older men, to ensure that when employment begins to grow there will be skilled men available to take up the skilled jobs.
  I was heartened last week when I met an instructor at an industrial training centre in the North of England. He was teaching a skill which would enable the trainees to gain employment at the end of the course. The men being trained were between 20 and 30, but presumably he could have trained older men. I was told that within a week of the training of an earlier batch of trainees having been completed, they had all secured jobs.
  That gave me a great deal of pleasure. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is essential that everyone is skilled in up-to-date industrial practices. It proves that if men can be trained in skills that are necessary and needed, they are more likely to be absorbed into good reliable industrial work. This applies to men who have lost their jobs because the type of employment which they occupied has died or because they did not have a chance of attaining a skill earlier in their lives. I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be pleased with this news because, in addition to giving me pleasure, it is bound to help the work which the Government are undertaking.
  Much has been said about the regional employment premium. There have been occasions when I have gone against the
  1226
  line taken by my party, and on those occasions I have let my hon. Friends know that I am in conflict with them. When I was fighting the last General Election it was made clear to me that the question of R.E.P. was causing anxiety to industrialists on Tyneside. I therefore spoke out against the phasing out of R.E.P. before adequate employment in the area had been attained, and I urge the Government to reconsider their policy in the matter.
  It is a feature of important debates of this kind that Ministers are never able to say "Yes" or "No" to a straightforward question. We spend far too much time looking at figures. I prefer to have is dotted and is crossed, and I would like an unequivocal answer to my question about R.E.P. Do the Government intend to take some action on this subject? I would expect the Government to reconsider the matter, especially if the short-term problem has not been solved. I am therefore glad that I reserved my position on the phasing out of R.E.P. at the last election.
  The shipowners, who have done very well indeed with exports and have helped the balance of payments, have made certain proposals which I am not be able to explain to the House. But I am close to the Chamber of Shipping and have noted the kind of things they have in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who is Chairman of the Tory Party Committee on Shipbuilding and Shipping, has written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I hope that the wise remarks contained in his letter, and the way in which the case has been presented by the Chamber of Shipping, will secure the full support of the Secretary of State.
  While I feel that the Secretary of State for the Environment proceeds at a fair pace, I sometimes feel that with the passage of the years we might welcome a little more speed on the part of other Departments. I hope that the Chamber of Shipping will get its way. I advocate its case because in the North-East shipping and shipbuilding are totally important.
  The North-East Development Council's Report has been in the hands of the Prime Minister for some time now. Even before that report was presented to him

  1227
  by the officials of the Council, the Prime Minister was kind enough to see the Council. The Council made a number of recommendations, and I understand that these were sent to various Government Departments for consideration. Although I do not know whether we yet need a Minister for co-ordination, it is certainly time that we had some results here.
  Every hon. Member has made a realistic approach to the problem. Some feel that firms should get the same incentives as they got when they first went into an area. I find political life extremely annoying when hon. Members on both sides of the House are so busy protecting their own positions that they lose their capacity to say "yes" or "no". This issue has been raised repeatedly, and there must be some Government point of view. If there is not, it means that the Government have not paid any attention to all the speeches and questions made by all hon. Members. It is time that we had a proper answer so that we know where we are.
  I was pleased when the Secretary of State for the Environment made a special grant available to deal with coast protection in my area. This is a very necessary project because when the seas wash against the cliffs there can be some nasty falls, and there are some important buildings on the coastline. My right hon. Friend made this money available rapidly, and there is obviously a good understanding between him and the Chancellor.
  My right hon. Friend has a large sum of money available for bringing forward important projects, and I am hoping that a school for mentally handicapped children can be expedited in this way, through the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  I have tried to find out how many authorities have taken advantage of this fund of money, but the Secretary of State for the Environment, unusually for him, sought refuge in the usual Civil Service reply about the amount of money needed to collect the information. I would like to know how many local authorities in Northumberland and Durham have put forward realistic plans for improvement projects, for housing and such things.
  1228
  We are accelerating a central library programme in Tynemouth. A great many projects could be brought forward to help ease the terrible unemployment situation. I am grateful to my Government for all the care and attention they have taken and the help they are prepared to give.
  The North-East Coast did not have any opportunities to develop during the war, because the powers-that-were then decided that we would be the first part of our island to be heavily bombed. Therefore, we were not allowed to have any new industries or make any provision for them. This set us back considerably in providing a good, well-balanced, well-looked-after environment.
  I wish my Government every success in tackling the very difficult human problem of unemployment. There are signs of brightness. In my part of the world, although people are often tough in arguing with me, I hear of many bright glimpses of the future.
  The Labour Government tried to do much, but they could not make the money required; they were not a very good financial, administrative Government. A Government can have all sorts of plans but they must be able to provide the cash. One of the great strengths of the present Government is that we have provided the cash—
  Mr. Leadbitter: School meals, milk.
  Dame Irene Ward: I will not enter into a discussion on the question of school milk tonight, but if anyone asked me I could do a great deal better than the Labour Government did in looking after the children. We have done much better in housing and in every direction. It is no good asking me about milk tonight, but I will tackle that question some other day.
  I am saying "Thank you very much" to my Government for the efforts they are making. In the north of England we have men and women who, even though they may hate my guts politically, are very fair if one plays straight with them. They acknowledge that we have a straight, active and very sound Administration in the present Conservative Government. I wish my Government well, and hone that the unemployment figures will be reduced by leaps and bounds.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) did not decide to discuss school meals and milk tonight. I was afraid that she might.
  The hon. Lady will not expect me to deal in detail with everything she said, but I should like to refer to what she said about the report of the N.E.D.C. to the Prime Minister. I join her in saying that the time is long overdue for the N.E.D.C. to have specific proposals from Government Departments on its constructive and valuable report, which it spent a great deal of time explaining in detail.
  The hon. Lady asked what plans the local authorities have submitted for the distribution of the £130 million for the public works programme which the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in July. I asked him exactly the same Question a week before the Summer Recess, when he said that he would look into the matter and let me know. Now that we are nearly in the Christmas Recess I am still awaiting his reply.
  Dame Irene Ward: I have got mine. It was very good.
  Mr. Brown: I hoped that the hon. Lady's words might produce better results than my Question in the summer.
  I wish specifically to deal with the Northern Region. I deliberately do not wish to make naked political points. Although the question of 1 million unemployed is a political issue, I do not want to drag it down to scoring cheap political points. Neither the 80,000 odd who are now unemployed in the North of England, nor the 100,000 who will be unemployed before the spring, would thank me or my hon. Friends for reducing their plight to a political farce.
  I commend, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), the Editor of The Journal of Newcastle, for the survey on unemployment which appeared on 18th November. I shall refer to it later, and I am sorry that there is not sufficient time to deal with it as fully as it deserves.
  In referring to what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about financial losses in industry,
  1230
  my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) suggested that the greatest single loss in having 1 million unemployed was the loss to the nation of their productive efforts. I think the greatest single loss is the loss of human dignity involved.
  In the Northern Region in mid-November unemployment stood at 84,785, an increase on the month of 3,389, just over 4 per cent. That means 6·4 per cent. of the overall population are out of work, and 8·4 per cent. of the male population. Every day in the Northern Region 100 jobs are lost, and this has been happening for some months. The result of the Government's policies will be that there will be a net annual loss of jobs of 30,000 plus every year, compared with a balance on the right side, albeit a small one, of about 5,000 per year in the six years of Labour Government.
  In unemployment benefits alone the State must now be paying out in the Northern Region at least £1½ million per week, simply to keep men unemployed. What a disgraceful waste of national resources!
  As the survey in The Journal said, we are throwing away £150 million a year. This is the cost to the North of 80,000 plus unemployed. With £150 million a year, we could build three Texaco supertankers for £24 million, 12 comprehensive schools and 60 nursery schools for £12 million, five hospitals for £50 million, 40 primary schools for £4 million and 20 miles of motorway for £20 million. In spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said about there being a first-class road system in the North-East we could still do with an extra 20 miles of motorway. We could also build 8,000 houses for £40 million. That makes up the total of £150 million that we are now throwing away in the North-East. When one considers the unemployment problem, one must realise what a waste this is of national resources.
  This very informed survey of unemployment in the North-East goes on dismally to say
  "The North will have to brace itself to face high unemployment for at least another 18 months, and possibly longer. This grim forecast is accepted by Government departments, industry and the North-East Development Council.

  1231
  Since November last year 24,593 redundancies have been notified to the Department of Employment locally—an increase of 11,400 over the previous year."
  It goes on to evaluate three reasons why the forecasts are so gloomy in the North.
  "It is claimed that regional policy has received such a setback during the last 15 months that the region will be in no position to take quick advantage of any turn-about in the country's economic position.
  There are three main reasons for this

  1. The cornerstone of industry in the North is heavy engineering. The region is short of light consumer industries. But it is the latter type that will benefit first from any new boom. It will take much longer for the effects to filter through the heavy industries.

  2. Many firms have used the present tight period to rationalise their staffs completely, so that if and when a boom comes they will not necessarily recruit as many as they have laid off."

  This is all too true. The article goes on to say:
  3. Because of prolonged stagnation,"
  it is referring to the past 17 months of Government—
  "industrialists have lost interest in expansion and the number interested in moving to the North has slumped"
  The present policies of the discredited bunch opposite must be brought into question, and it cannot be denied that the replacement of investment grants by tax allowances has had a catastrophic effect on the economy. I want to quote figures to show how catastrophic this effect has been in the North-East Region. In 1969, 282 I.D.C.s approved for the North gave us 17,220 new jobs; in 1970, 246 I.D.C.s gave us 18,223 new jobs. Yet in the first ten months of this year we have had only 100 I.D.C.s producing 4,983 new jobs. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite wriggling about this figure of 100 in the first ten months of this year. This is the product of their handiwork, and they cannot deny it. I could go on at length, but I know that the Front Benches want to wind up the debate.
  I confine myself to asking some questions. I know that in a debate of this type Government Ministers always say that, because civil servants have worked for days on their speeches, it is not reasonable to expect answers to questions. But if none of the answers to my questions happens to be in the departmental
  1232
  brief this evening, I give notice that I shall table these questions for answer at some future date.
  My first question is this: will the Government now admit their error and reintroduce investment grants? Will they not concede that, for ideological reasons, they have been absolutely wrong in scrapping the investment grant principle immediately they came to office before they even had the opportunity to consult their advisers?
  Second, will the Government drop what I call, in terms of the unemployment situation in the regions, their criminal suggestion that regional employment premium should be abolished in 1974? Does not the Treasury Bench understand that the abolition of R.E.P. will impose an increase in excess of 5 per cent. on labour costs in the region? Does it not realise that this can only worsen an already bad situation?
  Third, though I do not expect an immediate answer, have the Government given any consideration to relieving the situation—I mean in the nation as a whole with a million unemployed—by reducing the retirement age and shortening the working week in industry? One cannot help feeling that in the long term we shall not remove this hard core of unemployment without a reappraisal of our working lives.
  Fourth, will the Government give an immediate "go ahead" for capital development projects in the nationalised industries and call upon the industries to place their orders in the development areas? This Government have not been shy about quoting the principle that if we pay the piper we have a right to call the tune. It would not be unreasonable for the Government to insist that manufacturers of goods or services in the development areas should be competitive.
  Fifth, will the Government now give the "go ahead" for massive public works spending in the development areas with 100 per cent. grants? It is no good giving the local authorities the right to go deeper into debt by the Secretary of State for the Environment saying that he is prepared to give them loan sanction.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Can the hon. Gentleman quote one 100 per cent. grant that the last Government gave at any time?
  Mr. Kaufman: Can the Secretary of State quote a million unemployed?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has anticipated my reply. When we were in office there was never a time that we had a million unemployed. I remind the Secretary of State that the last Administration gave direct grants in tackling the winter works programme. We did not make a percentage grant. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, for example, is at present exhorting education authorities to get on with their minor capital works programmes, knowing full well that the costs will come 100 per cent. from the ratepayers. That is sheer hypocrisy, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Sixth, will the Government give immediate consideration to increasing the 35 per cent. building grant to existing firms in development areas to encourage them to expand? The principal of a firm in Newburn in my constituency came to see me on Saturday. He wants to provide 50 more jobs by erecting a giant transport complex. He has been turned down by the Department of Trade and Industry. Fifty jobs may not sound very much to hon. Members representing constituencies in the South-East or in the West Midlands, but fifty jobs in my constituency is a considerable target at which to aim.
  Seventh, will the Government increase the operational grant to firms coming to special development areas and also give it to existing firms, again to encourage expansion?
  Eighth, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) asked, will the Government move out of London some of the countless thousands of Civil Service jobs which could be done equally well in the development areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made a quip in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) when he suggested that the Cabinet Office might be sent to St. Ives. But that is not so funny. The greatest thing that could happen to the north of England would be the building of a new parliamentary city in the North, and moving Parliament and the whole institution lock, stock and barrel to the North.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: This is the first major debate that we
  1234
  have had on the development areas since the General Election. While it is true that the House has debated unemployment on several occasions, we have not concentrated to any great extent on the economic components of regional development and on the effectiveness of the measures which the Government have taken or failed to take since coming to office.
  A debate of this kind must inevitably to some extent be concerned about incentives and statistics—hon. Members have quoted statistics—but we must never forget the human tragedies behind the statistics: communities in danger of decay and the misery inflicted on workers and their families.
  It is worth reminding the House what has happened over the last 18 months. I have said before—it is worth repeating, especially as we have two Secretaries of State sitting on the Treasury Bench—that the Government came to power in June last year pledged, in the words of the Tory manifesto,
  "to initiate a thorough-going study of development area policy."
  There has been no thorough-going study of development area policy and the two right hon. Gentlemen know this.
  Dame Irene Ward: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. Varley: I hope to prove it to the hon. Lady in a few moments. Certainly my researches do not show that there has been any thorough-going study. As many of my hon. Friends have said, there has been only the initial doctrinaire decision to end investment grants and the decision on the same day, 27th October, 1970, as it were, to announce the death or abolition of the regional employment premium in 1974.
  Certainly we have had some panic measures—perhaps this is what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned earlier—which by and large were scratched together in response to censure Motions tabled by the Opposition. It is no wonder that The Times, in an editorial on regional policy last Thursday, said:
  "the striking feature of the list of measures is the piecemeal nature of the strategy, adding something here, chopping something there, and extending expenditure there. The industrialist who has followed all the changes and worked

  1235
  out his sums to establish the balance of advantages must be a very able man indeed."
  I agree with that completely.
  The Government came to power promising a review, but in the last 18 months they have created an unprecedented degree of collusion. Certainly The Times of last Thursday agreed with that. To begin with, when the Government came to office it seemed as though we were to have that thorough-going review. In fact, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said on 9th November, 1970:
  "I am conducting a major study into all aspects of regional policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 3.]
  Over the last few months the study got lost for a while. In February we found that it had been taken over by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Indeed, not only had he taken it over but he had finished it, because on 22nd February he said:
  "no further changes … in regional industrial policy are planned at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 42.]
  Many of us thought that that was the end of the review.
  Instead of taking regional policy seriously, however, the Government actually reduced regional preferential aid to manufacturing industry. I hope to be able to prove that presently. However, even they realised that the situation was very unsatisfactory and last October, at the Tory Party conference, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seemed to have taken over the responsibility again, announced that a new study in depth of unemployment in development areas was to be carried out. The Guardian next day carried a feature by Mr. Ian Aitken headed:
  "Davies asks 'Think Tank' to break regional barrier."
  A similar story appeared in the Financial Times.
  From our point of view total confusion had been created and we had to wait for a Tory Party conference for that long, thorough-going review to begin. I hope to ask the Minister about that in a few moments. This afternoon, in opening the debate for the Government, the Secretary of State for the Environment
  1236
  made no mention of this. We want to know what the Government have in mind because these stories have not been denied.
  No one would deny the Government the opportunity of carrying out a thorough-going review of regional policy. That is their right. A new and incoming Government have every right to consider the matter, but the deliberate scrapping of vital regional incentives in advance of any study has done irreparable damage to the development areas, as everybody knows and as we warned would happen. It is no good the Secretary of State for Employment saying, as he did during a debate on unemployment, that he cared about the unemployed and that it was really all a case of Government misjudgment.
  It is not a case of Government misjudgment. It is a case of Government incompetence, because, when announcing the ending of investment grants and R.E.P., the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "we are confident that the new arrangements will prove more effective."—EOFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 48.]
  We know that they are not more effective.
  There was an article in The Guardian in October this year by Mr. John Rhodes, a research officer at the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, in which he said:
  "The value of development area differential investment incentives for manufacturing industry is now very small compared with the grant system operating from 1966–70."
  Mr. Rhodes makes the case which I can best summarise by saying that the changes in tax allowances, the further changes in depreciation allowances for non-development area firms, announced in the July mini-budget, plus the corporation tax changes have diminished the value of incentives to manufacturing activities in the development areas.
  I think that this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Mr. Rhodes shows quite clearly that for every £100 invested in plant and equipment the advantage for development areas over non-development areas has been devalued from a sizeable 12 per cent. to a tiny 1·8 per cent. In a more recent article in the Financial Times of 15th November John

  1237
  Trafford made the same point when he said:
  "The disparity between incentives in development and non-development areas … has dwindled sharply since the Chancellor's budget last year."
  We do not have to take simply the words of the commentators for it because on 15th November the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry admitted to me at Question Time that the Government had reduced investment differentials for manufacturing industry in the development areas. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said from the Dispatch Box.
  Let the Government stop this pretence that their range of incentives for development areas is more effective than what applied before. Every informed commentator on these matters has denied it and all the evidence rebuts it, too. For example, when Sir Val Duncan, Chairman and Chief Executive of Rio Tinto Zinc gave evidence to the Select Committee on Expenditure he had some revealing things to say about the decision whether to allocate the aluminium smelter to Anglesey. He said:
  "the grant was critical; if there had been no grant there would have been no smelter."
  When he was questioned by a member of that Committee about tax allowances, rather than grants he said:
  "if it had been allowances and not grants we would not have started."
  That is conclusive.
  The three indicators which we can use to judge the effectiveness of regional policy are, first, the regional unemployment figures; second, the number of approved applications for I.D.C.s; and third, the take-up of assistance under the Local Employment Acts.
  Several hon. Members have raised the problem of the South-West Region. In that region unemployment has risen by 67 per cent. since the present Government came to power. There have been 16,000 redundancies in the South-West and five unemployed adults are chasing every job compared with three a year ago. In the North-West unemployment has risen by 81 per cent., 70,400 redundancies have been declared and the number of jobless adults for each vacancy has risen from four to 11. In the Northern Region unemployment has risen by 49 per cent. from an already very high and
  1238
  unacceptable level, there have been 27,600 redundancies and the number of adults chasing every vacancy has doubled from eight to 16.
  During the last 15 months of the Labour Government the number of industrial development certificates issued was 7,860. In the first 15 months of the Tory Government there were 4,872, a massive reduction of 38 per cent., and half of those 4,872 were already in the pipeline under the Labour Government.
  The same sorry picture can be seen when we examine the take-up figures of assistance to industry in the regions under the Local Employment Acts. In the last full year of the Labour Government Local Employment Acts assistance in England reached the record figure of £49 million. The latest published accounts show a reduction to £36 million, a drop of £13 million, in absolutely vital regional aid to assisted areas in England alone, not counting Scotland and Wales. This comes after the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in October, 1970, that there would be a build-up of additional expenditure of £25 million under the Local Employment Acts. It seems that the Chancellor's judgment on that, too, was out, as it has been on so many other things.
  If the Government knock several crucial pegs out of the range of regional measures of assistance without proper study, as they have done, it becomes obvious why I.D.C.s are at such a low level, why redundancies are so high and why assistance under the Local Employment Acts is stunted. Even the Government's own supporters in the country have recognised this sorry situation. Mr. Nigel Lawson has said that R.E.P. ought to be kept. The Sunday Times in September, and even The Times yesterday, said that investment grants ought to be reintroduced.
  What the House wants to know is what priority the Government are giving to the review of regional policy announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the Tory Party conference and what form the review will take. Can the Under-Secretary confirm that this study is taking place? Is a study now taking place? If so, who is in charge? Is it the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or is it the Secretary of State for the Environment?

  1239
  The silence makes matters pretty obvious. The Government do not want to tell us. However, they have a review going, so I want to ask some questions about it. I am prepared to give way immediately if a spokesman for the Government wishes to rise and say that they have not got a study going. However, they have a study going and they know it, but they will not reveal why they have it going and what its terms of reference are.
  After having made a mess of it, it is proper for the Government to get a review going now. However, will the review be a genuine one or will it be another sham? How long will it take? What is the time scale? Can we expect the conclusion of the review in the New Year or will it take months? Certainly those in the development areas and the regions cannot wait for ever.
  It is no good the Minister ducking this one. We want an answer. We expect an answer when the Under-Secretary replies, so he had better ask his two right hon. Friends beside him so that he can give us the date for the conclusion of the review. The Government must have a date in mind; they must know the date they have set for the study's completion. Probably they do not want to tell us because it will be such a long review and it has been put off such a long time; they do not want to reveal the date so that it will not appear to those who are out of work in the regions that the Government do not care about this matter. When the review is completed, and we hope it will be sooner rather than later, its conclusions should be made known to this House and published in a White Paper. I hope that the Under-Secretary has taken that on board, too.
  Most important of all, can we have the assurance that the review will be undertaken without Government dogma? We all know that the Government are having second thoughts about their lame duck policy and about public expenditure schemes to create jobs. The Secretary of State for the Environment this afternoon gave us his particular catalogue of incentives. Every one of them involved public expenditure. Eighteen months ago we were told this was the preaching of the Government—that unfettered private enterprise was the only economic
  1240
  panacea. Now, the Government tell us that public enterprise is the only way to get the job done.
  Therefore, let those conducting the review listen to expert advice. Let them listen, for example, to Mr. Ernest Barrett, the President of the Engineering Industries' Association, who said a few weeks ago:
  "The switch from investment grants to initial allowances was a retrograde step."
  That was what Mr. Barrett said on this matter. Only yesterday Lord Clydesmuir, the Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) said:
  "The council advocates a return to investment grants for development areas only."
  The Government should listen to Professor MacKay of Aberdeen University and Kevin Allen when they say:
  "We consider it important … in particular that the decision to end R.E.P. and the move from investment grants to allowances be reversed."
  The Government should also look at what the T.U.C. said at a National Economic Development Council meeting last Tuesday. I think that both Secretaries of State attended that meeting. The T.U.C. said:
  "The Regional Employment Premium worth £100 million a year should be continued past 1974. It is a major subsidy received by both new and indigenous firms in development areas, and its discontinuance will do irreparable harm."
  I hope that the Government and those conducting the review will take that on board, too.
  Now especially, when the Secretary of State for the Environment is such a convert to public enterprise, the review should be asked to see how far public expenditure can be used within development areas and much more than it has been used in the past. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made this point extremely forcefully this afternoon. I found it ironic that when the Confederation of British Industry met both Ministers, if reports in the papers are anything to go by, the C.B.I. did not ask for less State intervention but in the short term argued for more State intervention.
  The urgency of establishing a coherent strategy for the regions is absolutely vital. Week after week we have been told by the Government in the House

  1241
  of their whole catalogue of taxation changes, as though they constituted some magic which would make all the problems of the development areas go away. Again and again the Government have trotted out that argument. I must say to them in all seriousness that we do not take to this very kindly because we are absolutely fed up to the back teeth that every time we challenge the Government about getting a regional strategy they simply trot out all those figures.
  It is no guarantee that when or if the economic pace quickens in the regions Britain will immediately and correspondingly improve. That is not so and the available evidence shows that it is not so. There is a time lag between what happens in the economy generally and what happens in the development areas. Even assuming that the Prime Minister is right when he says that we are on the brink of unparalleled growth in the economy, with regional incentives devalued for manufacturing industry the time lag for recovery in the development areas will be even longer.
  As this year draws to a close the unemployment position is absolutely tragic. In the development areas it is sheer misery. At the start of 1971 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his New Year message to industry in the Trade and Industry Journal, said:
  "The first vital question for 1971 is how industry will respond to changes of direction which the Government begin to apply.… The measures we have taken should ensure that, as the economy quickens and investment rises, the rate of growth in the less favoured areas in both manufacturing and service industries will be even greater."
  We all know how that 1971 message has turned out. There is record unemployment, the development areas are even worse off and the Prime Minister is begging industrialists to invest. So we look forward with great interest to what the Secretary of State will put in the Journal in 1972. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same old stuff."] Yes, it might be.
  The Government get indignant and work themselves up into a state every time anyone accuses them of deliberately creating unemployment. But they cannot have it both ways. If they did not deliberately create it, they have certainly proved themselves utterly powerless and totally incompetent to deal with it. That is why the jobless men in the development
  1242
  areas condemn the Government and that is why we will vote against them tonight.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been an extremely interesting and helpful debate. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members opposite who have made thoughtful and constructive speeches—in marked contrast to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), and to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), who said that he would not make a party political speech and then proceeded to do exactly that.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that these debates should be on a constituency basis, debates in which hon. Members produce examples of what is happening in their own constituencies, rather than debates full of too many theories. Therefore, I welcome the fact that hon. Members have spoken with conviction of the difficulties of their constituencies, as I have found it helpful to discuss many times with hon. Members in development areas the difficulties which they face.
  This debate has covered a wide field and has reflected the deep anxiety of hon. Members on both sides representing constituencies within and without development areas at the current high level of unemployment. There are differences between hon. Members about what I might call the "tactics" of dealing with the problems of the development areas and about how best new employment might be brought to these areas. These differences have been emphasised in the debate.
  I think it was apparent, too, that hon. Members on both sides of the House were by no means agreed as to the right solution. But it would be wrong if we did not acknowledge that there were no differences between the two sides on the fundamental point that unemployment at the present rate, and especially on the scale suffered in the development areas, is intolerable both in human and in economic terms and causes deep distress. [Interruption.]
  I gather that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not take this matter seriously. If

  1243
  not, they will be condemned for hypocrisy in what they say. But there is no doubt that hon. Members who have taken part in this debate are deeply concerned, and I ask them to believe that I, too, am deeply concerned, as are the Government.
  I think most sensible people will agree that the most acute problem which faced this Government on taking office was the depressed state of industrial confidence. This was the direct result of years of low growth, declining profits, high inflation and industrial disruption, and years of uncertainty about whether the country would become a member of the E.E.C. This lack of business confidence has led to low investment, stock rundown, unwillingness to expand output and, above all, the unemployment we have been debating today. But for the development areas these national problems made a situation which was already bad that much worse. [Laughter.]
  It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but in the more sensible speeches—those that have been honest enough to be sensible rather than playing party politics—hon. Gentlemen opposite have recognised this to be a long and deep seated problem, and those speeches I have found helpful.
  Since the First World War, and perhaps before that, the development areas have had to face the problem of the decline of the basic industries—coal mining, textiles, shipbuilding, railway rolling stock and marine engineering—on which they were so heavily dependent. Employment in the industries I have mentioned, together with agriculture, fell by over one million in the 1960's alone, and the development areas had to take the brunt of these job losses. Thus, rightly, measures have been directed at attracting new industries to the development areas to offset these job losses.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who set out to do what he succeeded in doing, partially at any rate, and that was to indicate how attractive his constituency and Merseyside were as a place for people to live and work. He stressed, as did the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), the vital importance of an area not getting a had name. They were
  1244
  absolutely right to say that one of the worst reputations an area can get is a name for bad labour relations.
  I have always been impressed by the fact that when hon. Members have brought deputations to see me to discuss how they can help themselves and advertise their areas to encourage industry, they have always laid great stress on good labour relations, and I am glad that hon. Members have done that today.
  As to North-East—
  Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some utter rubbish talked about industrial relations on Merseyside? Is he aware that during the period of the last Government I put down a Question asking how many more strikes there were on Merseyside, how many more days lost through industrial action than in other parts of the country, and I was told that this information could not be given because there were no records? Is he further aware that the true situation is that things are no worse on Merseyside than anywhere else, and that those who perpetuate this myth do a great disservice to Merseyside—and this includes hon. Members opposite?
  Mr. Grant: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, who made a thoughtful speech, has made that point. It is not hon. Members on this side but industry which has to be persuaded to go to these areas. I was pleased that he and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made this point about the area. I hope that hon. Members opposite will bear these facts in mind and do their best to prevent areas from getting a bad name among what might be called the mobile industries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton. West referred to the problem of dereliction and inquired about the powers to make designations. The Bill in another place is a consolidation Measure, and the authority derives from the Industrial Development Act, 1966, which gives power to deal with derelict land. Grants of 85 per cent. are now available to local authorities in development areas towards the cost of acquiring and clearing the land when the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry is satisfied that it would contribute to the

  1245
  development of industry. That deals with my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Redmond: As I read that Clause of the Bill it said that a non-development area could get the same treatment as a development area if the Secretary of State agreed. I do not want to know about development areas. Bolton is not one.
  Mr. Grant: Perhaps if I continue it will be apparent. My right hon. Friend has to be satisfied that it would contribute to the development of industry. I am glad to be able to tell the House that since 1966 this power has been extended to intermediate and derelict land areas, where 75 per cent. grants are payable, and the latter includes most of Yorkshire and Lancashire outside the assisted areas, including, I believe, my hon. Friend's constituency. It is important to remember that the grant being paid to local authorities in development areas in 1971–72 was £1·15 million compared with a mere £500,000 in 1969–70.
  Many hon. Members raised the question of the dispersal of the Civil Service and Government Departments. This is an important matter because of the great growth potential of the service industries, which have been treated so much better under this Government than under the previous Government. I know that many hon. Gentlemen wish to attract offices and service industries to their constituencies. I accept that they regard the advent of a Government office as being in the nature of a pump primer.
  The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham), and my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), to name but a few, all made their claim for Government offices. The Government are undertaking a review of the headquarters work of Government Departments, which is more than the previous Administration did, to see whether more of them can be dispersed away from London, and, if so, where they should go. It is a complex task, and it will be some time before it is completed and the Government are in a position to announce decisions. All I can say at this stage is that the needs of the development areas will be taken seriously into consideration.
  1246
  I turn to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West, who raised the question of the British Steel Corporation's long-term investment programme. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree also mentioned it. All three rightly pointed out that it is vital to their constituencies, as it is to others. That programme is a matter in the first instance for the corporation. We are following exactly the same practice as the previous Administration did, but a joint review is in progress, and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friends for Bodmin and St. Ives (Mr. Nott) turned our attention towards the South-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin said that in his judgment the framework of the regional area there was wrong. He pointed out that there was higher unemployment further to the west in his region. The explanation is undoubtedly the difficulties of communication, and it is precisely here that the infrastructure becomes so important. Both the A30 and the A38 roads will be comprehensively improved, and the M4 will be completed at the end of this year. The M5 and the A38 spine road will be completed to Plymouth by the mid-1970s, and as a result there will be high-quality roads from both the Midlands and London to the South-West.
  Mr. Hicks: Without being cynical, I think that I can now understand why my hon. Friend has not accepted my invitation to drive down to my constituency since he has held his present office. Although I welcome the improvements in the road-building programme, I ask that they be carried out much more quickly.
  Mr. Grant: I will always accept an invitation to go down to see my hon. Friend, but he must face the fact that there has been a massive advance in road programmes under the present Government, particularly in his area.
  The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North—[HON. MEMBERS: "Again?"]—I assume that it is the wish of hon. Members that the points they raise should be dealt with in the wind-up speech. Whether or not they like to receive the replies, I assure them that they will get them.
  Mr. Urwin rose—
  Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman did not take part in the debate. He must be patient.
  Mr. Urwin: I did not speak, but I have sat here all day listening to lots of rubbish spoken by hon. Members opposite in half-hour speeches.
  Mr. Grant: The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred to the possibility of a regional development authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the members of the T.U.C. at their meeting on 27th August that the proposal for a regional development authority would be very carefully considered. The concept of development agencies is interesting and this device has been employed in several other countries. There are, however, limitations to small, separate agencies based on specific areas. By their very nature they would be unlikely to build up the necessary breadth of expertise required for the consideration in depth of projects put to them. Moreover they might also be restricted in their ability to initiate and put forward possible projects to industry.
  Private finance is able to provide for projects with sound economic prospects and there should at present be no shortage of funds for this. Plainly we do not want to create an institution to finance projects for which there is no prospect of sound operation. They would, apart from anything else, provide no jobs. There is possibly an area—for example, projects on which the return would be longer delayed than was acceptable to the market—in which a development agency might operate. This is something which should be considered and we have noted carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Willey: I am sure the Minister will be obliged to me for giving him the opportunity to give way. Who will consider this question? Will it be considered by the body that is considering development area policy generally and will the reply be by way of a White Paper?
  Mr. Grant: As the T.U.C. was told, it will be considered by the Government. I shall come in due course to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
  What is often overlooked is how substantial the assistance available to development areas really is. There is an
  1248
  opportunity to purchase or use rent-free a Department of Trade and Industry factory. There are building grants the rates of which have been increased by 10 percentage points compared with the rates during the period of the Labour Government. We have adopted a more liberal approach to capital loans granted under the Local Employment Acts. There are removal grants and there are special industrial training facilities for firms expanding in the development areas. There are also the tax allowances which have been referred to.
  In addition to all these measures the Government have announced since July some £450 million worth of increased public expenditure to relieve unemployment in the short term, especially in the development areas, while the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken generally to stimulate the economy take effect. These general economic measures, the overall scale of which is unprecedented, include tax cuts equivalent to £1,400 million in a full year, the abolition of hire purchase restrictions and cheaper and easier credit, with Bank Rate at its lowest level for seven years. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that, they should say so.
  It is clear that inroads into the present exceptional high level of employment in the development areas will be made and a solution found to the long-term problem of structural unemployment only by faster and sustained growth in the national economy—a lot faster and more sustained than occurred during the six years of Labour Government.
  If that is achieved it will lead to greater activity in industries already in the development areas and will encourage industrialists to come forward with new projects which the development areas, with all the incentives they can offer, will be well placed to secure. Of course it takes time for the economy to respond to general stimulus, but many of the speeches today have been unnecessarily pessimistic.
  Mr. McGuire rose—
  Mr. Grant: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
  There are a number of encouraging signs. Yesterday there was the news

  1249
  that consumer expenditure in October was 3 per cent. higher than in September. Sales of consumer durables in the three months ended October were 9 per cent. up and in the same period total new hire purchase credit was 30 per cent. higher. There are real signs of substantial progress in dealing with price inflation.
  Mr. Michael Foot: When the hon. Gentleman talks about all these encouraging signs, will he say when he thinks the Government will be able to bring down the unemployment figure to what it was in June, 1970?
  Mr. Grant: What I will undertake to the hon. Gentleman is that in our period of Government unemployment will not double as it did under the Labour Administration.
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the National Institute's Eonomic Review, to which many hon. Members opposite refer when it suits them. That review concluded the other day that
  "the July measures have had a substantial impact on demand … and there is no reason to think that output will not eventually adjust more fully than it has so far, followed by the level of unemployment".
  The review also mentions that private housebuilding was more buoyant than it expected and that exports had outstripped expectations.
  Mr. McGuire rose—
  Mr. Grant: No, not for the moment. Similarly the Financial Times survey of business opinion, discussing prospects for investment, reports that
  "A greater proportion of business men say they plan to increase expenditure in the next 12 months."
  Mr. Edmund Dell rose—
  Mr. Grant: No. If I give way to anybody, it will be to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire).
  Mr. McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that he would respond to the speeches which had been made. Will he answer the point which was put to him about discrimination in the Lancashire non-development areas in relation to urban renewal?
  Mr. Grant: I cannot deal with that matter in detail, but I will say a word at this stage on the question of designating more assisted areas, which is at the base of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, as was the question of Teesside which was also raised. Several other hon. Members made contributions on this aspect.
  It is true that my right hon. Friend has the power to do this but he is required by Statute to have regard of all the circumstances, actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and objectives of regional policy. These words are not a mere formality. It is the objective of our regional policy to concentrate the largest benefits in the special development areas. Those are the areas where the problem of redevelopment and of unemployment has been most impracticable. This means that year by year over several decades we have had to find new employment and new industries for a large number of people. We cannot solve this problem by adding over and over again to the number of special development areas.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Grant: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  That spreads the limited supply of mobile industry throughout the country too thinly. We shall keep the boundaries under constant review and will continue to have regard to the points made by hon. Members but we must have a period of certainty and stability for the benefit of industry.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the review of regional policy which took place last winter and asked about the further study on which we are now embarking. I assured him that the review we made last winter was a thorough, full and workmanlike performance. In fact, it resulted in something which I thought hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted and something which they did not get from their own Government, namely, the creation of special development areas in places of very high unemployment.
  I am sorry that some of the constituencies of hon. Members opposite, notably that of the hon. Member for Chesterfield,

  1251
  were not included in the extension of assisted areas. I am afraid that the very nature of regional policy means that there has to be a degree of discrimination.
  Mr. Varley: The question to which we want an answer concerns not the sham review of last winter but whether the Government have another review in progress at present. If they have, when will it be completed and will the conclusions be published in a White Paper?
  Mr. Grant: If the hon. Gentleman had not been so impatient I should have given him the answer by now. As to the further study about which he asks, I refer hon. Members to the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in opening the debate on the Address. My right hon. Friend said:
  "The regional measures that we are using today are not a complete answer"—
  [Interruption.] The ones to which my right hon. Friend was referring were, of course, those which we inherited from the previous Administration. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
  "… we are now studying the alternative options which may be open to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 45.]
  Subsequently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the aim should be both for simplification and for more direct means of tackling the individual problems of individual areas. He also said that our study of the subject was not a short-lived affair. In fact, it is a progressive and continuous operation which is being undertaken continually. I can tell the hon. Gentleman also that our continuing study is very wide-ranging. Beyond that I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman any more.
  I want to deal quickly with the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  I have dealt with his point about the study. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be obsessed with one point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unemployment."] Unemployment, yes, and the way to deal with it. The only way that they can suggest is by means of investment grants.
  Mr. Peart: Can we have a statement on the regional employment premium?
  Mr. Grant: If hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that putting indiscriminately large sums of money into capital-intensive industry will produce employment, they are deluding themselves and their constituents.
  R.E.P. was brought in by the previous Administration for a limited period. They themselves promised it for seven years. It was to expire in 1974. We are honouring that promise because of the commitments which have been taken on. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that we should not replace what was essentially an unsatisfactory and wasteful policy which did not do the task that it was supposed to do, I can assure them that we have every intention of replacing it by producing an alternative which is very much better.
  More has been done in terms of infrastructure, financial and administrative assistance to help the development areas—
  Mr. Walter Harrison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
  The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 302.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Beaney, Alan

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Albu, Austen

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ashley, Jack

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ashton, Joe

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Barnes, Michael

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Brown, Hugh D. D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Coleman, Donald

  Baxter, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromagrove)

  Judd, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Deakins, Eric

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richard, Ivor

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Driberg, Tom

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Evans, Fred

  McBride, Neil

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Ewing, Harry

  McCann, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Steel, David

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackie, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Foley, Maurice

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Foot, Michael

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Ford, Ben

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Freeson, Feginald

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marsden, F.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Tinn, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Meacher, Michael

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Golding, John

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward

  Varley, Eric G.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wallace, George

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Watkins, David

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Weitzman, David

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wellbeloved, James

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oram, Bert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Astor, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Balniel, Lord

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  1254

  1255

  Batsford, Brian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Bell, Ronald

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Benyon, W.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Biffen, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Blaker, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Green, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Body, Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernle

  Braine, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bray, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Brewis, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  More, Jasper

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles

  Bryan, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Murton, Oscar

  Buck, Antony

  Hay, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Burden, F. A.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hicks, Robert

  Normanton, Tom

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nott, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hiley, Joseph

  Onslow, Cranley

  Channon, Paul

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peel, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Percival, Ian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Cooke, Robert

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Coombs, Derek

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Cooper, A. E.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cordle, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt. Fin. Sir Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Redmond, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Dean, Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Eden, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lambton, Antony

  Rost, Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott, Nicholas

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Sharples, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Fidler, Michael

  Longden, Gilbert

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Loveridge, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Luce, R. N.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Fox, Marcus

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Madel, David

  Stokes, John

  1256

  1257

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sutcliffe, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Waddington, David

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wall, Patrick

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Tilney, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Trew, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Bernard Weatheril.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the National Insurance Regulations (Validation) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE REGULATIONS (VALIDATION) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL INSURANCE REGULATIONS (VALIDATION) BILL
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS COMMISSION (GUIDANCE MANUAL)
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The case for publishing the Supplementary Benefits Commission's "A" Code is not merely one of open government in a democratic society, nor even an issue between paternalism and rights in the welfare State, though it closely involves both of these. The case for publication rests squarely on the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which marked the deliberate transition from the meeting of needs to the establishment of entitlement. Yet obtaining benefits under the Act depends at least as much on the unpublished "A" Code rules as on the Act itself and the accompanying Regulations.
  If, then, entitlement is to become reality, the rules giving substance to the rhetoric must be made known. Wider issues are involved. Perhaps the most important is that it would begin to reverse the power imbalance between the weakbecause-ignorant claimant and the strongbecause-knowledgeable social security officer.
  At present the weakness of the rules allows stereotype and prejudice in many controversial areas of policy to go unchecked. One example is the reduction of certain allowances in the case of coloured immigrants on the grounds of communal living arrangements or the absence of rent books. Another is the tactic of deliberate discouragement particularly used against unemployed men and deserted mothers, of paying the smallest sum permissible or even altogether cutting off an allowance as a short cut to dealing with suspicions of fraud and scrounging.
  Still the rules remain secret, and while they do it is difficult to see what wholly reliable controls can prevent such abuse of discretion. A former executive officer of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Mr. Michael Hill, said flatly:
  "The only real control over the actions of executive officers when they took a harsh line
  1260
  was the protests of individuals who were thus made to suffer."
  Yet if the official guidelines remain unknown, how can even such protests be as frequent or as persistent as might be desirable?
  Of course, the positive control for the proper working of a discretionary welfare system is a full complement of experienced and highly trained staff, yet the shortage of personnel, the briefness of training and the high levels of staff turnover all suggest that, despite the valiant and commendable efforts of the Commission, this crucial condition is very far from satisfied.
  What has happened, I believe, is that whatever the theoretical advantages of discretion in permitting a little bit extra for the claimant, the rules have actually become an instrument for preventing overpayments, if the Sunday Times revelations of 8th August are correct. Because of lack of public scrutiny, the rules have developed as an instrument more for limiting public expenditure than for helping the claimants.
  Perhaps the most fundamental reason for publication of the various codes is that only this will finally secure a decisive public debate on the viability or otherwise of a discretionary means test welfare system. I appreciate that this means that the Government must have the courage of their convictions over their basic policies of selectivity, but this is what political courage and democracy are actually all about. Only publication of the welfare codes can properly answer the question whether a means test structure, for all the support of discretionary improvisations, can ever be seen comprehensively to meet need.
  One has to ask, in view of all this, why it is that publication has been resisted. The main argument has been that it would destroy flexibility. Surely, this is based on a fallacy, quite apart from the fact that it belies the "A" circulars recently brought to light, which are designed to secure uniformity of discretion, for if the "A" Code still permits an officer to use his discretion, then publication will not remove this option. If, however, it does not permit the use of discretion beyond certain stated alternatives, then publication can impose no

  1261
  further check, but what publication will ensure is that the alternatives are fully known and appropriate action is taken.
  Another objection, and one which, I suspect, will form the mainstay of the Government's reply tonight, is it would not be proper to furnish what are, after all, internal memoranda to the Department's field staff. There is an important precedent here. In 1962 Mr. Butler, as he then was, the then Home Secretary, published "Instructions to Immigration Officers," which set out a comprehensive set of rules with regard to how the officers ought to operate the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Admittedly, the entry certificate officers responsible for the allocation of certificates in the country of origin did retain a considerable degree of discretion. Indeed, abundant evidence was produced by the British Council of Churches Standing Committee on Migration in its evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations on 23rd May last year to show that this discretion was still used arbitrarily, and that the regulations were often applied rigidly where permissible discretion could have been used. All this suggests both that a precedent does exist and also that in order that residual discretion is not used to the disadvantage of claimants—and it is here that the pinch comes—evidence should be brought before an independent tribunal before benefit is discretionally withdrawn or reduced.
  But, further to the question of publishing internal staff instructions, the Secretary of State said on 6th April this year in answer to a question from me:
  "… in any event, the Supplementary Benefits Handbook provides a full explanation of the scheme and full information in non-technical language on the way in which the Commission exercises its discretionary powers in deciding claims to benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 66.]
  The Secretary of State must know that that is a disingenuous answer. In countless ways, the handbook fails to provide the comprehensive technical information on which alone a full system of rights can be built. Indeed, if the handbook contained all that is in the "A" Code, why not publish the "A" Code and be damned? It is the failure to do this which leaves lingering suspicions about what is not revealed in the handbook.
  1262
  But there is a whole range of matters with which the handbook deals with regard to procedures where it is thoroughly imprecise. For instance, how exactly is an applicant assessed in terms of his general health and mobility if he is applying for a fuel allowance? What exactly are the entitlements to clothing and bedding in lump sum grants, especially for the families of the unemployed, or deserted mothers, or unmarried mothers? When exactly is a disabled man judged capable of employment and liable to the wage stop? The list of unanswered questions is very long.
  Moreover, there are several crucial procedures which are left entirely vague and unexplicit. The handbook implies, for example—this is a very important example—that men subject to the withdrawal of their supplementary allowance under the four-week rule, which is perhaps the last remaining benefit which may be available to them, do not have to reapply at the end of four weeks. Paragraph 171 says:
  "The allowance is continued for whatever period is appropriate."
  But this is the opposite of the truth.
  Nor does the handbook permit appeals to be made against procedures which are declared improper by the "A" Code, such as referring families to the W.V.S. for secondhand clothing, if the impropriety of the procedure is never published. This impropriety was revealed by chance during the Child Poverty Action Group's programme, but how many corresponding breaches of the rules are never brought to light? Perhaps the Commission does not know, because, if the rules are not made known, any feedback of complaints is automatically prevented.
  I must mention two other possible objections to publication. One is the fear sometimes expressed that under-pinning welfare rights rather than restricting public expenditure may be expensive. But either the Government intend that people should get the benefits to which they have a right or they do not. If they do not, they should say so, but if they do, the Government should end the charade of mealy-mouthed rhetoric and show that their intentions are fully carried out—which means publication. Or, to put it another way, if the full distribution of benefits would be too expensive, the

  1263
  Government must not pretend that they are entitlements.
  If, on the other hand, the Government genuinely support the ideology of the 1966 Act, they must not duck the issue, that a discretionary means test system is not necessarily the great financial saving that the Government like to assume.
  It may of course be said that it was never intended that poor claimants should obtain their rights in benefit either in cash or in kind to the uttermost item. The answer to this is quite simple, that, if the Inland Revenue income tax regulations are opened to public inspection, thus providing scope for tax avoidance manipulation, the formulae for welfare entitlement should similarly be available. If tax avoidance—I appreciate that this is an ad hominem—is seen as a rational husbanding of resources to the best advantage—this seems to be the Government's view—surely obtaining welfare benefits for exactly the same end cannot be construed as less reasonable or rational.
  Perhaps the pith of the debate lies in the political objection to publication—that the "A" Code rules are not meant to offer publicly an itemised list of entitlement but are concerned, it may be said, merely with limited charitable extras designed to ease the lot of the poor in certain circumstances.
  If this is the Government's view, then this is precisely the overwhelming argument for publication; namely, that it would indeed effect the transition from paternalism to rights. It would change the rôle of the poor from subservient and grateful claimants—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite protesting, because that is certainly the attitude of many claimants.
  Publication would change the whole situation in terms of their rights. It would change it in such a way that they would become dignified and unashamed citizens for the first time. This is both an opportunity for the Government to act and their unavoidable duty to act in this matter.
  10.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity to remove some of the fallacies that are around, some of
  1264
  which he has been fostering, and to deal with some unjustified criticisms.
  I regret that in raising this subject the hon. Gentleman did not feel it proper to say one word of praise for the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and its officers. I do not for a moment claim that the present system is perfect. I do claim, however, that we have a sensitive and sympathetic method of detecting human need and responding to it.
  One need only look at some figures to appreciate this. For example, about 115,000 claims are made each week and about 200,000 calls are made at our local offices weekly. This shows the substantial load which is on the Commission and its staff. Mistakes will, of course, be made, but in the vast majority of cases we have a sensitive mechanism of which we can be justly proud.
  Whatever else the hon. Gentleman may have said in his strictures and lack of praise, he will I think agree with the two main aims which the Government and Supplementary Benefits Commission have. The first is to give claimants and those who help them all the information they need to get what benefits are available to them under the scheme. The second is to spread understanding of the scheme and so encourage take-up.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the "A" Code. This is a rather sinister sounding phrase and an unfortunate one for what is, in fact, something totally unsinister. If people think, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that it conceals instructions for holding down expenditure or withholding benefit from claimants, I give him a categorical assurance that this is simply not so. This has never been the intention and it is not the intention now.
  It is a manual of guidance and operating instructions to the staff on very similar lines to that which any big organisation has and which it does not publish. Claimants and their helpers need a clear guide to entitlement and knowledge of the help to which they may be entitled under the discretionary powers.
  I freely admit, and we all learn from experience, that until fairly recently this type of thing has not been available. That is not so now. The Supplementary Benefits Handbook and the Family Benefits and Pensions Handbook, both

  1265
  of which have gone into revised editions which have come into operation this year, give the basic information which claimants and their helpers will need. The important way in which they differ from the code of instructions and guidance to the staff is that they are written with the claimant in mind. They give a complete description of entitlement and a clear indication of the kinds of discretionary help available. There may be a few rare situations which are not covered but for most claimants and their advisers the handbook provides all that is needed to enable them to claim.
  The Commission has gone further. There have been special reports on difficult areas. I am thinking particularly of the special reports on the wage stop and cohabitation which have given a great deal of information about the problems involved and the way in which discretionary power is used. The Commission is actively considering other areas of its administration where a similar frank and full explanation might be helpful. There is no doubt that there will be more reports on the lines of those I have mentioned. We welcome suggestions as to the sort of difficult areas in which more light might possibly be thrown through this type of special report.
  Another aspect I want to mention is the appeals procedure for those who are aggrieved and who feel that they are not getting the benefits they should receive. Here we have a procedure of appeal which is entirely independent of Government and the Commission. The appeal tribunals do not have the manual of instructions and guidance before them; they do not know what is in this guidance. This is deliberate because their job is to determine what is reasonable in all the circumstances of each case. They are not bound by the Commission's practices and it is important to avoid any implication that they are expected to follow them.
  The take-up of benefits is another criterion of the genuineness of the efforts being made by the Government and the Commission to ensure that those eligible for benefits obtain them. Whatever else the hon. Gentleman may say, he cannot say that substantial and successful efforts have not been made during this past year to encourage people to obtain benefits
  1266
  which they were not formerly receiving and to which they are entitled.
  Let us take the family benefits for example. Since the main campaign on the family benefits, the milk and welfare foods, prescriptions and other Health Service charges, there has been a substantial increase in new awards—of well over 300,000. With the family income supplement scheme, which is still in its infancy—it started in August—there have been no fewer than 92,000 awards. I quote those figures to show the genuineness of the claim we are making that we are determined to find methods by which those who are entitled to benefits are brought within the system and obtain them.
  Mr. Meacher: How much in extra resources is involved as a result of the increased take-up last year? How many people have been taken out of poverty by having their resources brought above the poverty line as a result of the extra benefits? If the hon. Gentleman is to use the take-up of benefits as a criterion of the success of the present discretionary means test system, will he explain why only about 2 per cent. of elderly people receive any special help for fuel? Why do appeals against termination of supplementary allowance under the four-week rule total only about 3 per cent?
  Mr. Dean: What I am saying is that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to belittle the successful efforts which have been made by the Government, the Supplementary Benefits Commission and its staff in bringing to the notice of people benefits to which they are entitled, which they were not receiving before and which they are now getting. I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman never seems to find it in his heart to give some credit where it is due.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully in HANSARD what I said, he will see that I made a specific reference to the valiant and commendable efforts of the Commission's officers to make the system work. Nothing I have said is to be construed as an attack on their worthy efforts. It is the system they are trying to operate that I believe to be inoperable in an entirely just and comprehensive manner.
  Mr. Dean: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. It is an

  1267
  earlier omission that he has now put right. There have grown up, in recent months in particular, unfortunate attacks and smears on the staff of the Commission. It sometimes looks as though the object is not so much to help the claimant as to discredit the system. Some of the remarks the hon. Gentleman made tonight rather give weight to that view. Of course, mistakes are made, but it is far better that when they are made they should be brought to our notice so that something can be done about them. The vague smears that are made from time to time can only damage claimants and make it more difficult for the staff to do a good job.
  1268
  I am not claiming for one moment that there are not improvements that can be made in the instructions to staff and in our publicity arrangements. This is a continuing job in which the Commission is anxious to make improvements, as are the Government. But equally we can fairly say, from the points I have made tonight, that progress in both these key areas is being made, and it is the determination of us all that that should continue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Countryside (Preservation)
  Countryside (Preservation)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Paraquat
  Paraquat
  Malt
  Malt
  Icelandic Continental Shelf (Overfishing)
  Icelandic Continental Shelf (Overfishing)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Meat Marketing Board
  Meat Marketing Board
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Advisory Services
  Advisory Services
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Monetary Policy
  Monetary Policy
  Regulator
  Regulator
  Private Industry (Government Investment)
  Private Industry (Government Investment)
  Prices, Incomes and Productivity
  Prices, Incomes and Productivity
  Customs Formalities (Train Journeys)
  Customs Formalities (Train Journeys)
  Home Owners (Tax Relief)
  Home Owners (Tax Relief)
  Shopping Expense Allowance
  Shopping Expense Allowance
  Premium Bond Prizes
  Premium Bond Prizes
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Hospital (Redditch)
  Hospital (Redditch)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Homeless Families (London)
  Homeless Families (London)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Interdens
  Interdens
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  "Family Benefits and Pensions"
  "Family Benefits and Pensions"
  Industrial Disputes (Provision for Dependants)
  Industrial Disputes (Provision for Dependants)
  Raynaud's Phenomenon
  Raynaud's Phenomenon
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Death Grants
  Death Grants
  Glandular Fever
  Glandular Fever
  Hospitals (Hull)
  Hospitals (Hull)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Benefits (Purchasing Power)
  Benefits (Purchasing Power)
  Mental Illness Services
  Mental Illness Services
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India and Pakistan
  India and Pakistan
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Geneva Convention (Protection of War Victims)
  Geneva Convention (Protection of War Victims)
ENVIRONMENT
  North-East (Deputation)
  North-East (Deputation)
  Housing Advisory Services
  Housing Advisory Services
  House Building
  House Building
  Builders' Refuse Containers (Accidents)
  Builders' Refuse Containers (Accidents)
  Drunken Driving
  Drunken Driving
  Airships
  Airships
  Rents
  Rents
  East Kent (Infrastructure)
  East Kent (Infrastructure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Parking Notices
  Parking Notices
  Motorway Closures (B.B.C. Information)
  Motorway Closures (B.B.C. Information)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Change and Employment Opportunities
  Industrial Change and Employment Opportunities
  Engineering (West Midlands)
  Engineering (West Midlands)
  Unemployed Workers (Transfers)
  Unemployed Workers (Transfers)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Registrar of Trade Unions (Appeals)
  Registrar of Trade Unions (Appeals)
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
WALES
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Offences against Property
  Offences against Property
  Sentenced Persons
  Sentenced Persons
  Soliciting
  Soliciting
  Luton Bookshops (Police Searches)
  Luton Bookshops (Police Searches)
  Road Junctions (Standing Vehicles)
  Road Junctions (Standing Vehicles)
  Illegal Gaming
  Illegal Gaming
  Gaming Act, 1968
  Gaming Act, 1968
  Offences against the Person
  Offences against the Person
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Moorhouse Factory, Leeds
  Moorhouse Factory, Leeds
  Beer Imports
  Beer Imports
  Mr. E. J. Markus
  Mr. E. J. Markus
  Cynheidre Colliery Accident (Report)
  Cynheidre Colliery Accident (Report)
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  MR. E. J. MARKUS
  MR. E. J. MARKUS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Immigrant Children
  Immigrant Children
  Primary Schools (Nottinghamshire)
  Primary Schools (Nottinghamshire)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Artificial Limb Service (Report)
  Artificial Limb Service (Report)

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

SCHOOL TELEVISION TROLLEYS
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether attention has been called to the potential danger of the television trolleys used in schools.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, early this year a school boy was killed by the fall of a trolley-mounted television set which was being moved. The accident was extensively reported in the local Press at the time, and the causes were later discussed in the educational Press. In general, local educational authorities take great care in safety matters, and the publicity which this tragic accident has attracted will have drawn their attention to this particular hazard in their choice of equipment. Meanwhile, a technical committee of the British Standards Institution has been preparing a new specification for large-screen television receivers for schools, including those mounted on mobile trolleys.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and I am pleased to learn that something is now being done by the Government. But may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the slow movement and wobbling of the committee of the British Standards Institution is such that at least one member has already resigned because of their lack of decision?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the consideration which the technical committee of the British Standards Institution
676
is giving in this particular matter is to the preparation of a standard specification for school television receivers. This is mainly for the technical performance of sets but, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the committee is also studying degrees of tilt and the diameter of castors. I cannot tell the noble Lord when the consideration will be finished, but it is well advanced.

NORTHERN IRELAND: SERVICEMEN'S PAY AND ALLOWANCES
2.37 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether members of the Forces engaged in Ulster are regarded as on active service and receive additional payment.]
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, Servicemen's duties in Ulster are part of their normal terms and conditions of service. They are not regarded as on active service and receive no extra pay and allowances for service in Ulster; nor would extra payments be made if they were declared as on active service.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if these men are not on active service, may I ask the noble Earl how he defines their service? Is he aware when our Forces were in Aden, where the situation was far less tragic and difficult than it is in Ulster, and where the amenities were far better than they are in Ulster—for example, in accommodation and, also, in the assistance of the NAAFI, which is not available in Ulster—the men received the standard overseas allowance? Ought not something to be done for our Forces in Ulster? If, for technical reasons, they cannot receive the standard overseas allowance which is payable when men are overseas, why cannot they be given some ex gratia payment?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's first question, they are not in fact on active service; they are at present engaged in assisting the Civil Power. With regard to the noble Lord's last point, he will be aware

677
that a different scale and system of pay came into operation in April of this year. Under this scale an X factor is included, which takes account of the peculiar circumstances of men in the Armed Services compared with those in civilian life.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the situation in Ulster unique in our history? Can the noble Earl inform your Lordships' House whether there has ever been any similar situation, when men have been engaged in service of this character which is defined as "assisting the authorities to maintain order"? Surely this is something unique and ought to be treated as such.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords. I think that it probably is unique in this respect; but whether it is or not completely unique is of course a matter of history. In fact, the conditions of pay and service under which the Forces in Ireland are operating at the moment are those which have only recently come into use. As I said earlier, this change has been made only during the last 12 months.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this problem of active service is one that has confronted us in the past? Is he also aware that for a long time our troops in Aden were not on active service, and it was only in the final stages, after there had been actual open battles, that the change was made? None the less, is the noble Earl aware that the X factor is not intended to cover a specific issue of this sort, and that it is a general factor? May I therefore ask the noble Earl whether he will bring my noble friend's Question, and the various answers, to the attention of the Secretary of State?
EARL FERRERS: Of course, my Lords. I will certainly bring the noble Lord's observations, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to the attention of my noble friend the Secretary of State. But I am bound to say that I am advised that the only effect of declaring a state of active service is that the Force Commander's powers are increased, and a court-martial can inflict the death penalty for certain offences under the Army Act. It does not mean that those on
678
active service will receive any higher remuneration.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, speaking as the father of one of the boys referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—who is in Northern Ireland not for the first time, and who is, I believe, serving in the noble Lord's old regiment—may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will seriously consider additional emoluments of some sort, if only to reduce parental contributions?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's question does not have a slightly different slant from that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. But I will certainly convey his opinions to my noble friend.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the increases in pay earlier this year, to which he referred, were intended mainly to bring about better recruitment and to bring the forces up to the level of what they might earn in civil employment? Does he further agree that the job being carried out by Servicemen in Ulster is probably far more difficult than it was in the Cyprus situation? There is some disquiet in the country, and will my noble friend undertake to look into this matter and make a Statement at a future date?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly bring my noble friend's observations to the attention of my noble friend. I would agree with him entirely that when the new military salary scale came into operation it was in order to bring the remuneration of the people in the Armed Forces in some degree into line with those in civilian employment. But on top of that was added an X factor which was in fact supposed to take into account the peculiar circumstances which anyone who accepts work in the Army is bound to entertain. However, I would entirely agree with my noble friend that the people who are at the moment serving in Ulster are having a quite unique and a most distressing time.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would the Minister not say that this is extra active service in the light of the fact that our

679
soldiers in Northern Ireland do not know who is their friend or who is their enemy?
EARL FERRERS: I entirely agree, my Lords, that the work of the soldiers in Northern Ireland is in this respect quite unique.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, will the Minister consider recommending to the Secretary of State the payment of special danger money on top of the ordinary payments which the Servicemen are getting?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that point was considered some time ago. The noble Lord will remember that the new military salary payment was in fact originally suggested by the Prices and Incomes Board, and that it was accepted by the previous Government and by this Government; and when that decision was made the possibility of what is described, I think, as combat pay was considered and, for a variety of reasons, was rejected.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, will the noble Earl say whether or not the dependants of soldiers killed in Northern Ireland are entitled to pensions, or, if they are not on active service, whether they are not so entitled?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, which is a Northern Ireland Act, and which is civilian legislation, of which troops or their dependants may take advantage. They may claim from the Government of Northern Ireland, in the courts, for relatives who have been killed or, indeed, for themselves if they have been maimed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that anybody killed or injured in circumstances which are attributable to service is entitled to an appropriate pension? This applies in peace or war, provided it is attributable to service. Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to look at this matter again, because there are other defects in what he has said which I will not take up the time of the House in looking at now.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not also be appropriate, in the case of those who are killed in Ulster, for the rule to be changed so that
680
estate duty should be remitted when these lives are prematurely shortened?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, under the Finance Act 1952, I think it is, those who are killed through warlike acts do not have to pay death duties or estate duty.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer I have received, for which I do not blame the noble Earl, I shall await events and raise the matter again on some other occasion.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, in order that we might understand this matter a little better, can the Minister explain what is the difference between something which is unique and something which is completely unique?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think there has been an unmistakable and understandable concern expressed in your Lordships' House about the conditions of service of our troops in Northern Ireland at the present time. My noble friend has said that he will pass on to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence the very strong views expressed. I think we should leave it there now, but, of course, this is a matter of deep concern to us, and noble Lords may well wish to revert to it at another time.

N.A.T.O. AND UNITED STATES FORCES
2.47 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether NATO forces if deprived of U.S.A. forces could be considered adequate to deal with an emergency.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, this is a hypothetical Question, and I venture to suggest that the contingency it appears to postulate—namely, the complete withdrawal of

681
United States military support from NATO—is most improbable.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, why does the noble Marquess speak of the Question as hypothetical? Is he aware that there is considerable controversy in the United States about whether American Forces should be retained in Europe, and that there is much uncertainty about the issue? In view of the undoubted weakness of our conventional forces—I am speaking of the NATO forces in Europe—and in particular the contracting out of the French forces, not only troops on the ground but the naval forces in the Mediterranean, what is to happen in the event of an emergency? Can we rely on our conventional forces associated with NATO? Are we not largely dependent upon the conventional assistance furnished by the United States; and if the Senate should change its mind on the subject—and it almost changed its mind the other day—would it not be a very serious situation for us?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I think that this is a hypothetical question because the Administration of the United States have repeatedly said, and very recently, that they have no intention of reducing their own force levels in Europe, except possibly in the context of M.B.F.R.'s, which is perhaps a slightly different matter. Indeed, my Lords, the level of United States forces in Europe in 1971 has been slightly above that of the previous year. I really think that the noble Lord is unnecessarily worried.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that the old question of the defence of Western Europe inside the Atlantic Alliance is a very important and perhaps even a rather urgent question which might well form the subject of an early debate in your Lordships' House?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that his answers have really been most unsatisfactory? My noble friend has put a Question which I should have thought is well within the realms of contingency planning, for which all Government and mili
682
tary establishments are responsible. The question is: what is to happen should there be a reduction of American forces in Europe? Will what is left be sufficient to ensure the security of Western Europe? I do not think that that is a hypothetical question; it is one of contingency planning. It would be interesting to noble Lords on this side to know whether Her Majesty's Government have given the matter deep and mature consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can certainly assure the House that the question of any sort of reduction from the American side is a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government. All that I was trying to do was to inform the House that there is no indication of this happening at the present time. Indeed, the American Government themselves have taken great pains to assure their colleagues in NATO that this is not likely to happen. I can understand the noble Lord's fears; and these are things which we are considering. I said that it was hypothetical because there seems to be no likelihood of the American Government reducing their forces.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that the defence of Western Europe is entirely bound up with NATO and that the European Community has nothing at all to do with the defence of the West?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that we are getting slightly away from the point of the original Question.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I bring the matter back to the original point? Would the noble Marquess assure the House that the United States Government have assured Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in NATO that there is unlikely to be any reduction of American forces in Europe in the future? Or is this coupled with any particular time scale?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I could not give noble Lords a precise answer to that question without notice. I think I should be right in saying that the Americans have stated that they have no intention in the foreseeable future—I cannot say "in the future" of reducing their forces in Europe except

683
within the concept of M.B.F.R. which is something that we shall be considering.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when the noble Marquess suggests that I ought not to be worried about a matter of this sort, can he understand that I am not worried for myself? At my time of life there is no need to worry. Is he aware that I am concerned about the future security of Europe and of the United Kingdom? And is he further aware that in recent speeches made in the Continent of Europe by people associated with the French the statement has been made that there is no keen interest in the European countries in the West about defence matters? In view of the French situation, is this not a matter which is far from hypothetical and one which should be of concern to every Member of your Lordships' House?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of this House, and indeed of the Government, is concerned about the defence of Europe. I did not wish to suggest that the noble Lord was not concerned, for I am certain that he is; but his question as phrased implied that any form of American withdrawal would be considered a total withdrawal. I was suggesting that that was hypothetical.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that this matter has been debated exhaustively both in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and recently in the Western European Parliamentary Assembly, and that all the nations concerned are aware of the problem? Is the noble Marquess further aware that earlier this year, in the autumn, at the NATO assembly in Ontario, Canada, an amendment was put forward to suggest the withdrawal of American forces from Europe and that it was voted against by all the American senators and representatives present?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can confirm that what he has said is true.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, apart from what his noble friend has just said, is the noble Marquess aware that by going into the European Common Market we are going to be in a most embarrassing position since we are one of the fore
684
runners in regard to NATO? If this action is taken and we go into Europe we are going to be in a very difficult position.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we have debated the Common Market and, doubtless. we shall again debate the Common Market. We have debated general defence policy, and we shall be debating it again quite soon. I believe that we should not turn Question and Answer into a mini-debate. I would urge your Lordships to pass on.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, in view of his statement that the Question is hypothetical, whether he is aware that the State Department in America yesterday said that the promise of continued arms to Europe was limited to one year? Would it not be much better for Her Majesty's Government to seek a reduction of forces on both sides through the proposed European Security Conference?
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise for again intervening, but I would urge your Lordships that it is time to pass on to another Question. It is my understanding that it was the general feeling of the House as expressed in a recent debate on procedure that your Lordships did not wish to turn Question Time into a mini-debate. I feel that there is a real danger of our doing so.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, was not my first question definitely in order—in commenting upon and in questioning what the noble Marquess said?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I do not think I can say anything more than I have already said. The Americans have given an assurance that they do not intend to reduce their forces in Europe except in the context of the M.B.F.R., which the noble Lord mentioned and which is something which is being pursued.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, obviously I wish to support the noble Earl the Leader of the House, but, with the greatest respect I would suggest that if replies are not directly bearing on particular questions it is likely that noble Lords will wish to pursue them. I would only say that I hope we shall have a debate quite soon on the Defence White

685
Paper. We managed it fairly early last Session, and there are clearly a number of matters that we must discuss.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the leader of the House whether he was trying to suggest to the House that we should avoid turning Question Time into mini-debates?—for on that the House will surely support him.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition. I have noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I think it would be the intention of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence to arrange, if the usual channels so desire, an early debate on defence matters as soon as the Defence White Paper is published. Of course, if any noble Lord wishes to put down a specific Motion before then we can consider a specific debate before that time.

FOULNESS AIRPORT STUDIES
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to report progress in the planning of an international airport at Foulness.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we are pressing ahead with the planning on many aspects of the Foulness project and will report progress as the various studies come to fruition.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. No doubt my noble friend will keep us informed. May I ask whether in this particular connection he can say whether there has been any decision about moving the artillery range from Shoeburyness? And can he give an assurance about what might be going on elsewhere, and particularly whether there is any risk
686
of relenting in the matter of extending the runway at Gatwick?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in answer to the first question, the planning of the move of the Defence Establishments at Shoeburyness is one of the matters on which we hope to be able to report shortly. The second question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask whether we are to infer from the noble Lord's reply that the studies are now going wider than was intended in the summer, when we were promised an answer in the autumn? Can the noble Lord say whether the studies now include the question of a deep sea port made more feasible by the dredging necessary to reclaim Maplin Sands?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the nature of the other developments that may be associated with the airport at Foulness is another of the matters on which we hope to be able to report quite shortly.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the studies at present in progress include an estimation of the additional financial burden which this development is likely to impose on the County of Essex?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the County of Essex is associated with these studies.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in this matter the Government are also taking into account the development of short and vertical take-off aircraft, which is extremely important with regard to the whole question of the economics of this scheme?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, not in the studies to which this Question and my Answer relate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether agreement has been reached about the name of the airport which is to be built at Maplin Sands?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think not.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the answer which the noble Lord gave to the noble Lord, Lord Alpert, may I ask whether he is aware that the Essex County Council has already made it clear that it is in favour of the Foulness airport; that it is in favour of a seaport as well and, in addition, is in favour of some industry around that district? May I further ask the noble Lord whether there are Working Parties actively engaged at the moment in considering the various aspects of this programme: first, finance; second, land reclamation; third, transport and fourth the particular nature of the seaport which is envisaged?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the last sentence of the noble Lord's question prejudges a number of issues, but I confirm that the Essex County Council is associated directly in the planning unit which is considering all those and other matters.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the planning of the associated roads and railways is going ahead equally speedily, and, if so, whether they will be finished before the major part of the work on the airport starts?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that those plans are going ahead, but it will be longer before we are able to report on that subject.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when, if at all, the airports at Stansted and Southend will have to be closed as a result of this project?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is an associated matter but a different question. If the noble Lord will put down a Question I shall be glad to answer it.

PROBLEMS OF LOW-INCOME GROUPS
3.3 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR rose to call attention to the problems of low-income groups in the United Kingdom and the effect on them of the economic condition of the country; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my
688
name. I take full responsibility for the wording of the Motion, and I do not like it. Perhaps especially in your Lordships' House, we should be aware, in discussing this matter, that we are not talking about groups, or classes, or types, or cohorts, or any of the other terms so beloved of my scientific colleagues in another institution: we are talking about men, women and children who lack the means of an ordinary decent life, interpreting an ordinary decent life "in very modest terms.
This is a vast subject, my Lords. For the purposes of examination and discussion I should like to divide it into two main groups: the problems of low incomes among people who are either in employment or unemployed but seeking to get into employment, on the one hand; and, on the other, the problems of the large number of people of varying kinds with very small incomes who are not in the labour market or seeking to get into it. It is not only a vast problem, it is also an immensely complex and difficult problem. Only a very naïve person would imagine that there is a simple solution; or that many suggestions could be made which can profoundly alter the position in a short period of time. What I am attempting to do this afternoon is not to propose revolutionary changes, but to consider particular changes or adjustments which could be made in a short period of time and which might make a practical difference to the circumstances of a certain limited number of people in very great need. If, at the end of the day, it is possible to say that even a dozen people are better placed as a result of it, your Lordships' time this afternoon will have been very well spent.
Let us consider first the people in the labour market, in employment but very low paid. This problem of the low-paid workers has always been with us. At any given time it is a fact that those on the lowest level of employed paid persons are getting little, if any, more than half the average national earnings in the country as a whole. This leaves many men and their families at a standard below that which would be the accepted standard for social security. How then can we tackle this problem of the low paid? I believe. as the Liberal Party is on record as believing, that sooner or

689
later we shall need to have, not a national minimum wage, which creates perhaps as many problems as it solves, but a guaranteed minimum earning figure, an altogether less inflationary concept, and an earning figure which I believe would be best calculated on a regional basis.
I hope that before long we shall explore in detail the possibility of developing a system of this kind. I do not imagine that we are going to do this through the months of the winter. We have, however, an instrument which we could use to make some impact on this problem here and now; the instrument is already in being. Many of us believe that the time is coming, if it has not already arrived, when we should not continue with the system of wages councils which, in one form or another, has existed in this country since 1909. The wages councils that we have at the present time, and their decisions, affect the pay of about 4 mil-lien people in the low-paid groups. Their decisions are diverse and follow no clear-cut policy. Is it too much to suggest that, as the winter deepens and before the situation of the low paid becomes too acute, the Government should have consultations with the chairmen of the wages councils and suggest to them that, whatever the attitude of the Government may be about norms for pay increases above this level, for the lower paid it is desirable and acceptable that a higher level should be introduced by the action of the wages councils?
I realise, of course, that there are difficulties about doing this. It can be done only in consultation and agreements with the trade unions. If the trade unions insist, in all negotiations, that a rise given at the lowest level sets the pattern for all subsequent increases, at whatever level the existing earners are now drawing their money, this suggestion is inflationary. But, my Lords—and I say this particularly to noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House—the tradition of the trade union movement in caring for those most in need must surely lead them to believe that it is not always necessary to insist that differentials must be rigidly maintained; and that they could surely give their support to the idea that in respect of people covered by wages councils it is reasonable to deal with those apart and not to use the
690
system of differentials as a reason for subsequent claims based on the same scale. Of course, my Lords, we know that many of the most badly paid, for whom the problem is most serious, are men with families; and for these the Government have produced the family income supplement. About this there has been a great deal of discussion. All I would say is that we know it is not being taken up by a number of people who are entitled to claim it. May we ask that there will be even more intensive propaganda to get over to the people who need them and who are entitled to them, that the supplements are there for the asking?
While on the subject of the family income supplement I should like to address myself not to Her Majesty's Government but to the various Members of your Lordships' House of different Christian communities. I think that it is a shame to find among the people who are taking up the family income supplement a noticeable number of ministers of religion. May I suggest that all those in any way connected with the Churches should go back to their congregations and find out whether in fact their Churches are (I will not mince my words) so negligent of their Christian responsibilities that they are prepared to leave their ministers in a situation in which it is necessary for them to take the family income supplement. Poverty may be a virtue, my Lords, but it is not a virtue we should encourage in other people.
Not only are the low paid in employment a serious problem at the present time. There is another special aspect of those in employment to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. In many parts of the country people who are still in employment are working on short time, and it has been the custom where short-time working is going on for that to be arranged in such a way that it is possible for people to work for perhaps four days a week and draw flat-rate unemployment benefit from the National Insurance. Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act 1966 lays down that this can be paid only after six days of unemployment, and this waiting period must occur on each occasion before the benefit can be drawn. Obviously this is intended to encourage people to leave industries in which there is no future for

691
them and go into industries which are expanding and to which movement is in their own and in the country's interests. In general terms, there is much to be said for this.
This particular section in the Act has not yet been in operation, but I understand that the Government intend to make it operative from January 1, 1972. I suggest that this is a singularly unsuitable moment to be bringing this section into operation. I ask the Government once again—I say "once again", because I know that they have been approached on this matter from a number of quarters—to consider whether they could defer bringing this section into operation in those parts of the country where the unemployment rate is above average. There is little point in encouraging people to move in areas of the country in which there is no other industry into which it is possible for them to move.
I should not like to forget one category, the most low paid of all—that of women in employment: women whose skills, despite the ultimate prospect, perhaps, of equal pay, are earning them on the average about 60 per cent. of the male average earnings. I know that the Equal Pay Act has been passed and that by the end of 1975 it should be in force; but I also know that progress towards that end is not very swift. As your Lordships will remember, under Section 3(3) of the Act the Secretary of State has powers to bring forward the date on which collective agreements must contain only one base rate, the same for men and for women, if he is not satisfied that progress towards equal pay is advancing sufficiently fast. In order that something may be done about the many very badly paid women in this country, I suggest that the Secretary of State should say as soon as possible, certainly early in 1972, what degree of progress he will regard as essential, if he is not to bring that date forward, when he has powers to do so, in 1973. Would it be too much to say that by the end of 1972 in all collective agreements the women's rate must be at least 90 per cent. of the men's pay rate? In many cases progress towards this point is very nearly reached, but there are many cases in which it is lagging very much behind. I would
692
remind your Lordships that women in employment are by no means all second breadwinners. Single women do still exist—although we are a dying race. Some of these single women are looking after not only themselves but also dependants who, if those women did not look after them, would be a considerable charge upon the public authorities. Bringing this date forward would do a great deal for the worst-paid women, who are trailing far behind the low rates paid to men in many industries.
So much for those who are in employment, who are in the labour market. How about the unemployed, seeking to get back but unable to do so? I do not intend to embark on a long discussion of that problem, which has been discussed before and will be discussed again. I wish to make only one point, which I have made already in a previous speech and which, I warn your Lordships, I shall make again. Now is the time to embark on training some of the unemployed, whom we shall need very badly when reflation starts again. It must be possible for the Government to tell what workers will be in short supply once the economy is looking up, and to begin here and now on an ambitious scheme of training so that these people are ready when the opportunities come along.
On this subject I should like to make two points. The first is that we need not have extensive and expensive new Government training schemes or expensive expansions of existing Government training centres. Why cannot we do what is done, for example, in Sweden and have the public authorities who desire to get a group of people trained in a new skill go along to a corporation, public or private, which is running its own training programme, and buy training places on those courses? There are plenty of training departments up and down the country which at the present time are slack because they are not taking on new people. They have the premises, the equipment and the instructors, and all the public authorities need to do—and this can be done almost at the drop of a hat because all the facilities are there—is to ask for places on the courses and pay the cost of the training that will be undertaken. In Sweden, two or three years ago, in Stockholm alone the National Labour Market Board was buying up

693
training places in 172 different establishments. It would be quick and economic, it would get a move on the training of people we are going to need, and it would make some contribution to relieving the problem of some of the unemployed.
But if we are going to do this, we must look at retraining in a totally different light. We want the unemployed to regard retraining as an opportunity and not as the last resort. Why could we not move in the direction of the scheme that the European Coal and Steel Community adopted a number of years ago, in which they were prepared to support the pay of men in retraining by between 80 to 100 per cent. of their previous earnings and continue to make up the difference for two years after the training programme? That puts the training on a completely different plane, and presents it as the opportunity that it should be.
I turn now from people in the labour market to the many groups outside who are not seeking to get work but who are suffering grievously from rising prices, and increasingly suffering as winter descends. In particular there are the old, still, by far, the category of people in this country who are suffering most from poverty. It is here, and with regard to them, that we can recognise across 600 years the poorer man of Langland's day:
"going breadless to supper, and in winter it is yet worse for wet-shod wanderers, frozen and famished."
That is not a very exaggerated description of the old in these days of hypothermia. This subject was debated at great length in another place only last week. I would only add my plea to the Government that at least they will consider doubling, or if they cannot double substantially increasing, the long-term assistance paid from social security to people who have nothing but their pension payment and have to live on that alone. If we are wanting to increase purchasing power in this country—and we are—then surely this is a way in which we can be certain that extra money will be spent, and will be spent by those whose needs are greatest.
But not only must we consider the problems of the old. There are in our community, and always will be, whatever we strive to do, people who, for one reason or another, are handicapped, un
694
able to compete or unable to cope with society as it is to-day. There are, first, the registered disabled persons, who appear on the register of the Department of Employment. When times are bad, as they are to-day, it is the people at the bottom of the pile who always find it hardest to cope with the problem that gets tougher. There is no doubt that the disabled are to-day feeling the pinch of rising unemployment. In the twelve months between August, 1970, and August of this year the numbers of the registered disabled unemployed rose from, in round figures, 72,000 to 621,000.* That is a very substantial increase indeed. And in the areas where unemployment is highest, the rise, as one would expect, is greatest. Along with this we have the fact that there are a substantial number of employers who are still not fulfilling their obligations under the 1944 Disabled Persons Act to employ 3 per cent. of registered disabled people. I think the time has come when the Department of Employment should put the screw on those employers to see that they reach their statutory obligation. I know that the Department of Employment, quite rightly, have dealt by persuasion, rather than by force; but as the figures of the registered disabled out of work rise, surely it is time to take a rather tougher line, if persuasion fails, with these employers who are not fulfilling their statutory obligation.
Finally, I would consider the people—inadequate if you like, for whatever reason—who simply are unable to keep going in society as it is to-day: the mentally ill, the alcoholics, the drop-outs of one kind and another. I think it was in 1968 that we had the high-sounding idea of introducing community care and getting people out of institutions. I am all for getting people out of institutions, but I thought at the time, and I still think, that we thought too little about what community care really involved: the cost that was going to be involved to the community and the degree of care that was going to be required from individuals. The fact of the matter is that community care was largely a fine phrase, and as we moved people out of the institutions we did not match the change with the wherewithal to make community care a reality. What is the result at the present time?
* See correction in col. 740.
The result is that those voluntary institutions which are striving to cope with the problem, which rises as the economic situation gets worse, are almost overwhelmed in their attempts to deal with people who simply cannot cope with life as it is to-day: such organisations as the Salvation Army, whose hostels are full of men who drift into them, whom we encourage not to be in institutions but to leave them, but whom society has not reabsorbed, or to whom we have not given the community care of which we talk.
I suggest that the time has come when we should investigate the reality of community care—I know that this is a longterm suggestion—not with the intention of getting people back into institutions but with the intention of making this something which really works. We should no longer be content to leave it to voluntary associations, who have great difficulty in coping with the size of the problem as it is now becoming. Perhaps, too, there are ways in which in the short run we can give some additional assistance to those voluntary organisations which are shouldering the burdens for us.
I have attempted merely to bring forward a few practical suggestions to deal with some of the larger problems and some of the most important groups of people with small incomes. I have not considered the longer term, the wider questions which arise when we are considering this matter. I should like for a moment, before I sit down, to stand back and look at some of these more long-term issues. I believe that we have lost our way in our attempts to deal with the question of poverty. I believe, for one thing, that it has been a great mistake to make the issue of selectivity or universality a matter of principle. I believe that we should tackle these problems with common sense: that selectivity is often not right, and universality is not always applicable. Certainly it cannot be right that the application of the principle of selectivity, which has been so dear to Governments past, should have led to this mushroom growth of means tests of one kind and another, ridiculous in themselves, bureaucratic, time-consuming and expensive, but, above all, a system of selectivity which is positively discouraging people from earning. It seems to me extra
696
ordinary that a Government who believe in encouraging independence—and I am not going to make cheap remarks about "standing on your own feet"—encouraging people to work and to provide for themselves, should be building in disincentives in the form of means tests as they stand to-day.
There cannot be many Members of your Lordships' House who do not know of cases—I certainly do—where it simply does not pay a man to do the work and earn the money that he capable of doing and of earning. We still consider the size of the cake and its distribution. What sense can there be in a system of selectivity, means test and taxation combined, which possibly keeps people from doing work to maintain themselves? Surely, in saying this, I am appealing to the deepest instincts of the Conservative Party. Equally, I do not believe that universality is always right. I think there are many things which would assist, and that in many cases people should pay for them if they are capable of doing so. Can we not forget this ridiculous argument between these two so-called principles and look at the problem of poverty anew?
I believe that over the last two decades we have been greatly confused in tackling the problem—confused in part because we have confused the problems of equality and poverty. I am not saying that either of them is unimportant, but I am saying they are not the same. I believe that in this matter to-day we arc reaching the situation in which it ought to be possible even to abolish poverty. I know it is difficult to define it. I do not accept the ridiculous definition given to me once in another institution that in a society in which some people have a Jaguar it is poverty to have an Austin Seven. That seems to me to be quite absurd, and that is what I mean by confusing the problems of equality and poverty. It is within our means, rich as we are despite our economic troubles at the moment, to get rid of poverty. But we must look afresh at the problem and get rid of the shibboleths of the past two decades. We can do it if we try; and then it will be possible to say, after 2,000 years, that the poor we no longer have with us. I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure we are all deeply grateful to

697
the noble Baroness, who has introduced this Motion in, if I may say so, such a masterly fashion. I am very proud to be a woman when I have the pleasure of listening to somebody like the noble Baroness. She has relieved me of making a number of points which I had already prepared, since she has already dealt with them so adequately. I have of course been an admirer of the noble Baroness for many years. I have listened to her in conferences, have used her writings and quoted from them, and still do—always, I may say, acknowledging the source.
It is nearly two years since we in this House had our last debate on poverty, which was then introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I re-read it, because on that occasion I had to reply for the Government. I noted the remarks and the requests that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am still checking to see whether the requests which they made to the Government of that time have been granted by the Government of this time, in which they have a much more powerful hand. I am able to tell the Minister that I shall not subject him to such a list of questions on this occasion as that to which I was subjected on the earlier occasion. No doubt my beneficence will not extend to another debate.
The low-income groups have to be defined. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, that we too easily slip into the phraseology of different categories; but one definition of poverty which has been given was in relation to Supplementary Benefits Commission rates: the minimum guaranteed to the retired, the sick, the handicapped or the unemployed. That at least is one definition that we can take; and within that it is not very difficult to identify the low-income groups. One of these is the elderly, of whom the noble Baroness has spoken so eloquently, and I should like to underline all her remarks. When we had our debate on retirement pensions I begged of Her Majesty's Government that there should be an annual review of pensions. I would again repeat this plea. We have long passed the period when we can deal with anything on a two-yearly structure. I find it quite extra
698
ordinary that the whole of the pension book has to be collected and reprinted in order to give an old lady a few more pounds. Surely in this day and age of science we could find a quicker way of giving people money. If I may reiterate once again, I would point out that when British Railways want to increase fares they have no difficulty in doing this overnight. I cannot see why, if we are going to give extra money, we cannot be a little more rapid about it.
We have the one-parent families, the single women, the handicapped and the sick; but perhaps we do not always entirely appreciate that there are thousands of people in full-time work who will still remain in this low-income group bracket. I have to-day received from the Department of Employment the latest figures of the distribution of full-time earnings for adults, and it is interesting to see that 10 per cent. of the total still earn less than £19 per week. In this bracket—and this bears out what the noble Baroness has said—women earn 10 per week. Of course, I would heartily endorse all that she said about the need for speed in this direction. So, my Lords, if we are talking of no larger proportion of the population than 10 per cent., we are still talking about a very large number of people, men and women.
When the National Board for Prices and Incomes discussed the general problems of low pay they made this very splendid statement:
"Although poverty must be regarded as a relative concept it is more than a concept for those who experience it. Inquiries into the circumstances of some 50 families carried out as part of an official study…show what is entailed for families whose net income is less than the supplementary benefits level. Out of the families studied, about one-third said that they could manage on their income, two-thirds thought either that they could manage but only just 'or with a struggle'."
They also said that they could not have managed if the mother had not been a very good housekeeper and if the husband had not kept his own expenditure to a minimum. The family could manage without actually getting into debt or squalor only by supreme exercise of self-discipline. Half the families had arrears of rent, and two in five of them had other debts. Fuel bills caused them worry. Most of them used clothing clubs: otherwise they would have been unable to buy

699
clothes, shoes or bedding. Food was adequate but lacked variety.
The Board's statement continued—and this is the appalling point:
"All in all the impression derived was not so much one of grinding poverty in any absolute sense as of one of unrelieved dreariness with, in some cases, little hope of improvement in the future."
If people are in that group they are obviously much more likely to fall into debt. Thackeray said many years ago that, "It is easy to be moral on £2,000 a year"—and when Thackeray quoted £2,000 a year it was a very different proposition from what it is today—while a more recently quoted commentator has said that, "There are two certain ways to find oneself in court: one is to be a motorist and the other is to be poor."
I have been studying the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, on Consumer Credit and there we discover the fact, which of course we knew all the time, that the further down the scale you are the more it costs to get credit. Those of us who are fortunate enough to keep our bank accounts at a certain level will never know what it is to have to go to a moneylender and borrow money that has to be repaid at a very high rate of interest. In his Report, Lord Crowther also makes a comment which is very relevant to the question we are discussing to-day when he says:
"In general, low-income consumers are more likely to default than any other income groups because they have such a little scope for dealing with unforeseen changes in their financial circumstances. Consequently, the more people living in poverty the greater the problem of default."
Then, answering the question of how far poverty is still a social problem in this country, he says:
"We must remember that poverty is a relative concept and that people are regarded and regard themselves as poor when their income, even if it is adequate for survival, falls markedly below that of the rest of the community."
My Lords, there is little doubt that many of the people we are talking about this afternoon have incomes which are only just about adequate for survival. As a result, they fall into debt, and rent may be—in fact it is most likely to be—the first casualty, because other creditors are more vociferous in demanding their money. The next step is eviction, and the third step is that they become
700
homeless. Many years ago, Wordsworth wrote:
"And homeless near a thousand homes I stood,
And near a thousand tables pined and wanted food."
Some of us live in London, the capital city of a country which is rich and powerful. It is short of 150,000 to 200,000 homes. Nearly 6,000 people were admitted to temporary housing accommodation last year in England and Wales. Who are these people? Before we write them off as the people who get into debt because they are drunken or profligate let us look at the facts, for these people are the group we are talking about. They are the people who get into rent arrears (the highest percentage); who suffer mortgage breakdowns; or marriage breakdowns (those of us who sit in the domestic court can understand that), and in the process of becoming homeless these families have tried every other means before they ultimately come into the care of the local authority. They have tried to share with relatives and friends, and they seek the services of the welfare authorities only when they have spent every other opportunity to find an alternative.
Not far away from this House there is a block of flats which was built in 1890. There is a sink, with cold water, between every two flats. The flats have no bathrooms. This block is being used for temporary housing accommodation. I will refer to one family who are there: a young man, his wife and one child. The reason they are there is that they were told to leave their furnished accommodation when the child was expected. Your Lordships may say, "Why could they not find something to rent?" Possibly they could; I see advertisements for flats in Chelsea. I see advertisements for houses for sale—at £30,000 for a three-bedroomed house. But whatever one is buying, it is necessary to raise a certain amount of money for the initial deposit. This young couple could not do that. The young man is earning a wage—a low one—and he does not want to remain in that block. How is he to get out? Not far from my office in Bedford Square is that obscene monster known as Centre Point. This has been my bile noire ever since they started building it. It has stood empty for over five years. I understand that it is occupied by 20 dogs and

701
two men—surely the most expensive dog kennel in the whole of Europe.
What is wrong with us that we permit buildings of this kind to stand empty in the capital city while young people are forced to live in sub-standard accommodation because we do not build enough houses? Why is progress so slow? I ask Her Majesty's Government this because I know that the Minister is somebody who cares deeply. This is a blot on the capital city. I will not attempt to refer to other cities, though I am equally sure that the same would be true. There is another curious phenomenon that has arisen in connection with the low-income groups; namely, that the burden of taxes paid by the poor is heavier than the burden of taxes paid by any other section in the community. If you are on supplementary benefit your payments are tax-free, and they carry with them other provisions: rebates for rents, rates, free school meals and milk, and possibly free payment of prescription charges. This is right, and no one would question this. But there are others who are living on roughly the same income levels and they are liable for National Insurance contributions, graduated pension scheme contributions, and possibly taxation.
Their costs of travelling to work, if they travel by public transport, are the same whether they earn £20 a week or £20,000 a year. There is no special rate except perhaps for retirement pensioners. Their rent, rates and mortgages all cost the same in the kind of market in which they have to deal. There is another curious anomaly—and I hesitate to use the word "anomaly"—in the assistance which this group can obtain. I feel sure that the Minister will tell us about the family income supplement. If a person is in a low-income group the income limits for assistance vary. The rent-rebate schemes are so different that there are as many different ones as different authorities. If you are unlucky enough to live in an authority that does not have a good scheme then you do not have much opportunity of getting a rebate.
Then, all the means tests have different income levels. I will not go through all of them, but will take the rate rebate. "Income" means the whole of a person's gross earnings and family allowances,
702
whereas in a rent scheme family allowances are generally not included. I will take as an example of some of the others: the health and welfare means test, prescription charges and so on. The limits here are what are known as real resources, with the family allowances included, but deductions are made for tax, national insurance, housing and travel. Your Lordships can see why people get into trouble when they go to claim some of these benefits. They claim too much and then are accused almost as if they were criminals. The present system of means tests is a confused and utterly illogical patchwork with different income limits, different definitions of "income", different variations according to family size, different rates of graduation and covering different ranges of income.
Let us take the case which the noble Baroness dealt with, of the man who would lose if he earned more. This is a useful example. Here is somebody who would probably be receiving the family income supplement, a council tenant with three children. He would be earning £19 a week. If his income increased by £1 he would suffer the following deductions: his tax would be more; he would have less of a rent rebate or rate rebate, and his National Insurance contribution would increase. At the end of the day he would be 30p worse off because he had increased his wages. That is what is known, I believe, as an "Irishman's rise"—and I have had several of those in my lifetime. I know that the Minister will tell us that the family income supplement was introduced to help the lower-paid worker, but if the average wage-earner earning just a little above that level is faced by the full force of policies which bring down his average wage, it means that we are creating more and more poor. The gap between the very rich and the poor is widening. This is something about which we, as Christians, cannot be complacent.
My Lords, if you will bear with me I will introduce something which is irrelevant, though I hope related. I was touched by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, when, in the debate on the National Health Services she spoke about the ingredient which must never be neglected, "T.L.C."—tender, loving care. This seems to me to link very much with an article that I read in a

703
newspaper last Sunday, headed: "When security grows as cold as charity." In this the writer said:
"Perhaps just doling out money is corrupting. Readers who have never had to sign on or fill in a supplementary benefit form may have experienced a similar chill disapproval from a bank manager sitting in his refurbished office while they were in the red in a credit squeeze."
I watch retirement pensioners in the big post office that I go to to buy my stamps collecting their pensions each week. Nobody is actually rude to them; but neither is anybody particularly kind or welcoming. If I cross the road and go to my bank, where I am doing exactly the same thing, drawing out money, I am received with courtesy, kindness and friendliness. In a world in which everybody needs some kind of love and attention, "T.L.C." must never be allowed to be in short supply—and this is equaly true of our Government and our local government services.
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I find it very daunting to have to speak after the very able speeches of the two noble Baronesses who have opened this debate. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this immensely important subject. I would say to her with great respect how much I know the House has admired not only the way she delivered her speech but also the very constructive suggestions she made in it. I was relieved to hear her say that she recognised the wide scope of the subject and the fact that there was no simple solution, but I should like to say to her in reply that I will certainly ensure that the suggestions she made are given the closest consideration.
The noble Baroness expressed deep concern, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for those living on low incomes whose living standards are hit hardest when prices rise and who are least able to protect themselves against the consequences of changes in the economic conditions of the country. We share the concern she has expressed for those who are living on low incomes. We fully appreciate the anxiety and hardship which inflation inevitably causes them, and the
704
measures we have already taken during our period of office indicate clearly our determination to take effective action. There are two main ways in which low-income groups can be protected. The first, and in my view by far the more important, is through the achievement of a healthy economy. The second is through appropriate increases in social security and other social benefits. Undoubtedly, the best solution is a healthy economy, free from inflation and with adequate employment opportunities for all. The economic policies of Her Majesty's Government are all directed towards the achievement of these objectives, and over the coming year the outlook is for rapid growth with improved prospects for employment and an increase in real disposable incomes. But it will take time for the reflationary measures fully to work through to activity and employment. We are determined to bring help to those on low incomes, not only in times of good economic growth but also in difficult times.
Although for some purposes it is convenient to talk in broad terms about the problem of low-income groups, there is a danger that this may lead to over-simplification. Neither the groups nor their problems are homogeneous: those on low incomes include the old, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped, the sick, one-parent families, and people with particularly heavy family responsibilities or housing costs. Measures to help one category may not be appropriate for others. Moreover, some people are particularly capable managers and may through their own skill achieve a higher standard of living than others on similar incomes. By contrast, there are, unfortunately, a minority who find it hard to cope and whose lives are difficult, however much financial help they receive. Such people we hope will benefit from the recent reorganisation and improvements which have taken place in the social services and it would be wrong to leave these services out of account when considering the problem of poverty.
I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of what the Government have already done to help people on low incomes. I do not intend to go into any detail because your Lordships are already familiar with the legislation that has passed through this House. We have

705
raised the rate of pension for a single person by 20 per cent., from £5 to £6 a week, and for a married couple from £8.10p to £9.70p. In addition, for the first time ever, we have provided for the special needs of the very elderly by an age addition of 25p for every person over 80. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State pointed out last week in another place:
"The last uprating represented the first occasion on which any Government increased benefits substantially without raising contributions for low wage earners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/11/71; col. 267.]
We provided 20 per cent. more in benefit with no increased contribution from the low paid.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pleaded once again for an annual up-rating. As she is aware, both the last Government and we ourselves have been thinking in terms of an uprating every two years. We shall continue to watch the situation, but there are benefits if we can keep our uprating to two-yearly intervals, although as she appreciates supplementary benefit is considered, or has been recently considered, on an annual basis. We have also increased the rates of supplementary pensions at the same time as those of the ordinary retirement pensions, and for the over-80s we added also the special addition to supplementary benefit.
We accept the value of some universal benefits. May I say to the noble Baroness that we do not believe in selectivity as an end in itself. But we hold the view that the additional expenditure in cash and services that we can find at present should be concentrated selectively on those in greatest need, and it would be at the present moment wasteful to provide benefits and subsidies for people who do not need them. We are guided, if I may say again to her, by common sense; and it was common sense which in fact influenced us to introduce the family income supplement rather than increase family benefits. It was when we had the benefit of looking at what we could do by one means or the other that we came down at that time in favour of the family income supplement. But although entitlement to some selective benefits is assessed on a test of income, we have
706
also provided additional help without means testing for certain categories of people. I have mentioned the over 80s. We have also improved pensions for younger widows, introduced a new range of invalidity benefits for the long-term sick, and brought in an attendance allowance for the very severely disabled.
For the first time we have taken special steps to give effective help to low paid workers with children who are living below supplementary benefit level, even though the breadwinner is in full-time work. Payments under the family income supplement scheme have been made since August this year. This is a new form of family support which concentrates help where need is greatest and, unlike family allowances, benefits the family with only one child. If I may quote my right honourable friend once again, he said recently:
"Obviously if it fails to reach the majority of those entitled to it the Government will have to find better methods of helping those people. I doubt whether it will mean withdrawing the scheme but it may mean refining it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 3/8/71, col. 1313.]
At the present moment over 60,000 families with low earnings are drawing a family income supplement and average payments are about £1·70p a week. About one-third of these are single-parent families for whom the scheme is particularly favourable, and the average weekly payment to these families is well over £2. At the last count an additional 25,000 families were getting increased supplementary benefit because of the effect of family income supplement on the wage-stop. The present rate of expenditure on family incomes supplement and additional supplementary benefit, if maintained for a full year, would amount to over £6 million, or more than three-quarters of the original estimate, and I would assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we shall certainly continue with our efforts to ensure that all those who are eligible for this benefit should apply for it.
But this is not the only way in which we have shown our concern for families with low incomes. Twice this year we have raised the exemption limits for health and welfare charges, and these increases have more than compensated for the rising cost of living. These have

707
covered school meals, welfare milk, prescription and other National Health Service charges, and more people than ever are now benefiting from these remissions. The campaign that we mounted has been very successful in increasing the take-up of these benefits, and by October welfare milk, for example, was being issued free to 150,000 low-income families (apart from families receiving supplementary benefit) which compares with 2,000 families before April.
We are also tackling the problem of high housing costs for poor families. The proposals contained in the new Housing Finance Bill for a national system of rent rebates and rent allowances and a major overhaul of the whole system of housing subsidies represent the biggest reform of housing finance for more than half a century. We are concerned that only a small fraction—about one-eighth—of the rapidly mounting cost of housing subsidies is giving help with the rent to tenants in need. The remainder is being used to reduce rent levels for all council tenants regardless of their ability to pay. The proposed system will mean for the first time that help towards rent will be available nationally on a common and realistic basis, redirecting subsidies to the tenants of unfurnished accommodation who most need them. The noble Baroness was somewhat critical of the different rates of rent rebate which exist at the present moment. This will be rectified in the Bill, and I am sure that we can count on her support when we discuss it.
The wider application of the fair rent principle and a national system of rent rebates and allowances form part of our basic policy to promote personal responsibility where help from the State is unnecessary, and to provide real help to those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Our concern is not confined to the provision of improved benefits or subsidies. We are also determined to improve standards of care. As I told the House on November 22, we have decided to allocate a further £118 million to speed progress in some of the most vulnerable sectors of the health and personal social services over the next four years. Taking into account the extra allocation which we made last year, this Government have now made available
708
additional resources totalling about £250 million at present prices, particularly to help the elderly, the mentally ill and the handicapped. Those three categories were particularly mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who have already spoken.
Those who oppose selectivity in social benefits often urge upon us that family allowances should be increased, and that the increases should be recovered from those families which pay tax by means of the claw-back system introduced in 1968. Unfortunately, there are several problems involved in this. First, it does not help one-child families; secondly, it means a transfer of resources from the pockets of the husbands to the wives, which might perhaps appeal to the noble Baroness opposite; thirdly, if the increases were substantial, the situation would be reached where the larger a man's family the lower the wage level would be at which he would start to pay tax; and fourthly, the Government would be paying out large sums of money simply to recover them again through the tax system. It sounds simple, but there are indeed massive problems.
Another attractive idea which we have by no means finally dismissed is negative income tax, but the schemes that we have so far examined present formidable practical difficulties. It is also tempting to think in terms of a national minimum wage, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, acknowledged, there are many problems in this, too. But I took note of the point she made about the wages councils and I will see that it is considered.
Low pay is a cause of poverty, though not the only one. But any attempt to cure poverty by wage adjustments is imprecise and non-selective, since wages are related to work done and not to the family commitments of the worker. Moreover, there is no absolute level of low pay. Low pay must be a relative concept—the pay of those at the bottom of the earnings league table compared with that of higher paid workers. This year the National Board for Prices and Incomes produced a Report on the General Problems of Low Pay which indicates from experience in this and in other countries that it is extremely difficult to improve the levels of low pay in

709
relation to the pay of other workers. Indeed, their investigations show that the relative position of low-paid workers has remained fairly constant for nearly a century. Even when special efforts have been made to improve the relative position of the low paid, as was done under the Labour Government's incomes policies, nothing has been achieved in practice. On the other hand, the Report showed that the relative incomes position of the low paid has improved significantly since 1938 through tax and social security arrangements, and economic growth has enabled the living standards of the low paid to rise considerably. It is therefore through the tax and social security system and, above all, through economic growth that we must look for the most effective way of improving the relative position of the low paid.
The reason for the failure of attempts to improve their relative position appears to have been that higher paid workers were not prepared to see a narrowing of pay differentials and a consequent deterioration of their relative position. Above average percentage increases in pay for the low paid have tended to be followed by identical settlements in percentage terms for the high paid. Such a leap-frogging process is inflationary and leads to no improvement in the position of the low paid; indeed it can worsen their position, for they are hard hit particularly by rising prices. It is therefore very much in the interest of the low paid that we should continue to make progress in curbing the wage/cost inflation from which the nation has been suffering since 1969.
My Lords, I have been speaking of the past and the present. What about the future? First, we have recently published a White Paper, Strategy for Pensions, in which we set out our proposals for future pension policy. Our objective is to provide everyone with the opportunity of an earnings-related pension through the growth and expansion of occupational schemes—with a State reserve scheme for those without such cover. Secondly, we are engaged in a thorough-going review of family poverty and we are continuing to study the problems of poor families to ensure a sound basis for the further development of our policies, and I believe that this debate will be a useful contribution to that review. Thirdly,
710
the committee set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Morris Finer to consider one-parent families is hoping to report towards the end of next year, and when the report is received we shall give immediate and careful consideration to its recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned the problems of the homeless. As a result of the Greve Report, on the homeless in London, my right honourable friend set up a Working Party, and as the noble Baroness will know their first Report, which dealt with families with children, was published on May 27, 1971. The Government and the London Boroughs Association endorsed the recommendations, and the London Boroughs Association have asked their members to report back on what action they propose to take. Later reports from the Working Party will deal with adult couples and single persons, the revision of records and statistical returns, and the need and scope for further research. The position outside London is being considered by another Working Party, also set up by my right honourable friend, to study, in the first instance, the Glastonbury Report on Homeless in Wales and the South-West. Neither the problem nor the definition is necessarily the same outside London as it is inside, and we shall need to await the Working Party's recommendations.
My Lords, in a debate on such a very wide-ranging subject it is inevitable that I have referred only briefly to the many difficult and in some cases controversial matters involved, but it should be clear from what I have said that the Government are neither ignorant of nor indifferent to the plight of low-income groups, and that we have already taken and will continue to take effective action both to achieve a healthy economy, which we put as our first priority, and to make the best use of available resources to mitigate the effects of poverty.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord in full flood, but he referred to the increased number of persons receiving free benefits such as school meals. Can he tell the House to what extent these increased numbers are due to the increased incidence of unemployment? I think that would be very helpful.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think even the noble Lord would expect my knowledge to be quite so complete as to give an off the cuff answer to that question, but I shall be speaking towards the end of the debate, if I have the leave of the House, and if I have any information then I will be able to impart it to him.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord. In the course of his speech he made many observations, which seemed to me very wise and timely, concerning attempts to diminish poverty by operating directly on rates of pay. But when he spoke of proposals for a negative income tax he dismissed those in a single sentence. I do not know what to think about a negative income tax, but I think it would be very interesting indeed if Her Majesty's Government could see fit to issue a Green Paper or something of that sort, something completely tentative, in which the arguments for and against are set out in an orderly way so that reasonable people can give more attention to them.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I am sorry if I dismissed this subject rather quickly because there is so much that I could have said, and I think it is something that all of us are interested in; but as there are so many different forms of negative income tax the difficulties are formidable. But I will certainly see that the suggestion of a Green Paper to be published at some point is considered; it is a useful suggestion.
4.14 p.m.
LORD BURGH: My Lords, I wish very briefly to share with your Lordships a note of cautious optimism on the subject of this debate. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think she has come to grips with many of the key issues in this question. I will follow up one point she made, and say that people now seem of their own accord to be doing something for themselves when they find themselves hard up; in other words, when for some reason they become members of a low-income group they start to do something about it. Purely by applying simple arithmetic, if you find it is hard to make ends meet when living by yourself in a bed-sitter, you put two
712
and two together and with a number of people you can on your current resources do much better. People are getting into this situation, it appears, at quite a rapid rate; they are pooling, as a minimum, things like shelter, accommodation and food; many people are pooling a great deal more. They are finding that this makes life easier financially, and a great deal more rewarding. The question is rather one of finding a way not just of living within their means but of using their means to live in tile best way available to them. So people are pooling themselves together into groups, so far as I know, in all the major centres in the country. Some support themselves by the money they earn, or were earning before they decided to start doing this. They also tend to support themselves by doing craft work, making leather work, jewellery, candles, clothes. Another quite common field of interest, though it cannot bring in very much money, is the general field of education and social service.
What are these groups like? Can one characterise them in a general way? I do not think one can, except that they are consciously or semi-consciously, formally or informally, pooling themselves together, usually to overcome some financial difficulty. Internally the people who are doing this sort of thing are very diverse. They may be doing it from all sorts of reasons. They have all sorts of interests, some very united, some very much more diffuse. They are mobile in the sense that groups seem to form and dissolve. They form and find that things are not going satisfactorily and so they dissolve. In many cases other groups form from the remnants. They tend to be international. A group in, say, England may well contain members from Germany or the United States, and vice versa, and there is no feeling of international barriers in these cases. They are coming together because of some common interest or because it is cheaper to eat well when you eat ten round the table.
This tendency—I do not want to start using the term "movement", because rather than a movement this appears to be a tendency which nobody is pushing or sponsoring—if one starts to think about it throws up a number of interesting implications and ramifications,

713
some of which have already been touched on in this debate. I am thinking particularly about mental health—tender loving care. There are groups in this country who are learning to put themselves into such a position that they could accept in their midst perhaps a couple of harmless "loonies". Violent mentally ill people, no; but harmless people could fit in and could make a great contribution to the group coherence that emerges. It is not only that they would be being helped; they could in a very real way be helping the group they join.
I have touched on the international aspects of this matter. I think these are very real. It is an economical way of life—ten round a table. It is economical, too, not just for the people in the group but for the country as a whole. If ten people share one car a great deal less pollution is caused and resources are used more economically than if those ten each had their own motor bike.
I should like to pursue other implications—for instance, in the field of unemployment extrapolated to automation and leisure. I think these things can also be considered under the same umbrella. In this country I think that this tendency is in its infancy. It seems to have got quite a lot further in the United States; it has certainly taken very solid root in Germany. Experiments such as these are not always successful: groups form, groups dissolve. There are internal reasons for any failures in this field, and these are matters for the people concerned to work out. I think external reasons for failure are much less important. If one feels that these people are doing something worth while, it is not so much a question of helping them in any way. I cannot think of any specific way in which I would ask the Government to help these people. Such ways may emerge. What is more necessary is to be aware that people are doing this; to be aware of the validity of what they are doing, and to be ready in case of need to say, "O.K., we will help you in such and such a way".
The main need at the moment for people who are living in groups (in a sense, developing a new life style which is suitable for their' present circumstances), is independence from undue in
714
terference. If they are proving themselves to be worth while in the community at large, or at least neutral in the community at large, they can be left alone. They also need an atmosphere of approval. It is more a matter of giving encouragement by withholding discouragement; giving encouragement when it is needed, rather than giving a push when none in fact is needed. I feel sure that later specific needs may emerge. Specific uses for people who are starting to live in this way may well emerge in fields such as those I have mentioned, mental health, and so on. At the moment it is a tendency which I feel should be borne in mind, in case at some future time a real need emerges to integrate what these people are doing with what other people in society are doing in the various fields in which they are concerned.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, could the noble Lord be more explicit? For instance, how old are these people? Are they in good physical health? Do they have children? What other descriptions do they answer to?
LORD BURGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I do not know what the statistical breakdown of people who are living in groups would be. I know that the range covers practically the whole of the population. Some are old, but, true, many are young. Some are going into this way of living towards the end of a useful career; some are going into it from a position of a university "dropout. Some have children, and some do not". I suppose the tendency would be for such groups to be composed of those who, for some reason, have not been able to find themselves a satisfactory place in society as it stands now. Those who are unable to cope, for whatever reason, physical or mental, are particularly good candidates for some kind of communal life style.
4.24 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to confine the few remarks that I propose to make on this Motion to two subjects. One is the problems that are raised by the vagrants and the wanderers, or the "wayfarers", as they were called; and secondly I want to touch on one or two matters concerning the welfare and care of the elderly. May I just go back

715
in history for a short time? Because one of the attributes of the nineteenth century Poor Law—probably the only attribute one can look at with any degree of pleasure or satisfaction—was that it did cover, in some kind of way, everybody in want. For example, there were 600 unions of parishes in England and Wales; each union had a workhouse, and the majority had casual wards which were there for the benefit of tramps, wayfarers, vagrants and other people who wished to go into them.
These casual wards were extremely uncomfortable, harshly run, and most unattractive, because their purpose was solely deterrent. But all I want to say to-day is that there was somewhere that people could go to—always supposing they cared to go there. They got rather simple, uncomfortable accommodation, but they were given a bed, a bath, and I think a meal; and they could stay for two nights before they were discharged. Before they went they had to perform some menial task, such as breaking stones for road-making, for several hours. There was a total lack of discrimination about the people who were catered for, whether they were tramps and vagrants or virtuous wayfarers who were seeking a job. The casual wards were not at all satisfactory and not at all comfortable. Indeed, as we know, many wayfarers would not go into them but preferred to go to the Embankment in London, or to stay in the parks.
In London itself there were, finally, a dozen of these casual wards which had been transferred in 1909 to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who made them rather more humane and rather more comfortable. When the 1939 war came the population of the casual wards, the number of vagrants, fell enormously because people were engaged in other occupations. By the time 1949 came and the National Health Service Act and the National Assistance Act came into force the casual wards were, quite rightly, closed down.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, they were reopened.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, that may be so, but they were at one time shut down and finished with. I believe that at the present time, for London it
716
self, there is one large reception centre containing a great many beds—I think round about 1,000—which is somewhere down in the Camberwell part of the world. The number of beds may be correct, but it seems to me that if there is to be somewhere for people to go, it is not enough to have just one large place down in the South-East: what is needed is to have several places to which people can easily go, scattered about the town generally. There are too few of these places available in the country at the present time. I am not quite sure of the total number run by the local authorities, but the Department of Health and Social Security run three.
We read in the papers the other day of the tragedy which befell a Nigerian in a Yorkshire manufacturing town, where I believe there is no reception centre run by the local authority. The nearest reception centre is in a neighbouring town, about 10 or 12 miles away. That may be not very far, but it is quite a long way if you have to wander there when you are sick, hungry, tired and cold. Men like that are forced to take refuge in the crypts of churches. I think there are 50 put up each night on boards in one of the crypts in the town, and there is a dormitory in the Salvation Army hostel which contains one hundred beds; but so full is it, and the beds are so close together, that they are practically touching.
At other hostels where someone could stay for a month, these people were unpopular. They were liable to expulsion if they wetted their beds, if they were verminous or if they were drunk. Quite a number of these people were alcoholics, and it is rather difficult to say whether that was because of their condition or whether their condition was a result of their alcoholism. There were also a large number of drug addicts. But a certain number were people who just could not make it and who had fallen by the wayside. At the present time, they are catered for quite well by a number of organisations, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, looks after one such place not far from this House.
The National Health Service has now made arrangements for some of its hospitals to take in people suffering from drug addiction, and some provision is being made for the treatment of alcoholism. There are various societies in

717
existence. One, with which I am connected, is called the Cyrenian Society, which has carried out projects similar to those of Shelter, with the aid of the local authorities in a dozen towns. Such societies are run by volunteers and do very good work. I think there may be something to be said for the communities about which the noble Lord, Lord Burgh, was talking. In due course, they might play a part in this work. Perhaps I should know the answer, but I should like to ask the Minister what is the number of reception centres run by local authorities in the country. Secondly, is it possible to increase or redeploy the beds available from Government or local authority sources, so that they would be available to people who needed them? I am assuming that people would be prepared to go into them—because of course one cannot compel them to go in. But one can make beds available and if they were reasonably good and reasonably well administered, I think that many people would in time take advantage of the offer.
Secondly, I should like to raise the question of the elderly. I do not want to go into the matter of pensions which has been raised many times earlier in the debate, although I entirely agree with all the complaints and suggestions that have been made. I should like to deal with two points concerning the elderly. The first is the matter of residential homes for those who require permanent care and attention of a custodial, rather than of a medical, character. The local authorities have never really fully implemented what they were supposed to do under Section 28 of the National Assistance Act. Quite a lot of work has been done, and on more than one occasion I have been told that so many more homes have been opened. My answer has been that, although I have been very glad to hear that more have been opened, there are nowhere near enough and that a great many more will have to be opened.
The absence of these homes creates an enormous and very expensive strain on the hospital service. It also compels a certain number of elderly folk, who need to be in residential homes, to stay in their own homes too long, with subsequent deterioration of their condition. A week or ten days ago we were told
718
that improvements are in sight, and that, I think, is welcomed by everybody. If we could see the vanishing of the old workhouses, and their replacement by more reasonable accommodation, everybody would be very pleased. I can see some advantage in Health being in the charge of a Secretary of State, with a seat in the Cabinet and having a Chancellor of the Exchequer to work with, because for some time there has been a Minister of Health. That would show up some of the problems.
The other kind of housing to which I should like to see far more encouragement given is what I think is called sheltered housing. By that, I mean groups of one-room flats in towns, or perhaps bungalows in the country, with a warden to look after people when required, rather on the lines of the almshouses which did such very good work in the past. There was a time when I think the Ministry of Health, as it then was, did not quite approve of the principle of almshouses. I never quite knew why, but it did not. But I am pleased to see that that principle is now coming back into favour, because we could do a great deal by taking care of elderly folk in sheltered housing. The housing which is built for old people in some towns is often quite unsuitable. I was reading the other day about large estates of houses for old people, built in a rather hilly town in Yorkshire. Because it was hilly, it was obviously rather difficult to build houses on the level all the time and, at one of the big estates for the care of the elderly, people had to climb 13 steps every time they went up to their house. That meant that a large number of them were confined as prisoners in their houses. So one must be very careful to avoid that sort of mistake in the future.
There has been a great deal of talk about the value of the domiciliary services and no one can deny that they are of enormous value. The number of home helps could probably be increased, but it must be realised that it is not only money which makes a home help. A person has to be suitable to be a home help. There are some people who are quite unsuitable and do not want to do the job and, frequently, one cannot find enough volunteers who are suitable. As regards the other excellent services, the

719
Meals-on-Wheels service is of great value. There one has been most appreciative of the work of the Women's Royal Volunteer Reserve, working under the inspired leadership of the late Lady Reading, and of the very good work done by the Red Cross Society. But there, again, they seem to me to be grossly inadequate. It is all very well to be given a hot meal on two or three days of the week, but if you really want a service like that, I think a meal should be delivered on five or six days of the week. I should like to see one delivered on seven days, though that may be going a bit too far.
I have one last word on the domiciliary services, where the sheltered housing schemes could bring about an improvement. What kind of life is it for a lonely housebound person to be by herself, or himself, in one or two rooms, where the only person who comes is the home help who stays for one hour in the morning, and where, for the rest of the time, they are lonely and by themselves with not a great deal of money and with no one to talk to? Would they not be better in a sheltered housing scheme, where they would have friends next door or around the corner? Those are the two points which I wanted to raise. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Seear for having put down this Motion, which has enabled me to raise those two points.
4.39 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, the problem of poverty is one that we cannot study too tirelessly or debate too often or seek too positively to remedy. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has done us a great service this afternoon in bringing this subject before us in this form. To try to eradicate poverty is one of the great aims of politics. A Parliament is ineffective as a Parliament if it does not contribute something concrete towards the reduction of poverty. Reduction is all we can hope for, because poverty is relative, and therefore, in spite of the pious hopes that we have heard this afternoon, I maintain that it will never be wholly eliminated.
Poverty may be the outcome of varying, different factors. It is evident in those families or individuals who try to live on low incomes. It may be caused by the loss of the family earner by death,
720
desertion or divorce, by illness, accident or unemployment. It may be caused by personal financial pressures brought about by rising prices of rent, rates, food and clothing, high taxation and an inability to earn one's living adequately because these personal difficulties have come too late in life to enable the victim to train to earn. Those whom we think of in this country to-day as the low-income groups would, many of them, be relatively well off if judged by the standards of a hundred years ago. They would be affluent by the standards of many parts of Asia and Africa to-day. But that is no excuse for us: this is our problem in Britain, and we must face it. And let us never forget, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has already reminded us, that when we talk in general terms of low income groups we are really talking about people—grown-ups and children; black, brown and white; people with too little money to get enough to eat or to pay for an adequate roof over their heads, or to keep warm in weather like this. Over and over again, when we come alive to the problems that stare them in the face, we should gird ourselves on to some effort on their behalf, realising that. "But for the grace of God, there go I".
It is tempting to think that the low earnings could be easily put right by higher pay, but the report on General Problems of Low Pay which the Prices and Incomes Board published the other day and from which we have had several quotations this afternoon (I listened anxiously to hear whether the one I had chosen would be used, and I am glad to say it was not) shows how difficult and intractable these problems are. Their main conclusion had to be—and I quote:
"that there is no single remedy for low pay since there is no single cause. In any one industry a variety of factors can be at work: the industry may be declining or may be faced with severe competition and falling profits: managements may be slack: the jobs themselves may be ill-suited to modern needs: workers may lack the skills necessary to do better-paid jobs, or they may simply prefer convenient and undemanding work: trade union organisation may be inadequate, and wage systems out of date. Many other things may need attention."
One welcomes the family income supplement as a most important step in the right direction. Our duty must be to publicise

721
it wherever we can, so that as time goes on we shall find that it is claimed and received by practically all that really need it.
Another measure which is going to be of widespread value to the people to whom this Motion refers is the Housing Finance Bill, which will be coming before your Lordships later on this Session. Whatever else that Bill does, it is going to help the least well off by reducing their rents and by making relief available to badly off people who are tenants in privately-owned accommodation as well as those in council houses. Many of the poorest families live in privately-rented unfurnished homes, and up till now there has been no help available at all for them. When I was chairman of a borough council's housing committee I brought in a rent rebate scheme on our housing estates in order that our poorest tenants could be helped by our adjusting their rents to their means. Those tenants who could afford an economic rent were asked to pay it. The housing manager and I took immense trouble to explain the scheme to all concerned at meetings on each of our nine estates. I am glad to say that the scheme went through with no rent strikes, and the poorer tenants were given considerable help towards meeting their rebated rents. I rejoice to think of this relief now becoming available to those poorer people who are the tenants of privately-owned accommodation. The family income supplement scheme is not designed to deal with the effect of rents in causing poverty; the Housing Finance Bill is to take care of that. A wave of relief at the benefits promised in this Bill should be experienced by those badly in need of just this sort of help, and once the Bill becomes law it will again be our duty to give it all the publicity we can.
I should like to he confident that the Government are going to be equally realistic about extra heating allowances. We all know what a drain the cost of heating can be; and the picture of elderly people retiring to their beds at mid-day and remaining in them until the following morning because they cannot afford any heating during the afternoon and evening is tragic in its suggestion of hopeless despair. I know that heating is accounted for in the scale
722
rates and also in the long-term additions which are available to retirement pensioners and others who have been on supplementary benefit for a long time; and I know that there are extra allowances for those in need of additional help with their heating. But I am left wondering if the extra heating relief available is anything like sufficient to help those who are eligible for it. I am also wondering whether those who might be entitled to these extra allowances are getting them, or whether they are even aware of their availability. I have heard it estimated that 19,000 people die every year because of the effects of the cold. What a terrible thought! For some years I was chairman of a tuberculosis care committee, and, being aware of this problem of cold, my committee would buy and distribute warm blankets during any particularly cold spell in order to offset the need for additional expenditure on heating. It was often reported to us that those who received them would wrap these blankets around themselves as they sat before their meagre fires in the day time. We helped where we could with the payment for extra gas and electricity, but we could never do enough.
The fact about the economic condition of the country that has been hitting these people hardest is the rise in prices. The main cause of rising prices is high wage increases which go right beyond any increase in productivity and efficiency. Those who try to enforce high wage claims may think they are extracting extra money from the employers. What they are really doing is driving down the standard of living of people not as well off as themselves. The militant type of trade union leader tries to conceal this and to distract attention from it. But history will accuse these last few years of cruelty: cruelty by trade unions to the badly off, by forcing price increases; cruelty by the management, who have weakly given in to claims which they know to be unjustified. These are the sufferers—these whom we call in this Motion the low-income groups. Their sufferings would be vastly relieved if only prices could be stopped from going on rising against them. And that could be done, and done quickly, if only those who wield power in unions would give reality to the concept of the brotherhood of man and think how they are hurting those of their fellow men who

723
have the smallest incomes and who therefore can least bear to be hurt.
4.49 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for bringing forward this Motion; and, unlike her, I like the wording, which goes right to the heart of the matter. I congratulate her on her most interesting speech; and I hope that the Government will take up all her practical suggestions. I must say, very humbly. that mine is a more general approach. But before I come to that I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips on her speech, which was the usual trenchant, compassionate and well-informed speech that I am used to hearing from her. Where I slightly diverge from the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is in regard to her strictures about universality. After all, the choice we have to make is between means testing and universality.
As regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I agree with him that the Government have given much relief in the various ways that have been outlined this afternoon, and I congratulate them on what they have done. But, after all, although I do not wish to be partisan, the Government are sitting on the very nice nest egg of the balance of payments—and something had to be hatched out. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that no Government, Conservative or Labour, has done enough, but I am critical of the means-testing methods which the Government have employed.
My Lords, we are familiar with the spectacle of politicians in dictatorship countries, on pain of death, admitting their political mistakes. But it needed the figure of nearly one million unemployed to turn the Chamber of the House of Commons into a confessional, with one Minister after another, including Mr. Roy Jenkins, confessing the errors of their judgments' and analyses of the economic situation in this country to-day—a situation which is baffling economists, businessmen and Ministers. I must say that it was a great relief to many of us when Ministers stopped making optimistic noises about shakeouts, redundancies, over-manning and so
724
on—which sounded to us rather like whistling in the dark—and began to eat their words and to talk again about public expenditure.
Although I am critical of this Government's approach to poverty, I do not wish to minimise what they have done. All political Parties have a desire to alleviate poverty and to introduce and strengthen social qualities which will bring this about. I do not wish to contrast what has been done by the Conservative Party with what the Labour Party have done in recent years but simply to examine the philosophical approach to poverty of this Government because this does bear on the effectiveness of their measures in the field of pensions, housing, health and education.
First, let us consider the numbers involved. I do not believe that anyone in this debate so far has come forward with the numbers of those who are in poverty. The selective principle, so beloved of the Conservatives, starts by narrowing down the numbers. I have taken the figures from a Paper given by Nicholas Bosanquet, of the London School of Economics, who has been doing research on this subject. He maintains that there are 2 million people whose income is below the supplementary benefit scale. 4 million who are on this scale, and 4 million just above this scale. Thus, at least 10 million people in this country—one-fifth of the population—are in poverty. Who are these people? We have heard about them from various speakers this afternoon. They are the old-age pensioners, the disabled, the unskilled workers and families. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about training for the unskilled workers. None of these groups benefits as much as others from the selective attitude to social policies in the fields of social security. health, education and housing. This means-test approach is inefficient as well as humiliating to the individuals involved.
The crucial problem for modern, affluent societies everywhere—and, whatever we may say, we are one of them—is to raise the living standards of their lower-paid workers in proportion to the rise in national wealth. So poorer people have to be assisted in various ways—for example, in housing, because money spent on education is wasted without decent

725
minimum standards in housing. As for slums and homelessness, they are a constant reproach to any civilised society. Competition seems to be the keynote of Conservative dogma and the logic of this is that someone has to lose out. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said that we should always have poverty. I must say that I do not entirely agree with her there. Where many of us part company with the Conservative doctrine is that we do not believe that one can have cut-price social services; for the purpose of social services to-day is not just to relieve poverty but to provide opportunities in higher education. in better-planned housing and in the overall raising of the quality of life. In fact, I read recently that the trade unions, instead of merely asking for pay increases, would do better to relate them to the better social services which they may get from the Government.
To harp on reducing public expenditure and reducing taxes is to reduce the argument to the lowest common denominator. The trade mark of this Government is the extension of the means test. Underlying the arguments for this is the insinuation that Labour's social policies are wasteful and give help largely where help is not needed. The Conservatives state that economising on these releases funds for the needy. This is completely untrue. Selectivity benefits the better-off more than the poor, if we do not reform taxation. Let us take one small example which pinpoints this fact. I welcome Sir Keith Joseph's change of mind about cost-related prescription charges and other health charges. But what is really amazing is that a compassionate man like Sir Keith Joseph could not have instantly realised that the poorer sections of the community, who suffer more bad health than the better off, would have had to bear the greater charges for prescriptions, the greater burder of these increased health charges.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Baroness has been criticising my right honourable friend. I must remind her that the exemption limits were raised at the same time, so that those who could not afford the prescription charges could have them paid.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I was not criticising Sir Keith Joseph. I, have the greatest respect for him. I simply asked how he could have brought forward these increases when he should have known that this burden would fall on the lower income groups. That is all. But he changed his mind, and I congratulate him.
Perhaps the medal for self-deceiving policies must go to the Government's family income supplement. The Government's anti-poverty programme followed a November Budget which, as we know, increased health charges for drugs, for dental treatment and for school dinners, and reduced school milk. Multiple exemptions were made for the needy—except that they would have to apply for them. There was such a strong reluctance to taking up the family income supplement that the Government have had to spend £600,000 on advertising to tempt people to apply. Is not this a kind of madness? I cannot think that, as some people have suggested, the Government rely for their economies on a low take-up.
During the last Election campaign there was a good deal of propaganda about the burden on the economy of subsidised council housing. The impression left in the mind of the public was that the taxpayer—who was always mentioned with bated breath—was subsidising people in council houses who could afford to pay higher rents. What is the truth about this, my Lords? I have obtained the figures from the Rating and Valuation Association. In 1969–70 subsidies to local authority housing amounted to £124 million. Tax concessions for house purchasers on mortgage interest cost the Exchequer £300 million this year. What is the difference between a subsidy and a tax concession? Surely a subsidy by any other name is just as sweet.
There has been some petty saving, giving with one hand and taking away with the other, particularly in respect of education. If one has to criticise it, the pension plan is orientated towards private pensions and away from Government contributory pensions. This is in contrast to most of the Common Market countries, where the reverse is the case. There is not enough emphasis on the training of unskilled workers, as was pointed out by

727
the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and we find that only 2 per cent. of the children of manual workers go to universities. Family allowances are given in such a way as to help the better-off more than the poor families.
My Lords, I repeat that modern societies everywhere have so far failed to raise the living standards of their low-paid workers in proportion to the rise in their national wealth. Means-testing ends up by relieving the better off. The present Government, if they mean to have a new style of government, should set out to reform taxes, not to reduce them, with resulting inferior social services. They should embark on a tremendous campaign to educate public opinion about taxation and public expenditure generally. The means-test approach has served to reinforce my belief in the value of the overall giving of help. When help is given in this way it produces the best take-up, as we saw when the Government gave their pensions to the over-eighties. Why has the family income supplement had such a poor take-up? Finally, my Lords, I believe that the explosion of population and the scientific and technological explosions make it inevitable that we shall all be borne along on a tide for more social equality. But this can be brought about only by really good social policies, which will cost money.
5.4 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I should like, first, to join with other noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for having promoted this debate. It has been a most interesting and instructive afternoon. The noble Baroness made more than one suggestion which seemed to be a novelty and well worth consideration. One thing she proposed was that the wages councils should be encouraged to exercise their functions over a rather wider field than they have been accustomed to do in the past. I am sure that that would be a good thing, but I hope it is practical; the forces at work are very complicated. The differential had its day and I fear that that may prove to be the case with this proposal. The noble Baroness proposed that industrial re-training for men temporarily out of employment might be given in
728
empty factories vacated during short-time working. That seems to me a proposal well worth considering and I hope that the Government will give it the consideration that it deserves.
There was one observation from the noble Baroness with which I found myself in complete disagreement. She said that we could get rid of poverty if we wanted to. I wish I could believe that to be true. My Lords, you cannot spend ten years of your life on the National Assistance Board and come away with the conviction that poverty may be got rid of if you want that to happen. The causes of poverty are so diverse and different. Almost every case presents a different aspect. That was the lesson that I learned when I was at the National Assistance Board, and I have never forgotten it. With the sentiment which the noble Baroness's words connote we would all agree, but the practical instrumentality is much more difficult.
I enjoyed. as I always do, the speech of the noble Baroness. Lady Phillips. I am sorry that she had an unpleasant experience in one of the offices of the Ministry of Social Security. When I was at the Board the staff prided themselves on being the friends and confidants of the population they served. I am bound to say that that was brought out in my postbag. In the ten years that I was there I do not think I had more than half a dozen letters complaining of the treatment received by applicants either in their homes or in the offices of the Board.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, permit me to interrupt him? I should not like him to get the wrong impression. I said that I watched them getting their pensions in a post office—not in a Social Security Department office. I do not want any blame attached to the wrong Department.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I do not want to be critical of the Post Office, but I have not the same interest in maintaining my ground in respect of the Post Office as in respect of the National Assistance Board.
In the few moments that I shall detain your Lordships I should like to make one or two observations about the old

729
casual wards to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred in such unflattering terms, The casual wards came in for a good deal of abuse, much of which was deserved, but not all of it. At the end, after the local authorities took over responsibility for the service from the guardians in 1929 a very high standard was maintained in a great many authorities and we ought not to overlook that. During the war, the casual wards all over the country were closed. When the war came to an end there was in fact no casual accommodation available at all. Accordingly, an obligation was placed on the National Assistance Board to provide casual accommodation, and to enable the Board to do that it was given powers to require local authorities to provide such accommodation.
It was obvious that the National Assistance Board was unable itself to undertake the provision of casual accommodation all over the country. Accordingly, the National Assistance Board exercised its powers and called on the local authorities to set up some form of casual reception and accommodation. That was done. In some parts of the country it was well done, and the accommodation that was provided did not fall short of the standards established before the war. I regret to say that in other parts of the country the provision made was quite deplorable. It was obvious to me that I should have to close all these places and substitute something better, if I could. We set to work to do that, and in a relatively short time we closed almost all the casual wards all over the country.
Then there was the problem of what we were to institute in their place. We wanted a place with a different standard to the old casual ward. Some white tiles helped in these cases, and clean towels and a hot bath—they always used to get a bath but not always a hot one. They had a good meal and then next day they were free to go if they wanted to. The process of building up the new system of casual wards was a very slow one. It was difficult to find suitable buildings and we were not allowed to build for ourselves as we should have liked to have done. Much of the accommodation was not where we should have liked it to
730
have been. It was too far away from the main centres of population.
All these difficulties confronted us, but I am glad to say that we did some good in this matter and I see in the latest report that they now have ten reception centres in operation and a certain number which are still operated by local authorities. I do not know how far that number of reception centres is regarded as adequate. It may well be that they are so placed that they serve the main centres of population where they are required but I think it is a question whether the Supplementary Benefits Commission ought not to bring a greater number of establishments into being. I do not know. I am quite willing to accept the fact that ten is an adequate number, but I think it is worth inquiring into. The complexion which we tried to give to these reception centres was quite different from the treatment given in the old casual wards. They took little interest in a man. He was a body who was given a bath and a meal and who went out next day and that was all. We tried to convert these reception centres into rehabilitation centres as well, so that if a man is willing to try if he is recommended for work and takes it, we do in the end succeed in our aim—that is, to send a fair number of them out into the world to earn a living as they ought to do.
May I turn for a moment to a different type of accommodation which exists alongside the reception centres—what used to be called the common lodging house, which is still in use in many parts of the country? The common lodging house is, I believe, the last relic of Disraeli's Public Health Act of 1870, which gave local authorities some responsibility for common lodging houses and gave medical officers of health power to inspect them, to decide how many men should sleep in each room and matters of this sort. I used to visit these common lodging houses. The squalor and poverty which prevailed there was almost unbelievable. Glasgow, I think, was the city with the greatest number of these places. Liverpool is not without them; and there are others in other parts of the country. These are very big establishments and hundreds of men sleep there.

731
They make a small payment, but they are pretty well free to do what they like. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister made some inquiries about these common lodging houses. I do not know whether anything can be done to improve their standard. The difficulty is that we are dealing with very large numbers of men. But if something could be done to clean up these places, to make them a little more attractive than they are at present, this would be well worth while. Men come very readily into the common lodging houses. Although they have to pay, they come without the least difficulty or any attempt to attract them.
One of the peculiarities of this job of providing accommodation for casuals is the fact that the higher the standard of accommodation, the more difficult it is to get them to use it. When we began to open these reception centres which came up to a reasonable standard, one of my difficulties was to get enough men to use them. It was not that the men would not go into them; it was that they preferred the old ones. There is in this section of the population a certain number of men who are really hopeless, who will never attempt to improve themselves, who will never attempt to take advantage of anything that is done to help them to better their lives; but if we can get them into the reception centres, and these centres can undertake their main purpose of rehabilitating them, the Board will think that it has done as well perhaps as it can hope to do.
I do not think there is anything further I want to say about these places. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the reception centre at Camberwell, which is a very big one, capable of accommodating as many as 500 or 600 men. People often go down to Camberwell to see what a reception centre looks like. I wish they would not. Camberwell is not what the Assistance Board requires. It was what they had to have because they could not get anything better, and it certainly does not represent the kind of standard of comfort or administration that the Board would accept. When people go to see a reception centre, they should go to see one of the new reception centres in the North of
732
England. because they reflect some credit on the Board, and not go to Camberwell and then come away and complain about it.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aberdare has kindly agreed to wait for a moment before speaking further, to allow me a word or two of explanation and comment. I should have liked to put my name down for this debate but did not think the speakers would be so economical of time as they have been, and I feared I should not be able to wait in courtesy to hear the Minister's reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in a speech which interested and challenged every one of us, made a particular reference to ministers of religion and after that I feel that one word of explanation is due from me.
Far be it from me to try to avoid the challenge she put before the leaders of the Churches and before the country generally to face the very real problems existing in many clergy homes. She stated that a number of ministers were claiming the family income supplement. I believe that to be true; I am sure she would not have said so were it not. But it is a fact that the Department of Health and Social Security has ruled that the provision of a house, rent and rates free and all costs met, is not to be counted as part of income, but is to be treated like a tied cottage, perhaps with a lot of justification from one angle. But it is a fact that because of that ruling most clergy incomes are being reckoned as being £300 a year less than in practice they are worth. That is the statistical explanation of how it is that clergymen are in this position in certain cases, if they have large enough families. I think those brief words ought to be said in order to keep the picture in focus.
The other remark I should like to make is how much we on these Benches appreciate this debate and the call that has come from all sides of the House to continue to address ourselves to the problems of poverty. There is one sense, of course, in which poverty will always be with us, if you press the point that poverty is relative; it is the fact that unless you can somehow arrange that every branch of the community moves up in prosperity at

733
exactly the same rate, there will always be a time lag between the increase of prosperity on the part of any section and on the part of those who are the slowest to react to the new possibilities, probably through their inability to do so. There is that kind of poverty. There is another sort of poverty that exists at different times and in different nations and communities, when there is such a large area of the community suffering from very poor living conditions. Poverty of that kind should be tackled; and it is the object of all economic planning by all Governments to reduce that area of poverty and to raise the standard of living of the whole community so that there is less of that sort of it. Then there is the third category, which arises from particular circumstances, some of which can be seen at once and can be notified: there are the handicapped, the retired, the single parent families and so on.
It seems to me that the right line of approach is the one that we are all trying to follow; namely, to increase our sensitivity so that we locate and identify more and more of these types of special need and plan our social services to meet them. There will always be some, I think, that it will be difficult to cover in a direct way. Every clergyman, for instance, especially if he lives in one place for a long time, gathers around him a set of clients, as it were, men and women whom one knows to be incapable of fitting into the demands of society, and one has to deal with each one with as much understanding, tolerance and T.L.C. as it is possible to bring to bear upon them.
There is one last point that I should like to make, and it is this. This is a field where it would be such a splendid thing if we could have something approaching bipartisan policy. I know that we shall not have it. We are so arranged in our country that all subjects are threshed out by a kind of polarisation of the two principal contending Parties at any one time. Most people do not realise it, but there is much more bipartisanship than is commonly known and seen to be the case. In this House, for instance, we have_ frequent comments from both sides about favourable elements in the policies of the other side, but I very much doubt whether the country as a whole realises this. When the
734
noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was saying, "Why do not more people take up the family incomes supplement?", the point occurred to me that perhaps one reason is because so many hard things have been said about it by the section of the House which she represents. There are these difficulties in any kind of partisan discussion of these matters, but I am certain that we all have the same ultimate objects in view, however much we may differ as to the way in which to achieve them.
5.23 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but I happened to have some figures with me. I am the chairman of a New Town development corporation, and therefore on this subject it is incumbent upon me to make a politically neutral or bipartisan speech. We felt it our duty to discover what the effect of the Government's proposed Housing Finance Bill would be upon our rents and upon the people who inhabit the houses. We drew up an enormous chart of incomes and benefits. including National Insurance, graduated pensions and income tax deductions, and plussing family allowances, family income supplements and school meal allowances. So when my noble friend Lady Phillips quoted that article, I suspected that it was by a Mr. Eric Jacobs of the Sunday Times. Is that so?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes.
LORD RAGLAN: We worked out the same sum as Mr. Eric Jacobs, and we found that he was wrong. So we rang him up and told him so, and he agreed that he was wrong because he had forgotten to include the school meal allowances. Comparing a married man with two children earning £19 a week and a married man with two children earning £22 a week the differential is that the £22 a week man ends up 77p to the good. Then we had to work out what the incidence of the new rent rebate scheme was going to be, and we found a set of very curious figures. A married man with four children, earning £16 a week gross and paying £3 a week rent, would end up with £24·65 (I am afraid these figures are rather hard to digest straight off the cuff); and a married man with four children, with £26 a week gross income

735
and paying £3 a week rent, would end up with £25·74, a differential of £1·09. Perhaps I can explain that a little further. The £16 a week man with four children gets £1·09 a week less than the man with £26 a week. At a rent of £5 a week, this works out at much the same kind of differential.
I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, say that the differential, at any rate in theory, had had its day. This certainly seems to be the case under these proposals. If people are prepared to face a means test and take the benefits, there is no doubt, at any rate, in my mind, that the low paid will be nearly as well off as the higher paid, and, likewise, that the unskilled will be nearly as well off as the skilled. In other words, after the Housing Finance Act has been passed and is working, the Government will have further closed the gap which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said earlier that the T.U.C. said they did not want to be closed.
I am wondering where we go from here. The Government, in theory, and by these calculations, are by way of making it pointless in financial terms to obtain a skill. Get a £16 a week job and beget four children and you are almost as well off as the £26 a week man with four children. I am not attempting this afternoon to supply any answers to these questions or to indulge in philosophising, but I think there is something here that must be looked at carefully. Is it right that we should subsidise the procreation of children to the extent that we do? Is it right that we should nearly eliminate the £16 to £26 a week differential? Do we believe in incentives; and if so, what sort of incentive? As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, this debate covers a vast subject, and it is a complicated one. I hope that the Government, your Lordships and a lot of other people will give a great deal of thought to this part of it, too.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I just refute the accusation of the right reverend Prelate that people did not take up the family income supplement because of the hard things that some of us have been saying. I am really shocked that the right reverend Prelate could say such a thing—because we
736
would urge them to take it up and not do the opposite.
5.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness was a little out of order in making that statement at this moment, but if she feels so strongly about it no doubt she wants to get it off her chest.
I should like to answer several points that were raised, but the debate has been so wide-ranging that I should be keeping your Lordships rather too long if I went into all of them. I found them most interesting. May I ask leave of the House to speak for a second time? I should like to run briefly through some of the points which have been made. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Burgh, and what he had to tell us about those who live in groups, pooling their resources. I can only say that it would seem from his description that some of these people find happiness from living in such groups, and this is something that people would wish to encourage. Also, certain of them, if they did not find themselves a way of life within these groups might well have to go into other community provision where clearly they would be less happy than if they were living in groups. To that extent I am sure we would all wish to encourage the groups that he mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the homeless and destitute; and my noble friend Lord Ilford gave him some information about reception centres. I was asked for one or two figures. There are 18 reception centres provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, although four of them are run by local authorities who act as agents for the Commission. In all, they provide beds for just over 2,000 people, and on average about 1,500 men and women are accommodated overnight in them. But although there are a great number who use the reception centres—and the numbers have increased over recent years—there are still those who are destitute and homeless and who do not go to reception centres. I would mention, as did the noble Lord, how much we value the shelters and hostels run by the Salvation Army and the other organisations which were mentioned. I know that the Commission is anxious to cooperate fully with these projects and,

737
where appropriate, to use its powers under the Social Security Act 1966 to provide financial assistance to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, went on to talk about the problems of the elderly. I certainly listened with great sympathy to his plea for further development of sheltered housing. We share his view about the value of sheltered housing and residential homes, and certainly go along with him in thinking that further development is desirable. As the noble Lord will recall, in making the Statement about additional resources the other day my right honourable friend announced that £30 million additional loan sanction was being made available for local authorities, to be spent on the provision of more and better residential homes and particularly for the elderly and mentally ill. He also announced in the same Statement that a five-year programme is being undertaken to remove finally all those public assistance institutions and workhouses that are such a blot on our services at the moment. I would follow him, too, in paying tribute to the home-helps, Meals-on-Wheels and other domiciliary services which are so important in keeping old people in their own homes.
I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte for her welcome for the family income supplement and the new housing finance provisions. I also listened with great sympathy to her plea for the provision of heating for old people. She was quite correct in all that she said about the fuel element in the scale rate of the long-term addition, and she is also clearly well informed about the three levels of special addition for heating. This is some provision for those who need it, and the problem is. as in so many cases, to make sure that those who really need it apply for it and get it. We have no figures available, as the statistics are prepared annually from a special inquiry made each November, so that the figures for special heating provisions will not be available until next spring. But one general point which she made, and which I think needs making, is that so often one hears figures quoted of deaths from hypothermia which are out of all proportion to the truth. It is a fact that the last figure we have is that some 155 deaths occurred in 1969 in which hypothermia was known to be
738
a contributory factor or underlying cause. The fact is of course that there is always a rise in mortality in winter, due mainly to an increase in respiratory disease; and it is quite wrong to take the increases in deaths in winter and attribute them all, or even the vast majority of them, to lack of heating.
My Lords, I always listen with rapt attention to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and I always long to leap to my feet every five minutes and argue with her. But I would make just two points here. She pilloried us as "the Government of means testing". Yet, as I have pointed out to her before, there is only one new means test that we have introduced which is different from those which were operated under the Labour Government; that is the family income supplement. All these other benefits were means tested under the previous Government, so that I do not think we can be made out to be such villains. All we are saying is that, at this moment when our resources are severely strained, if we are going to use them wisely we must make money and services available to those who need them most. The noble Baroness spoke of the numbers in poverty and, I think, took the supplementary benefits scale as a kind of mark, being the lowest point to which one could fall. Of course, one can go on arguing about this until the cows come home, but the difficulty about it is that every time you raise the supplementary benefits level you automatically increase the number in poverty, if you accept that this is the point at which you fix the poverty line. So it is not really an easy task to give figures for those in poverty. All I would say on the subject of the family income supplement—which is the one benefit, as I say, that we have introduced which is an extra benefit that depends on a means test—is that at least it is helping over 85,000 families who got no help before, at a cost of £6 million in a full year. This, at least, must surely be beneficial.
My Lords, I listened with tremendous interest, as I always do, to my noble friend Lord Ilford. I can assure him that local social security offices—I cannot speak for post offices, but I am sure they will have seen what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said—do have the same high standard of personal serf vice to those who call at them as they

739
had under my noble friend's wise guidance when he was Chairman of the National Assistance Board, and the example which he set in those days is certainly followed to-day. I must plead guilty to having visited Camberwell and not one of the more modern centres in the North; but all I can say is that although Camberwell is operating in an old building and in very cramped and difficult circumstances it is doing an extremely valuable job and is handing on the tradition, which he also set, of trying to help people to settle into steady accommodation and steady work if they show any signs of being able to do so.
I should like to thank the two speakers who contributed without giving me warning. I think it was right that in a debate of this sort we should hear the voice of the Church, so ably put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. It is vital that the Church should be involved in these problems because, as I tried to say at the beginning of my speech, so many of the problems are individual ones, and great assistance can be given by individual help which the Church is in a good position to supply. I listened also with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I tried to follow his figures as best I could, but I am not sure whether I have them correctly. I appreciate the problem of the differentials. We all see this. If you are going to help the very poor, those people at the bottom of the scale. you automatically bring in problems of differentials and automatically decrease the incentive for the very poor to earn more. It was for this reason that the family income supplement was kept at the 50 per cent. level of rise rather than anything greater.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I think I ought to emphasise again that there is a great deal of difference between £16 and £26. between the unskilled and skilled man. All these benefits completely close the gap.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I understood that when the noble Lord spoke originally.
I have so far failed to deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in introducing this debate. She made some valuable suggestions, including one relating to the Swedish example in the retraining of men. I will certainly see that this is considered. I expect she had noticed that on July 20, 1971, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced four new measures for improving and extending industrial re-training facilities. I will not go through them all, but the second is one that might interest the noble Baroness: employers in every region are being approached with a view to utilising their spare training capacity for training unemployed workers, largely at Government expense. The training provided is mainly at semi-skilled level and the initial response from employers has been encouraging. I will certainly see that her suggestion further to that is considered.
5.43 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank your Lordships for the many interesting contributions that have been made to this debate. I should like to correct one stupid error that I made in the figures that I gave in my opening speech. I read from the wrong column with regard to the figures of the disablement. But it does not in the least alter the gist of what I was saying. I gave the total number of people on the disabled register who are out of work as 620.000, instead of 86,616—which itself is a very considerable rise. The main point I was making was that the rise in the number of unemployed disabled persons has been disproportionately great; and this of course still stands. It was ridiculous to say that there were 620.000 disabled persons out of work, and I should like to correct that for the Record. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Provision for joint surveys, reports and structure plans]:
LORD MILNER of LEEDS LORD MILNER of LEEDS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
"1. Local planning authorities shall have and shall be deemed always to have had powers to institute joint surveys and jointly to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State joint structure plans for combined areas and the Secretary of State may approve such plans."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennet and myself. This is a probing Amendment which I move in order that there shall be an opportunity for discussion. As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of Clause 1 is to provide for joint structure plans. We on this side of the Committee support this proposal, but question why it should be necessary to add in excess of 100 lines to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to permit local planning authorities to do what some of them are already doing, although I understand that no joint structure plans have yet been approved by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will tell us whether any such plans have been submitted to the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, in reply to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that he would consider whether the objective of this clause could be achieved in a simpler way. I therefore ask the noble Lord to let us hear from him on this. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making clear his purpose in moving this Amendment, and for giving me an opportunity to confirm
742
that we have considered the suggestion that came from his noble friend; namely, that there might be a simpler way of dealing with the necessity to provide for joint surveys, joint reports and joint structure plans. I am advised that unless the phrase "combined areas" which the noble Lord's Amendment uses is given a meaning, and the existing statutory provisions are suitably adapted to apply in combined areas, the interpretation of them in relation to joint surveys and joint structure plans will be uncertain in a number of respects.
The format of Clause 1 is a drafting matter. If it had, in the view of our advisers, been possible to achieve its aims in the very simple and general form proposed by the Amendment, that is something we should have done. We should certainly wish that the clause were not as complex as it is. However, the terms of the 1971 Act are such that they clearly impose a duty on each local planning authority in respect of its own area and the Department is advised that textual amendments are required in order to give authorities power to join formally together—they do not, of course, need it to join informally—in instituting a joint survey and preparing a structure plan for a combined area. The form of the 1971 Act provisions, with their frequent references to the area for which a survey is to be carried out, or a structure plan is to be made, necessitates detailed amendments of the 1971 Act to ensure that the legal position is clear. As the common object of the noble Lords and the Government is to put the legal position beyond doubt, the approach in the clause is the appropriate one.
The second point is that there are in the Amendment provisions of a retrospective character. The phrase, "shall be deemed always to have had" is the one I have in mind. In this instance, the case for retrospective legislation is not strong it does not seem necessary. So far as it known, none of the local planning authorities who are working towards a joint structure plan has yet taken any formal action of the kind required by the Statutes. I want to stress this since, as is well known, there is much preparatory work needed on plans before formal stages are reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said on Second Reading, collaborative working

743
between authorities has always been encouraged as a sensible feature of the new planning system. That is the second point.
There are a number of other factors of a technical kind which have led us to the slightly complex clause which we feel is necessary. The provisions of the clause as drafted, which take the form of amendments to the consolidating 1971 Act, cannot come into operation until April 1, 1972, which is the date on which that Act itself comes into operation. This Amendment provides that authorities shall have power to institute joint surveys and prepare joint structure plans immediately—that is to say, on the date that this Bill which we are discussing is passed—and shall be deemed always to have had such power. But the latter provision seems to us to be too sweeping in its terms, since provision for structure plans was first made only in Part I of the 1968 Act, and there seems to us to be no merit in enabling authorities to act before the 1971 Act comes into operation, since the period between the date of passing this Bill and April 1, 1972, will be of only short duration. Neither Clause 1 of the Bill as drafted nor the Amendment, if it were agreed to, can of course be effective until the Bill becomes law.
Thirdly, the Amendment omits the requirement which we have in Clause 1 as drafted at the moment for the Secretary of State's consent to be obtained. This consent is in our view essential. Part II of the 1971 Act, covering the duties and powers in respect of the new development plan systems, will be introduced progressively by means of commencement orders—that is in Part II of the Act—and each order will bring it into operation in areas which make sense in planning terms. It is necessary, I submit, for the Secretary of State to have power to ensure that the combined areas, the areas combining together for the making of joint structure plans, also make sense in planning terms and over the country as a whole. Consent for the preparation of a joint structure plan for any reasonable combination of areas is of course unlikely to be withheld. I think the Committee will agree that power to guide such combinations must be there. I hope that that explanation, which has been rather long and rather involved, dealing with a
744
clause which I think must be rather complex to secure its aims, will satisfy the Committee and noble Lords opposite that it would not be possible to deal with this matter in the simple and attractive way which noble Lords have sought to secure. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Milner, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of provisions relating to approval of structure plans and local plans etc. by Secretary of State]:
5.53 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) afford to any persons whose objections so made are not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by him for the purpose and
(c) if a local enquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other person as he thinks tit.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennet and myself. This Amendment deletes paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and inserts paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of Section 9 of the 1971 Act. Unless this Amendment is carried there will no longer be a right for every objector to be heard; the Secretary of State will decide which objections are relevant to the issue and which objections will be heard. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale said that the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association were critical of this clause, although recognising the need to speed up procedure. We on this side of your Lordships' Committee sympathise with the aim to accelerate the bringing into being of structure plans to lessen

745
the period of uncertainty and of property blight. However, it is doubtful that the proposed procedure will achieve greater speed, and any such shortening of the time involved must not be at the expense of the rights of the individual. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, and glad of the further opportunity it provides me for setting out how at the moment we see the new public examination of broad strategic issues of a structure plan being a different exercise from the now familiar public local inquiry into objections to a local plan, and how procedures are called for the former which will of necessity have to be different from those that have been developed for the latter.
It is a new type of plan which is at issue, one setting out the broad strategic proposals for an area. It is on these, and on the key issues arising on them, that we need to concentrate both the Secretary of State's consideration and the public examination. The structure plan is to be followed up by local plans, containing the detailed working through of the proposals. These local plans, on an Ordnance Survey base, dealing with the detail of individual properties and interests, are the sort of plan which we are used to and which people are used to making detailed objections to, and all that must continue. For these plans there will still be the normal public local inquiry—and this I want to stress very much—at which every objector has the right, and will continue to have the right, to be heard. The Government are seeking to avoid what the Amendment would preserve; namely, an identical form of inquiry on both tiers of plans. This would, I submit to the Committee, surely involve an unacceptable overlap, an unnecessary overlap. At the same time, the Government are seeking to evolve for the new form of plan a more relevant means of examination in public.
There are now for the first time statutory provisions about publicity and public participation. Among other things, local planning authorities have to consider representations made to them about the matters they propose to include in their structure plans before submitting them to the Secretary of State. The
746
report they make on the outcome of public participation will help the Secretary of State to identify the key issues for examination in public. Clause 3 does not—nor does it seek to—restrict in any way the right to object to a structure plan. And the Secretary of State remains firmly under a duty to consider any objections to the structure plan, irrespective of whether or not they are heard. Also, the objections and the grounds for them will clearly be very material in the Secretary of State's consideration of which arc the key issues to be examined in public and of those who would take part in the examination.
Finally, due weight needs to be given to the need for procedures to take into account—and this was stressed by several noble Lords on Second Reading—the serious disadvantages there are in processes which are too time-consuming and can cause serious and unnecessary blight. These are factors of the kind to which it is easy to pay too little attention at the outset but which later we come to regret were not thought about sufficiently at an earlier stage. The bodies so far consulted have, in sending to the Department their initial comments, shown that they recognise the problems which the Government are facing and that the initiative we are taking is generally welcomed. However, like us they want the opportunity to consider further the detailed procedures for this new form of public examination. It is clearly important to combine the efficient and timely consideration of structural issues with the ability of organisations and of individuals to register their views and have them considered in a constructive way. For their part, the Government want to have the opportunity to consider the detailed suggestions made by the bodies that we have consulted (now that the majority of these are in) and of course the points made in your Lordships' House at an earlier stage and at this Committee stage. That is why it would he valuable if on this and other Amendments to Clause 3 your Lordships could draw my attention to any points which cause you misgivings or seem to be of particular importance.
The point we are now at in consultations over this key issue is that we have received from almost all the bodies we have consulted their comments on the

747
first consultation paper, and we can now consider these as a whole. By the next stage of the Bill in the House I hope to be in a position to give a broad outline for a possible procedure for the examinations in public, or at least to set out the main suggestions for dealing with the sort of points that have caused misgivings. This would enable us to take into account not only the points that noble Lords have made so far but any that they might make at the next stages, before we issue the second detailed consultation document. When that is ready I shall be glad to send it to any noble Lords who wish to see it, and of course to welcome further comments upon it. May I take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord, Lord Milner, to Pass on to his noble friend Lord Greenwood my regrets at not having sent him the previous consultation document as expeditiously as I had intended to.
I hope that explanation of the care we are taking to strike a balance between thoroughness and due regard to individual rights on the one hand and getting through these public examinations with reasonable dispatch and confining the examination to broad issues on the other hand, will satisfy the noble Lord and the Committee that we are setting about this matter in the right way. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment because I regret that I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I should like an opportunity to consider what the noble Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("provided that, before making such regulations, he shall consult with persons and organisations likely to be affected, including representatives of the building industry").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also concerns the examination in public relating to structural plans, and I am moving it in order to try to get a little more information from the Government over and above what my noble friend has given in reply to the last Amend
748
ment. This Amendment would ensure that before making the regulations referred to in subsection (4) of Section 9 of the 1971 Act the Secretary of State should consult with persons and organisations likely to be affected, including representatives of the building industry. My first question is whether the Government now intend to make regulations at all, because there has been some indication that the Government have had second thoughts and are proposing that there should be a code of practice relating to this public examination of structural plans without there being any enforceable regulations at all. I would have said that in a matter of this kind, which is somewhat delicate, it was desirable to have statutory regulations so that everybody may know exactly where he stands.
My second question is, how much consultation will take place? My noble friend spoke of the consultations that have already taken place. Indeed, in his Second Reading speech he said, and I quote:
"The relevant professional bodies have contributions to make; so have the local authority associations; so have the Council on Tribunals, with whom we have already had some discussion, and so have the bodies representing amenity societies, from whom we have invited comment. We have also sent a consultation document to all those bodies."—[OFFICAL REPORT; 18/11/71, col. 763.]
So far as I am aware, the consultative document has not been sent to the representatives of the building industry, particularly the house building industry, yet one of the most crucial questions arising out of these structural plans will be whether sufficient land is set aside for house building under the plan. It is common knowledge that over a number of years past the house building industry has been extremely anxious lest building land is released too slowly and consequently the cost of that land and the ultimate cost of the houses erected on it will be pushed up. I feel sure my noble friend will agree that this is one of the crucial questions that will fall to be decided under most of the structural plans, or at least many of them, and I hope he will be able to assure me that the house building industry will be given an opportunity to comment upon the regulations, if he proposes to make them, or on the code of procedure if he does not. I beg to move.
LORD SLATER: I take it from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that this is more or less a probing Amendment as to the probable position, so far as the Minister himself is concerned, in regard to a public examination. When the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. was Minister of Housing and Local Government he laid down certain regulations and passed certain legislation through Parliament which the local planning authorities had to implement and operate. Do I gather from this clause, therefore, that if the Minister feels so disposed he can say that he is not prepared to have a public inquiry or examination of all the aspects of the situation and the proposals that might be presented to him, or the opposition, because of the fact that the local authorities who have come together and are operating jointly must have their own examination before the Act comes into being?
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor for giving me the opportunity to set out in still more detail the exact way in which we are consulting at this stage, and the form of the code of practice and the regulations. In answer to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I may say that it will be easier to deal with his point when we get back to the broad question of the way in which these examinations are to be carried out, which I think we shall be discussing when we reach Amendment No. 4: but perhaps we can see when I have dealt with my noble friend's Amendment.
As I explained during the Second Reading debate, the Government's intention, now and all along, has been to shape the new procedure in consultation with those representing the interests mainly concerned. The original consultation paper was sent out on a comparatively restricted basis as it was felt that at that stage the regular participants in inquiries, namely, the local authorities, certain professional bodies and the representatives of the amenity societies, were the right ones to involve. As I also indicated in the debate, the intention was that further discussion should take place about the details of the new procedure, and ultimately the results of all the consultations, discussions and debates will
750
be embodied, in the first instance, in a simple code of practice. The Government's present intention—I do not think we have been deflected from this—is that this code of practice should be a non-statutory document so as to secure the broadest possible acceptance of a common form of procedure together with an opportunity to adjust that procedure, which will be a new procedure, in the light of our early experience. But, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has mentioned, it may well be necessary to codify this more firmly in regulations, and provision for doing that is made, as the Committee will see, in Clause 3(4).
I can assure my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor that the further consultation document which it is proposed should form the basis of the new round of discussions on the detailed shape of the procedure will be sent to all those bodies who are normally consulted by the Department on important proposals affecting the administration of planning law, and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers will certainly be included. They were, for instance, consulted on the structure and local plans regulations. I will see that copies of the document are sent to any other organisation which can claim a legitimate interest in the subject-matter of the further consultation paper. I hope that that explanation and that assurance will satisfy the purpose that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor had in mind in putting down his Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I am sure it has made the position a great deal clearer to all of us. My anxiety arose partly because the amenity associations had been mentioned and the house builders had not. There may be on some structure plans a clash between those two interests, and we all wish that clash to be resolved in the fairest way to everybody concerned. What my noble friend said at the end of his reply has encouraged me to believe that from now on every organisation likely to be concerned will be treated equally and consulted equally. That is the assurance I wish to receive, and in the light of it I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert ("provided he is satisfied either that any objection to the said plan on which the said authority or person wishes to be heard is not relevant to his decision on the said plan, or that the matter raised by the objection is substantially contained in some other objection selected for hearing; and the Secretary of State shall publish in writing his grounds for considering any such objection not to be so relevant.")
The noble Lord said: In rising to propose the Amendment which stands in my name, I feel that I ought to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the assurance which he has already given, which up to a point has perhaps met the point which I am trying to make in this Amendment; but as it does not quite reassure me, I am hoping that after I have tried to make the case for the Amendment he will see his way to broadening the assurance he has already given.
Clause 3 introduces a new form for public inquiries into structure plans. I offer the suggestion that some speedier and simpler procedure than the traditional public inquiry is essential if the structure plans are to be brought into being reasonably quickly and a lengthy period of "blight" avoided. For instance, the Association of Municipal Corporations agrees in substance with the proposals in Clause 3, but at the same time we feel that the powers given by the clause to the Secretary of State to refuse (under subsection (1)(5) of Clause 3) a right to be heard in the course of examination of the structure plan are too sweeping as drafted, and that some safeguards are needed to enable those who feel that their objections ought reasonably to be heard to be assured that they are given a fair opportunity of a hearing. This, of course, should include an individual person, a local authority and a local planning authority.
Instead of the traditional kind of public inquiry into detailed objections which have been lodged, it is proposed that the Secretary of State will be empowered to state what issues he wishes to see publicly examined; there will no longer be a right for every objector to be heard; and the Secretary of State will decide which objections are relevant to the issues he will decide, and which are therefore
752
to be heard. The Secretary of State has, explained the need to accelerate the bringing into force of structure plans; to lessen the period of uncertainty and of property blight due to delay in adopting the plans; and also that the new form of public examination of the main issues in the structure plan identified by the Secretary of State will relate to key issues rather than to such objections as happen to be made, and will form a more comprehensive basis for the Secretary of State's subsequent decision. He has also emphasised that the traditional public inquiry procedure will continue to apply to objections to local plans, which on an ordance map base will show the effect of proposals on individual properties.
One can fully share the Secretary of State's view that the uncertainty period while structure plans are being prepared should be minimised, the blighting effect caused by uncertainty should also be reduced, and structure plans brought into being as quickly as possible. But surely all this must not be done at the expense of a democratic process. There are several objections to the proposals as they stand. There should, for instance, be some machinery to ensure that the general public and objectors are satisfied that the Secretary of State's definition of issues for public examination is not too narrow, that objectors are not frightened off by any procedural regulations made under the powers the clause provides; and that, fundamentally, if an objector at the structure plan stage is to be refused a hearing, the only ground for refusal should be if the Secretary of State demonstrates that the objection is irrelevant to the structure plan. The limits which Clause 3 places on the right of objection require to be examined with great care, surely, to ensure that the need to expedite the making of structure plans does not deprive the citizen of an effective right of objection to safeguard a valid interest.
I have endeavoured to be brief in this explanation of the purpose of this Amendment. One can support in principle, as I do, the introduction by Clause 3 of a new procedure for examining the structure plans of local planning authorities, in place of the traditional public inquiry, while at the same time feeling that the suggested procedure needs

753
amendment. I make one final point. The structure plan will be followed, of course, by the local plan. It may be said that the local plan is the point for specific objections to be heard, whereas the structure plan is too broad a document on which to make specific objections. One fears, however, that if the structure plan is approved, an objector may then be committed and be unable to raise a specific objection at the later stage when the local plan is the subject or a public inquiry. That is the case for the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford will be able to reassure me and enable me to withdraw my Amendment.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, had to say regarding this Amendment. I am all for more freedom being granted to local authorities, and I expect that this Government are of the same mind. Listening to the speech that has been delivered on this Amendment, and as one who has had past experience in local government, I am beginning to wonder whether the Government are seeking to introduce and adopt on this occasion, by the Bill they are bringing forward, a method of taking away from local authorities and the ordinary citizen the rights to follow' the present lines of approach in their forms of objection at a public inquiry set up by the Minister. If these have to go by the board, then God help the people of this country who have interests in certain structure operations, whether by way of altering them or by new structure formations. Legislation of this nature is bound to upset the people of this country, if that is going to be the position.
I sincerely hope that what I fear is not going to be the position, and that the Minister is not, in the first place, to be the final arbiter, then passing the matter down to the local authorities and saying, "This is it. For these things you have to accept what I believe must be done in regard to the structure". If that is to be the position, then I can visualise a lot of trouble occurring. When the new Local Government Bill comes to be considered more will be said in respect of this particular position, if the situation is as
754
I have gathered it to be from the speech of the noble Lord.
6.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am eager to give all the assurances I can on this particular issue, and I have saved up some for my noble friend's Amendment. Before I get on to it, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that in this Bill we are not detracting in any respect at all from the rights of individual objectors at public local inquiries. They all remain as intact as they are at the moment. What we are doing is to introduce procedures for a new form of public examination of a new form of planning, namely, a structure plan, and we are seeking to strike a fresh balance between the rights of objectors to that, and the need to get on and discuss not detailed proprietary objections but broad strategic issues. I should like to give the noble Lord the reassurance that nothing we are doing here affects the rights of private individuals in respect of the existing and familiar public local inquiries, which will continue and will form a complementary part of the structure plans.
I welcome my noble friend's Amendment, because it enables me to give reassurances of a rather different kind. The procedures for the examination in public of structure plans will be evolved in close consultation with the local authority associations and the other main bodies representing the professional interests concerned. In the second round we shall be bringing in a wider circle. Almost all of those consulted in the first round have now replied, and their general support is welcomed by the Government. Now we have to consider the many suggestions which are of a constructive kind, and the misgivings which are bound to be expressed at this stage in working through to new proposals. Among the bodies with whom we have been consulting in drawing up the procedures is the Council on Tribunals. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development has already met representatives of the Council, and there is at the moment a constructive exchange of letters proceeding between my honourable friend and them. One assurance which my honourable friend has now given to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who is Chairman of

755
the Council, is that these examinations will fall within the purview of the Council. This has all along been our intention, and to put that point beyond doubt I shall be tabling an Amendment at the Report stage in this House, and the effect of this will be that the Council would be seen to be concerned with the procedure relating to the new examinations in public. The role here of what I hope I may call colloquially the "statutory watchdog" in these matters will go quite a long way towards meeting the kind of misgivings which have been expressed by noble Lords and by the bodies that we have been consulting.
I confirm that the sort of considerations mentioned in my noble friend's Amendment would be among the criteria that the Secretary of State would have in mind in selecting issues, and those who would appear at the examination. The criteria will be among the many matters which need to be considered further in the course of our consultations. As I have said, the intention is to work towards a code of practice. I think it would be inappropriate to write such provisos into the Bill—certainly at this stage.
Finally, the suggestion that the Secretary of State should indicate the general basis on which he would be selecting issues and choosing participants at the examination is certainly one thing which we are currently considering very carefully. But I submit to the Committee that it would be going much too far to require the Secretary of State, by Statute, to publish the grounds for not hearing any one objector or for considering irrelevant any one objection not selected for hearing. The Secretary of State must, and will, consider all objections, whether they are heard at the examination or not, but the new machinery we need for setting up this new form of examination of strategic issues must be one that enables strategic and broad issues to be sifted out from the detailed proprietary and local ones, without in any way denying the importance of the latter.
I hope that these assurances—and particularly the one in which I sought to set out the relationship of the Council on Tribunals to all this—will satisfy the Committee, and enable my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: I think the noble Lord for his reassurances, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amwndment.
Clause 5 [Continuation in force of provisions relating to control of office development]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.30 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Clause 5 deals with the retention of the control of office development permits in premises of over 10,000 square feet in the South-East of England, and the sole remaining reason for its retention is to try to force the movement of office work out of London, and in particular out of the congested central part. These provisions were originally made in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965, and consolidated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I have been asked by the Chamber of Commerce movement here in London to ask for the deletion of this clause, which I understand is a further temporary five-year extension of an originally temporary measure.
My reasons for wishing to delete this clause are first, that the object of this particular piece of bureaucracy does not appear to have worked. I quote that expert my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford who said, in the Second Reading debate:
"In 1951, 22 per cent. of all employment"
in the South-East
"was in offices; in 1961 the figure was 26 per cent. By 1981 we estimate that over one-third of all the employment in the South-East will he in offices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/11/71; col. 798.]
In fact, the steady growth of office employment continues despite office development permits. There are other ways of encouraging office development in areas outside the South-East. Secondly, the main result of O.D.P.s has been delays and, far more important, a phenomenal increase in London office rents. I am sure that my noble friend the

757
Minister is well aware of the 1970 Report on this point, by the Committee on Invisible Exports. I will not delay your Lordships by repeating that Report, except for its conclusions:
"We think the Committee should continue to press for the removal of O.D.P.s."
I believe I should be right in saying that it is now generally accepted that O.D.P.s have been one of the main causes of this enormous increase in rents.
I would respectfully suggest that those noble Lords interested in this point should re-read the very able Second Reading speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (Col. 784). As the Minister himself admitted, Lord Silkin is one of the greatest experts on planning problems and is the author of our planning legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rightly drew attention to the effect of these high rents on the smaller office, and in particular to the effect on the professions, especially of course the legal profession. Unfortunately, O.D.P.s on offices of 10,000 square feet and over do not mean cheaper rents for the smaller office, as rents are usually in direct proportion to the floor space that the office occupies. The result has been that the smaller firms have, in the main, been forced either out of business or to occupy shabby older buildings.
Thirdly, a great many firms—and here I should disclose a personal interest as my head office borders on the City—have to he in the centre of the Metropolitan area. Commercial firms must be near to the banks for the handling of documents; the central banks have to be close to the Bank of England; insurance must be in the proximity of Lloyd's; stockbrokers must be near to the Stock Exchange; produce merchants must be near to the Produce Exchange, and so forth. I believe that to-day there are very few firms situated in the centre of London except through necessity. The difficulties of obtaining staff, with the problems of commuting to London, et cetera, plus all the other difficulties associated with a congested and busy city, are sufficient incentive for those who do not need to be in the Metropolitan area to move to the peace of the country. With the possibility of the United Kingdom joining the E.E.C., foreign companies wishing to set up European head offices, with the resultant
758
employment, may be forced to choose Brussels, Paris or somewhere else for their headquarters, instead of the City of London.
Regrettably, all that this legislation has achieved is that rents and costs have been forced up, and in a number of cases visible and invisible exports have been made more expensive and less competitive. I admit that this Government have taken a very liberal view in the issuing of O.D.P.s, and in the City of London have granted permits for 31 million square feet during the first nine months of this year, against 2 million square feet for the whole of 1970. This is not an argument for retention, but only an admission of the increased necessity for space in the City where, on average, the amount of office space vacant at any one time is only 0·4 per cent. of the total available space. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister must have read the leader in the Business Section of The Times on November 17, following the very strong plea for the abandonment of O.D.P.s by the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Edward Howard, at the annual Guildhall Banquet. The Lord Mayor was at that time dealing with meeting the challenge which the Common Market would pose to the City.
I maintain that, although there are provisions in Clause 5 for earlier termination by Order in Council than the proposed date of 1977, sufficient powers exist under the present planning authorities to make this legislation unnecessary. I personally feel that we have too many regulations in this field, and if it were found possible to do away with O.D.P.s in the City of London—as we have done in most of the rest of the country—this would be a step in the right direction. Her Majesty's Government have already intimated that they are not in favour of continuing this legislation indefinitely. I therefore suggest that now is the time to bring to an end this inflationary factor which, unlike so many, is within the control of the Government. Finally, of course I appreciate that the Government, until they have worked out and implemented an overall policy, still have a problem in the South-East. But my noble friend the Minister must in turn accept that the City of London—an area most adversely affected by these orders, and an area where Government intervention is

759
least necessary—must be given an assurancd that O.D.P.s for the centre of London will be discontinued.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should like to support the very powerful case made by my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter. In the few remarks that I am going to make, I shall be speaking only about the City area—what is called the "square mile"—and the immediate surroundings. I have no interest to declare here, but I have been advised by many reputable and knowledgeable people in the City that the continuation of this office development permit procedure, as is proposed in Clause 5, would in present circumstances be detrimental to many of the financial and commercial operations that arc carried on in the square mile. I have also been told that the O.D.P. procedure, superimposed on the requirements of the planning authorities, results in serious delays, and that this is part of the cause of the really fantastic rise in rents, which was referred to my by my noble friend, that has taken place in the City over recent years. I have been informed that rents of new and modernised accommodation in the banking and insurance areas have increased five-fold or six-fold over the past ten years, and that over the past three years they have more than doubled. Rents are higher in this area than in any other Continental centre. with the possible exception of one or two very limited areas in Paris and Zurich, and higher in general than they are in the City of New York.
I imagine that the original objects of office development permits were, first, to discourage new office building in view of other priorities which were very strong at that time; and, secondly, that it would be beneficial for transportation reasons that the number of people who travel daily to the City should be curtailed if possible. It may have been thought, as a deliberate action, that if rents were to rise it might be helpful to the achievement of that last item of policy: but whether it was a deliberate object or not, the fact is that rents have risen dramatically and, one would think, dangerously. Some firms have moved or are moving—and also departments of a statistical nature, such as my noble friend has referred to, like the share register office—
760
away from the City, and that is a desirable thing to happen. But present evidence seems to indicate that in sectors like finance, insurance and shipping the main seat of operations must be in the square mile, or very close thereto.
Now it is true, as my noble friend has said, and as I understand, that recently the O.D.P. procedure has been loosening up, and most applications for modernisation, if they do not involve additional floor space, are in fact approved. But the effects, I am told, are none the less frustrating and damaging. Targets have been incorrectly assessed. That is very understandable, because the demand has been much stronger than almost anybody had forecast. There are also psychological deterrents, due to the delays and the frustrations resulting from them. I think the system has introduced an element of inflexibility and arbitrariness which seems contrary to the wishes and the policies of the present Government. There is no need for me to stress the value to the national economy of the really remarkable level of income from invisibles that has been earned in the City, or to remind my noble friends that, as regards invisible exports, office accommodation is really in some ways the equivalent of factory tools and equipment. Nor, I am sure, is there any need to emphasise the enormous and exciting opportunities that will come to the City if we play our cards right and if they play their cards right when we enter Europe. London, one hopes—and I believe that one can hope with confidence—is really going to become the financial centre of Europe to a far greater extent than ever before in our history, and if we are to exploit that opportunity then the City must have accommodation second to none in quality.
I feel that the answer lies not in forcing operations of the kind I have mentioned away from the City by very high rents, but in gradually expanding the limits of the square mile, perhaps Eastwards and Northwards, as opportunity offers. I would therefore urge my noble friend and the Government to look again to see whether, in the present circumstances, and still more in the circumstances of the immediate future, the O.D.P. procedure has not, for this area at any rate, outlived its utility and whether it should

761
not now be dropped, leaving the essential control in the hands of the planning authorities. I therefore hope that my noble friend will agree to have another look at this clause. I realise that under the clause this procedure can be terminated by order at an earlier date than the five years proposed for the extension, but, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I believe that the prudent decision would be to terminate this procedure now.
6.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: In spite of the two very persuasive speeches we have just heard, we on this side of the Committee hope that the Government will not allow the office development controls to be swept away at the moment. It is true that the rents are fantastically high, and are going up all the time; but it seems to me that one can argue that this does not make a case for sweeping away the controls but that it might be the kernel of a case for introducing rent control for offices, something which should not be very much harder for the Minister to devise than has been done over all these years for housing. If it really is a grave problem, as I dare say it is, then let us keep the office development control and examine the possibility of rent controls to solve the problem.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, was very frank about expanding the square mile. He painted a picture of the City spreading outwards, North and West.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It is only a small point, and it is purely my own idea; but I should have thought Eastwards and Northwards.
LORD KENNET: I stand corrected: North and East. But even if you go East you come into areas where people live, and this is precisely what worries some of us. An unchecked expansion of office development in the centre of London, or indeed any other town, leads to a situation in which there is nobody living there; and we for our part hold to the old concept of a city as a place—including the centre—where people live and find employment, and not only as a place of employment.
The other point on this is the rush-hour problem. The more offices you have and the fewer residents you have,
762
the more people there are who have to come into the City in the morning and get back in the evening. For myself, when I tried to administer the office development permits, as I did for a few very hectic months—and, my goodness!, the pressure was hard—it so happens that at the beginning of that period I Was at Fenchurch Street Station one day in the rush-hour, and it seemed to me humanly impossible to consider dismantling the controls, having seen the awful conditions in which so many thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow citizens come to work, even as things are.
To turn for a moment to the argument of proximity, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, said that certain enterprises must be close to other enterprises, and that those other enterprises are established by long tradition in the City of London. I wonder whether this is not rather living in the past. Is it necessary in this day and age for a man to go downstairs from his office, out into the street, along and upstairs into the other fellow's office, have a cup of tea and come back again? Is it really necessary in the age of the Telex, if you want something written down: or of the telephone, if you do not want it written down? Or, if you have to see the other fellow face to face, is it necessary to walk to see him when we can have closed television links between one part of the country and another?
Lastly, I would beg the Minister to remember that we are dealing not only with London, but with the entire South-East Region. I believe that this control, belaboured as it is by its opponents, is a useful tool of regional planning, and should be maintained for that purpose. The planning authorities' ordinary development controls were found insufficient to handle this vast pressure, and it seems to me that if we revert to that level of control we shall once again find that it is insufficient. Maintaining the controls does not mean turning all the applications down, as both noble Lords who have spoken already have pointed out.
LORD TERRINGTON: I should like to speak very briefly in support of this Amendment, and I must declare my

763
interest as a member of a City partnership. I do not know that I can add very much more to what other noble Lords have had to say in support of the Amendment. I entirely agree with all that has been said. I would underline the importance of the City as a financial centre in connection with the European Economic Community; and I find it interesting to learn that, as I believe, there are already a number of European companies which are in the process of negotiating for City premises. This, I think, may tend further to aggravate the situation. I also find it interesting that a number of American banks, ninny of which I know about personally, have found it absolutely necessary to be within this very small area. Finally, may I mention that I spent a good part of the year working in the Wall Street area of New York, and when my friends there learned of the sort of rents that we have to pay to try to do our job in the City they could hardly believe their ears.
THE EARL or LIMERICK: May I add one more voice in support of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson? I have an interest in this subject, as a merchant banker with an international business and a Member of the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce. I have been made aware of the strongly held views of the Committee on Invisible Exports, and of the Corporation of the City of London as the planning authority. The first point I wish to make is that these procedures impose a delay on business planning, and I will confine my remarks (because this is the area I know best) to the City of London, where I am informed that a typical period for getting consent under an O.D.P., even in a "cut-and dried" case, varies between four months and, sometimes, more than a year. This leads to frustration and delay. These rents are very high indeed, and it has been pointed out that whereas during the early part of the 'sixties they were rising by between 8 and 9 per cent. per annum, from 1968 to 1970 the rent levels in the central area doubled, and they now stand in all the main sectors at approximately four times the level of 1965.
If we compare. as is done in Table 2 of the Report of the Committee on Invis
764
ible Exports, 11 regional centres outside Central London we find that rent levels in three have approximately doubled during the same five-year period; in eight others the rent increased by, approximately, only 50 per cent. It is significant, as we approach Europe, to make comparison with comparable central areas of the Continent. The only place where rent levels approach those of London is Paris, and the figure here is approximately 80 per cent. of the London levels. In Zurich, a typical central rent is only 25 per cent. of Central London levels; in Frankfurt, 20 per cent.; in Brussels, 15 per cent., and in Amsterdam, 10 per cent. These are enormous differentials. It should not be assumed, as has been pointed out, that abolition, at least for the City area, of O.D.P.s would mean an immediate free-for-all, for other planning controls exist and would no doubt be applied. The issue of permits has certainly been eased where replacement of floor space is concerned and also if there is a main tenant; but I would concentrate on the delay, the extra hurdle that has to he cleared by anyone who wishes to make provision for his business—a burden that is particularly heavy on small businesses.
6.54 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: Practically all noble Lords who spoke, with the exception of Lord Kennet, have spoken exclusively of the City. But, of course, the noble Lord's Amendment, if it were accepted, would have the effect of sweeping away all these powers, or allowing them to lapse, on August 5 next year over the whole of that part of the country, the South-East, to which they at present apply. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee will be grateful, as I am, to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment for it has given us an opportunity to discuss the current operation of office development permits, to understand the need to keep the power behind them for the time being, as Lord Kennet explained, and to discuss some of the factors involved in moving towards their abolition in an orderly way in due course when other things are ready. I appreciate that this has been my noble friend's purpose in moving his Amendment and that he understands, as I am sure do all other noble Lords, that to accept the Amendment and to allow all this apparatus to

765
lapse on August 5, 1972—which would be the effect—is out of the question.
The decision to retain the powers of control was based primarily on the need for the Government to have the means of influencing the location of office employment in the South East in accordance with the recommendations of the Strategic Plan for the Region which has been endorsed by the Government recently as a framework for regional development. Until the implementation of that Plan has been carried further, it will still be necessary, through the use of office control, to exercise restraint in London if progress is to be maintained in moving office activities outside the capital, and to discourage office development in those parts of the region which have not been earmarked for additional growth in the Strategic Plan, some of which are already under considerable pressure. In operating these restrictions, we shall continue to have regard to the interests of firms who require new office premises to carry out their businesses more efficiently. It is recognised that certain commercial activities are firmly tied to the City, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Macpherson has set out, but readier approvals of office projects in central London during the past year have done much to encourage the easing of the current shortage of accommodation.
My noble friend Lord Macpherson agrees that the Government are being very liberal indeed in the granting of office development permits in the City. We are granting them now in the City at more than twice the rate of a year ago, as I think my noble friend said. Permits for 31 million square feet were granted during the first nine months of this year against 2 million square feet for the whole of 1970. This represents a very high rate of new construction. The "pipeline"—that is, new premises completed and vacant, premises under construction and premises for which planning permission has been given—has now risen to nearly 51 million square feet compared with just over 4 million square feet a year ago. This growth is in accordance with the policy announced by my honourable friend last year when he raised the exemption limit nearly threefold from 3,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. He said then that in consider
766
ing applications he would ensure that enough new office space was being provided for the essential needs of commerce. It is in this spirit that the control has now been working for some time.
In response to my noble friend Lord Amory, I would confirm that the Government are determined that the City shall be able to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by entry into the European Economic Community and certainly should not be hampered in so doing. For these reasons, we shall continue to keep the control, so long as we retain it, under review so as to ensure that space is being provided for essential small users; that advantage is taken of opportunities for comprehensive redevelopment; and that the time taken to settle applications is as short as possible. If any noble Lord has knowledge of particular cases that are taking too long I shall be glad to hear of them. But these are all matters of administration within the powers we now have. Nevertheless, it remains our aim to achieve the office employment objectives of the Strategic Plan for the South-East, without relying on the office control powers a moment longer than is necessary.
Several noble Lords pointed to the office development permit system as being an inflationary factor. It could be, and it may have been in the past. But I would put this to the Committee: in so far as Her Majesty's Government's broad location of offices policy—of which office development permits in the South-East is but a part—is successful in persuading enterprises that need not be there to go to areas away from the centre of London, its effect is far more likely to restrain the increase of rents in the centre than to contribute to the increase. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the Committee an opportunity to discuss these important matters, and for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's approach. I hope that the reassurances I have given will satisfy the Committee that we are tackling this business of office employment location in the right way, but that we need Clause 5 in the Bill to continue.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: As the Minister has stressed, this is an important issue and I

767
think we were right to discuss it in some depth. I wish to thank those noble Lords who have supported me, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennett, for his contribution. But in view of the Minister's reply that he will see there is no delay in the granting of these permits, and as obviously he appreciates the special problems that the City has to face in future, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): There is no Amendment before the Committee to withdraw. The only Question before the Committee is, That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill; and that is the Question that I have to put.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Control of demolition in conservation areas in England and Wales]:
7.2 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 36, after ("demolition") insert ("or to control alterations which would materially affect the external appearance").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This Amendment adds to the powers of the local planning authorities and enables them to control alterations to buildings in a conservation area. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill gives local planning authorities power to control the demolition of buildings in a conservation area but does not enable them to control alterations and extensions. Alterations which materially affect the external appearance of a building can often do much damage—for example, major alterations to window sizes, the introduction of new windows or the replacement of thatch roofs, although they may be developments within the provisions of the 1971 Act and are permitted under the Town and Country Development Order. We are not asking for the same control as for listed buildings, but only for control over works which would materially affect the external appearance.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds,
768
for this Amendment and for the general support implied in it for what we are seeking to do in the clause. I think that I can assure the Committee that this Amendment is not necessary. First of all, alterations which materially affect the external appearance of buildings constitute development for the purposes of the planning Acts, and require planning permission. Where they are permited development under Schedule 1 of the General Development Order—I think this is the loophole which the noble Lord is seeking to close—that is to say, planning permission is granted by the Order and need not be obtained from the local planning authority, then the authority may always recover control by making a direction under Article 4 of that Order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of Slate is, in general, favourably disposed towards approving Article 4 directions relating to development of this kind in conservation areas—which are what we are talking about—provided the need can be demonstrated for it and local general support for controls of this kind can he shown. We would prefer to control development of this sort in this way, as it is consistent with our general approach over conservation areas as a whole. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
LORD KENNET: Will the noble Lord answer one question? If there is an Article 4 declaration, would not that give the local authority power to prevent the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area? If that is the case, why is the clause in the Bill at all?
LORD SANDFORD: I am subject to advice on that point, but I do not think that an Article 4 direction can be used to control demolition. It can be used to bring under control a number of items which are permitted in general, which need to be controlled if the delicate character of the conservation area is to be secured and enhanced; and it can be done in this particular case as well.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his detailed reply. We shall return to this point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
7.6 p.m.
LORD MILNER or LEEDS LORD MILNER or LEEDS moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Recovery of costs of works for preservation of unoccupied listed building in cases of urgency, and rights of appeal.
"The following new subsections shall be inserted at the end of section 101 of the Act of 1971 (which provides for works for the preservation of unoccupied listed buildings in cases of urgency)—
(2) Where the period of notice under subsection (1) above has expired a local authority may recover from the person who is the owner of the building any expenses reasonably incurred by them in that behalf.
(3) An owner of a building on whom a notice under subsection (1) above has been served may, at any time within the period specified in the notice, appeal against the notice and may also appeal against the cost of any emergency work done by a local authority in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) above.
(4) Any appeal under this section shall be made to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the building in question is situated.
(5) Where an appeal is brought under this section, any notice to which it relates shall be of no effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
(6) On an appeal under this section the magistrates' court may correct any informality, defect or error in any notice if satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not material.
(7) On the determination of an appeal under this section the magistrates' court shall give directions for giving effect to their determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing any notice or for varying the terms of any notice in favour of the appellant."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and, with permission, I will speak also with reference to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. They have this in common, that they all arise out of recommendations made by the Preservation Policy Group a couple of years ago. This was a Group of which my noble friend Lord Kennet was Chairman. I do not need to remind the Committee that it was a distinguished body, containing the best possible advice on all aspects of the problem of what to do with our heritage of historic buildings and towns.
The last Government accepted the recommendations in their Report and committed money for one of them, rising to £1½ million a year from the
770
Exchequer, to be matched by an equal amount from the local authorities by 1973–74. On January 1 of this year the present Government, in a Circular, cancelled this money commitment and we were back at square one. I will return to this point in a moment in connection with the third proposed new clause before the Committee. The Circular stated that the Government did not go back on its predecessor's acceptance of the Report's various minor recommendations—they accepted them, as the Labour Government had done, and we waited to see when they would be put into effect. This Bill has come before us and contains a preservation provision in Clause 7. It is a good provision and we have nothing against it so far as it goes. But we are surprised that the Bill does not contain any of the recommendations in the Kennet Report. I can see why it does not contain the major recommendation with which the Government disagreed, but it does not contain even the minor ones with which the Government agreed. I am asking the Committee to move them in.
The first new clause, Amendment No. 6, is designed to close one of the last loopholes in the powers of local authorities to take emergency action to repair listed buildings when they are falling to pieces. Under the present law, if a local authority sees that a listed building is falling down, it can order the owner to repair it at his own expense. If the owner does so, well and good. If he does not, the local authority can repair it under the present law but cannot charge the owner for the work if he has refused to do the work himself. This is wrong. The local authority should have power to do the work when the owner refuses to do it, and to charge the owner. I should emphasise that here we are talking only of emergency repairs—things like a tarpaulin over a roof or the replacement of tiles or a smashed window. We are not talking about restoration or maintenance or anything of that nature involving a heavy bill. It would appear to noble Lords on this side of the Committee that there is no reason why we should not take this opportunity to close this small gap, in accordance with the recommendations of the Kennet Report. It is obvious that, far from being a drain on public funds, this provision would act

771
in the other direction. It would bring in a little money to local authorities as a result of the exercise of powers which they already have.
My second proposed new clause seems a little abstruse, but it is not really so. When the State, or a local authority, is acquiring a listed building for preservation purposes—whether by simple purchase or by compulsory purchase under the existing law, or indeed because it has been compelled to acquire it by an owner who claims that its preservation has deprived him from beneficial use of the land—in all these circumstances the question of valuation arises. Now usually a listed building, if it is of any grandeur or importance, has valuable fittings inside—staircases, panelling, that sort of thing—which can be torn out and sold. This is called "break-up". But the preservation law as it now stands is normally used to prevent that. The question then arises: should the price of the building and its. fittings reflect the value which could be obtained for the sale of the fittings, if they were permitted to be sold. which of course they are not? The Kennet Committee thought it should not and recommended that break-up value should not be paid when the State or a local authority acquire a listed building for preservation purposes in cases where break-up itself was forbidden. I think that this is only common sense. Once again, far from increasing public expenditure, this provision will decrease it; or, alternatively, it will allow more fine buildings to be acquired for the same amount of money.
I turn now to my third new clause, Amendment No. 8, which is the most important and no doubt also the most contentious. The Kennet Committee came to the conclusion that we should not make any real inroad into the problem of saving our historic towns until a new type of general conservation scheme was set up. The idea of such a scheme was that each local authority which wished to conserve part or the whole of a fine old town or village should draw up a general scheme for the purpose, rolling together all the existing grants it could obtain, under the preservation law itself, under housing law, under highways law, under planning law and under housing improvement law—absolutely everything one can
772
think of. But at the end of the day there would still be a deficit and the Committee proposed that the Secretary of State should be empowered to meet 50 per cent. of that deficit in the case of schemes which he had himself approved.
The Kennet Committee also said that pilot schemes should be carried out in advance of the necessary legislation in Bath, Chester, Chichester and York. The Labour Government then committed £3 million a year for the general schemes which would follow after these four projects. As I have told the Committee, the present Government cancelled the £3 million and the general schemes, but have continued with the four projects. We are very glad to learn that these are getting off the ground and we wish them well.
My new clause now carries the recommendation of the Preservation Policy Group into effect; hut, of course, it does not say anything about the amount of money. This is for Government decision. The clause simply empowers the local authorities to draw up these general conservation schemes and it empowers the Secretary of State to pay 50 per cent. of the deficit of any scheme which he has approved. The number and type of schemes he would approve, and thus the amount of money the Exchequer would spend, would remain, if this clause were carried into the Bill, fully under the control of the Government.
Nevertheless, the new clause would give the Secretary of State power to spend. It is unusual for such a provision to be moved into a Government Bill at Committee stage in your Lordships' House and I must pause for a moment. I think that members of the Committee know and applaud the efforts being made by the present Government—as indeed they have been made by former Governments—to ensure that more Bills come forward into your Lordships' House at the beginning of a Session and fewer at the end, in order to redress the balance of work between the two Houses which has hitherto been very much distorted by the fact that most Bills contain some financial provision or other and therefore have had to begin in another place. The Government want to change that, and rightly. In order to do so, they have

773
to change the rules of privilege in another place so that that House will not consider it a breach of privilege if a Bill containing financial provisions comes to it from your Lordships' House.
Obviously the Government intend this course mainly for the purpose of Government Bills: but I think that what is "sauce for the goose" must be "sauce for the gander". it would be wrong to distinguish between Government Bills and other Bills coming from this House with a financial content. It is surely the right of your Lordships' House to send such a Bill as this to another place—a right of your Lordships' House as such, and not of the Government operating in your Lordships' House. In any case, this is a Government Bill and I think that it would be hard to maintain that the Government should resist Amendments of a financial nature. We know that Mr. Enoch Powell is blocking the proposed change in the privilege rules in another place, and I of course only introduce this new clause in the belief and the hope that the matter will have been regulated before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. If it has not, then no doubt it will be necessary to remove the new clause in order not to bump up against the old rules.
To return to the contents, this is the first Bill containing any measures of preservation which has come from the present Government. Many people throughout the country have been watching with the greatest interest to see what the Government do about preservation. What they do is right, but it is pitifully small. There are things in the Kennet Report which they have already accepted. Why have they not put them in? Will they now accept them at the proposal of noble Lords on this side of the Committee? I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Amendment and I am glad to respond to his suggestion that we speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together for the reason that they all stem from the Report of the Preservation Policy Group, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It is well known. I think, that as a Government we have accepted in principle the proposals incorporated
774
in Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I do not really agree that it is correct to say that we have cancelled the proposals incorporated in No. 8, but rather that we have deferred judgment on them for a number of reasons, which I will go into in a moment, but mainly because we think they require to be substantiated by the projects which the noble Lord's group set in motion. That being so, I will not be drawn into a detailed discussion of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. My main reason for advising the Committee not to accept them is that when we came to consider them carefully in the light of this legislation we came to the conclusion, regretfully—as we did on a number of clauses which could have gone into the Field Monuments Bill which passed its Committee stage only the other day—that with the pressure of legislation upon us, these particular proposals were not sufficiently urgent or free of complexity and controversy to be included in our programme at the moment
I do not want to add or subtract anything from what we said in generally endorsing them in terms of Circular 1/71. I would now turn to Amendment No. 8 and deal with that at greater length, as did the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government to this was given in Circular 1/71 issued on January 1 of this year. After referring to the pilot conservation projects in Bath, Chester, Chichester and York which had been established and which we are carrying forward it says:
"The Government consider that a decision on this recommendation would be premature until the pilot projects have been carried further."
LORD KENNET: I do not think my noble friend said that the Government had cancelled the idea of general conservation schemes. What he said was that they had cancelled the money which the Labour Government had committed to them but not the schemes as such.
LORD SANDFORD: One of the reasons for not proceeding immediately with the scheme was that we thought it would be premature until the pilot projects were taken further. Another reason was that the decision will need to take account of the Government's decision to give local authorities greater financial responsibility. As noble Lords will know, we are about to embark on a round of

775
discussions with local authorities leading up to a Local Government Finance Bill. But I would readily acknowledge that the Preservation Policy Group Report and all its recommendations, all the rest of which we have accepted, performed a valuable service in identifying what is possibly a gap in the arrangements for financing conservation. But the extent to which this gap in practice needs filling, the precise way in which it could be filled, are matters which in our view really do need further consideration, and the pilot projects afford us an opportunity of giving them that consideration.
As we said last January, the Government believe that any new measures must take account of the general policy of giving local authorities greater financial freedom and responsibility. In the first place, the Amendment envisages the creation of a new specific grant for local authorities. All our thinking now is in favour of giving local authorities more freedom to determine their own priorities in accordance with the local needs and circumstances, and there is therefore bound to be a big question mark against the creation of a new specific grant for local authorities. Secondly, the formula provided in the Amendment is bound to involve considerable complications (they may be worth accepting) in defining what should be included in, and what should be excluded from, the calculations resulting in the loss of which the Government should share a half, and a detailed checking by central Government over local government calculations of what is eligible and admissible for grant. On the basis of our experience, since thinking on it, I believe that we need something simpler and more flexible, if we need something brand new at all.
Thirdly, the Amendment restricts the definition of a conservation scheme to something promoted by a local authority. Yet it is possible that worthwhile schemes could be promoted by local civil trusts, other amenity bodies, or by private organisations. Finally, until we have proceeded further with the pilot projects we cannot precisely say what the new grant would need to cover and how far existing grants such as the planning grant would meet the need. For instance, we are just about to get detailed proposals
776
for the Akiwark area of the City of York from Lord Esher's firm of consultants. The Department of the Environment have joined with the City Council of York in meeting the cost of this report. These proposals will give us some hard facts for a specific area; then we can identify where any shortfall will come, how much will be involved and how much money can be given under existing statutory powers. Such information is needed to frame the character and working of any new form of grant. As the noble Lord knows, legislation would be needed for his proposal.
However, from our preliminary consideration of the information available to us so far from these studies, it seems probable that something wider and much more flexible will be required than a grant tied specifically to losses incurred over a set period by local authorities. I believe that there are attractions in developing further the basis on which the Historic Buildings Council already operates: in having wider powers that as well as being used for the conservation of individual buildings and groups of buildings, might also cover the improvement, and the enhancement of selected parts of outstanding conservation areas, and be of benefit not just to local authorities, as is proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment, but also to private owners, as M.B.C. grants are at present, and indeed to other bodies such as local amenity societies engaged in promoting practical schemes of conservation. In our view, it is too early to be precise about this. As I have already said, we need more information. But in my view it would be clearly wrong at this stage to accept the restrictive proposal which is incorporated in Amendment No. 8, where all the indications are that we need wider and more flexible powers.
I hope that these remarks—and I apologise for their length—will satisfy the Committee and noble Lords opposite that, so far from being out of sympathy with their intentions as embodied in the Preservation Policy Group Report, we are carrying them forward, though in our own time and in our own way, but, I would assure noble Lords, with quite as much zeal and enthusiasm. For the reasons I have given, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment. I regret that I cannot, for

777
those reasons, advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL AVIATION (ROUTE CHARGES FOR NAVIGATION SERVICES) REGULATIONS 1971
7.27 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE rose to move, That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) Regulations 1971 (S.I. 1971/1715) laid before the House under Standing Order No. 63 on the 29th October last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose, with your Lordships' permission to speak also to the second Motion standing in my name, dealing with the annulment of the Civil Aviation (Navigation Services Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1971. Before doing so, I must declare an interest, because I am employed by a company operating aircraft who are in fact directly affected by the matters concerned with the Statutory Instruments. My opening remarks will be addressed to Statutory Instrument No. 1715, the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) Regulations 1971, and I have three principal criticisms of this measure.
First, we see from the notes at the top of the Instrument that it was made on October 25, laid before Parliament on October 29 and came into operation on November 1—a gap of two days between the time the Statutory Instrument was laid before the House and its coming into force. It is, I submit, inappropriate that the procedure for bringing this sort of measure into force should be abused—and it really is abused—to this extent.
778
During recent months a Select Committee on Procedure, sitting in another place considered the question of delegated legislation and produced a fairly lengthy Report, in which they had some observations to make on this procedure. The Report, which was laid before the other place in July of this year, makes it very clear that the view of the Committee was that the Prayer period for this sort of legislation ought to be allowed to expire before Orders come into force. In the case of this legislation, the Prayer period is 40 days, and I submit that it would not have been totally impossible for this Order to have been laid 40 days before November 1, or, if necessary, for the operation of the Order to be delayed until 40 days after it had been laid. For those of your Lordships who are interested. I would draw your attention to page XXIV of the Report, paragraph 48, and also to page 334 (Appendix 16) where the views of the Committee are clearly set out. I suggest that we should have had a more healthy period before these Orders came into force.
I should like now to consider briefly some specific points arising from the Order. The first is in relation to No. 1715, concerning the level of charges in respect of small aircraft. I am not going into details as to how these charges are calculated, because there is a complicated formula. But there are two exemptions (they are given in Article 8 of the Order) which are, I submit, anomalous; and although it is perhaps too late to reconsider them now I commend them to any future body that has to renew or perpetuate this legislation. In particular, I find that aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules are exempt from the charge. Although, on the face of it, this is reasonable, I submit that it will create a situation in which aircraft pilots are tempted to continue their flight in visual flight conditions when the weather conditions do not really permit this, and thus jeopardise both their aircraft and their passengers, and possibly also people on the ground, simply to avoid having to pay the charges.
The other exemption, which is conspicuous by its absence, is the one for test flights. Aircraft carrying out test flights for the purposes of testing navigation equipment are exempt, but for some
reason any other piece of equipment on the aircraft is not exempt. This is an anomaly which I find it difficult to understand.
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear!
LORD TREFGARNE: Coming now to the second of these Orders, No. 1730, the principal criticism I would make is similar to the one I have made in respect of the previous one; namely, that the Order came into force only two days after it was laid before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will be aware that the procedure for these Statutory Instruments is that they are laid before the House and continue in force provided that no Resolution to the contrary is passed in either House. I submit that it is an abuse of this system if they come into force so quickly that it is quite impossible, within the time available, for a Resolution to be moved, either in this House or in another place, to annul an Order. Having said that, my Lords, I would add that I do of course appreciate that there are some kinds of legislation, such as that for a variation in petrol tax, which must necessarily come into force immediately. However, I submit that an Order for the imposition of these charges is not one of them. I beg to move.
7.35 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I were to thank my noble friend for praying against these two Statutory Instruments I think I should probably be extending the courtesy of your Lordships' House a little too far. Nevertheless, he is entirely right to pray against them, if only for the fact that he wished to air some points and to ask Her Majesty's Government to give some explanations. I was grateful to him for his courtesy in letting me know in advance the particular points that concerned him.
I think his main complaint was that these two Statutory Instruments—No. 1715 on Eurocontrol charges, which was made on October 25, and No. 1730, which deals with Shamwick charges and was made on October 26—were laid before Parliament on the 29th and came into operation only two days later. My noble friend felt very strongly that this was a wrong thing to do. I should be
780
the first to say that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that these Instruments, where possible, should be laid within adequate and suitable time. My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that the Commons procedure in another place brought forth some recommendations, and when my noble friend Lord Jellicoe commented upon these on November 9 he said—and I would repeat his words (col. 238):
…every effort will be made to ensure that Departments do, whenever posible, observe the suggested 21-day interval…but the Government arc unable to accept that a formal explanation should be provided in every case where it is not possible to observe the interval."
I shall endeavour to explain why it was not possible on this occasion to adhere to this interval. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his Department would have wished to lay these Regulations before Parliament some time earlier than was in fact done, but unfortunately this did not prove possible.
Perhaps I may address my remarks first to the Eurocontrol charges system, which is No. 1715. This had been evolved by the other six members of the Eurocontrol Organisation and ourselves over a period of two years. The essence of the system is that in relation to each flight in the airspace of member and participating States, one composite charge is payable by the aircraft operator to the Eurocontrol Organisation. I suggest that what matters to the aircraft operator is the composite charge as billed to him by the Eurocontrol Organisation for each flight. He need not be concerned about the make-up of the composite charge, or about how the partial charges arc evolved, unless he wishes to check the accuracy of Eurocontrol's arithmetic. But, as your Lordships will imagine, a great deal of work and a great deal of co-operative negotiation has had to be done by Member States and the Eurocontrol Organisation itself before these charges could be agreed and implemented. I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate how much work is involved in all this. Throughout there were many consultations and discussions, including those with the International Air Transport Association and with members of the European Civil Aviation Conference. Each State had to take the necessary steps under its national laws to introduce the charging system and

781
of course there are variations in how this needs to be done as between one State and another.
By the late summer of this year nearly all the necessary steps had been completed or were on the brink of completion. So far as we were concerned, the Regulations under the Eurocontrol system could be made to operate from November 1, once the Government were able to form the opinion that the charging system fell into one of two categories. First, it would have to be approved under an international agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party; secondly, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry it would have to be likely to be approved before or within one month after the date when regulations were to come into force under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom was likely to be a party.
My Lords, I am going into some detail over this as it is important that my noble friend should see why the problem occurred. The international agreements concerned, to which we are a party, were the Eurocontrol Convention of 1960, and the Multilateral Agreement relating to the Collection of Route Charges which was signed in September 1970 by all seven member States of Eurocontrol, but which needed ratification by all seven before it entered into force.
Contrary to earlier hopes it became clear in September that action by all seven Governments in relation to the Multilateral Agreement might not be completed before November 1, although this remained the agreed date for introducing the charges system. National requirements for ratification vary of course and, while action was in train everywhere, some delays had arisen. We therefore had to form the opinion whether the necessary steps by all member States to bring the Multilateral Agreement into force were likely to be taken by November 30—that is before or within one month after November 1, the period of "grace permitted.
It was not in fact until after a meeting of representatives of the Governments concerned in Brussels on October 21 that we were satisfied that we could properly take the view that the Multilateral Agreement was likely to be in force, if not by November 1 at least by November
782
30. Then and only then could our Regulations be made, as they were with all possible speed on October 25 and laid before Parliament on October 29. I have sought to explain why, in the event, our Regulations were not laid as early as we had planned or, indeed, as Parliamentary procedures would have chosen.
The £7 charge imposed under S.I. 1730 for navigation services made available by the National Air Traffic Services in the Shanwick Oceanic Control Area is a purely United Kingdom charge and separate from the Eurocontrol charges system. But we had adopted the same introductory date of November 1 and considered it simpler for those who are to pay both types of charge to maintain a common introductory date. So the making and laying of the Shanwick charge Regulations was delayed until it was clear that the Eurocontrol ones could properly be made.
Despite earlier hopes and endeavours, these two sets of Regulations were not laid as early as the Government would have wished and in keeping with the proposals of the Commons Select Committee on Procedure. But I assure noble Lords that this does not alter our resolve to endeavour to lay any other Statutory Instruments on this subject in good time in the future, although obviously one can never guarantee success on every occasion.
Now I turn to my noble friend's remarks on the subject of general aviation and private flying. Taking the Eurocontrol charges system first, by unanimous agreement of the member States the charging formula applicable to most commercial flights has been scaled down in its application to small aircraft which, in general, means private aircraft. In the first place, aircraft of less than 2 metric tons maximum take off weight are totally exempt from charge. Secondly, flights made entirely in accordance with Visual Flight Rules are exempt. My noble friend queried this point. Thirdly, circular flights—that is, flights taking off from and returning to the same aerodrome without an intermediate stop—and training flights are exempted.
The effect of these exemptions is to relieve a very great deal of private and club flying from any charge under the

783
Eurocontrol system in the United Kingdom and in the other countries applying the system. When we come to flights by aircraft weighing between 2 and 5·7 metric tons, many of them will be exempted by virtue of the general exemptions for V.F.R. flights, for circular and training flights. However, a private or business executive aircraft weighing between 2 and 5·7 metric tons may well incur a charge if its journey involves a flight through controlled airspace with the specialised equipment and expertise which that involves. In such a case the charges are calculated from a special formula which has the effect of almost halving the charge which would otherwise be payable.
We see no reason why general aviation should be completely absolved from making a contribution, however small, towards the cost of en route navigation services. The complete exemption for aircraft under 2 tons was adopted because the costs of collection would be disproportionate to the resulting receipts. The upper limit of 5·7 metric tons for the reduced rate of charge is the dividing line adopted by ICAO between general aviation aircraft and commercial aircraft and it is inevitable that the odd aircraft slightly above that limit may bear the full rate of charge.
The Eurocontrol charges system will of course be reviewed in the light of experience and we shall gladly examine with our partners in the system any serious anomalies which come to light. My noble friend suggested that the V.F.R. exemption might induce some aircraft operators to operate under Visual Flight Rules simply in order to avoid a charge when they should more sensibly operate under Instrument Flight Rules. I speak subject to my noble friend's experience in these matters, but I would question whether a responsible aircraft operator would act so unwisely; but naturally the situation will be watched and remedial action taken if necessary. However, I would have thought that weather conditions in this country and on the Continent are such that any operator who attempted to follow such a policy would find that it could not be reconciled with the need to maintain regularity and an efficient service.
784
In the case of the Shanwick charges, the Secretary of State has power to dispense with charges in appropriate cases, and the industry has already been told by a Department of Trade and Industry memorandum, and an aeronautical information circular, that all flights by aircraft of less than 5·7 metric tons will be relieved of the Shanwick charge. Most of the 120,000 or so flights in the Shan-wick Oceanic Control Area are relatively long-haul North Atlantic flights which are rarely undertaken by aircraft below this weight. But we thought it right to relieve them of the charge if only because the administrative effort of raising and collecting the charge would be disproportionate to the possible revenue.
Two years ago, in April, 1969, during a debate on aerodrome navigation services charges—also promoted by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, speaking for the previous Government, gave warning of the likely introduction in 1971 of en route charges. To-day I will sound two notes of warning. First, as regards the en route charges under the Eurocontrol system, we shall strive for agreement with our fellow members of the organisation to secure a significant increase in the rate of recovery of costs from November, 1973, as a further step towards full recovery from the industry of the costs of the National Air Traffic Services which will be necessary to limit the length of time during which the Civil Aviation Authority will need grants from public funds.
Secondly, we are considering ways of reducing even further the deficit of about £1 million still being incurred on the National Air Traffic Services' provision of aerodrome navigation services in this country. The Department of Trade and Industry will embark on consultations with our aircraft operators, and the aerodrome authorities concerned, as soon as we have proposals ready for discussion. I cannot say to-day what the form and extent will be of any increases next year in aerodrome navigation charges because much will depend on the outcome of consultations with the industry. But I think it right to sound a note of warning this evening and to give my noble friend Lord Trefgarne the opportunity to warn us, if he so wishes, of his desire to pray against them, too, when the time comes.
7.50 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I wonder whether he could possibly answer a point which I omitted to make in my opening remarks, but which I think I discussed with him earlier. It concerns the position on November 1 of this year, when the new charges came into force, in relation to the existing navigation service charges that have been raised for some time at airports operated by the Department of Trade and Industry. Is it the case that we now pay both the United Kingdom domestic charges and the Eurocontrol charges, or has the Eurocontrol charge superseded the domestic charge?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would make it perfectly plain that the Eurocontrol charges are totally new and apply to services which previously were provided free of charge. Therefore this charge will be additional to any others that were applied, and will be applied in the future.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl for

Section 16

Section 17

Section 18

Persons found guilty

Heaviest fine

Longest sentence of imprisonment

Persons found guilty

Heaviest fine

Longest sentence of imprisonment

Persons found guilty

Heaviest fine

Longest sentence of imprisonment

1968*

13

£10

7 years

20

—

6 years

14

£25

5 years

1969

20

£50

10 years

26

£35

4 years

26

£75

4 years

1970

32

£4†

7 years

34

£100

10 years

12

—

5 years

* From August 1, 1968, the date on which the Act came into force.
†Only one person was fined in 1970 under this section; the fine was imposed on a juvenile at a magistrates' court.
his patient and detailed reply to my Motion, which I shall study with great interest when I receive my Hansard shortly. In the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FIREARMS OFFENCES: CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many persons since the 1968 Firearms Act came into force have been convicted of offences under the Sections 16, 17 and 18 of that Act; and what have been the longest sentences of imprisonment or heaviest fines imposed for offences under each of these sections.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): The following is the information for England and Wales:
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.