Sitting of 10 April 1974

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

    Fishing Industry (Fuel Prices)
    Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of increased fuel prices on the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): There is great variation in the impact of increased oil prices and the industry itself is best placed to provide the Government with a comprehensive assessment.
    Mr. Ancram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware that the increased costs are causing great destruction within the industry, that it is one of the few industries that cannot pass on its costs, and that in many cases in the smaller boats around areas like Berwick and East Lothian it is causing a loss of between £3 and £4 a week for the crew members in pay? Does he intend to do anything about it?
    Mr. Milian: As I said, it is basically for the industry to make out its case. I understand that the various associations have been meeting. No doubt they will be making representations to us in due course. I am not sure that I wholly accept what the hon. Gentleman said about not being able to pass on increases in costs. If he or any other hon. Member has information on this matter, naturally I should be glad to consider it.

    Economic Council
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make
    402
    a statement on the work of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Appointments to the council expired on 28th February, and I am at present considering the question of new membership.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware of the real concern in Scotland and on this side of the House about the effect of the Budget on jobs and prosperity in Scotland, particularly on the viability of Scottish industry? When the new council is appointed will the right hon. Gentleman make its first task to consider whether the Budget will create more unemployment in Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: The Budget, to get it into perspective, was necessitated by the condition of the economy that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman did not vote against anything in the Budget.
    The council has been renamed the Scottish Economic Council. The hon. Gentleman slipped up on that one, too. The Scottish Economic Planning Council was allowed to lapse. I do not know whether the previous administration intended to carry it on again. If so, they should have taken action long before. I take note of the indication of priority laid down by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State ask the council at its first meeting to produce a study for publication of the number of jobs in Scotland which are likely to be lost due to the ill-considered actions by the Government in cutting off export orders for certain countries which are extremely valuable to Scotland, and to Clydeside in particular?
    Mr. Ross: The council does not exist at the moment. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that this is due to the failure of the previous Government to take timely action. I shall reconstitute it and review the nature of its work
    Mr. MacArthur: When the right hon. Gentleman reviews the nature of the council's work will he require a study in depth and publish its findings, showing the impact on the Scottish economy of the recent Budget, the cost to Scottish industry of the steep increase in taxation on businesses and the extra cost to individuals in Scotland who will have to pay £1·56

    403
    per household more than before as a direct consequence of the Government's Budget proposals?
    Mr. Ross: Judging by the misleading information that the hon. Gentleman has and the impression that he is giving about the effect of the Budget on Scotland, it is necessary for somebody to make a study of these matters, because I do not accept his figures

    Fresh-Water Fishing
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet completed his consideration of the recommendations of the Hunter Committee's report on fresh-water fishing; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. William Ross: I have nothing to add to my reply of 20th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 1006.]
    Mr. Dalyell: In the interim can something be done about the stocking of poor waters for the public benefit?
    Mr. Ross: I think that my hon. Friend raised this matter a few weeks ago at Question Time and I said then that we would consider it
    Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Hunter Report contains proposals which would have damaging effects on commercial salmon fishing on the English side of the border, in Northumberland, and that the shelf is the best place for them?
    Mr. Ross: The Hunter Report contains many complex proposals, some of which have been overtaken by time—because it is nearly 10 years since the Committee made an interim report

    A9
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what time scale he envisages for the A9 improvements, north of Inverness; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. Millan: Two road contracts have been let, but the completion of the new route across the Black Isle will be determined largely by the building of the Kessock Bridge, which I expect will take about three years. Design work is progressing well and my right hon. Friend hopes to invite tenders later this year.
    404
    Improvements further north will be undertaken as fast as resources allow
    Mr. Gray: That is a satisfactory answer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it highlights the importance given by the previous Government to contracts and planning in oil-related areas in this region. However, will he undertake that there will be no reduction in the type of structure or road construction which was planned by the previous Government?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that that point has been considered. The complaints were, and probably still are, that the construction was not adequate
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister reconsider the question of making this road a dual carriageway throughout its length? Is he aware that I was extremely sorry to receive a letter from the Minister of State in another place indicating that while he was committed to it before the election he has now changed his mind? Will the hon. Gentleman change his mind back again?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think the hon. Member received a letter from me. I do not remember having any views about the A9 before the election. However, my present view is that it is an extremely expensive scheme. The estimated cost was £60 million, but the actual cost will be considerably greater than that. It is in the light of that—and I hope later to be able to give the House more accurate information—that the matter must be considered
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister not realise that the development of this road is fundamental to the development and support of oil generally in that part of Scotland? Will the Minister confirm or deny reports in the Press this week from Inverness County Council that the Government are contemplating cuts in the programme? The previous Government certainly intended to go ahead with it
    Mr. Millan: I am not aware of those reports. I am, however, aware that the road is important for North Sea oil developments, but the expense which the previous Government undertook to meet is likely to be a serious underestimate.

    Fishing Boats (Grants)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards grants for building new fishing boats; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. Millan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 3rd April.—[Vol. 871, c. 380.]
    Mr. Stewart: Higher grants are still available to fishermen in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister therefore, without prejudice to any concessions to the Northern Ireland fishermen, take action to end the moratorium on grants for Scottish fishermen, increasing the grants if possible?
    Mr. Milian: I cannot say when it will be possible to lift the moratorium which was imposed by the previous Government. The applications already approved are likely to use all the funds in the Estimates submitted to the House.
    Mr. Grimond: In the reply to which the Minister referred, in which I was involved, it was said that it was extremely important to keep the fleet modern. That is right, and I trust that the grants will be reintroduced. Will the Minister of State also make a statement about the principles upon which applications for grants are referred to Brussels under the FEOGA scheme?
    Mr. Millan: Nothing in the grant scheme so far would be affected by Common Market regulations, but I suppose that any question of assistance to industry is a matter on which the Commission might take a view.

    Roads (Stock-proof Fences)
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that where new roads are built they are fenced with stock-proof fences.
    Mr. Millan: Highway authorities are under no obligation to fence against livestock on land adjoining the highway, but roadside fences are generally provided on motorways—from which animals are excluded—to replace previously existing fences where improvements are
    406
    being carried out and at special places such as bridge parapets and on top of embankments
    Mr. MacCormick: Under current conditions, when the road is improved the traffic will be moving much faster. In those circumstances cannot a fresh look be taken at the whole question?
    Mr. Millan: That is a fair point. We must remember that if we fenced every road it would be an expensive proposition. However, we are asking for information from county councils about the extent to which they have unfenced roads in their areas and we shall consider the problem in the light of that information
    Mr. Gray: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the rights of crofters when a new road is being constructed where no road existed before? Will he bear in mind the reasonable demands of the crofters that the fencing should be taken care of when the road is built?
    Mr. Milian: I shall bear that in mind. There is nothing to prevent highway authorities providing fencing, but also there is no obligation upon them to do so.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Douglas Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times since United Kingdom entry to the EEC the Scottish Office has been represented at ministerial level at meetings of the Council of Ministers
    Mr. William Ross: So far as I am aware, at one meeting during the previous administration
    Mr. Henderson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, which will cause great concern in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider breaking with the bad habits of his predecessor and stand up for Scotland by insisting that he is represented at all future meetings of the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Ross: I do not believe that is necessary. Co-ordination within the Government takes place interdepartmentally, and a Minister goes to the meetings not to represent any one Department or any one point of view. That is the correct way to do it. Scottish Office Ministers will

    407
    attend as and when we consider it essential.
    Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist such parochial tendencies as are expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)? Will he confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) represented not only Scottish interests in Europe but, on occasions, solely United Kingdom interests, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home)?
    Mr. Ross: That is quite correct, and that is the proper and sensible attitude to adopt. I hope that the new-come members of the Scottish National Party will drop their parochial approach to this matter
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman take another look at the number of times that a Scottish Office Minister has represented not only Scotland but the United Kingdom in these negotiations? If my memory serves me correctly, I am sure it happened more than once. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), that the Scottish Office and we in Scotland will give all support to Scottish Office Ministers representing United Kingdom interests in Europe, as has happened in the past?
    Mr. Ross: The answer to the first part is. "Yes", and to the second part, "Yes"

    Tourist Industry
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the Budget will have on the prosperity and growth of the Scottish tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: The Budget contained no measures relating specifically to tourism. I am confident that the Scottish tourist industry will continue to flourish.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that, apart from the increases in nationalised industry prices, the specific increases in insurance stamps, the 10 per cent. VAT on petrol and increased company taxation will all militate against the growth of the tourist industry, making it more difficult for that industry to survive?
    Mr. Millan: I have received no representations from the industry, and none of those points was put to me by the Tourist Board last Friday. The board seeemed very optimistic about the future.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister take a less complacent attitude to the problem? The Budget bears heavily on the tourist industry, as it does on industry generally in Scotland. Will the Government approach this matter seriously and make some attempt to tell the House how much the Budget will cost Scottish industry?
    Mr. Millan: Far from being complacent about the situation, and in spite of the appalling economic inheritance left to us by the Conservatives, I was delighted to be able to announce to the Tourist Board on Friday that we were increasing its assistance in the current year by £175,000.

    Expenditure
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of public expenditure in Scotland for the period 1973–75, compared with the level proposed when the Estimates for 1973–74 were first published.
    Mr. William Ross: At 1973 survey prices, the expenditure of the Scottish departments was forecast in Cmnd. 5178 of December 1972 at £1,635 million for 1973–74 and £1,617 million for 1974–75. Following subsequent policy changes, the figure for 1974–75 at December 1973 was £1,540 million. The estimated out-turn for 1973–74 is £1,550 million.
    Mr. McElhone: The savage cuts imposed on Scottish local authorities by the last Government are making it extremely difficult for them to carry out their programmes this year. Will my right hon. Friend agree to publish the details of those cuts so that we may more readily understand that the Government will not be able to repair the damage in their first few weeks or, indeed, the first few months of office.
    Mr. Ross: The facts are fairly plain and I was surprised to see the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) raising a smile because the estimated out-turn for 1973–74 shows a drop of £85 million in Scotland. For 1974–75 the original estimates have already been reduced by £77 million

    409
    The details are matters for the local authorities because once we fix the rate support grant for them it is their job to determine their own priorities in the light of the savings.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman always bear in mind that the greatest scourge to the people of Scotland at present is inflation and that the greatest cause of inflation is excessive public expenditure?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has listened to his hon. Friend urging further expenditure on us today.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I recognise the disastrous situation which the Government were left by the previous administration, but I should like my right hon. Friend to look again at allocations, particularly for 1974–75, and to take account of the needs applied by the Social Work (Scotland) Act, with particular reference to the need for an increase in places in list "D" schools which now have fewer places than in 1968? A serious situation still exists in terms of psychiatric assessment places and various associated problems.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that in present circumstances it is difficult to do much about allocations for 1974–75. However, with regard to future years we must have a review of our policies and priorities
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that during the three years in office of the Conservative Government there was a major expansion in the services offered by local authorities? So far as the so-called cuts are concerned, will he restore them? More important, will he make immediate representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve the burden of the Budget on local authorities, bearing in mind that a Labour treasurer of Glasgow said last week that the Budget would raise Glasgow rates considerably?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman cannot run away from the consequences of his own incompetence. With regard to local authorities, the rate support grant is the one which I found on the table when I arrived in office, and is as worked out by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    410
    The hon Gentleman knows that, and that we had to add to the grant, particularly for Glasgow and one of the other cities. The Opposition must face their failings in this matter, rather than blame us. The Budget is related to the economic circumstances of the country, and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that.

    Oil Platforms
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been approved for sites to construct oil platforms in Scotland during the last six months; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: One
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I request that he speeds up future applications so as to prevent service industries having to go, for example, to Norway or Iceland, thus preventing us from building up a Scottish indigenous service industry for oil development, which could go all over the world.
    Mr. Ross: We should not exaggerate the position too greatly. Nine platforms have been approved, eight of them without any local public inquiry. In terms of local public inquiries it is necessary to get the balance right in relation to local interests and similar matters. There is a limit to what can be done to speed up dealing with these applications, but we are looking at the planning procedure to see how we can more effectively get what is desired within the law.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has no applications or plans to improve sites at Lossie Forest, Culfin Forest and Burghead Bay?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Lady will put down a Question on this matter I shall be glad to answer it
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned reviewing planning procedures. When is he likely to come forward with new proposals on this important matter?
    Mr. Ross: There may not be new proposals. As I have suggested, there may be administrative changes within the

    411
    existing law, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman and the House know as much as I can about the matter.

    Hunterston
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Ayr County Council about proposed developments at Hunterston; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: Ayr County Council has asked to meet me, and I will arrange this as soon as I have clarified certain matters.
    Mr. Lambie: Why is my right hon. Friend still refusing to give planning permission for an oil terminal and oil refinery? Is he aware that future steel developments at Hunterston and Garnock Valley are dependent on the siting of the oil refinery at Hunterston and that Ayr County Council is speaking for public opinion in Scotland in demanding an immediate start to the oil terminal and refinery at Hunterston?
    Mr. Ross: That is an exaggeration of the position. I realise that as soon as I sit down an hon. Gentleman who is interested in oil will rise and tell me the opposite in relation to this matter. My hon. Friend should appreciate that this is a complex matter and that it is my responsibility to ensure that any arrangements and decisions are made within a planning decision made by the previous Secretary of State. We have obligations and responsibilities into which we cannot rush.
    Mr. Corrie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. I was about to say that, because I fought the election in my constituency on this subject, and I came back with an increased majority. Now that the oil terminal has started, may I have an assurance on the conservation aspect of the terminal—that it will be carefully looked after, according to the letter of the law, and that adequate compensation will be given to farmers and farm workers from those farms that have disappeared because of the development? Is it not a disgrace that some of these people have no homes or jobs because of the development?
    Mr. Rees: That is an entirely different matter, but I shall certainly look at it.
    412
    All these conservation aspects are relevant to the decision that I have to make.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: We appreciate that this is a difficult problem, but will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not allow Hunterston to become sterilised for 20 years by giving the site wholly to the BSC?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman must not seek to anticipate a decision which I have to make. He must appreciate that Lord Polwarth, when Minister of State, told Ayr County Council, I think in August of last year, that he hoped to come to decisions by the end of the year. We can understand the frustrations of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) about this, but the hon. Gentleman must not lead me into temptation

    Newspaper Industry
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Development Department to carry out an in-depth investigation into the condition of the Scottish newspaper industry; and if he will publish the result.
    Mr. William Ross: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said in the House—[Vol. 870, c. 1320–22.]—that the Government are urgently considering the possibility of an inquiry into the newspaper industry. The hon. Gentleman must await the Government's decision.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I recognise the reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's reticence, but is it not a fact that no Government of any political colour can prevent the bosses of NATSOPA and SOGAT from pricing their members out of employment if they are determined so to do? I put to the right hon. Gentleman two matters which he should investigate. Is he responsible for the Price Commission in relation to the tragic demise of Beaverbrook Newspapers in Scotland? I refer him to what a member of the Price Commission herself said in public on the matter. Secondly, there is the allegation in the House by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that new machinery was moved from Glasgow to the Evening Standard in London—

    413
    although never used—for reasons connected with regional grants. This allegation must be investigated and cleared up.
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in relation to the exhaustive discussions I have had with Beaverbrook Newspapers and others I got the impression that it was not purely a Scottish matter, and the hon. Gentleman in his intervention did not relate it to anything that was purely Scottish. I remember that the Leader of the Opposition said that the management of the industry was also worth inquiring into.
    Mr. Dalyell: If there is to be an investigation may we have an inquiry into the question why Beaverbrook Newspapers, which for many years has lectured us on how to conduct industrial relations, has offered such paltry redundancy terms?
    Mr. Ross: It is a question not only of redundancy terms but also of the shortness of the notice given to the people concerned. This reflects considerably on industrial relations in the newspaper industry.

    Rent Rebates and Allowances
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now raise the needs allowance for the rent rebate and rent allowance schemes, in order to give help to those on lower incomes with the payment of their rents.
    Mr. Millan: The level of the needs allowances for rent rebate and allowance schemes is being kept under review.
    Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that the family with the lowest earnings suffers most from inflation and the rising cost of living? How, in that context, can he possibly justify introducing a rent freeze which gives a present of £26 a year to all those on high incomes and nothing to those with full rent rebates? Are these correct Socialist priorities?
    Mr. Millan: That is not true, but we are, in many other aspects of our policy, such as those dealing with food subsidies and the rest, doing a great deal to help the lower-paid workers. I hope that we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite in doing so.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the major
    414
    arguments against any means-tested benefit is that the income levels that it sets out are liable to fall behind because of inflation and that, for that reason and a number of others, it is far better to set rents at a level that the average family can afford than to increase them to the point at which the family on average earnings has to rely on a means-tested benefit, as was the avowed policy of the last Government?
    Mr. Millan: I do not want to be taken as being in agreement with anything that the last Government did, but I cannot fully accept what my hon. Friend says. There is certainly a place for rent rebate schemes.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman explain any further in what sense £500 million in food subsidies is a social priority in helping those who are really in need, any more than the rent freeze was for tenants? If help needs to be given—I support it when it is needed —would not it be better to give to those in need rather than right across the board?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that these subsidies are directed towards the basic foodstuffs which play a disproportionate part in the budgeting of lower-paid families
    Mr. McElhone: May I assure my hon. Friend that the people of Scotland welcome the rent freeze imposed by this Government? Will he press his right hon. Friend in the Cabinet for an early repeal of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act? If he does not, many local authority social work departments will break down because of the many families who are experiencing difficulties as a result of the provisions of this iniquitous Act
    Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is right to say that the rent freeze has been widely welcomed in Scotland

    Grant-Aided Schools
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards grant-aided schools in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): My right

    415
    hon. Friend is considering the future of the grant-aided schools in Scotland but he is not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister assure us that before any change in policy towards the grant-aided schools is announced there will be the fullest consultation with the grant-aided schools to try to ensure, as far as possible, that there will not be the inconvenience and disruption that were caused by the last Labour administration's change of policy in this respect?
    Mr. Hughes: We shall certainly consult the grant-aided schools, but it will be about how the policy will operate in integration and not about whether such a policy is necessary.
    Mr. Monro: What increase in grant will be paid this year, and when?
    Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer that without notice.

    House Building (The Borders)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to accelerate the house building programme in the Borders.
    Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend is anxious that local authorities should build as many houses as they need to meet their housing requirements. He has recently authorised the Scottish Special Housing Association to build an additional 100 houses in Jedburgh and Kelso.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister of State accept that in the time of the last Labour Government one of the methods of success in accelerating the house building programme was the personal visits undertaken by the then Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), to local authorities? May we have a repeat of that sort of tour? If Scottish Office Ministers are too overworked, will the Minister have a word with the Prime Minister about getting another one?
    Mr. Millan: In due course, I hope that either I or my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Lords will be able to have these consultations. One of the difficulties about the housing position in the Borders at the moment is that during the period of the last Government the
    416
    number of completions by public authorities was reduced to only a third of what it was in 1970.

    School Building (Moray and Nairn)
    Mrs. Winifred Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details for Moray and Nairn of the school building programme as to cost and location for the past five years and for the future so that as plans are already drawn up.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the reply is lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate details in tabular form in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can, however, tell the hon. Lady that in the five years to 31st March 1974 school building projects other than minor works started by Moray and Nairn Education Authority amounted to £1,973,000, plus £24,000 included in the programme but not yet started.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman be sympathetic to the problems created by the sudden influx of population into my constituency? I accept that it is not alone in that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be sympathetic to it. Both Elgin and Lossiemouth need senior schools are vastly overcrowded. Does Findhorn to Kinloss and from Kinloss to Forres to go to school, and all these schools are vastly over-crowded. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that both the senior schools should go on? There is a great fear that only one will go on and the other will be sacrificed to its needs while all the time more population is coming into this area.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall bear the hon. Lady's remarks in mind, because I have experience of people coming in to my own constituency and the surrounding areas. The building programmes for the future years have not been concluded. We will take account of the needs of the areas. At the end of the day, it is for the local education authority to determine its priorities in relation to the programme that it submits.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: If, as hon. Members opposite so often claim, people are leaving Scotland. how does it come about that everybody is going into the hon. Lady's constituency?
    Mr. Hughes: I do not know that I can answer that, except that it is possible

    417
    that two things are happening—that people are leaving Scotland and are also moving about within Scotland.
    Mr. Gray: Despite the attraction of the hon. Lady in Moray and Nairn, will the Minister please remember that probably the most important area of all in the oil-affected counties is that of Ross and Cromarty? When he is looking at his figures, will he pay particular attention to Easter Ross?
    Mr. Hughes: We certainly take into consideration every area. Although there are problems in the north and north-east of Scotland, there are problems in the west of Scotland as well. Our difficulty, bearing in mind the legacy that we have inherited, is that we have to balance the priorities very carefully.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman stop talking about his legacy and inheritance in Scotland? Will he at least accept that when he came to power unemployment was falling sharply, job vacancies were at an all-time high and the rate of immigration at an all-time low? Will he at least assure us that the reduction in employment will continue and not rise under a Labour Government, as it did before?
    Mr. Hughes: I can understand the hon. Member's embarrassment. It was only yesterday that he was complaining bitterly about the part-time teaching in Glasgow and the west of Scotland which was the result of his administration.
    Following is the information:
    In the five years to 31st March 1974, the following school building projects other than minor works were started by Moray and Nairn Education Authority:

    Project

    Cost (£'000's)

    Old Academy, Forres: conversion to primary school

    86

    East End Primary School, Elgin: extension

    138

    Lossiemouth High School: temporary classrooms

    25

    Milne's High School, Fochabers: temporary Classrooms

    27

    Forres Academy: swimming pool

    72

    Hopeman School: conversion to primary school

    14

    Seafield Primary School: kitchen/dining unit

    27

    West End Primary School, Elgin kitchen

    9

    Lossiemouth High School: games hall

    46

    418

    Nairn Academy: new school

    1,467

    West End Primary School, Elgin: improvements

    20

    Improvement work at Rothes Primary School included in the 1973–74 programme at an estimated cost of £24,000 has still to be started.
    With its allocations for the 1974–75 programme year the authority plans to start the following projects other than minor works:

    Estimated cost (£'000's)

    Auldearn Primary School: modernisation

    30

    Bishopmill Primary School extension

    80

    Elgin new nursery school

    38

    Llanbryde: nursery class extension

    33

    Allocations for programmes after 1974–75 have not yet been decided, except in the case of the nursery education building programme for 1975–76. The authority plans to start a new nursery school at Forres, estimated to cost £38,000.

    Economic Situation
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to publish a White Paper on the outlook for the Scottish economy.
    Mr. William Ross: Our first objective is to review the situation and to consider urgently what measures are needed to stimulate development and employment in Scotland. We can consider the question whether a White Paper would be helpful after that.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a White Paper or some form of statement is urgently required in Scotland? Is he aware of the widespread concern in Scotland about the disincentive effect on Scottish industry of the last Budget, which has added considerably to the financial burdens of industry? Is he further aware of the concern among householders, who now, for the first time, are realising the heavy cost to them of the Labour Government's Budget? On what basis does the right hon. Gentleman challenge my figure that the cost of the Budget to the householder will be £1·56 a week, or £81 a year? Is he aware that this is based on a study of the Government's own figures of household expenditure in Scotland? If he wishes to correct the figures, will he give the figures as he sees them so that we may know the position?
    Mr. Ross: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was quoting his own White

    419
    Paper. If we are to give the right outline of the situation at present we have to start with a prelude setting out the situation before the Budget. I assure the hon. Member that unemployment in Scotland was not falling; it was rising. We were faced with a three-day working week, inflation, a calamitous drop in housing and a lack of confidence by industry. The hon. Member should not be asking me for a White Paper; in that situation it would be a black paper.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Are there not too many White, Green and other Papers these days?
    Mr. Ross: I entirely agree.
    Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State, as Scotland's economic Minister, be careful that he does not write down the real achievements of the Scottish economy in recent years? When considering publishing the White Paper. will he bear in mind that, by common consent, 1973 was the best year for the Scottish economy since the war and that emigration was the lowest for many years, as was unemployment? Will he remember that it is all very well having political wishes to put across political points but that he has a responsibility to all the people of Scotland for confidence in the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ross: That is why I regret the kind of exaggerated statements that we are getting from hon. Members of the Opposition. Let them not inflate their achievements in respect of that. The unemployment figures for the whole time that hon. Gentlemen were in Government averaged over 100,000 per month. They never fell as low as they were when the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in Dundee, I think, just before the 1970 General Election, when he said that the Conservatives would not rest until they got the figures down. They did not get the figures down to the point at which they were then.

    School Milk
    Mr. Selbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to restore to pupils over the age of 7 years in primary schools in Scotland a supply of milk without charge.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: This is one of the questions to which my right hon. Friend is giving urgent consideration.
    Mr. Selby: I am not satisfied with that answer. It avoids facing the issue. We are bombarded daily by the advertisement "Drink a pinta". Surely there is far too much milk. We should regard it as a priority to restore free milk to children who need it most—children between the ages of 7 and 12 who expend a lot of energy.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Hughes: I take my hon. Friend's point. That is certainly something which we criticised greatly when in Opposition, and certainly we are considering it at present
    Mr. Monro: How many schoolchildren receive free school milk, and at what cost?
    Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer that question without notice.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation he has had from private housing agencies for financial assistance to carry out improvement schemes in older houses in the county of Fife; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: None, Sir
    Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that we in Fife resent private housing associations taking over housing improvements in certain areas? Is he aware that 93 former National Coal Board houses at Blairhall have been purchased by the North Fife Housing Agency, with the intention of converting and improving them? Is my hon. Friend also aware that this housing association had to rely on Fife County Council giving it a grant to cover the purchase price of those houses and that it also expects loans, subsidies and improvement grants from the Scottish Development Department? Would not this have been far better as an obligation of the county council rather than a matter for a private housing association?
    Mr. Millan: I shall certainly look into the various points which my hon. Friend

    421
    has mentioned. I knew that the North Fife Housing Association had approached the previous Government about this matter and that the statutory position was explained to it. No approach has been made to me, but I shall look into the matters which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Housing and Planning Bill, which was a casualty of the election, contained provisions about improvements. It is the Government's intention to introduce their own legislation, when many of these matters can be discussed.
    Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance—following the previous question—that he will listen to representations made to him by charitable private housing associations in Scotland, which have done much to alleviate many of the housing problems in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly. I agree with that.
    Sir John Gilmour: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it shows initiative on the part of the people of North Fife to wish to put right houses that have fallen into decay?
    Mr. Millan: I cannot comment on that. As I have already explained, I am not aware of the circumstances. As far as I am aware, there was no direct Government responsibility under the previous administration. Nothing has been put to me since the General Election. But I shall certainly look at the matter.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a statement on housing improvement grants.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the extension of the 75 per cent. improvement grant for local authority house improvement schemes, where the contracts were signed before 23rd June 1973; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Ross: I have received one representation from the Royal Burgh of Burntisland about the question of the 75 per cent. improvement grant for local authority schemes and this is one of the aspects of housing policy that I and my right hon. Friends are considering
    422
    urgently and hope to make an announcement about soon.
    I am today resuming the approval of local authority schemes for housing and environmental improvement. Many proposals have been held in my Department since my predecessor suspended approvals on 10th January. To enable the most urgent of these to be dealt with first, new proposals will not be accepted until the first week in May.
    I propose to discuss with representatives of the local authorities the best way of sharing fairly the resources available for house and environmental improvement, so that priority is given to the areas of greatest need and the larger authorities are in a position to plan the systematic improvement of their older housing stock.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer will be greeted with acclamation by local authorities in Scotland and that it is another indication of the present Government's concern for the housing problem in Scotland, which was so much neglected by the previous Government? Will he give an undertaking to make a quick decision on improvement grants available to individual householders, because many of us have had complaints about this, while there has been delay in the supply of materials for reasons which are quite beyond the control of individuals?
    Mr. Ross: On the first point, yes. Wherever I have gone recently, local authorities have been very concerned about the hold-up in relation to the schemes which they had already put forward. I am very glad to be able to make this announcement. In relation to the other matter, my hon. Friend will appreciate that this scheme was supposed to last for one year. It was supposed to end last June, and there has already been an extension of one year. As I have said, we are having a look at the matter.
    Mr. David Steel: On the last point, the Secretary of State, in answer to a Question from me a couple of weeks ago, said that he hoped to make a statement soon. How soon is "soon"? We recognise that the scheme has been extended once, but there is a particular problem about those who already have schemes in the pipeline and are held up by a shortage

    423
    of building materials. Surely a short extension for those schemes only would be justified.
    Mr. Ross: In looking at the practicalities, the hon. Gentleman will find that this is not an easy matter. Where does one draw the line? The line was laid down a long time ago, and people knew about it. As regards how soon is "soon", I hope to be able to make an announcement this month.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many authorities will be pleased about his reply today? Despite many representations, the previous Government flatly refused to give any assistance on this matter. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's reply is all the more welcome. But again, how soon is "soon"? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that local authorities are made aware of the new arrangements as early as possible, and at least before the end of this month?
    Mr. Ross: The new arrangement that I have announced will go very quickly to the local authorities. I am sure that they will be knocking at St. Andrew's House door before the week is out. On the other matter which my hon. Friend mentioned, it is perfectly true that local authorities were getting to a difficult point. One local authority wrote saying that it was on the point of having to pay off some of its employees because it had reached the limit of what it could do and it required a raising of the moratorium.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the tremendous rate of uptake of grant is a measure of the success of the scheme introduced by the previous Government to help local authorities to improve their houses? Does not he agree that the small print of his reply, in which he says that the assistance that he now hopes to give is being related to the resources available, is simply a continuation of the previous Government's policy?
    Mr. Ross: It is hardly a continuation of the previous Government's policy when that Government's policy ended the matter and said no more. Concerning the scheme, I have already paid tribute to the work that has been done. Most of it was done by local authorities.
    424
    One finds that by looking at the numbers. That is why it was disastrous when it was stopped in respect of them. In relation to the origins of the scheme, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the scheme started under the Labour Government's Act of 1969.

    Offshore Oil
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will prepare a national economic plan with proposals to indicate how Scotland's offshore oil resources can best be used for the expansion of industry and the improvement of the standard of life of all the people in Scotland.
    Mr. William Ross: No, Sir. We have already announced our intention to ensure that Scotland and regions elsewhere in need of development derive maximum benefit from offshore oil and gas. I am determined that Scottish industry should receive a larger share of the market created by oil developments, and the announcement last week of the expansion of the Offshore Supplies Office and the transfer of its headquarters to Scotland is an immediate demonstration of this.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the economic situation of Scotland is difficult and severe and that, with an unemployment rate of 4·2 per cent. compared with 1 per cent. in Norway, the arrangements he has in mind for ad hoc benefit from oil are insufficient?
    Mr. Ross: As I have not announced any arrangements, I do not see how they can be insufficient. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate exactly what is being done in Scotland, and how much money is being spent there—and we have not got a drop of oil yet. One of the first things we did concerned the announcement which had already been made about REP. We said that it would be continued, and that means £40 million per year to Scotland. It is time the SNP let people in Scotland know exactly how much we are doing.
    Mr. Dalyell: What will the Government do to make sure that we take advantage of the richest oilfield in the Western European land mass, namely, that off Cornwall? Is not talk of Scottish oil nonsense, and against the long-term

    425
    deep self-interest of Scotland in the 1980s?
    Mr. Ross: I have always been con-concerned to prevent the economic fragmentation of the strength of Britain. [Interruption.] Yes, and it is from the strength of Britain that many of the millions we are spending in Scotland come. The attitude of hon. Members belonging to the Scottish National Party is so parochial that it is unworthy of the Scotland I know.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist pressure from the SNP to publish any more national economic plans, in view of the humiliating fiasco which ensued from the last one he tried? Will he examine carefully the arrangements for supplying offshore oil rigs, as his hon. Friend the junior Minister in the Department of Energy is apparently unaware that in the Gulf of Texas and other American offshore areas only American ships are allowed to supply, and no such arrangement exists on this side of the Atlantic?
    Mr. Ross: I seldom take the hon. Gentleman's advice on my future actions, but there may be some validity in his last point.

    Thermal Insulation
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue advice to Scottish local authorities that when they seek designs for new houses they should give the fullest consideration to the need for maximum insulation in order to reduce heating costs.
    Mr. Millan: Design guidance on thermal insulation for new local authority houses is given in the Scottish Housing Handbook Part 3. My right hon. Friend's Department intends to supplement this shortly. My right hon. Friend is also about to consult interested bodies, including local authority associations, on proposals for improving the thermal insulation standards laid down in the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations.
    Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which clearly indicates the emphasis the Government are placing on thermal insulation in new houses. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Department will
    426
    have a close look at what is happening in Scandinavian countries, and that if there is anything to be learned that would help housing in Scotland we, too, will employ the methods of thermal insulation employed there?
    Mr. Millan: I shall look into that. It is a question of learning from all relevant sources. I shall see that that point is taken into consideration.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister consider introducing insulation grants for existing houses to help householders cope with the sharp increases in coal and electricity prices later this year?
    Mr. Millan: It is a concern of the Government that the electricity industry was left in such a state that if we were now to make it economic we should have to increase the domestic consumer's bill by no less than 50 per cent. I am glad to say that we have been able to restrain those substantial increases. That is another matter very much appreciated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am sure that he keeps telling his constituents about all the benefits they are receiving from the Labour Government.

    Clyde Estuary
    Mr. Corrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Clyde Estuary.
    Mr. William Ross: While I have no plans for an official visit, I have no doubt that I shall be a frequent visitor to areas bordering the Clyde Estuary.
    Mr. Corrie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am sorry that he is not coming to have one last look at the beauty of the Clyde before it is destroyed by the development there. Do I take it from yesterday's announcement in the House that the Polaris base in the Clyde Estuary will be staying on for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Ross: As I live on the Clyde Estuary, I should like to visit it a little more often than I do. I am conscious of the concern about the Clyde, but it was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State who made the decision about the planning inquiry. In principle, the case for development at Hunterston, the area most

    427
    concerned, has already been made. The question is what kind of development there should be there.
    Mr. George Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the Clyde Estuary and the Forth Estuary, with a narrow belt of land between, Scotland has an invaluable geographical position in relation to the European Community? Will he do his utmost to ensure that we develop our relations with the Community to the benefit of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: I hope that we use the two estuaries and developments there to the benefit of the people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the world.

    Devolution
    Mr. Anthony Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government propose to start discussions with representatives of public opinion on further devolution; and with what bodies these discussions will take place.
    Mr. William Ross: Discussions on further devolution will be held in Scotland as soon as possible. As well as holding talks with the political parties, we intend to consult bodies representing important sectors of public opinion in Scotland.
    Mr. Stodart: There is a fair consensus, I think in all parties, that it might be a good thing for certain Scottish domestic legislation to be carried out by a body in Scotland, thus perhaps speeding up the process of legislation here, but will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that, despite the Prime Minister's assurance yesterday that all bodies of opinion would be considered, total independence in such matters as foreign affairs and defence is absolutely out?
    Mr. Ross: I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that the question of separation was completely out.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the fact that conversations are now being held by the Government mean that they are convinced that some form of devolution, though not independence, is necessary, or are they still waiting for Lord Crowther-Hunt to make up their minds for them?
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should have been here when we had further discussions about that. I quoted what was actually stated in the Kilbrandon Report, which was that the discussions were necessary so that there should be a formulation of narrower opinion in Scotland in relation to the objectives which the Kilbrandon Commission put forward.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon Gentleman envisage that part of the consultations he mentioned may be a debate of one day or two days in the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir. I hope that we shall have in the House more than one debate on the Kilbrandon Report

    Beef Production
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial help he intends to give to the producers of fat cattle.
    Mr. William Ross: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 25th March, the Government will be submitting proposals to increase the calf subsidy by £10 per calf. This will benefit beef producers as a whole and is in addition to the existing range of beef production grants.
    Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to give a calf subsidy to some calves in July is no help to those farmers who are sending fat cattle to the markets now? Does he accept that since his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went to Brussels there has been a catastrophic drop in confidence in the beef industry, and that this will be to the longterm harm of not only agriculture but consumers?
    Mr. Ross: Confidence in the beef industry and the changes in prices have nothing to do with my right hon. Friend's visit to Brussels. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that there were calls for action on the matter while he was still in office, and his right hon. and hon. Friends did nothing about it.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the beef industry

    429
    were merely receiving the same subvention prices as are now operating in Brussels it would be all right?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate what we have done. We had to bear in mind the needs of the consumer as well. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that.
    Mr. Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only an early return to the deficiency payments scheme will satisfy the beef producer?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is a bit late with that one.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at Brussels his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sold the agricultural industry down the river by his abandonment of the intervention system? Does he realise that it is to the advantage not only of the beef producer but of the consumer that adequate supplies are forthcoming? Under the policy which the Government are following the consumer, as well as the farmer, will eventually be sold down the river.
    Mr. Ross: If anyone sold anyone down the river in relation to Brussels, Opposition Members must take responsibility for the fact that we are no longer free agents.
    Mr. Kimball: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one way in which to help the beef industry will be for the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to ensure that the licences for the export of cattle are reissued very quickly?
    Mr. Ross: That is worth considering. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the industry receives assistance of £100 million a year from the Government.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Rev. Ian Paisley(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the wave of violence in Northern Ireland during the past two days.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): First, I apologise to the House for the length of
430
my reply. I considered it important that all the facts should be given, which perhaps would normally not be appropriate in answer to a Private Notice Question.
The House will have noted with great regret the wave of violence which has again beset Northern Ireland in the last two days. Reports which I have received from the security authorities this morning indicate that there were comparatively few incidents on Monday last but two of them were of a major nature. In one in Armagh an extensive fire was started by incendiaries planted in a shop. The fire spread and destroyed eight shops in all. The second major incident was a car bomb attack on the RUC station, Ballygawley: two cars were hijacked for the attack; about half the station was demolished but there were no casualties
The violence increased yesterday and was mainly in Belfast. Two 100 lb. car bombs, one delivered by a proxy driver, exploded in the city centre causing considerable damage but no serious casualties. A third car bomb was neutralised in the Crumlin Road. Ten incendiaries were planted in Belfast in six different shops: eight of the devices exploded but no shops were seriously damaged. Fifty-five vehicles were hijacked and used to block roads in the city, mainly in the Falls Road and Upper Springfield Road areas. Eleven of these vehicles were burnt out.
There was also 27 shooting incidents in the city, 12 in Andersonstown, where there was an exchange of fire between terrorists and a mobile patrol. A security forces vehicle was hit. Two Catholics who were in a nearby club were hit in the exchange of fire—one fatally. There were eight blast bomb incidents, including one which seriously wounded a 17year-old Catholic in the New Lodge.
Outside Belfast, bombs exploded yesterday in a partially built pub near Moy and in a newsagents in Portadown. Three incendiaries started small fires in Dungannon. Seven incendiaries were planted in Newry—one was neutralised. The remaining six started fires, one of which was serious. In Donaghadee, shots were fired at military vehicles outside the RUC station following the arrest of 10 Protestant suspects. Two soldiers were wounded and two civilians caught in the crossfire were wounded.

431
The House will note that in all this violence in Belfast there are only two explosive bombs. A most disturbing feature is the large number of incendiary devices which are believed to have been planted mainly by young women and girls, and the extensive hijacking which, I am informed, was undertaken by very young people who were clearly acting under a plan devised by the IRA. This pattern emphasises two points to which I referred both in the debate and in my earlier statement—namely, the dangerous new development of incendiary devices against which armed soldiers can play only a limited part and the increasing involvement, under direction, of not only young people but even young children.
The last few days have been a bad period, and it is no consolation to the people of Northern Ireland that, in spite of these tragic incidents which were deliberately designed to disrupt the life of the community, the level of violence in recent months is very much below that before Operation Motorman in July 1972. We all appreciate the anger of the people of Northern Ireland with the Provisional IRA, which is showing once again its lack of understanding of the effect of its brutal campaign on the people whom it wishes to convert to its own views on the future of Ireland. Its campaign is deliberately designed to frustrate the recent political developments in Northern Ireland, which, it fears, offer hope of future peace and stability. Her Majesty's Government ask the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland who believe in political action not to give the Provisional IRA any hope by their reactions that violence of itself can bring down the new institutions of Northern Ireland.
I wish to make it clear to the House that it is Her Majesty's Government's firm policy to act against terrorism from whatever quarter it may come. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had a follow-up meeting this morning with the Chief Constable and the GOC to discuss proposals for dealing with terrorist attacks. While long-term changes in security policy must await the policy review that is being undertaken, firm action is immediately to be taken by the security forces. It would, however, obviously he unwise
432
to say what will be done or to indicate its timing. But there will be specific measures involving a large part of the community, and they will be clearly and specifically explained as and when they come into operation. At the same time, I must stress that the security forces are acting within a society where people still live a normal life. They go to work in the morning; travel on buses; and fetch their children from school. That normal life must continue.
But action taken by the security forces is bound to cause inconvenience and make life difficult for the community. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will understand, and support, what is to be done. Above all, the community itself must help to deal with the new threat. If business and commercial premises are to be put at risk by the fire bomber, those responsible for the premises must themselves do everything possible to protect their property against the fire bomber. We for our part intend to introduce measures of advice to deal with that.
It would be idle to pretend that guerrilla warfare can easily be dealt with in a modern society; it is the enemy within. But Her Majesty's Government will continue to deal with the security threat, in both its old and its new forms. It would be a tragedy if the terrible deeds of the Provisional IRA led others to lose their faith in peaceful political action.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving the full details to the House. Is he aware that the Provisional Irish Republic Army said that it would bomb and burn the centre of Armagh and that it now glorifies in the fact that it carried out the operation which it threatened? Further, is he aware that Mr. Faulkner has said that Sunningdale is irrelevant in view of the present serious security situation? Will he give an assurance to the House that the Sunningdale agreement will not be ratified during the parliamentary recess.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any details of the murder of Lieutenant Colonel George Saunderson, a retired officer of the UDR, who was murdered before his class today in County Fermanagh? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of Northern Ireland through the House when his security review will be completed and when he

433
will be in a position to make a statement concerning definite action that will take care of terrorism in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Rees: With regard to the Provisional IRA and its announcements, it glories in what it is doing, which is an attempt to bomb political action oft the table. It may be an attempt to bomb iself to the conference table. That is not on, and it is vital that the people in the community should face the facts. Perhaps it is easy for us here but there should be no sign of giving in to the Provisional IRA. In that respect I am heartened by a statement made today by a councillor of the SDLP in Derry. The majority of Catholics do not support the hatefulness that leads to the bombing.
There are a number of steps which need to take place before ratification of the Sunningdale agreement. I will inform the House before any such steps are taken.
It is better that I simply say that I am sad about what has happened to the schoolteacher who was killed. I would need fuller information before reporting to the House. I want to get one thing clear about the short-term and long-term security review which I ordered when I first took this job. The long-term purpose is to look at overall policy —the relationship between the troops and the RUC, and to examine the rôole of the Army. We have been in this situation for four or five years and it is important to assess again what is the rôole of the security forces. The short-term steps which we have to take to respond to the changing pattern of terrorism will not await that long-term review. The examination of the long-term rôole will take a number of weeks. Where security does not enter into matters I will inform the House about our results.
Mr. Pym: The Secretary of State has made a very grave statement. It may well increase the sense of anxiety in the House but at the same time it ought to have increased the sense of determination and resolution to root out violence from wherever it may come. Do not the new ventures which the Secretary of State has described underline the importance of increasing the size of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Are not the new measures of which he spoke in the debate last week
434
of critical importance in view of the need to have the maximum degree of involvement by the people in Northern Ireland? Since so many more young people have been involved, will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent he can urgently involve teachers, parents and any other organisations or groups of willing citizens in Northern Ireland in sharing with him the solution of this extremely serious aspect? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the security review which he has in hand. In view of the scale of the violence now taking place, is it not now extremely urgent? Should he not hurry on with that review, because, even though young people are involved, the security forces still have a prominent and preeminent rôle to play there and time is not on our side?
Mr. Rees: I am aware of the urgency of this. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is the security forces which are carrying out this review. It has to be got right and does not lend itself to speed. It is not a matter of having more meetings to get a report by next Tuesday; it is a matter of looking at our rôle in Northern Ireland from the military angle as well as the political angle. The new measures are not features that can be dealt with by soldiers with guns. It is impossible to do it that way unless anyone is prepared to recommend that children, however hatefully they are behaving, should be dealt with by the bullet. That is not the way to do it, and that is what the IRA shelters behind.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the school teachers, parents,—whom one meets—and the Churches are helpful. This has to be seen against the sociological background of certain areas, Belfast in particular, where the influence of teachers is not very great.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while there is, and will continue to be, widespread support for his generally even-handed policy in opposition to violence and terror from all sides, there is also among some people a great concern that at a time when my right hon. Friend has held out some hope of political involvement by some of the extremist groups the IRA should have proceeded to this cowardly offensive against the economic life of Northern Ireland? Will he accept that many of those who support his general policy will

435
not accept that the chairman of the political wing of the IRA can give interviews in which he completely disclaims any responsibility for the terrorist policy and pretends that the two are different movementsc which can be divided? Will he also accept that in view of his staunch support for the Sunningdale agreement the Government now have a perfect right to get in touch with the Government in Dublin and to expect that they should take more risks in fighting terrorism jointly with the Government of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. He is absolutely right in analysing the attitude of the Provisional IRA. There are those who on the one hand pretend to be political while nevertheless engaging in this sort of terrorism. I am aware of that. I am clear on one thing. We still have to put our mind to dealing with those people who want to act politically. That must be the overall aim while dealing with the security matters.
In the relatively short time that I have been in this job I have found the southern Government extremely helpful, not only on the border, within their own resources, but in dealing with the flow of arms. It is an extremely difficult task. I can only report that the Government of the South have told us that they very much want to be helpful. There is much that they and we have to do.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these seemingly unending bestial acts of violence leave a great many people in the House and in the country with a feeling of helplessness about what can be done or advocated in a constructive way? The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has referred to the co-operation of the public and the Minister said that we cannot cope with guerrilla organisations of this kind by arms alone. Is the Minister able to say that the extent of public co-operation with the security forces in Northern Ireland is increasing? Can he say anything about what progress the security forces have made in preventing what must be a regular flow of arms to the terrorists? Are the security forces making any progress in that regard?
Mr. Rees: I agree with what the hon. Member has said about the feeling of helplessness. It is matched by a feeling of great anger among the people who live where it happens. This is perfectly understandable. We have to find means of enabling the public to play their part. It is much better, and the parties in the Executive are aware of this, to do it through the authorised organisations like the RUC reserve and the UDR. It would lead to possible conflagration if people took the law into their own hands. It is very difficult for me to say whether the situation is improving over the years. The political situation has to be taken into account. All I can report is that I have increasingly found over the last fortnight that I am getting letters from all parts of the community saying "We want to help". I offer to the hon. Gentleman the statement by the Executive, which is made up from the three parties in the Assembly. It was made in a forthright way.
Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend's predecessor in office has said about the need to unite the people of Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend why he has to say, if two persons are killed, that they are Catholic? Does he not think that this terminology leads to a polarising of opinion, which is the last thing we want? We want to unite our people, not separate them.
Mr. Rees: I used the word "Protestant" today just to put in perspective the mood of some people that it was only Catholics who were involved in the problems over the last couple of days. While as a norm I use "majority" and "minority" we have to face up to the words used in the community. Whatever the feelings might be here, when we do not care what a person's religion is, it is sometimes important for me to isolate this for purposes of public presentation.
Mr. Harry West: Is the Secretary of State aware of the callous murder that we have learned of this morning of Lt.-Col. Saunderson, a close personal friend and a constituent of mine, a man who served his country in peace and war? He was murdered in a building full of schoolchildren within a few miles of the border. Is it not high time that security on the

437
border was strengthened here? Is not the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that, as we have told him so often, the border is wide open for any terrorists, arms, explosives and all the rest of it to come across, and that there is absolutely no protection? I plead with him and the House to ensure that adequate protection is given to people living in that part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Rees: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the death of his friend in a school building illustrates the nature of what is going on in Northern Ireland. He above all will know that what is happening is terrible.
One of the subjects that the security review must consider is the border. I told the right hon. Member in Belfast that I did not think it right that trained soldiers should be searching people going into the Segment. It is not the job of soldiers to do that. What we are looking at is the rôle of soldiers and whether they should be in a static position or whether they would not be better in a more mobile situation and nearer the border.
The Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me recently. They have expressed concern about the situation, and have taken certain steps. We want to do far more in this respect. However, I put one point to the hon. Gentleman. He does not know, and neither do I know yet—maybe I shall not have this information—where the gunman came from. The fact that the murder was near the border does not necessarily mean that the gunman came from over the border. This is one of the difficulties of movement of people within the Province.
Mr. George Lawson: My right hon. Friend made the point that the Provisional IRA appeared to glory in what it was doing. Will my right hon. Friend consider the methods that he and the Opposition have been using in giving maximum and detailed publicity to all that happens? Does not my right hon. Friend consider that this type of violence might feed on and grow on what it is being fed? Will he not consider for a time adopting a policy of ensuring that the Press, radio and television adopt the policy of trying to ensure that nothing but the barest of detail is given about what happens? We all know that many people
438
glory in appearing on television. Will not my right hon. Friend try the effect of damping down, as far as he possibly can, every possible incident?
Mr. Rees: That is a difference between, say, the last war and this guerrilla warfare. There was a Ministry of Information to speak on the radio—there was no television in those days. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether, even if we had the power, we should act like that in Northern Ireland. Let him consider what rumours would spread around Northern Ireland, what rumours would be afoot in the House, if there were not the fullest of information. That is the other side of the medal.
I remember one occasion when I was in Opposition when there was an incident—it does not matter what it was now—that was reported on the radio news every half an hour, all day, between pop programmes and so on. That sort of thing tends to build up feeling. I can only hope that the media take account of that. Of course I will listen to what my hon. Friend says, but this is a problem of guerrilla warfare in what are called normal times.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Was not the only chance for the Sunningdale agreement that it should lead to peace? Is it not now the last hope for Sunningdale that from the South we should get real co-operation, leading to the apprehension of fugitive criminals, whether by extradition or by other means, and a concerted all-out effort against terrorism, which is the enemy of both the Governments in Ireland?
Mr. Rees: It is absolutely right that an all-Ireland effort is needed, but in the last five weeks I have learned that the major effort has got to be made in the North. We have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) mention publicity. There are those here who have political disagreements with Sunningdale. Of course we accept that. But whenever it is mooted abroad that Sunningdale or the political development is in doubt, these are the very words that the IRA wants to hear because that is what it is trying to end. I again declare that the attitude of the House is that Sunningdale and all that goes with it, which we strongly support, is up for political discussion. That is fine. However, I

439
would not be prepared to give in politically to men of violence. That would be an open door to many terrible things, and more terrible things could happen if it broke down.
Mr. Duffy: Far from Sunningdale being irrelevant, as was asserted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland now confirm that it is the only constructive way out of the present darkness, that it is threatened by activity on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, and that it is, therefore, incumbent on those in Northern Ireland as well as in the House who subscribed to it to put their heads down now and push ahead with its implementation?
Mr. Rees: I say to my hon. Friend, as I said the first day I was in Northern Ireland and have said since in the House, that the Sunningdale agreement, which we inherited from the previous administration, is the best approach to try to bring together the two parts of Ireland and the two communities. We support the agreement. There are still steps to be taken in carrying out the Sunningdale agreement, steps that we have already mentioned.
Mr. McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey the gratitude of myself and the people of Armagh to the two hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite who found the time to come to see the £3 million damage caused by the Irish Republican Army? Does he accept that there was a lot of anger and frustration that neither he nor the Minister of State, nor anyone else from his office, was able to come along as well? Bearing in mind what he said about allowing people to see that they are winning, will he expedite the rebuilding of the centre of Armagh, remembering that over 100 jobs were lost and also that some claims for criminal damages have been outstanding for two years?
Mr. Rees: Rebuilding is vitally necessary, and I shall look at my responsibilities, as I am sure the Executive will look at its. The hon. Gentleman praised those of my hon. Friends who visited Northern Ireland, and I am glad that they did so. My hon. Friend the Minister
440
of State and I, at two ends of an aeroplane, as it were, and with all the work that there is to do, go out and look, but the fact that we do not look at everything is not a sign that we are not concerned. It would lead to our not going anywhere, in case everybody expected us to visit everything that happened. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the fact that I was not at Armagh with my hon. Friend who was in Northern Ireland yesterday is not a sign of not caring. There are jobs to do.

BUILDING SOCIETIES
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the recent discussions between the Government and the building societies.
The Government's immediate objective is to increase the flow of funds available for mortgage lending, while holding the mortgage rate at its present level. The building societies, on the other hand, have argued in recent days that a sufficient net inflow of new savings cannot be assured except by an increase in the mortgage rate to above, and probably significantly above, the present 11 per cent.
In order to avoid this further damaging increase in housing costs, while yet making more money available for house purchase, the Government have offered to arrange immediate short-term loan facilities for building societies of up to £100 million at a rate of 10½, per cent. The Bank of England would make advances at the minimum lending rate, which is currently 12¼ per cent. The cost of meeting the difference—about £150,000 per month at present rates—would be met from my Department's Vote subject to Parliament's approval. We also undertook to arrange for a further £400 million to be available from the end of April, if circumstances then still required this, at an average rate of £100 million a month.
This initiative would, in the Government's view, meet the immediate major problem. It would help the societies to lend more money quickly for house purchase without imposing further financial burdens on home owners and home

441
buyers. The Government also believe that the present difficulties of the societies in attracting an adequate supply of funds will diminish as we succeed in our intention of reducing the level of interest rates generally.
The Council of the Building Societies Association considered these proposals at a meeting yesterday afternoon. It was not able to agree to accept them without a further discussion with the Government. I have therefore agreed to meet the association's representatives once again at five o'clock this afternoon.
Our proposals will, I believe, make a significant contribution towards stabilising both the cost and the flow of mortgage funds. I hope and expect, therefore, that following our further discussion with the association's representatives, the council will decide at its next meeting on 19th April to accept the Government's proposals and to recommend no increase in the mortgage rate.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying out his undertaking to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when my Government, about a year ago, announced a modest measure to help the house buyer, he and his right hon. Friends denounced it in no uncertain terms as a panic measure, as an expedient to carry the Government over the period of the county council elections, and as a step that made nonsense of the monetary policy announced in the Budget speech?
But I shall be kinder to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that we accept that unless interest rates fall as far as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hopes—although I notice that they are rising on the other side of the Atlantic—some action should be taken to increase the flow of money available to the house buyer at a reasonable price? May I therefore, against that background, ask the right hon. Gentleman for answers to a few points?
First, why do the Government not allow the building societies to pay to the small saver the same rate for his money as they —that is the Government—are willing to pay for the money that they need? That would surely be the way to retain the deposits with the building societies.
442
Secondly, in case the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to answer that by reference to the mortgage rate—and I am sure that he is concerned about that—may I ask why, as recently as a fortnight ago in the Budget, the Government made it more difficult for the building societies to keep the mortgage rate down by increasing the composite rate of tax which the building societies have to pay on behalf of the lender?
Thirdly, when are the loans repayable, and upon what terms would the second £400 million be lent? There was nothing about that in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Assuming that the whole £500 million is taken up and not repaid this year, what, on the ordinary Treasury conventions, would be the change in public expenditure and the change in the net borrowing requirement in the current year?
Finally, will the Government please give an assurance that they will not place constraints on the societies as a condition of the loan that would prevent them from adapting their interest rate structures and their methods of operation to the conditions of a changing world? We agree that they would need to adapt. We believe that they should be free to do so.
Mr. Crosland: I add that up as being seven separate questions. I shall be as brief as I can in replying
First, on the question of the famous £15 million of almost exactly a year ago today, I withdraw nothing of what I said in criticism of that proposal. Compared with what we are proposing, it was non-repayable; it was far more costly to public funds; it was indiscriminate and, incidentally, it failed totally in its purpose at the end of the day. It failed entirely in its purpose, because the object, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) would agree if he were here, was to prevent a rise in the mortgage rate to 11 per cent., and that rise occurred within three months of the £15 million subsidy.
Secondly, it is undesirable to increase the investment rate because this would involve increasing the mortgage rate.
Thirdly, the right hon. Lady asked what was the effect of the Budget. She picked out only one of a number of

443
Budget measures which affect the building societies. For example, she made no reference to our action on annuity bonds. She made no reference to the effect on building society inflow of the reduction of bank interest on loans and to other features of the Budget which help the building societies.
Whether the effect of the Budget on balance was favourable or unfavourable is a matter of a great deal of argument, certainly between the Government and the building societies, and even more generally than that. But no one can say that the Budget did the societies a great deal of harm.
Fourthly, on the question of repayment, the broad position is that the building societies will repay this money, either as a change in the interest rate position increases the net inflow or as other sources of borrowing are found. I propose to discuss with them this afternoon in detail the precise arrangements for repayment.
Fifthly, the terms of lending of the next £400 million will be discussed in the light of the interest rate position at the time. I hope that this further £400 million will not be required. I hope that before then we shall have found new sources of borrowing or that the interest rate position will have moved strongly in favour of the building societies.
Sixthly, I was asked about public expenditure. The facility arranged through the Bank of England will not add to public expenditure or to the public sector borrowing requirement. The facility would be made available by the Bank of England banking department, which is, of course, part of the banking sector and not part of the public sector. The only addition to public expenditure would be the—if I may use the word—trivial sum of £150,000 a month to cover the interest rate differential.
Finally, will we constrain the building societies from adapting their interest rate policies to changing conditions? Indeed, far from it. We believe that a great deal of adaptation is needed.
Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hedging by the building societies on this extremely generous offer by the Government will be seen
444
by the 4½ million people buying their own homes as symptomatic of the behaviour of the movement which has been responsible for the situation we face at the present time?
Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend take account of the plea that I have been making in the House for the past two and a half years to refer the activities of the building societies to an independent inquiry? Why are there over 100 building societies supposedly in competition with each other, sometimes 10 in one street, all charging the same rate? Why should not the building societies in good times make provision through their own stabilisation fund?
Mr. Crosland: As regards the question whether the building societies have been hedging, as I am about to meet them in one hour's time I prefer not to comment at this stage.
Regarding the second and third questions, I would like to make it clear to my hon. Friend—I know his views in this matter—that what I am discussing this afternoon and, indeed, will be discussing with the building societies, is basically a holding operating relating to an immediate crisis and an immediate threat. My hon. Friend is aware that in opposition I was strongly critical of the methods that we have in this country both of raising and of lending funds for private house purchase. I was a strong supporter of the idea of a stabilisation fund—incidentally, this is a move in that direction—but what I am proposing to the building societies in these discussions does not rule out—far from it—the necessity for a long, hard look at the question of finance for private house purchase.
Mr. Tyler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this bench are genuinely grateful to him for coming to the House before the recess to make this statement? We are aware of the dilemma which he faces and have great sympathy with him in this situation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware, however, that we are anxious that he should attach strings? There has been criticism in advance of this statement that he was, apparently, prepared to attach strings to a subsidy of this kind. We on this bench at least wish him well in this respect. We recognise that last year's

445
£15 million went down the drain and we do not want that to happen again.
However, will the Secretary of State confirm that now is the time to exercise some influence over the building societies' lending policies? He will recall that we have suggested over the years that equity mortgage schemes, index-linked schemes and low-start mortgage schemes should be used. Is it not true that as a representative of one of the minority parties in the House, some attention should be given to the views of the absent Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that the Secretary of State has an engagement at five o'clock. That really is enough!
Mr. Crosland: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, your courtesy and consideration grow year by year. I am much obliged for this novel form of protection from over-lengthy questions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy and I shall be brief in answering.
I must make it clear that the one string, if that word is to be used, that is attached to this as the string that matters is that, if the building societies accept this offer, the mortgage rate is held at 11 per cent. If the mortgage rate is not held at 11 per cent., then the deal is off—just like that.
The other questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, indexation and the rest, are matters for longer-term study.
Mr. Frank Allaun: If the building societies prove obstructive despite this further massive subsidy, because such it is, will the Secretary of State lend instead to the local authorities? They make 100 per cent. loans, often to people who cannot obtain them from building societies. Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that these funds should be provided by the big four banks out of the £640 million profit they have made; and, if they cannot be provided out of those profits, they should be provided, at low interest rates, out of the banks' vast resources.
Mr. Crosland: If the building societies at their meeting on 19th April were to reject this offer, it is clear, to put it moderately, that the atmosphere would be somewhat darkened and relations
446
between the Government and building societies would be somewhat strained. I am putting this very moderately indeed. Nobody could possibly suppose that relations will not be influenced between the Government and the building societies movement if the societies were to turn down an offer of £500 million.
As to local authority mortgage lending, I am aware of the point. The local authorities are not, in fact, in the same situation as the building societies, either on the borrowing side or lending side. But we have my hon. Friend's point in mind. I take my hon. Friend's point about bank profits, but we wanted to find the money from the source from which it was most easily and quickly available.
Mr. Ridley: While any relief for house purchasers' mortgage interest payments will be welcomed, can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the £500 million, if it is all taken up, would have upon the money supply? Will he also say whether this would not result in a further increase in inflation, particularly of house prices?
Mr. Crosland: No, I would judge not. I would judge that the sort of figure we are discussing, say £100 million per month —hopefully not required for the whole of the five to six months period—is a rate of additional lending sufficient to stem the recent net outflow from the societies, and also to increase by a reasonable amount the funds available for new house purchase. But it is not a sum such that it would be likely to recreate the appalling inflation of house prices that was created by the gross overlending of 1971 and 1972.
Mr. Cant: As the House is aware, the societies are bound to be influenced by the strong attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend. Will he, therefore, make the point to them that, if they accept this £400 million or £500 million over the suggested period, they lend it to people who are purchasing houses for the first time, and only to people purchasing houses for, say, less than £10,000 to £12,000?
May I also make the point that it would greatly help the supply of funds to building societies—a short-term, temporary measure—if my right hon. Friend would raise the amount from £10,000 to £25,000 on which banks are allowed only to pay

447
91½ per cent. gross? Would lie also review local authority practices regarding high interest rates with yearling bonds?
Mr. Crosland: I should like to consider all my hon. Friend's points. I would, however, stress that this has had to be a rapid holding operation with two essential objectives. The first is to get private house building off the ground, and the second is to give immediate relief to home owners and buyers threatened by perhaps 12 per cent. and quite probably 13 per cent. as a mortgage rate. Many of my hon. Friend's points will be looked at in the longer-term review.
Mr. Tugendhat: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country will wish the Government well in their efforts to bring down interest rates? However, in the light of what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, and in the light of the extreme dependence of the sterling exchange rate on attracting money into the country, it is doubtful whether the Government will succeed in doing so. In the circumstances, would it not be better to devise a subsidy system that at least enabled the building societies to offer to investors a rate which would enable them to withstand any adverse trends in interest rates?
Mr. Crosland: I hesitate to contradict anything that hon. Gentleman says, as he wrote an extremely perceptive review in the Financial Times of a book which I recently published
Regarding the behaviour of interest rates, we have seen encouraging signs in this country in recent days—the release of special deposits by the Bank of England last week, the reduction in the minimum lending rate from 12½ per cent. to 12½ per cent., and, I was glad to note, the announcement by the National Westminster Bank this morning that it would reduce its base rate by ½ per cent.
It is true that we are acting on the supposition that we shall be successful in bringing interest rates down. If we are proved to be wrong, or if we are unable to find new sources of borrowing for the building societies, it is clear that the entire question of the flow of mortgage lending will have to be reopened.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building societies' lukewarm attitude to the Government's prompt and generous offer is also an indication of their not facing up to their responsibilities to the millions who are in difficulties at present? Is this not the time for the Government to look again at the building societies' set-up, since the words themselves are misnomers? The societies build nothing. They are money-lending agencies whose function could well be performed by other agencies. I would ask him to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), that local authorities could disperse money in a much more even-handed and equitable way, and more cheaply than can the building societies.
Mr. Crosland: I do not think that the building societies deserve quite the strictures which my hon. Friend has applied to them. We are not discussing the long-term future of the supply of funds for private house purchase at this juncture. We are discussing a holding operation to get more money quickly into house purchase and to hold the mortgage rate at 11 per cent.
Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 11 per cent. is much too high for existing borrowers and creates intolerable problems for them, and, equally, that 11 per cent. is too low for lenders and he is therefore having to come to their rescue? Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen 11 per cent.? Why not go back to 91½ per cent., which was the figure which the previous Government attempted to adopt as a holding operation? The Minister is now doing a holding operation ½ per cent. higher. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations on his efforts, particularly as I am the only backbench Member who congratulated the previous Government on their holding operation?
Mr. Crosland: I should like, if I may, in return to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his audacity. We inherited a rate that went up from 8½ per cent. to 11 per cent. and which threatened to rise to 12½ per cent. or 13 per cent., and it may be taken as a reasonably successful first measure to hold it to 11 per cent. No

449
doubt further successful operations will be carried out by the Government as the years unfold.
Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extent of the serious poverty created in many families as a result of increased mortgage rates over the years? Is he aware of the large numbers of people who, having started to buy their homes, are having to sell them because they can no longer meet the repayments?
Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that and also of the acute hardship that has been caused to those who bought at the inflated prices two or three years ago and found the rate increasing inexorably step by step from 81½ per cent. to 11 per cent.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Ought it not to be remembered, on behalf of the building societies, that they want to find an answer to this question, and that while the Minister can talk about a holding operation they have to sign the deed and be responsible for the contract that follows? The House of Commons ought not to ignore the strings. To ask building societies to guarantee their position at 11 per cent. when they do not know all the circumstances that will surround the money market is perhaps asking them to commit themselves too deeply.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that if the building societies take up his offer of an additional £400 million, when it is adjudged that circumstances have been reached when it can he repaid, it will have to be repaid. Who will decide when those circumstances have arrived? Will they be mutually agreed before the money can be withdrawn, or will the Minister retain the right to decide when circumstances are such that it ought to be repaid? If it is a one-sided arrangement, I can well understand the reluctance of the building societies to commit themselves to long-term lending with the short-term money that may come from the Government
Mr. Crosland: I shall be very surprised if, at the meeting at five o'clock, we do not reach complete agreement on the terms of the repayment. I am speaking in advance, but I do not expect any difficulty.
450
As to the 11 per cent., I must make it clear that we cannot exact from the building societies a guarantee that they will permanently keep their rate of interest at a certain figure. Obviously, all that we can say is that if they wish to have this £500 million they must hold the rate at 11 per cent.
Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that over the last few years insurance companies and pension funds have ploughed about £3,000 million into property building, most of which has gone to finance useless empty office blocks and empty renewed city centres? Can my right hon. Friend not take specific measures to insist that these holders of large funds plough their money into building societies to help to build more houses for ordinary people?
Mr. Crosland: I am very much aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes —indeed I made it with him when in Opposition—but that is part of the longer-term study, a major portion of which will be the examination of possible alternative sources of funds for the building societies.
Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the building societies expect to have a net outflow of about £15 million this month? As their requirements are about £160 million, that means that they will be meeting only about 50 per cent. of their requirements. Unless they raise their 7½ per cent. saving rate, they argue that they will not be able to meet even the short-term requirement which the hon. Gentleman suggests the loan will go to meet. Why, therefore, does he want to restrict their saving rate to 7½ per cent. when the building societies feel it is essential, in order to attract money, that they should put up that rate?
Mr. Crosland: For the very simple reason that if they put up their investment rate they would be bound also to raise their mortgage rate well above 11 per cent., unless the Government were to step in with an indiscriminate and wasteful flat-rate subsidy, or a reduction in taxation, which amounts to the same thing. We strongly criticised that method of doing it a year ago, and we have not changed our minds.

EARLY-DAY MOTIONS
Mr. Speaker: I shall now rule on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on Monday and yesterday.
I should perhaps first dispose of the hon. Member's suggestion that I ought to have made a formal ruling yesterday. When the matter was raised by the hon. Member on Monday, I said,
"I shall consider the hon. Member's point and if necessary communicate with him further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 44.]
I did not on reflection consider that any such communication was in fact necessary. The practice of ruling after 24 hours, to which the hon. Member referred yesterday, relates solely to matters of privilege, of which this is not one. It was, therefore, in no way incumbent upon me to give a ruling yesterday
Turning to the substance of the matter, I will read again the passage from Erskine May which I read on Monday:
"He"—
that is Mr. Speaker—
"has also directed that a notice of motion should not be printed, as being obviously not a proper subject for debate, being tendered in a spirit of mockery, or being designed merely to give annoyance or as irregular."
In this case, the hon. Member's motion suggested that a letter from the Prime Minister should be examined by the police to ascertain whether it was" authentic, or another embarrassing forgery". The letter was from 10 Downing Street on 4th April:
"Dear Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop,
Thank you for your letter of 26th March.
It is clear from a study of the Debate on 25th March, and the cutting enclosed with your letter, that there was a genuine misunderstanding about the point that Michael Meacher was making. His intention was, as was made clear in the House, to refer to the new rate rebate scheme, but he appreciates that the words he used were ambiguous and has asked me to convey his apologies for this.
Yours sincerely,
Harold Wilson."
In my view, the hon. Member's motion fell within each of the first three categories I have stated above—not being a proper subject for debate, being tendered in a spirit of mockery, and being designed merely to give annoyance. Therefore,
452
ipso facto it was a motion of extreme irregularity. In my view, the Clerk at the Table was right to withhold the motion from the printer.
But may I explain, as this is a new House of Commons, the custom in these matters. If the Clerk decides that a motion or Question should be withheld, he informs the Member concerned. If the Member does not accept that view, he should ask for the matter to be referred to me. If I decide to uphold the view of the Clerk at the Table, the Member is informed, and if the Member is still dissatisfied he can come and see me to argue his case further. If, at the end of this process, he is still dissatisfied, he can raise the matter in the House, and if he disagrees with my ruling he can challenge it according to our procedures—in other words, by a motion.
The object of this procedure is to save the time of the House. I regret that it was not followed in this case.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue of principle is whether a Clerk, without reference to the Speaker, can reject a motion tabled by a Member without any explanation why he judges it to be out of order. It is something that can affect every Member of the House. In this case, Mr. Speaker, no explanation was given by the Clerk why he rejected my motion. Erskine May states quite clearly on that point,
"If the irregularity is not extreme, the notice is printed, and reserved for future consideration."
Since the Clerk gave no evidence to support a view that the motion contained an extreme irregularity, he had neither the power nor the right to suppress it. The issue of detail, Mr. Speaker, is this: were there valid reasons justifying the Clerk at the Table in rejecting the motion on presentation of those valid reasons to the Member concerned, which he did not do?
You have read out, Mr. Speaker, the later extract from Erskine May and your ruling is that each of those grounds applies to the motion that I submitted. I submit to you that that is not the case for the following reasons. First, the statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is contesting my ruling, he may

453
not do it in this way; he must do it by motion.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the first moment that I have learned either from you or from any Clerk of the House the grounds on which it was claimed that this motion could not be accepted. If you refuse to allow me the opportunity of suggesting why you should reconsider your ruling after the first time you have given me the reasons why the Clerk originally made it, of course you will leave me only the alternative of a substantive motion on the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am not at all afraid of being threatened in that way. In fact, it was suggested to the hon. Member that he should come and discuss the matter with me, according to the practice that I have laid down. That has applied in very many instances. It saves a great deal of the time of the House, when the Clerk withholds a motion, and the hon. Member concerned objects, if the hon. Member is advised to come and see Mr. Speaker about it. I should then gladly have discussed the matter, listened to the hon. Member's arguments, and perhaps ruled differently. As the hon. Member did not accept the custom of the House on this matter, I cannot allow it to be argued further today.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a different point, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of great importance that Clerks of the House should not arbitrarily withhold from Members the right to table motions, giving no reason for so doing. This is a sufficiently important matter for it to be raised and dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in camera, because it affects the right of every Member irrespective of the merit of the motion
If the Clerk concerned had sent to me the reasons why he rejected the motion, the course of action which you state would have been appropriate, Mr. Speaker. He did not do so. It was rejected without any explanation whatsoever. This is the first occasion—[Interruption.]—the Patronage Secretary is not dispensing patronage at the moment; nor is he in Mr. Speaker's Chair; he is merely interrupting a point of order from a sedentary position, and he should know better.
454
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should instruct the Clerks that if they wish to follow the procedure of rejecting a motion which has already been accepted by the Table Office, they should, without exception, communicate to the Member concerned their reason for doing so when they have not consulted you on the matter, as in this case. There are substantial grounds—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can let the hon. Member go much further. I take his point and I am perfectly certain that the Clerks at the Table have done so. I have given the reasons why I did not think that this motion should be sent to the printer. I am not trying to be at all personally offensive, but I think that Clerks give hon. Members credit for a little common sense. They probably thought that the hon. Member's motion was an attempt at a joke, and a fairly obvious one at that.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who has on many occasions approached the Clerks at the Table and at all times found them most courteous and helpful, may I say that it has been my knowledge for almost 30 years that when the Table Office said that in its opinion a matter was out of order and that I had the right to go to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker would invariably immediately arrange a discussion on the matter
Therefore, I cannot see that it matters whether I am told the reason by the Clerks at the Table. They invariably give the reason, but whether they do or not, the fact is that I may see, and have on occasions been to see, Mr. Speaker to discuss the matter with him, and invariably he has helped me, with the aid of the Clerk, to get the sort of motion that I want on the Order Paper. If an hon. Member wants help to get a difficult motion on the Order Paper, he should work with the Clerks and with Mr. Speaker, and they will get a difficult motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: This is all very interesting. I am grateful.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to conclude the matter. I think that he has had his say.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Merely as a courtesy, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise this matter on a substantive motion

LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to debate a specific matter of urgent public importance; namely,
"the threatened breakdown of arrangements for the holding of a poll on Thursday 2nd May 1974 for the election of councillors to serve on certain London borough councils."
It is a matter of a specific nature because, due to the threatened action by the National Association of Local Government Officers in my borough and in other boroughs within Greater London, there will be a failure to conform to the law over the issue by the returning officer of poll cards, and there is a possibility that there may not be available presiding officers and poll clerks to operate polling stations for the local authority elections.
Even an experienced returning officer, such as we have in the London borough of Bexley, with a proven record of efficiency and impartiality in these matters, will find it difficult to discharge his statutory duties if these things come to pass.
The matter is urgent because the House will be rising this week and will not be returning until 29th April, which is but three days before the poll is due to be held for the election of councillors to the 32 London boroughs.
It is a matter of serious public importance because democracy itself is liable to be put to severe test if the new London authorities are not elected as required by law on 2nd May.
It is also a matter of serious public importance because, if for any reason the poll has to be abandoned in any borough or in any ward in any borough, there is no clear procedure for the carrying on of good government in London boroughs if a local authority is not elected
The law passed by this House requires the elections to be held on 2nd May.
456
I have not yet been able to find a Department or one of Her Majesty's Ministers who can accept ministerial responsibility, but surely in the end it must be a matter for this House to take notice of this serious situation.
I hope therefore, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the serious and urgent nature of this request, you will give consideration to allowing it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has certainly raised an important point and I am grateful for the way that he has put it. There are difficulties in allowing a debate under Standing Order No. 9, and I am afraid that I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's application. But I very much hope that what he said will be noted.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL
  Mr. Secretary Crosland, supported by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, Mr. Secretary Jenkins, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Fred Mulley and Mr. Neil Carmichael, presented a Bill to provide for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, together with associated works; to make provision for guaranteeing loans and for the expenditure necessary for and in connection with the construction and operation of that system and those works; to constitute a Board to participate in the operation of that system; to incorporate part of that system into the United Kingdom and to provide for the jurisdiction of courts in Great Britain over matters occurring in that system and trains proceeding through it; to provide controls in connection with passengers and goods passing through that system; to provide for the incidence and computation of tax in connection with the construction and operation of that system; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

  RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL
  Mrs. Joyce Butler, supported by Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Sydney Bidwell,

  457
  Mr. Loughlin. Miss Quennell, Dr. Winstanley, and Mr. Frederick Willey, presented a Bill to establish the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th May and to be printed [Bill 28].

  MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Martin McLaren presented a Bill to amend the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd May and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I beg to move,
  That if the National Insurance Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole house, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the Proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on National Insurance [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of procedure. Yesterday I warned the Leader of the House that I wished to raise this point today. I am sorry that he has not chosen to be in his place.
  I hope that the Government will not proceed with their intention to force the House to the great inconvenience of taking the remaining stages of this important Bill in the course of today. I appreciate that the reason given is that if the House of Commons does not complete all stages of the Bill today the pensioners will not receive their benefits on 22nd July.
  That reason is totally unconvincing for two reasons. First, I do not think that anyone in the House supposes that the Department will refuse to start work on this necessary change until the Bill has passed through all its stages.
  Secondly, the Government are not adopting this procedure in the other place. The House of Lords is sitting today. If it were so essential that the Bill should
  458
  go through to the statute book today, it should be possible for the other place to be asked to take it this evening, when we have done with it, and it could go for Royal Assent tomorrow.
  On investigation I find that Second Reading in the Lords is not to be taken until after the Easter Recess, that the Committee stage should take place on 9th May, and that the Third Reading should be on 13th May. Therefore, in the other place this important Bill is to be treated with proper respect. However, in the Commons, for some reason that is not yet clear, we are to be asked possibly to sit late tonight to complete our examination of the Bill.
  When I spoke to the Leader of the House yesterday he mentioned as a precedent the Pensioners' Payments and National Insurance Contributions Act 1973, which was taken through all its stages in one day by the previous Government. But that example should not have been used for this matter, because it was an Act of a totally different character. It was introduced to benefit fewer than 8,000 people. and the Money Resolution associated with it required the expenditure of only £75,000. What a contrast that is with this enormously important Bill which will bring benefit to millions of pensioners, somewhat less benefit to the unemployed, the disabled, and so on, but will also place a heavy burden on a large section of the population! It may force some people into changing their businesses and others into bankruptcy
  I believe that the business of the House of Commons is to protect the taxpayer and the contributor by minutely examining the Government's proposals for expenditure. In examining the Government's proposals for expenditure, it may not necessarily he hostile, but when an amount of £1,100 million is involved, as with this Bill, it is wrong and a derogation from the rights of the House to expect us to deal with it in a few hours.
  Moreover, from a back-bench Member's point of view, it is exceedingly inconvenient to be asked late last night to table Committee stage amendments before hearing what is to be said on Second Reading or being able to express our views. How can we have a valid

  459
  Committee stage when amendments have to be put down before we have heard the Secretary of State and before there have been any replies to our Second Reading points? It makes a mockery of Second Reading to use this procedure, it makes a mockery of the Committee stage, which will be artificial and truncated, and it makes a mockery of the House.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady and others who are responsible for business on the Government Front Bench will recognise that what they are doing is entirely wrong, totally without precedent, and should be abandoned forthwith.
  I hope that we may have reassurance on that point now and can proceed to Second Reading in a proper and orderly way.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). This is an unusual procedure. It certainly is not one that any Government wish to adopt in the normal way, but we are in an unusual situation
  Rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—we have introduced this uprating on one of the most restricted timetables in the whole history of national insurance—I think in the shortest period that has ever been attempted. That has put burdens on many people. It has caused difficulties for my staff, as I have explained before, and I recognise that it puts us in the position of having to do some overtime tonight
  Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that we could not have a very good and adequate discussion on the various points of the Bill, or is his main complaint that we have to sit all night to do it—[Interruption.] That was one of his points. He said he thought it was wrong that we should have to sit all night in order to express our views. I am asking my staff to do an excessive amount of overtime to push this matter through and it is helpful and valuable to get the utmost clarity, not merely on Second Reading but in the views of the House on the details of the Bill. There is therefore good reason for pushing ahead with the Bill now before the Easter Recess.
  460
  The arrangement has not been imposed upon the House by the Government. There were discussions through the usual channels and I had intended to open my Second Reading speech by thanking the House, particularly the Opposition, for the co-operation shown in accepting this unusual procedure.
  The hon. Member for Kensington tried to draw a distinction between the Tory Government's Christmas bonus Bill and the measure before us. I see no difference in principle. It is not as though the full details of the uprating were not known as long ago as 27th March when I spelt them out in a full and comprehensive statement which included a reference to the contribution rates. The House was well aware a considerable time ago of what would be in the Bill. When we were in Opposition we had many points we wanted to raise on the Christmas bonus legislation. There were many categories to whom we felt the Christmas bonus should have been paid. Nevertheless, we agreed to make our points more succinctly than would otherwise have been the case to enable the then Government to get their legislation in one day.
  Of course, I can give the assurance that this will not be a regular occurrence. This is a one-off emergency which arises because we want to push the uprating through as soon as possible. We have asked for the co-operation of all hon. Members in that. That does not mean that they will not be free to move their amendments or put forward their views. On this occasion, however, we ask them to help us in getting the uprating through by 22nd July, a date I was originally told was impossible. I should have thought that all hon. Members would want to achieve that goal, and for that reason we should get on.
  I have already warned hon. Members that we are taking a risk in fixing the date at 22nd July, the risk being that some pensioners might have to get their increases in arrears. We want to minimise that risk as much as possible. I am asking my staff to do overtime they do not want to do in order to keep the risk down. That was one of the reasons it was necessary to get as many stages as possible of the Bill completed before the Easter Recess.
  I express my appreciation for the response we have had from the Opposition.

  461
  I had hoped that the assurance that this procedure will not be repeated by the Government would convince the House of our good intentions. I ask the House to accept that this is an exceptional situation and to help us to get the up-rating through in exceptionally quick time.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: I appreciate the Secretary of State's difficulties in this matter since the Leader of the House is the right person to deal with our queries. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is entitled to speak on his behalf. Is she saying that the staff are not prepared to start work on the necessary changes to implement the higher scale of pensions until after the Bill is on the Statute Book? If that is her argument, why has there been no attempt to hurry the proceedings in the other place?
  If it were necessary for us to complete all stages in this House this week, why could not we have taken the Second Reading on Monday, which would have given us yesterday to consider that debate and table our Committee points for discussion today? An attempt has been made to stifle debate on the Bill. The Secretary of State is making a mockery of the Committee stage and is handicapping back benchers. It makes no difference that she is hoping to get the new scales paid by 22nd July. That is weeks ahead and there would have been plenty of time for proper discussion of the minor aspects of the Bill after the holiday if the Secretary of State had not insisted on getting the measure through at a stroke.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: It seems necessary to remind Conservative Members how frequently discussion was curtailed in the last Parliament by use of the Guillotine. Clause after clause of important Bills went through without a word of discussion. It ill becomes hon. Members who supported that approach to moan and groan because we now want to speed up the payment of higher pensions to those in need.
  Mr. Tom King: Is not the point here that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is seeking an explanation why this measure has to go through the House in all its stages today when it will not be finished in the House of Lords before
  462
  9th May? If I understand the Secretary of State correctly, she is saying that she accepts that all hon. Members wish the benefits under the Bill to be available at the earliest possible date. and that the most significant amendments are expected to be made in the House of Commons, which should be achieved before the holiday. She is saying that on that basis her staff will be able to progress that much further forward in preparing the necessary steps for implementation. Is she suggesting that she expects most of the amendments to be made here and that she is prepared to take the risk that another place will not do too much to change the plans that have already been made?
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) must realise that this week's business has been arranged through the usual channels. Today's business was agreed. I recognise that back benchers have their rights and freedom and their different and independent views. In my time as a back bencher I have had a few independent views. I should have thought that both the hon. Member for Kensington and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) appreciated that the process of implementation of an uprating has a number of stages, some starting as soon as the announcement is made, others depending upon the Second Reading and others depending upon the greatest possible clarity.
  I do not suggest that we can in any way inhibit what is done in another place, but I think it was generally agreed that it would be helpful to get all stages in this House so that my Department can proceed with the maximum clarity. There will not be final clarity until the Bill receives the Royal Assent, but the passing of each stage of the Bill is valuable in speeding up the process and in lightening the burdens on what will be a heavily over-burdened staff.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That if the National Insurance Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the Proceeding on any Resolution come to by the House on National Insurance [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.55 p.m
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In moving the Second Reading I repeat my expressions of gratitude for the cooperation from right hon. Gentlemen, and, in the end, from hon. Gentlemen opposite, towards getting the Bill through all its stages today. Judging from the Order Paper, this unusual procedure does not seem to have inhibited the hon. Gentleman who has just been making protests. He has put down a lot of challenging amendments and we shall be dealing with those which the Chair decides to call.
  I also pay tribute to one of my distinguished predecessors whose death I am sure we all mourn, Mr. Richard Crossman. He was a great Secretary of State for the social services. I am conscious, as I stand in his shoes this afternoon, of how much pioneering work he did in this sector and of how hard I shall have to work to begin to live up to the standards of excellence which he set.
  Social security legislation is so complicated that one can get bogged down in detail, and one tends to lose sight of the overall effect. The Bill embodies a welter of detail on all the aspects of the uprating which has already been announced. If we are to assess how far any particular uprating Bill takes us along the road to certain agreed social goals we must look beyond the details and judge the Bill in relation to agreed terms of reference. It is very easy to start arguing about 10p on this or 20p on that, and so one loses sight of the overall social situation. It would be a pity if in judging a major uprating Bill of this kind we were to be obsessed with the detail rather than with the path along which we are trying to go.
  There are, broadly, two points of reference in our social policy. First, there is the relief of poverty and its eventual abolition. Secondly, there is the aim to roll back the carpet of means-testing
  464
  which has now settled over social policies and which has such disincentive and humiliating effects, and which in our view ought not to be part of the social provision which we make for the disadvantaged or handicapped.
  Although we believe that in the Bill we are doing something to achieve our first goal—the diminution, or at any rate reduction in the levels, of poverty —we have done nothing towards the latter goal. The Bill does nothing to reduce means-testing. It has been said in earlier debates that this year it was particularly urgent to concentrate on the relief of poverty, that it was essential to give this priority. That is why in the Bill we not only increase national insurance benefits but introduce parallel increases in supplementary benefit. This means that no people will be taken off means-testing, yet equally it means that those who are most in need of help will be assured through the Bill of getting it.
  The moral on which we might cogitate some other time—this is not the occasion to develop it—is that it will always be difficult in short-term upratings to reduce means-testing. We shall only do that by much more fundamental changes in our overall social policy. Our longterm policy seeks to do that through the introduction of the child endowment scheme and through long-term pension provisions in respect of which I hope to publish a White Paper before long. Indeed. I hope it will be possible to publish it this summer, because the matter involved is an important background to our discussion of the overall situation. There is also the Finer Report, concerned with making provision for closing other gaps in our social provision, and the review of social security provision for the disabled, which I am committed to put before the House this autumn.
  These are long-term goals. It is by a combination of such measures that we can launch the most effective attack on the exercise of means-testing. But at this time, in the Bill, we must concentrate in the short term and as quickly as we can on a meaningful uprating. An increase of 29 per cent. in the single person's standard rate of pension is the greatest single uprating since the National Insurance Scheme was introduced 25 years ago. It gives a big margin with which to deal with price increases since

  465
  the last uprating. There has been an increase of just over 5 per cent. in prices since the last uprating, according to the latest figures in February. The increase in the standard rate also gives a margin in hand to deal with problems of inflation which lie ahead. The uprating of the standard rate is backed up by a whole range of Government policies, some of which I shall briefly reiterate.
  Judging from what hon. Members say, and from my constituency postbag, a large number of people are still confused and unnecessarily anxious about what the increases will mean to them. I would like to put the position on record again. An hon. Member told me today that he had letters from pensioners stating that it was no good putting up pensions because all the extra money would be swallowed up in rent increases. That is not true. I have announced in previous debates, and I announce again, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made quite clear to the House, through me, that the increases in pensions and other benefits will not affect existing rent and rate rebates and rent allowances.
  I hope that hon. Members will bring this fact home to their constituents and that they will also stress the decision of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, to which I have referred in previous debates, at the same time as the increases come into operation to increase discretionary heating allowances by 30 per cent. There will also be increased provision for dietary needs. It is vitally important that these points are realised by constituents. Another form of supplementary help, for women pensioners, came into operation on 8th April. I refer to the abolition of prescription charges for women aged between 60 and 65 years. These details do so get lost in Press reports or television summaries. So I hope that this fact. too, will be made widely known.
  The Chancellor's increase in the age exemption relief will prevent the pension increases from being clawed back through taxation. So we have tried to think of all the ways in which this uprating could be eroded and to close the loopholes so as to make the increase real and enduring, so far as Government policy can do so. Of course, the problem of inflation has not been solved yet, but the Govern-
  466
  ment's action has been designed to make an impact at the points of most importance to the pensioners and other beneficiaries —the level of rent and rates, of food and fuel prices.
  The House will realise that the increases in supplementary benefits as well as those in the family income supplement of which I gave details on 28th March are not dealt with in the Bill but will be dealt with separately by means of regulations in due course. War pensions will also go up. There seemed to be some doubt in some people's minds about this. The increases will be effected by means of instruments under the Royal Prerogative.
  The Bill embodies the benefit increases that I have already spelled out in considerable detail in my statement on 27th March, and I do not want to spend the time of the House repeating what is already on record in HANSARD. The Bill is backed by the Government Actuary's Report, Cmnd. 5587, which also includes details of the new benefit rates. As the time for the uprating is so short, we decided to dispense with a White Paper, but I hope that hon. Members will find the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum clear and informative about the principal benefit increases.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I think that the right hon. Lady may be leaving the subject of benefits and I wanted to ask whether the implementation of supplementary benefit for pensioners will coincide with the higher rate of benefit for the people entitled under national insurance. Or will they get their benefit later, or earlier?
  Mrs. Castle: No, they will coincide. The aim is to make it all take place at the same time. But I was not leaving the benefits. I am just reminding hon. Members where they can get the full details.
  I was about to say that these new rates of benefit are dealt with in Clauses 1 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 3 and they implement our election pledge. By now, everybody will realise that the standard rate of retirement pension for a single person is to go up to £10 and that for a married couple to £16, but I have found that there is still considerable confusion as to which other groups will benefit and to what extent.

  467
  I have, surprisingly, met the comment from widows "Why have you done nothing for us?" It is therefore worth while to spell out a little more fully than I have so far been able to do just what the Bill does for widows. The widow's allowance which is payable for the first 26 weeks of widowhood will go up from £10·85 to £14, with additional amounts for children. The widowed mother's allowance and the widow's pension at the standard rate will go up from £7·75 to £10, with added benefit for children.
  The widow's basic pension, the old 10s. pension, which the last Labour Government increased to 30s. and which remained stuck there during the life of the last administration, will go up to £3, which restores its relationship to the full widow's pension. The age-related pensions for younger widows will go up and will range from £3 for a woman widowed at the age of 40 or whose widowed mother's allowance ceases at that age, up to the full rate of £10 for a woman widowed at 50 or over.
  As I have already said, the increases in benefit in respect of dependent children will also go up, and the total effect on a widowed mother with two dependent children, for example, will be an increase of benefit from £14·45 to £18·90. So I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong to suggest that we have forgotten the widows. On the contrary, we have included them among our urgent priorities.
  The same applies, of course, to the chronically sick and disabled. The invalidity pension which normally replaces sickness benefit after the first six months is also to be increased from £7·75 to £10. This means, for example, that an invalidity pensioner whose incapacity began before the age of 35, and who is, therefore, on the highest rate of invalidity allowance, will have his income increased from £9·35 to £12·05 a week. If he has a dependent wife and two children, his benefit will go up from £20·80 to £26·95
  The industrial injuries disablement pension is also, of course, going up. For the man with 100 per cent. assessment it will rise from £12·80 to £16·40, and there will be increases also for his dependants.
  I now turn to the short-term benefits such as unemployment and sickness bene-
  468
  fit. The increases that the Bill proposes are such that, for example, a man entitled to unemployment benefit and increases in respect of a dependent wife and two children will find his rate of benefit rising from £15·60 to £18·40, quite apart from any earnings-related supplement to which he may also be entitled. The injury benefit which is paid under the industrial injuries scheme for the first six months of incapacity is to be increased from £10·10 to £11·35 for a single adult and from £14·65 to £16·65 for a married couple.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) complained in our last debate that I somehow had not explained the reason for the differential between the treatment of the short-term and that of the long-term benefits. But when his Government introduced that differential last year, my hon. Friend the Minister of State accepted that it was perfectly proper that a Government should feel free to choose their priorities and that, give certain conditions, there was no inherent reason why in one year a Government should not decide to give one section of beneficiaries slightly more generous treatment than another section. But my hon. Friend also laid down two conditions which would be necessary, he felt, before it would be proper to do so. He said, first, that there must be an equitable overall tax system, and, second, that the level of benefits should be at a much higher rate than existed then. We do not claim that we have as yet fully satisfied both those conditions, but we are certainly well on the way to doing so.
  It is in that context that we have retained the differential for this uprating. The whole package of improvements proposed by the Government, leaving aside the changes proposed in family income supplement, will cost £1,268 million in 1975–76. Of this total, £46 million will be for war pensions and £81 million for supplementary benefits. The improvements which are included in the Bill will cost about £1,140 million, of which £1,120 million will fall on the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Funds
  This brings me to Clause 2 and Schedule 2, which deal with contributions. I have already explained to the House that the principle which we are following here is that we think that the

  469
  broadest backs should bear the biggest burden. That is why the flat-rate employee's contribution for adults will be reduced by 9p, while the employer's share will rise by 44p for a man, 38p for a woman, 29p for a boy and 25p for a girl.
  The weekly limit up to which graduated contributions are to be paid is to be raised from £54 to £62, and the rate paid by both employers and employees is to be increased by ½ per cent. This combination, therefore, ensures that we protect the lower-paid wage-earners from any additional contribution burden. The combined effect of the changes means that male employees earning less than £27 per week will not have their contributions increased and those earning less than £20 per week will have their contributions actually reduced by at least 3p a week, while employees earning more than £62 per week will pay an additional 57p a week.
  The result of this is that of some 22½ million employees normally contributing to the National Insurance or Industrial Injuries schemes about 3,250,000 will pay contributions at lower rates than the present rates, about 3,250,000 will continue to pay the same amount as they are paying now, about 10,750,000 will pay less than 10p a week more, and about 5,250,000 will pay over 10p a week more. The weekly rate of contributions paid by self-employed and non-employed persons, who, as the House knows, pay only flat-rate contributions, is to be increased broadly in proportion to both increases in benefit expenditure and the average joint contribution for employed persons. Self-employed men will pay an extra 42p a week and self-employed women will pay an extra 34p per week. There will be proportionate increases for juveniles. The proposed flat-rate and graduated contribution rates will come into force on Monday 5th August.
  Clause 4 provides for a relaxation of the earnings rule. We are proposing to increase from £9·50 to £13 the level of earnings above which the retirement pension of a man aged 65 to 69, and of a woman aged 60 to 64, is reduced. The effect will be that the standard rate of pension for a single person will not be extinguished until his or her earnings reach £25 per week—instead of £19·25 at present.
  470
  At present, the earnings of dependent wives of retirement pensioners—that is to say, wives who have not themselves reached the pensionable age of 60—are treated differently from the personal earnings of retirement pensioners. For the wives, earnings over £11·50 are taken fully into account, whereas for pensioners themselves earnings up to £13·50 lead to only a proportionate reduction in pension. We are taking the opportunity in the Bill to bring the rule for dependent wives into line with that for retirement pensioners—a change which the whole House will welcome. This applies not only to wives of retirement pensioners but to wives who live with invalidity pensioners and industrial injuries disablement pensioners with unemployability supplement. The increase of benefit for these wives will not be extinguished until their earnings reach £21—instead of £15·25 at present. The cost of the changes that we propose in the earnings rules is about £9 million.
  Clause 5 amends Section 39 of the Social Security Act 1973 so that for longterm benefits—those paid to the elderly, the chronic sick, the disabled and widows—the annual review is to be based on the extent to which the current rates of benefit have retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings, rather than the general level of prices, unless at a particular review it would be more advantageous to beneficiaries to have regard to the movement of prices.
  The clause also provides that a review in the income tax year beginning in April 1975 shall come into force not later than the end of July 1975—in other words, not later than 12 months after this year's increases take effect. In this way our pledge to increase pensions annually in proportion to the movement in national average earnings will become a statutory obligation. Subsequent legislation will deal with the years after 1975.
  As the House knows, the Social Security Act 1973 comes into operation in April 1975. I have already made it clear to the House that we find our predecessors' long-term pension plan embodied in that Act unacceptable. As I said earlier, I shall be publishing a White Paper as soon as possible, embodying our own long-term plans. I also told the

  471
  House that we shall want to make interim changes in our predecessors' scheme. I promised a statement on that as quickly as possible. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East pressed me on this point during the Budget debate. I fully recognise the importance of what he said. It is true that the pensions industry and others are eagerly awaiting details of these interim changes which we propose. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House will recognise that I have been in my present job for only about five weeks and that I have had to give priority to this very complicated and comprehensive uprating. But I realise the need for speed, and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall be making an early statement on the interim proposals after the Easter Recess.
  I come finally to Clause 6, which makes some minor amendments to social security legislation which are of a technical and non-controversial character. They include amendments needed to prepare the way for the consolidation of social security legislation, which I am sure the House will agree is highly desirable. I shall not detain the House by going into all the details, but should there be any points on which hon. Members require clarification, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be glad to answer them when he winds up the debate.
  This, then, is the Bill which I am commending to the House. It is a Bill which benefits 11½ million people and will give pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries a bigger increase, both absolutely and proportionately, than they have ever been granted in an uprating Bill under the National Insurance scheme. At the same time, the Bill embodies in legislative form the commitment which we made to the country during the election campaign that we would link the increase in long-term benefits to average national earnings. This change, which at last links the increases in pensions and other benefits to movements in wages, is long overdue. I hope that it is a principle which will be accepted and welcomed by the whole House.
  The changes in the Bill are costly. I do not conceal from the House that the cost is heavy. It is an expensive uprating. Some people have suggested that it is too
  472
  expensive an uprating. I do not believe that the House will say that this afternoon. I think that hon. Members will say that it is a cost the community will be willing to bear. In our view it is essential to give urgent help, priority help, to groups of people in our community who have been desperately hard hit as a result of the inflationary pressures of past years and have been at their wits' ends to know how to make ends meet. It is in the spirit of bringing them urgent help that I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.26 p.m
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I begin by joining the Secretary of State in her tribute to our late colleague, Richard Crossman. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have the same kind of respect and affection for him as a person as has the right hon. Lady. During my years in opposition, outside the House I had the privilege of working on an advisory policy group which served Richard Crossman when he was Secretary of State —a rather unusual relationship. I echo everything the right hon. Lady said about him.
  I also renew the general welcome the House has given to the increases in the Bill, a welcome given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at the end of the Budget debate.
  I appreciate the compact way in which the right hon. Lady has tried to set the matter before the House, because we may want to come on to the Committee stage as quickly as is convenient. The right hon. Lady again said that the Bill is being brought into effect by reference to the most restrictive timetable ever. She won the admiration of her predecessor for her success in having achieved that—if she is able so to do. We wish her well along that road.
  Therefore, it is in no tendentious spirit that I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is satisfied about the extent to which there has been consultation with all the staff associations and unions involved. I have heard some rumblings of anxiety on their side about the capacity of the system to deliver what the right hon. Lady requires of it. Can she or the Minister of State give us assurances about that? Will they undertake to tell the House if at any time there appears to be any doubt about the capacity of her

  473
  staff to carry through this very rapid programme?
  I have already made plain in previous debates in this Parliament that we on this side of the House are as anxious to eliminate poverty and to help the most hard-pressed members of our society as are members of any other party in the House. That is why we welcome the measures in the Bill. Even so, we have real doubt whether not so much the Bill but the context in which it is brought forward provides a viable basis for a sustainable social policy in the context of the entire economic policy of this minority Labour Government.
  Three main anxieties occur to me at this stage. We make no complaint—apart from the important point that may be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in one of the amendments—about the general distribution of the burden of the Bill. But we are anxious because it is introduced in the context of a Budget that is likely, viewed as a whole, seriously to impair the capacity of industry and the entire economy to sustain these advances in social provision, let alone further advances. It is the overall burden on the productive dynamo of our economy, against which the measure must be viewed, that causes us some concern.
  Secondly, we are concerned—and I know that the right hon. Lady has acknowledged this in the scale of the increases proposed—about the extent to which the increases are likely during the 12 months from July this year seriously to be eroded by the impact of inflation. We shall be debating that matter later as well.
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said yesterday:
  "Prices are rising at a rate which may reach about 12 to 15 per cent. or even more by the end of the year. Some of the most reliable estimates given by independent economic sources suggest possible rates of inflation as high as 18 or 19 per cent. by the end of this year.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 256.]
  The right hon. Lady did not say how far she and her colleagues went along with those reliable, independent economic sources, but if that is the kind of setting to which we must look forward, there is real cause for anxiety about the impact of inflation.
  474
  We are concerned not so much with the impact of the cost of contributions, because they had to be raised in any event, nor, taken by themselves, with the impact of increased fuel prices, transport prices, and postal and other telecommunications prices—although they are cumulative in their effect. We are concerned with the additional burden of indirect taxation imposed by the Government, which in itself exceeds the value of the subsidies, with the additional burden of direct taxation imposed on a wide range of wage-earners by the Government, and with the effect of all that on the spiral of wage earners by the Government, and Bill is designed to protect the beneficiaries. We can consider later on the desirability, in that setting, of a more frequent review of the rates of benefit
  The third factor which causes us concern is the extent to which this part of the right hon. Lady's social policy cannot be seen as part of a coherent pattern of social priorities. I do not wish now to dwell on the previous Government's record, particularly in the area presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, save to remind the House that dawn in matters of social provision did not break on 4th March this year. The previous Government made major improvements—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman must listen to this—in all social benefits, making the largest improvements in favour of the pensioners and the chronically ill. They introduced six entirely new benefits to the advantage of 2 million new beneficiaries. They instituted a national scheme of rent and rate rebates. All that was part of a coherent pattern for advancing social provision
  Alongside that, one must look with apprehension at the incoherent and predominantly indiscriminate pattern of social provision that lies behind the Bill —£500 million pledged for food subsidies; £50 million pledged, for the third time since 1948, to the abolition of prescription charges; a figure larger than that pledged to a rent freeze, although that will impose a large additional burden on ratepayers and mortgage payers, poor as well as rich. It is that indiscriminate background to the right hon. Lady's proposals that causes us concern
  The tragic consequence of that approach is that it will gravely restrict

  475
  the scope for more selective, certainly, but much more urgently needed, improvements in social provision for particular categories which we all have in mind. One can start with the—at first sight modest, but I dare say not so modest—implications of the Sharp Report, and go on to those covered by the review the right hon. Lady is obliged to make by October this year in relation to the disabled, especially perhaps the disabled housewives, who are unable to look after their families or homes, and those born so disabled as to be unable to earn any significant wage. We can think again of the important category the right hon. Lady mentioned, those likely to be covered by the Finer Report
  We can also think—whether at this stage one thinks of a family endowment pattern or a tax credit scheme—of the huge areas of poverty yet to be conquered. With resources as short as they are of our aspirations, and as short as they always will be, we are anxious about whether it is right to have as much general provision as is implicit in the Government's approach, to the disadvantage of those special groups to which I have referred
  The indiscriminate approach is all the more unwise when the present Government have recognised the need for prudence in public spending. The cuts of £1,200 million in public spending which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) last December have been accepted by the present Government. The rate support grant total remains unchanged. The need for prudence is emphasised by the extent to which the right hon. Lady has accepted—and I appreciate that she has not in her own mind done so for all time—the need for a continuation of a wide range of means —tested benefits without any reduction in the numbers involved. I understand that it is her aspiration to see a rollback of the carpet of means tests. That is a view which I share. I have made that plain to the House ever since I became a Member. Means tests are only likely to be eliminable by the application of the methods implicit in the tax credit scheme or something like that
  It is against that background that I am glad to welcome the Government's
  476
  conversion to the acceptance of the distinction between long-term and short-term benefits. I appreciate that the right hon. Lady quoted from the speech of her hon. Friend the Minister of State last year and explained his recognition of the legitimacy of making some such distinction. It is, of course, an important distinction. As I understand it, the promise which was made in the Labour Party's manifesto was to improve benefits for all the main categories, including the sick and the unemployed, to £10 and £16 in the first parliamentary Session. That is not what we see being done. It is a welcome illustration of good sense that the Government have recognised the case for maintaining the distinction between long-term and short-term benefits
  The right hon. Lady used the word "retained". The truth is that the present Government have substantially increased the differential. I make no complaint about that but seek only to draw attention to it. The differential for the married couple rate in existing terms was 60p. Under the new proposed weekly rates the differential between long and short term becomes one of £2·10. That is an increase in the scale of the differential from about 5 per cent. to about 13 per cent. We are glad to notice the extent to which the Minister of State's recognition of the legitimacy of selective wisdom has had its part to play in the construction of the Bill
  The House will be familiar with what the Government Actuary says in paragraph 12 of the report on the Bill. He points out that the pattern of benefits and contributions that is proposed will mean that there is likely to be a shortfall of some £200 million. I ask the Minister of State to tell the House what will be the consequence of that shortfall. How will it be met? How can the resources be found for the kind of improvements that we all want in the categories which I have mentioned, including the disabled, in the light of the October review? How are the figures to be reconciled? Can he promise on behalf of the Government the publication of a White Paper which will set out the effect of higher earnings, on the one hand, and of higher contributions and higher benefits on the other, so that the House can in due course consider the position as a whole

  477
  when the time comes to consider the consequences of the October review?
  I renew my expression of concern about the impact of the Government's thinking and strategy for the long-term development of occupational pensions under the terms of the 1973 Act. I recognise that it is legitimate, and that it always would be so, to discuss some possible changes in the long-term structure regarding, for example, the position of women. I know the extent to which there is a division of opinion about that. When the right hon. Lady produces her proposals for interim changes I hope that she will give us a clear answer about how far married women will retain the option to pay lower contributions in the context of any changes that she proposes
  I welcome the right hon. Lady's statement that there will be an early statement on the interim changes that she has in mind. I gather that they are by no means root and branch, although not insignificant. I remain concerned about the extent to which she is still promising that in general, and at some unspecified date, there will be a substantial major replacement or change in the provisions of the 1973 Act. In the debates of 28th March the right hon. Lady said:
  " We are committed to replace it, and that remains our long-term policy ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT 28th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 647.]
  That was underlined by an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont). It is that which I find regrettable. It is that which promises us a period of long-term uncertainty, however much the right hon. Lady recognises the importance of the anxieties of those concerned in the industry. I ask her to think seriously about the desirability of continuing that procedure
  I am challenging not what the right hon. Lady has said about the interim changes which she proposes but the prospect of continuing under a long-term shadow of the threat of replacement at the hands of what I must remind the House is a minority Labour Government. That is something that could do extreme damage. It could cause the persistence of confusion for employers and workers and those concerned with advising them on the development of pension schemes. I shall quote from a speech which was
  478
  made by our former colleague, Douglas Houghton in an address to the Financial Times Pension Conference which was held on Wednesday 12th December 1973. Douglas Houghton was then discussing what might happen if the Labour Party were to return to Government at any time when the 1973 Act was on the statute book. He said:
  " While the Labour Party has many criticisms of the present Government's 1973 Act, I am convinced that it would be a great mistake for a Labour Government (should there be one after the next General Election) to suspend the operation of the new scheme. That, I am certain must go on."
  Prophetically he continued:
  " Apart from other reasons, Labour's consideration of its own next step in this field is not yet completed."
  Nor is it yet completed. He continued:
  " The policy document presented to the October conference was tentative and cautious in its commitments. It restated some guiding principles and that was all. The Crossman Scheme of 1970 cannot be revived in anything like its old form."
  A little later he said:
  "I conclude, therefore, that the 1973 Act should stand for a while before embarking on the next move forward. I see no alternative to that in the short run."
  I urge the right hon. Lady in no tendentious or partisan spirit to give close consideration to that advice. I do not challenge what she says about the interim as opposed to the substantial and fundamental changes, but it would be of great service to present and future pensioners to let those concerned with arranging better provisions be given consideration, and to let that part of the provisions for the people who are or who will be in substantial need go ahead on the basis of that which was enacted in the last Parliament. That would be a great service which the right hon. Lady could perform, and I urge her strongly to do so
  5.44 p.m
  Mr. E Fernyhough: The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that the great new dawn did not begin in March 1974. I should like to tell him that it certainly did not begin in June 1970. If he cares to look back at all the social legislation which has meant so much to the ordinary people he will find that, with an odd exception, it all belongs to Labour Governments.

  479
  It was a Labour Government in 1948 who brought in the Health Service Act; it was a Labour Government in 1948 who abolished the workhouses; it was a Labour Government who substantially raised pensions, who brought in permanent sick pay for permanently sick people without any reductions, who abolished the means test for the unemployed, who brought in wage-related benefits who increased widows pensions—
  Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away by his historical enthusiasm. Wage-related benefits were introduced by Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he now is
  Mr. Fernyhough: That iscorrect. We introduced redundancy payments. If we look at the long list of benefits which have accrued to the ordinary people it will be seen that nine-tenths of them are the result of a Labour Government
  Mrs. Lynda Chalker: What about 1964–70?
  Mr. Fernyhough: We introduced redundancy payments. Thousands of workers in the hon. Lady's constituency were very grateful that we did so
  The right hon. and learned Member said that he was concerned about the nation's capacity to meet this bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did more through his speeches at the Dispatch Box to poison industrial relations than almost anyone else. I hope he realises that without a Bill of this magnitude and generosity we could not get in the mines, the workshops and the factories the kind of atmosphere we need if Britain is to be able not only to pay this bill but to overcome the legacy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends left to us
  Of course, there must be a viable basis. That will depend upon co-operation between employer and employee. We can fix all the pension rates we like but at the end of the day what we are able to produce determines largely not only what pensions will be paid but our standard of living generally. If we had not introduced the Bill two things would have happened. First, we would have broken our pledged word. The Government were committed to this. Secondly, the reaction
  480
  among those upon whom we substantially depend for the increased productivity which the nation needs would have been very bitter
  We have to look at the Bill in the context of the impact it will have in the mines, workshops and factories. This Bill makes the ordinary British worker feel that he has a Government who are paying attention to the things about which he has been arguing. Even though there may be a price to pay, he is prepared to pay it because he sees in the Bill a measure of redistribution and greater fairness
  I was alarmed by the interventions of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who questioned the speed at which we plan to take this Bill through the House. The hon. Member has been here for a long time. He was a member of a party which, when in Government, suddenly discovered that all our soldiers in Northern Ireland had been acting illegally. In one day we enacted a Bill, which was disposed of by 10 p.m., to give our soldiers the legality which they had not had. That Bill raised fundamental issues but everyone knew that it was necessary to give protection to our soldiers. There was no real objection to its being rushed through
  Similarly, this Bill will mean a lot for a lot of people. If we do not get it as quickly as my right hon. Friend wishes it will mean that many old people, pensioners, war pensioners, the disabled and so on, will not be getting the benefits they expected as quickly as they expected. As a consequence, they will feel let down. It will be no innovation if the Bill leaves the House tonight in exactly the same way as it is now printed, without any amendments. There were no amendments made to the European Communities Act, nor to the Industrial Relations Act when they were passing through the House. Furthermore, both of those measures had a guillotine imposed upon them. I cannot see why the Opposition should feel that they are not being given a fair crack of the whip because we are trying to get this Bill through in one day's sitting
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we in this House have to deal with the Bill in one day whereas the Government have arranged that in the other place the Bill

  481
  should be tackled over the space of a fortnight?
  Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that from tomorrow we are going away for a fortnight. Perhaps he would have preferred the Easter Recess to have been shortened. He may nod in agreement with that, but I am sure that he speaks only for himself. That much was proved yesterday, because the Opposition could have voted to shorten the recess so that there would have been more time to discuss the Bill. They did not do so. There is nothing new in legislation of this magnitude being pushed through quickly
  I accept that there are administrative difficulties. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House for a long time. I remember a time when Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he now is, was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. It took about seven months from the time that he introduced a Bill to the actual paying out of pensions. I remember that at that time I was in the home of an old collier. He was putting his noughts and crosses and his ones and twos on a piece of paper. He said to me "You know, Ernie, it is absolutely marvellous. Littlewoods tomorrow will get millions of these. It will not be until 5 o'clock on Saturday afternoon that they will know who has got anything to come, and yet by Monday everybody will have had it." I thought "Why cannot we introduce some kind of system which will enable us to pay out benefits as quickly as Littlewoods and Vernons? They have a lot of calculating to do but are able to send out, having gone through millions of coupons within 48 hours, the money that people expect."
  Sir G. Howe: We all relish expedition on this scale within the social security system but it is fair to remember that most unhappily for most of us, Little-woods and Vernons pay out to only a tiny selected minority
  Mr. Fernyhough: But they have to examine millions of documents to see whether anyone has got anything coming. I am welcoming the fact that for pension increases we have almost halved the time normally taken. This is a step in the right direction. I hope that when my right hon. Friend introduces the next Bill, which I am sure will be within the next
  482
  12 months, she will have halved the time again so that we shall be getting much nearer to the point that I was making
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating private enterprise instead of nationalisation for paying out pensions?
  Mr. Fernyhough: If war broke out today. we would move millions of children and call up millions of Service men by next week, otherwise we would have a revolution. It would not be possible to call up millions of Service men and say "You will have to wait six months before you get your pay"
  Of course we would do it. I am glad that we have halved the time. What I am saying is that I hope that when my right hon. Friend introduces her next Bill the time will be halved again
  I welcome the Bill. I know that it will be welcomed by the country. I hope that it will be given a quick and unopposed Second Reading because I believe that this is what the people of the country expect of the Labour Government. We are keeping faith, and if we do that, there is no question that whenever the next election takes place we shall still he on these benches
  5.58 p.m
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) finished as he began, using the Bill as the basis for a short flag-waving exercise on behalf of the Labour Party, making some rather sweeping claims for the unique virtue of his party's attitude to social security which raised eyebrows on this side. Let me set his mind at rest. I shall not today attempt to detract from his flag waving
  I begin by welcoming the fact that the Government feel able to produce such a massive increase in national insurance benefits and produce such a shift of resources to retired persons and those dependent on benefits generally. All of us in this House, certainly all those who take part in these debates, clearly share a general commitment to the alleviation of poverty and the position of the groups we are dealing with today. However, I trust that when the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party have got their flag waving off their chest they

  483
  will continue their policy on a considered basis and attempt to keep up the record
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): If the hon. Gentleman listened to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27th March and looked at the terms of the Bill, he must know that for the first time there is a commitment written into legislation that pensions will in future be upgraded in line with the movement in national average earnings
  Mr. Clarke: I realise that in the Bill the Government have committed themselves statutorily to an annual review and therefore to keeping and maintaining the present position they have reached. If it turns out that they have committed themselves to more than they might have achieved had they not put in that statutory obligation, instead of their again not being able to maintain the improvement of benefits at all this time—as happened under the last Labour Government—they may get themselves into even more difficulty in trying to keep to that obligation, with which they have burdened themselves and successive Governments
  Those doubts are not likely to materialise, I trust, but there is this background. Under the last Labour Government we found ourselves in a similar position politically. In 1964 the Labour Party came into office having overbid the previous Conservative Government and put into its election patform an attractive commitment to increase national insurance benefits, with a particular commitment to pensioners. One of the first actions of the Labour Government when they took office in 1964 was to produce legislation giving effect to their election commitment. There was a considerable increase in the real purchasing power of the pension and other associated benefits
  I will not enter into the arguments as to whether that rapid commitment in the circumstances of the time led in some measure to the financial crisis which later dogged the Labour Government but, sadly, they were never able to carry on from the particular base they had set themselves in 1964. There was a massive increase in the purchasing power of the retirement pension in 1964, but that purchasing power vis-à-vis prices remained
  484
  absolutely static for the six years that followed
  Since 1970 there has been not a sudden acceleration at any one stage but a steady improvement of the purchasing power of benefits alongside prices. We on this side gradually accepted a commitment to keep those benefits going up at least as fast as prices and finally, after a considered period, saddled ourselves with a statutory commitment to an annual review to keep benefits in line with prices. It was not a sudden surge on that occasion. It was a continual improvement and an extremely respectable record over four years
  Now we find ourselves in some ways in a similar position to that of 10 years ago, when the Labour Party then took over. The Conservative Government had won a great deal of respect and support amongst those people who were benefiting from what we were doing, but Labour overbid what we did and have begun their social policy, as they began last time, by putting into effect what is merely an election commitment-—an election slogan—which I believe began as a gleam in the eye of Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union in his attempts to improve the public relations of his union at difficult political times
  Nevertheless, the Labour Government have overbid what was happening before to a slight but appreciable extent. I concede that what they are doing exceeds modestly our commitment—the review based on prices on a six-monthly basis—and they are, therefore, now going to bring in this new obligation. They are placing upon themselves and on successor Governments a statutory obligation which future Governments will have to live with. That very statutory obligation seems to me, with respect, to be entirely based on sheer overbidding of what we were doing. Something had to be found for the election platform. Our statutory obligation was to keep benefits in line with prices. The Labour Government have now brought in the proposal to keep benefits in line with average wages or prices, whichever is the most beneficial for those in receipt of benefits. They have accepted that obligation quickly—so quickly, indeed, that the right hon. Lady had to accept that she had not had time to consider detailed policy

  485
  problems and needed further legislation to sort out long-term priorities
  The right hon. Lady had no time to deal with detailed choices of priorities and small amendments that could have been made. She has not the resources to do very much to the substance of the National Insurance Scheme this time. The Committee stage of the Bill might as well be truncated because so much is swallowed up by this election commitment that, where there are gaps in the present system, no resources have been left which the House could possibly use to plug them
  The Labour Party found itself in opposition from 1970 to 1974 with a not very good record in government. It faced a Conservative Government who were achieving success with social policy. Now, the Labour Government have launched out on policy based on an election commitment. They must settle down now to the serious business of relating their social policy to the resources of Government expenditure and to a slightly more —if I may say so without sounding too patronising—responsible approach to the development of social policy than this particular legislation represents
  Finally I visualise, even in the short term, some difficulties being faced in taking on the burden and the obligation which is implicit in this legislation and this review of benefits. One matter I should like the Minister to deal with is the way in which the national insurance contributions have been raised, the method which has been used and which has placed such a heavy increase upon the employer
  I am not today advocating that the House should oppose doing this. I am not suggesting that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading because of the expense of any feature of the contribution problem. However, what the Government are doing in the Bill already indicates the difficulties that we shall get into in financing this sort of commitment entered into on such a blanket basis because of an electoral slogan
  The large increase in the employer's contribution is a payroll tax and, as there are many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side who genuinely believe in the fiscal merits of payroll taxation, I hope that the Minister will face
  486
  up to that and give us some justification for the way in which so much of the burden has been put on the employers. A payroll tax of nearly 50p is being placed on employers. That is what is underlining this change. There was much advocacy in the Labour Party for a payroll tax before the Budget. That is what is presented here. This is the beginning of a payroll tax, one that will have a significant impact on some small employers
  I ask the Minister to give us some straightforward justification of the basis of a payroll tax and to tell us how his Government felt able to embark on it in the form of these increased national insurance contributions. Also, in the light of the Labour Government's experience of selective employment tax, can the Minister reassure the House on the likely effects on employment of such a sudden increase in the employer's contributions, particularly as regards the lower paid, those nearing retirement and those groups in marginal employment who proved to be so badly affected under selective employment tax? Will the Minister review the principle of this if there is the possibility of a downturn in demand, a recession in the economy or an increase in unemployment over the coming year? It is an important change in the burden of taxation
  I hope that the Minister will not simply repeat what was said in the Budget Statement about merely bringing employers into line with the continental level of contributions, because that comparison cannot be made without bearing in mind the other level of corporate taxation on employers on the Continent
  I hope the Minister will accept that in effect the Government have chosen—perhaps they are able to defend themselves and to justify it—a payroll taxation basis for financing a substantial part of the burden of the Bill, and I hope that he will deal quite straightforwardly with that part of the matter when he replies to the debate
  6.8 p.m
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill forward so early in this Parliament. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that we cannot afford this measure. I will not deny that the

  487
  country is in a financial and economic mess. We inherited that situation from the Tories. However, I remind the hon. Member that a similar situation existed at the end of the war when Sir Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister, told the American Presidential Adviser, Mr. Morgenthau, that Britain was bankrupt. Despite the financial bankruptcy of the nation, in 1945 the Labour Government introduced the Welfare State. The Labour Government passed the National Insurance Act 1946, despite the financial, economic and industrial problems of those days. That Act introduced the most imaginative and generous system of comprehensive social security that this country had ever known
  The 1945 Government established the Welfare State and we in Wales are very proud of the fact that it was two Welsh Ministers who were responsible for the great amount of social legislation that went through that Parliament. Jim Griffiths, as Minister of National Insurance, and the late Nye Bevan. as Minister of Health, played a leading part in putting that vast social legislation on the statute book. There were measures governing national assistance and national insurance for industrial injury and the National Insurance Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has given a long catalogue of the achievements of the Labour Government, and it was in those early days that this vast programme of social legislation was put forward
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Beveridge Report and knows that the Welfare State he was talking about was the subject of all-party approval
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, that is the next item. The legislation was put forward because of the demand created during the war years in the fight against Fascism. Those who wanted to fight the evil in Europe also wanted to fight the evil conditions in Britain in the prewar years. The Beveridge Report was the result of deliberations of a committee set up by Lord Greenwood, who was Minister without Portfolio in the Coalition Government, with the agree-
  488
  ment of all parties. The Beveridge Report had a tremendous response from the people of Britain at that time because they wanted radical changes
  If, however, the hon. Gentleman looks back to the debates that took place at that time, he will find that there was then, as there is now, a great division between the Tory Party and the Labour Party, because, although we say that we want things done and we do them, the Tory Opposition say that they are desirable but always find excuses for not doing them
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While he is referring to the implementation of the Beveridge Report, the hon. Gentleman might pay a slight tribute to the Americans for financing it via Marshall Aid
  Mr. Evans: I do not know whether that is relevant to a national insurance debate, but we have allowed the hon. Lady to make her point
  Great progress was made during the 1945 Labour Government. But the two periods of Tory Government, 1951 to 1964 and 1970 to 1974, acted as a brake on the building of the Welfare State that had been established in 1946. Whereas from 1945 to 1950 Britain could claim to be leading the rest of Europe in provisions in the social services and national insurance benefits, many European countries are now ahead of us in such provisions
  Once again we have a Labour Government, unfortunately a minority Government. Just as in 1945 we had a Labour Government to clear up the aftermath of the war, and just as in 1964 after a 13-year period of Tory Government we had to deal with financial difficulties, so in 1974 we have to clear up the accumulated difficulties in our economic and social affairs brought about by one of the most disastrous administrations the country has ever seen
  In 1974 we do not have the ravages of war that we had in 1945; we do not have a deficit of £700 million as we had in 1964. We now have to deal with a deficit running at the rate of £4,000 million, which is our inheritance from the Tory Government
  As they have said, there is all the reason in the world for the Government

  489
  to take the line of least resistance and to avoid fulfilling their promises to national insurance beneficiaries and pensioners. Over 11½ million people will benefit as a result of the Bill. First, we have the financial difficulties which I have mentioned. Secondly, we do not even have a majority in the House to ensure that we get the Bill through
  Despite that, and with great political courage, day by day the Government are endeavouring to meet their commitments to the people. That is why the Government will go down in history as endeavouring to fulfil their promises. Here we have an argument from hon. Members opposite to renege on our promises. The Tories are experts at that
  We said that we would introduce strict price controls on essential foods. Under the Prices Bill, £500 million is to be provided to subsidise essential foods. That will help the pensioners particularly, as well as every one else, by stabilising prices. We said that we would prevent the rent increases that were pending. The present Housing Minister's first action was to impose a freeze on all rents, both public and private, until the end of 1974. That will help the pensioners who are not in receipt of a rent rebate. We said not only how we would spend the money but how we would raise it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a programme of tax reforms. Within three weeks of taking office he has introduced a Budget to reverse the inequalities between rich and poor. The wealth tax is already announced to be on the way, and in the meantime a new gift tax is in operation. That will go some way towards the provision of the Government finance needed to meet the commitment in the Bill
  One of the most important promises that Labour made as a party was the pledge that the standard rate of pension would be raised immediately to £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple. Thereafter the pension is to be firmly linked to average national earnings. These pensions, as my right hon. Friend has already said, will mean the biggest increase in the history of the national insurance scheme. If the Bill goes through all its stages, 22nd July will be the earliest date from which those increases will be paid. Furthermore, we are giving
  490
  the same increases to people receiving long-term supplementary benefits
  The influence of the trade union movement on all this has been mentioned. This is a demand made by the old-age pensioners. They have said that this is what they feel that we as a nation should be providing for them in order to meet their difficulties. I am pleased that the trade union movement, the Transport and General Workers' Union, Jack Jones and the TUC have said that they wish the Government to make the sort of provision that is being made today
  There are sometimes accusations against the trade unions that they are concerned only with their own interests. Here they are, however, supporting an overdue social measure, and that is why I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward the Bill so early in this Parliament
  Finally, may I say how much I regretted in the debate on the Queen's Speech to find that the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists were opposing the Bill by opposing the Queen's Speech itself. I do not know whether they are familiar with the working of Parliament. They voted against the Government's legislative programme, and had there been enough Members to support them in their Lobby the Government would have been defeated. We should have needed another General Election, and we should not have had the Bill before us today. I think, therefore, that the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists have a lot to account for to the people of Wales and Scotland to explain their opposition to the Bill
  I am aware that the other parties in the House have expressed dissatisfaction that there has not been more time to look at the Bill line by line and clause by clause. I hope they realise that while it might put us to some inconvenience to be debating this matter all through the night, as it may well be if many Members participate, the inconvenience to us will be little compared with the inconvenience to old-age pensioners if the Bill is not passed at the earliest opportunity
  I hope, therefore, that the Second Reading will go through promptly, that we shall deal with the Committee stage promptly and that once more Parliament will have played its part in ensuring that

  491
  the country again re-establishes the Welfare State and makes the provision for old people that is wanted by everyone
  6.20 p.m
  Mr. Robert Boscawen(Wells): The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) must have spent a long period in hibernation while he was not a Member of the House. During the past three and a half years the Conservative Government raised the level of pensions by 55 per cent., which is almost double the increase during the period for which the uprating Bill is being produced today. I therefore do not understand how the hon. Gentleman could talk all that rot and bore the House in that way. He had better return to his period as a dormouse. We should be better for it
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), I should like to make my protest at the fact that the Bill is being rushed through in such an incredibly short period. This Second Reading debate is an enormous travesty of what a Second Reading debate should be on such a wide and vitally important subject. It affects a large number of people but not quite everybody as well and as justly as it should. We should have liked to have had a good deal of time in Standing Committee, as happened with all previous uprating Bills introduced by the former Government, in order to improve these provisions
  Mr. O'Malley: There is much to be said for Bills of this nature going to Standing Committee for detailed consideration. The stark fact is that had that happened we would have been unable to put the increased benefits into payment on 22nd July. That is why the Bill is being handled in the way it is today
  Mr. Boscawen: I do not think that is a very satisfactory answer. We could have had a Committee stage upstairs if we had had a Second Reading last week. Secondly, the right hon. Lady suggested that she wanted the House to clarify its ideas on the Bill to help her staff to introduce it. I cannot see that the House can clarify its ideas on this enormous Bill in such a short time
  We welcome what I regard as a magnificent uprating Bill. It goes a very
  492
  long way to helping a large number of people. However, I think there is a danger that, by devoting such a large sum to this wide sweep, on pensions only, the needy groups, the smaller groups and the lesser groups will be forgotten. Once they are forgotten they are apt be pushed behind, as we know from experience. I will mention one or two of these groups later. There is a danger when such a large sum is devoted to the flat-rate increase of the retirement pension and other benefits
  I turn to some of the casualties that may suffer from such an uprating. The first thing that I do not think is good is the increase in the supplementary benefit at exactly the same rate as the retirement pension, because the tendency will be to increase the number of people on supplementary benefit. We all know that that happens. We are not saying that we are ashamed of it, but it is essential in the system. We wish to see the means-tested supplementary benefit phased out. It could have been dealt with by widening the differential between the two, by not raising the supplementary benefit quite so high but saving money by doing it—putting it on by increasing the pension a little. In that way we could gradually have moved away from the means-tested benefit, because at some stage it must be done
  The tax-credit scheme gets away from the means-tested benefit for those at the higher end of the scale but not for those at the bottom end. I had hoped for new ideas from the Government on that subject. This is one casualty of rushing the Bill. Another issue is that we must study further the question of the married woman's option. We must consider the difference between two single persons contributing in full and drawing their retirement benefit. On the one hand a person gets £20, while on the other hand the married woman who has taken her option draws £16. There is thus a difference of about 25 per cent., and this situation has not been changed
  No great thought has been given in recent years to the difference in needs of the single person living in a house alone and of two people living together. That needs more study. Is the differential between the married couple in which the woman opts out and the married couple

  493
  in which the woman is counted as a single person correct? I think that that should be considered and I should like to hear the views of the Minister, who I know takes a great interest in the matter
  Another matter—a detail but one which will concern many people—is the terrific increase in the contributions of the self-employed and the non-employed. I am thinking especially of the woman who cares for aged parents or relatives. She will continue to struggle to keep up her contributions so that when her parents or relatives have passed on she will be able to draw a reasonable pension in her own right. This is a harsh increase in contributions. Some of these people, the non-employed—in name only —and the self-employed, are amongst the poorest in the country. Self-employed people are hit hard from many angles such as unemployment benefit and rent and rate rebates. This is a matter that the House ought to examine carefully in Committee
  I am concerned that nothing has been done about grants. Occupants of the Front Bench know that I am especially concerned about the death grant, which has not been increased. When in opposition the Labour Party supported us in trying to get this improved. I am concerned about the small group of aged, needy people who do not get the grant at all, or who get it at a reduced rate. I hope to bring that matter up in Committee
  All in all, though we welcome the broad sweep of the Bill, we may well find it detrimental to a number of small groups of people. It was those small groups for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) did so much during the three and a half years we were in office. My right hon. Friend tried to extend the frontiers of aid to small, needy groups of all kinds, in particular to the most needy group, the long-term chronically sick and disabled. That represents a casualty of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing a good deal more from the Government—if unfortunately they are to remain in office—about what they will do to help the long-term disabled
  6.30 p.m
  Mr. Bruce George: I am proud to be speaking from the Gov-
  494
  ernment benches so soon after my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), who represents the constituency in which I spent most of my early life. I welcome him back to the House, and I assure hon. Members that, with his 11,000 majority and because he is such an able Member of Parliament, there is little prospect of his returning to hibernation for a long time to come
  I shall be brief. I wholeheartedly endorse the Bill. The Opposition apparently have condemned it for the speed of its introduction. All I can say at this stage is that my constituents would not agree with that condemnation. When I return to my constituency at the weekend, they will be delighted to tell me how pleased they are that this measure has been introduced so speedily
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare and I represent areas which knew poverty 30 or 40 years ago and still experience it today. It is easy to think that in this modern age poverty has vanished. It may have in some constituencies, but certainly not in many constituencies represented on this side of the House
  The Bill will not eliminate the problems of poverty, but it will go some way towards solving many problems. The Bill is not confined to one narrow area. Some people may think it is confined to old-age pensioners, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that widows' benefits are to be increased. I believe that in the past widows have been sadly neglected, and when canvassing at the election many hon. Members were made more than aware of the inequalities and of how people felt about the law relating to widows and widows' benefits
  I am pleased that the earnings rule for widows is to be changed, and I hope that in the not-too-distant-future this rule will be relaxed even further
  I listened with great interest to what Opposition Members said they had done for the poor and for the underprivileged, but the fact is that they managed to throw more people into the area of poverty than had been done for more than a century. Independent research has shown that about one in five of the population today are living on, just below or just above the poverty line. That is not an indictment of the previous Government; it is an

  495
  indictment of Governments in general that in 1974 we still have, and apparently still tolerate, such a large proportion of our population living in poverty
  Mr. Timothy Raison: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that every time the supplementary benefit rates are raised, by definition one automatically increases the number of people living at or below the poverty line? Is he arguing that the supplementary benefit rate should not be increased?
  Mr. George: No. Clearly, the definition of poverty and the poverty line varies considerably. It depends how one defines it
  Pensioners are pleased with what has happened. It may be that the present pension proposals originated in the glint of one person's eye, but I think probably not, because at a time of economic crisis the Government realised that they had to honour the pledges that they had made to the electorate just a few weeks ago. At a time of economic crisis it is not right to say that we should not raise benefits. A time of economic crisis and inflation is the very time at which we should look after those who are least able to look after themselves
  In an article published a short time ago, Mr. Frank Field a spokesman for the Child Poverty Action Group, said:
  "The Government deserves credit for increasing pensions and other benefits .. This represents a real boost in the incomes of a large number of poor people, and has been accomplished at a time of severe economic difficulties."
  We have been accused by hon. Gentlemen opposite of over bidding. We have not done that. I am proud that, despite the problems facing the Government—problems that are not of their making—they have decided to embark on something that will be expensive, that will not be simple to finance, but something about which many people outside the House—pensioners, the disabled and those who do not enjoy salaries of £4,500 a year and more—will be elated
  6.36 p.m
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends I welcome the pension increases, but I share the disquiet of my hon. Friend
  496
  the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that the Bill is not as just as it should be. I feel strongly, like my hon. Friend, that we should have been able to discuss the Bill at greater length in the wider context of Government spending. There are many people in my constituency, for instance, who feel that the money being spent on free contraceptives for schoolgirls and other unmarried people would have been better spent on raising the death grant for the very elderly or providing a death grant for those over 90 years old who get no grant at all
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Does not the hon. Lady think that it would be more honourable if she conceded that her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) intended to introduce free a contraceptive scheme?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: That is not in the least true. The hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed. My right hon. Friend stuck firmly to his guns in making prescription charges for contraceptives except for socially necessitous people who required them. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his belief. My constituents feel strongly about this matter
  When I was canvassing during the General Election campaign—I go round from door to door between elections, not only during election campaigns —I found that the people I met preferred the steady approach that the Conservatives had to the improvement of welfare and benefits to the once-for-all, flash-in-the-pan approach of the previous Labour Government to which reference has already been made
  One provision that has been missed out of the Bill but which was greatly appreciated by many people—a large number have mentioned it to me—was the £10 Christmas bonus. I hope that the money now being spent has not pre-empted that particularly useful provision
  I look too at the £500 million to be spent on food subsidies which is the equivalent of £62·50 per pensioner. One wonders whether an indiscriminate subsidy of that dimension across the board is good value for money. I shall not detain the House further, because I know that we have a great deal of work to get

  497
  through, but I submit that we should have had a chance to discuss the Bill in much greater detail
  6.39 p.m
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has been com mendably brief and I shall try to emulate her example
  I have taken part in several debates on this subject, and they become somewhat like auction marts. It is not a bad thing, I believe, for the parties to compete in this sphere if it improves the lot of those who deserve help. That is what both parties have done. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), my right hon. Friend's predecessor. He did what he could in his own light and he has a record of which he need not be ashamed. That is not to say that another party cannot do better. Indeed, it should try to do better. I have no doubt that after the next election the Government in power will do better still. This is the essence of progress in our Welfare State
  The important principle that tends to be overlooked is that for the first time the pension will be tied to average earnings. It simply means that for the first time in our history pensioners will have union bargaining power. This is an important principle far outweighing the figures enshrined in the Bill
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) about the Bill going into Committee. All Bills should have detailed examination. It is not a convincing argument that if we are to get the increases in the agreed time we must get through all stages in one day, because we could have a retrospective clause. We could have a full Committee stage on the understanding that the proposed increases should be retrospective to Second Reading or the day on which the Committee stage began
  Many people are interested in these matters, and inevitably there is criticism about exclusions. The death grant has been mentioned. Indeed it is mentioned repeatedly in every debate on social security. Of course, other priorities have also been mentioned
  The hon. Member for Lancaster referred to contraceptives. I do not think
  498
  that was part of our social contract with the trade unions. This Bill is part of it. The whole success of the exercise depends on the other party to the social contract, or compact delivering the goods
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) rightly said that unless we produce the wealth we cannot distribute it, still less redistribute it. I said earlier that the most important principle enshrined in the Bill was that the pension was related to average earnings. There is a considerable redistributive element in that. The crucial test of a welfare provision is whether it is redistributive. Politics in this House concern how we redistribute the wealth of the nation
  The Bill is an attempt, albeit imperfect and subject to all kinds of criticism, to divert resources from those whom we think have too much to those whom we think have too little. The argument across the Floor of the House will always be about who has too much and who has too little. It is one of the basic conflicts between the two major parties
  The Tory Party, generally speaking, looks after the wealthy. A succession of Conservative Government Budgets enshrined this principle. Of course, they give a few crumbs to those who are entitled to family income supplement. That is all right in principle, but it is little more than a crumb of comfort to many people
  The hon. Member for Lancaster referred to the £10 bonus. That was the charity approach by the Tory Party that we found extremely objectionable. It was an admission that the basic pension was inadequate. We want to get rid of the charitable element in social security. I hope we will make a commitment not to give the £10 bonus but to ensure that the pension is adequate to make the bonus element unnecessary
  The Bill is entitled to a fair wind. I hope that we shall not have another such Bill dealt with in this way. I ask that consideration be given to the retrospective element. I do not think that the period between Second Reading and implementation of the provisions of the Bill can be reduced substantially, although we do not know what automation can do. I am sure that a certain element of retrospection will satisfy many people. We do it with wage claims. Surely what

  499
  applies to wage claims should apply to some extent in the social security sphere
  I hope that the Government will bear in mind, when next they introduce a Bill. that it must be examined in detail in Committee and that there might be consideration of the retrospection element
  6.45 p.m
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I sense that the House is anxious to move on to the next stage of the Bill, so I will simply welcome the broad outline of what is contained within it. It would be churlish in the extreme not to pay tribute to the Government for honouring their election commitment as early as they have done. Indeed, there are many parts of the Bill with which few on this side will find it necessary to disagree
  I shall try to adopt a similar tone to that adopted by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). but I slightly challenge one point that he made. He alleged that the £10 Christmas bonus was seen as some kind of charity by hon. Members opposite. I do not accept that. Many hundreds of pensioners to whom I have spoken welcome the receipt of this money and do not see it as charity. I cannot understand why, when we try to improve the situation of pensioners at a time of the year when certain festivities take place by giving them an extra £10, that should be singled out as charity
  I should like to make four points on the Bill. The first concerns the earnings rule. I am disappointed that in a Bill which takes such a wide sweep at the reform of national insurance a rather broader attack on ending the earnings rule has not resulted. I have listened to explanations by Government after Government for the earnings rule not being abolished but simply abated
  I understand that £160 million would be the cost of complete abolition. Therefore, we must be careful not to recommend irresponsibly that this be done. On the other hand, I wonder whether the Government are aware of the intense opposition among many old people to the operation of the earnings rule. They see it as somehow qualifying the independence to which they have looked forward for such a long time. When told that it is the retirement pension and technically
  500
  they have not retired and so it is a fair rule to adopt, few accept it. I wish that there had been a wider attack on the ending of the earnings rule
  Secondly, I refer to maintaining the value of the pension. In this connection I should like to take up another point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He said that to tie the pension to earnings was to bring the bargaining power of trade unions to the side of the pensioners for the first time. Looking back on the period of the Conservative administration, he will find that, far from pensions having just kept pace with earnings, they went ahead faster. I do not have the figures to hand, but I recall that average earnings went up by about 48 per cent. and pensions went up by about 55 per cent. in that period. I do not necessarily dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not wish him automatically to assume that pensioners will do better under that rule under his Government than by the approach of the previous administration
  Thirdly, I refer to the reviewing of pensions. The idea of constantly reviewing pensions is accepted on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the former Secretary of State for Social Services, introduced that innovation in 1971. The Conservative Party, in its election manifesto, indicated that in future pensions and benefits should be reviewed at six-monthly intervals. I regret that the Government have not taken advantage of introducing that proposal into the Bill. In a period of almost unprecedented inflation, which hits very hard the section of the community about which we are concerned in the Bill, reassurance on the maintenance of the value of pensions and benefits on a regular basis, as proposed by the Conservative Party in its election manifesto. would be extremely welcome
  I wish to echo the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) about the death grant. I deeply regret that this has been omitted from the Bill. I hope that the Minister of State, for whom I have considerable regard, will not be too put out if I recall the passion with which he attacked the Conservative Government for failing to increase the death grant in the 1972 or

  501
  1973 uprating Bill, a point on which he was supported by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
  I was one of those Government back benchers who on that occasion, with some temerity, abstained and also voted against the Government to express dissatisfaction on the matter. I hope the Minister of State will understand how disappointed we are, with all those election promises of the Labour Party being implemented, to find that one which goes to the very heart of poverty is still not being enforced. I know that Rome was not built in a day, and that will probably be the line adopted by the Minister in reply, but was no thought given to introducing temporary assistance to those in greatest need? Could consideration not have been given to increasing the death grant where the deceased or the beneficiary was in receipt of supplementary benefits?
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) accused us two years ago of paying only £30 when £70 was the average cost of a funeral. It will not have escaped his notice that with inflation continuing apace the cost is now closer to £100. I hope that the Minister will come back on this point as quickly as possible with a recommendation for an increase.
  I turn now to a subject which I raised with my own Government, the failure to extend any of the benefits outlined in the Bill to British citizens resident abroad. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to this point. In the last Parliament the Labour side tended to dismiss it as an attempt to provide benefits for people living in Spain and Portugal who did not require them. I say with all possible compassion that this is demonstrably not so. These people have no Member of Parliament, and since I championed their cause I have received vast quantities of correspondence. I have letters which I should be delighted to show the Minister which reveal that much hardship is suffered by people who may have gone to those countries almost entirely for health reasons and now find, with inflation rampant, that they still receive only the pension which prevailed in this country when they left. Very real hardship is being experienced.
  Like their predecessors, the Government are being blind to these cases. Many of these people are faced with the simple choice of continuing to press
  502
  for an increase in the pension or returning to this country and becoming a burden on the National Health Service. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will be able to say what progress has been made in the discussions between Britain and Spain and Portugal on a reciprocal agreement. If there is no likelihood of that agreement bearing fruit in the near future I hope that the Government will be prepared to take interim measures to protect this section of British society which feels it has been long neglected.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for his generous remarks about the Government's endeavours in the Bill. I add my congratulations to those already offered to the team that was responsible for preparing the Bill and thus implementing the Labour Party's General Election pledge. It is a healthy sign when all parties are competing to see who can do best in social services. The former Government's health and social security team tried hard and endeavoured to do a good job. Ironically, their greatest adversaries were sometimes sitting alongside them, and in that respect their endeavours were indeed brave.
  We must not be too complacent about our progress so far. The massive social reforms which were introduced by James Griffiths and Aneurin Bevan are now 25 years old, and progress since their day has been far too slow. The political parties may be prepared to compete, but often the real pressure is exerted by people outside the House of Commons. I wonder whether the time has not arrived to accept that there are people pf retirement age who are frustrated from contributing to the economy by the earnings rule. I congratulate the Government on easing that situation, but the time has now come to abolish that rule.
  In spite of our economic troubles and the prices problems, we must now move on to the ultimate stage of abolishing the contributory element under which the employer and the worker buy a fancy-coloured stamp which is subsequently defaced. We must move to the simple solution produced by Nye Bevan, in spite of the blandishments of the experts,

  503
  of a free comprehensive health service. The health service should be paid for out of general taxation and should cover all aspects of health from the cradle to the grave.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The Bill in some ways takes a useful step towards making contributions more equitable with a reduction of the flat-rate contribution by 9p, the raising of the upper limit below which graduated contributions are to be paid, the increase in the percentage of graduated contributions, and so on. These are moves in the right direction but I should like to see a further move along that road. I should like to see measures introduced into the graduated contribution system by which the lower paid would pay less and the higher paid more. Eventually I should like to see the flat-rate contribution, which is nothing more than a form of poll tax, eliminated. I want to see emphasis on the principle of payment according to ability and receipt according to need.
  The increases are extremely welcome. This is the largest single rise ever and it represents the fulfilment of clear election pledges. The Government have linked the increases with average earnings rather than with the retail price index. These things are extremely welcome.
  However, we must be careful not to be carried away by euphoria. Figures in April last year showed that the lowest average earnings for male manual workers over 21 years were £37 a week. Even using these figures, which are almost a year old, the new pension for a married couple is only 43 per cent. of that amount. It must now be below 40 per cent. if one is to take the latest lowest average earnings figure.
  We must not only keep pace with rises in earnings but we must over the years increase the percentage which pensions and other benefits represent in relation to earnings. I welcome the Bill for its increased benefits and because it is a clear fulfilment of election promises and moves towards a greater redistributive element in contributions, but let us never be satisfied with our progress in this sector.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: The debate this afternoon reminded me of something which was apparent in the last Parliament. Day in and day out in discussion of social policy Conservative back benchers had much more to contribute than Labour back benchers. Anyone who has heard today's debate will acknowledge that there has been from the Opposition a string of speeches with important and relevant points, whereas the greater part of Government backbench contributions consisted of either references to admirable figures such as Aneurin Bevan and Jim Griffiths or pure party polemics.
  I exempt from that criticism the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who made a reasoned speech, but he may be in for a little disappointment when he stays to hear discussion on the tying of the pension to average earnings. The clause relating to that shows that the matter is not as simple as he thinks.
  The Opposition welcome the uprating embodied in the Bill. I congratulate, in her absence, the Secretary of State on her achievement. When we have listened to her during the last few weeks, the right hon. Lady has reminded us from time to time of a magniloquent actress carrying out a series of farewell engagements. But we respect her and hope that the day of her retirement comes soon and that she enjoys the pretty village in my constituency, where no doubt she will be spending it.
  If I were a Secretary of State for Education and Science I would not share the enthusiasm which has been felt on the Government side. It is evident in the short time of this administration that while the Secretary of State for Social Services has scooped the pool, the Department of Education has had nothing at all.
  We must recognise that the Bill raises problems. There will be imposed on industry a heavy burden—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was right to stress this—at a time when there are serious problems in industry regarding profitability. Higher contributions will do nothing to case the situation and they could also hit hard some self-employed people.

  505
  In the strategy of which the Bill is part, the commitment to massive food subsidies seems particularly perverse. If £500 million is to be spent on relief for housewives, what could be done if the same amount were spent on family allowances? It is relevant to the discussion of the overall strategy to quote Frank Field, formerly of the Child Poverty Action Group, who stated in an article in The Guardian on 2nd April:
  "It is now clear that the reason why family allowances were not increased in the Budget was that they are given a low priority by the TUC; lower than food subsidies, for example. But not only are food subsidies a less effective way of protecting the living standards of the most vulnerable group—i.e. families with children—than family allowances, but this approach may prove to be a very expensive miscalculation."
  Mr. O'Malley: Before the hon. Gentleman starts complaining or quotes people who say that the Labour Party gives a low priority to family allowances, he should be aware that his party gave no priority at all to family allowances. The late Iain Macleod gave a promise in 1970 to Frank Field and the Child Poverty Action Group, but that promise was never kept.
  Mr. Raison: Our party came up with a tax-credit scheme which represented the most positive way to tackle poverty yet put forward. We welcome the benefits in the Bill, but the Government have got themselves boxed in by a combination of the benefits and their foolish commitment to enormous food subsidies. In spite of what the Secretary of State said, the Government do not have a strategy for family poverty.
  When in opposition, the Secretary of State said in the Standing Committee on the Social Security Act 1973:
  "We want family allowances increased on a statutory basis every year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 1st March, 1973, c 755.]
  The right hon. Lady voted for that, as did the Minister of State, and she slated the family income supplement. She also sought an annual review of death grants and maternity grants, as well as an earnings review. But we are not seeing these things now. Worse still, we see that the tax-credit scheme is being dropped, or is at least disappearing into limbo. What is needed is progress towards the first stage of tax credits, a
  506
  stage at which it would be possible to help families, in particular in regard to the first child. The Government have a vacuum in their social policy rather than a coherent strategy as the Secretary of State has argued.
  We should like to see more encouragement to people drawing benefits to earn as much as possible. We welcome the improvement in the earnings rule, but the time is coming when this should be included in general review procedure. In addition, we should like to see the disabled have a better chance to earn while drawing benefit. We should also like to see general improvements in the disregards for supplementary benefit, which have not changed since 1966. For instance, there is an assumption in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit that modest savings of £1,800 are assumed to provide an income of £6 a week, and £1 of this is disregarded. That is not realistic. Who could derive that income from such a sum? There is also a case for different arrangements concerning disregards for married couples as opposed to single people. These points must be pressed in the months ahead.
  We have severe criticism of the Government's overall social and economic strategy, and during the Committee stage this evening we shall particularly press the question of the six-monthly review. However, taken in isolation we welcome the help given to pensioners and other groups in the Bill and we shall support its Second Reading.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. O'Malley: Listening to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I found it hard to believe that he was speaking for a party which failed so badly over its period in office to look after the interests of families in which child poverty has been endemic and rampant, and failed completely to deal with even the basic financial requirements of retirement pensioners. After the progress which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) claimed for retirement pensioners under the Conservative Government, when his Government went out of office the single retirement pension represented a lower percentage of national average earnings than in 1967, nearly six years before. That was the kind of progress made for pensioners under the Conservative Government.

  507
  Both the hon. Member for Aylesbury and the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) talked about everything but what is in the Bill. They talked about the Budget and family poverty in general but were loth to criticise any details of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Government had no coherent plan on social provision. Our plans for child endowment and our long-term pension plans will certainly not condemn millions of retired people to dependence on means-testing as the Conservative Social Security Act 1973 would have done.
  Many voices have spoken from the Conservative Party tonight. They have not spoken with one voice. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East was careful to welcome the Bill and to make no criticisms of its content, but that was not the case with his back benchers. The provision written into the Bill for guaranteeing pensions to rise in future in line with national average earnings is a new, indeed a historic, feature of legislation in this country, yet the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, apparently, unlike his right hon. and learned Friend, was worried about it. He said that it was not "responsible" financing. That is an example of what the hon. Member for Aylesbury called the superior contributions of Conservative Members—a suggestion that we should move back from a system in line with average earnings to the inferior price-proofing formula of the last Government.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that I was contrasting the way in which we moved over a period to a statutory commitment to a regular annual review in relation to prices and managed to carry out that commitment steadily, having made it as part of a coherent strategy, with the way in which his Government have rushed in with this Bill, immediately, breathlessly, after an election simply to overbid our achievement. I hope that he will read what he has said. His approach is not reassuring me that this commitment, however important, is being undertaken in a responsible fashion.
  Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman is making my task easier by the minute. According to him, this
  508
  Government "rushed in" with a major rescue operation for retirement pensioners, for widows and for other longterm beneficiaries who were in such difficulties as a result of the previous Government's policies. We make no apologies for rushing in; rather the reverse. I am sorry that he apparently does not favour bringing in this substantial increase by 22nd July, the first available date.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: The Minister is making a big point about the last Government's record on pension increases and the commitment of the present Government with respect to average earnings. I think that he will allow that this record demonstrates plainly that, under the last administration, the increase in pensions exceeded the level of the average increase in earnings. He was very selective in his choice of 1967 as the date for his example of what proportion of earnings was represented by the pension. How does the Conservative record compare with late 1969?
  Mr. O'Malley: My figures are not wrong. If we compare the situation in 1969 and that towards the end of the Conservative period of office, we see that there was not a forward progress, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe claimed. In fact, pensioners were gradually but inexorably moving backwards.
  I need not have raised all these contentious matters. I had thought that this debate would be a happy affair and that we should be able warmly to congratulate each other, but hon. Members opposite have made provocative speeches to which I thought it necesary to reply at least in some measure. Public opinion and the opinion of hon. Members generally has given a warm welcome to the Bill. This kind of increase is badly needed by the pensioners.
  I am delighted—I say this in all friendship—that the Conservative Party has changed its mind about whether there should be an uprating to £10 and £16 and whether that was a responsible thing to do. On one of the last occasions on which I was engaged in Parliamentary Questions, I asked the then Parliamentary Secretary, who knew this subject so well during his stay in office:
  "Is it not clear that the best way to help the pensioners is for the Government

  509
  to give an immediate pension increase of £10 for single persons and £16 for married couples? If this Government will not take that step, then after the election the Labour Government certainly will."
  The hon. Gentleman gave me a birthday present when he said in his reply:
  "Would the hon. Gentleman now like to say how much his extravagant promise to the pensioners would cost, and who would pay for it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1429–30.]
  We are keeping that "extravagant promise" and I am delighted that no hon. Member—or almost no hon. Member—believes any longer that it is extravagant. If anyone who wanted to take that view says that this is a U-turn, it is a U-turn which every person of good will in the House can welcome and respect.
  The hon. Member for Rushcliffe asked about the decision that employers should pay what my right hon. Friend described as the lion's share of the cost of the uprating. Employers will be paying 68 per cent. of the total cost, employees 11 per cent. and the Exchequer 18 per cent. So far as our social contract with the trade union movement is concerned, therefore, 86 per cent. of this uprating will be met by Exchequer supplement and the employers, and only 11 per cent. from employees.
  I could enlarge on the justification for that, but what we are doing is strictly in line with what the previous Government did in the Social Security Act 1973, under which, by April 1975, employers would have been paying an annual rate of about £350 million more than under the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Act of 1973 at the current contribution rate. So I do not think that there is any difference between us, as official parties, that employers should be required in future to pay a higher percentage of the total cost than in the past.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) mentioned the death grant. We are very conscious that provision about this is not in this Bill. The hon. Member had no need to remind me and my right hon. Friend of our speeches on this subject. We looked those speeches up when we were considering what could be done in the uprating. Quite simply, apart from the global cost
  510
  of £1,268 million in a full year of the uprating, it was imperative on this occasion to slim down and streamline the legislation as much as possible. That is the basic reason why this is a much simpler Bill than many others of its type. We are concentrating resources on the £10 and the £16 pension.
  The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) took a different view from that of his Front Bench. On 27th March the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East had welcomed the fact that supplementary benefit rates were to be moved in line with pension rates. But the hon. Member for Wells thought that that should not have been so. In a period of rapid inflation such as we are experiencing today, it would have been indefensible to have said to retirement pensioners on supplementary benefit—who, therefore, are by definition the poorest section of retirement pensioners in the community—that they should receive less in total as a result of the uprating than any other section of retirement pensioners. I grant to the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, to get a move and a switch, not only with retirement pensioners but also with other beneficiaries, away from dependence on means-tested supplementary benefit.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East asked about the capacity of the staff to carry through the uprating. The House generally knows the problems of staffing that we have and the problems arising from the complex and sophiscated nature of our social security system. I believe that the staff, on whom we have to rely so much, will do their utmost to see that these pensions and benefits are brought in on the appointed date. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be kept informed of any developments, no doubt he will table Questions, which I should be pleased to answer.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman commented about the fact that short-term benefits had not risen by as much as long-term benefits. That is true, but they will be increased by 17 per cent. over present rates. This increase can be expected, even at the present rate of inflation, to exceed the move in retail prices over the period between the last uprating and the proposed uprating,

  511
  which period covers 10 months. So we are raising these rates by 17 per cent. The previous Government gave an 8·9 per cent. increase in short-term benefits over a period of 12 months.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how we would make good the shortfall mentioned in paragraph 12 of the Government Actuary's Report. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we shall be introducing any necessary legislation and informing the House of how we shall be making good that shortfall.
  Lastly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the future of the Social Security Act 1973. I say two things to him. We have made plain our opposition to the type and level of provision of that Act from the day it was published as a Bill, through all its progress through the House of Commons and subsequently. We are not prepared to see an Act remain on the statute book unamended when it treats women as second-class citizens and condemns millions of our people in retirement—well into the twenty-first century—to having to depend on means-tested benefits of one kind or another.
  It is appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself to consider carefully everything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said on this subject. I know of his pedigree and stable on this matter. Along with Mr. Arthur Seldon, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the "STOP" campaign when the Crossman Bill was going through the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward serious views, and we shall consider them.
  We on the Government benches are not hostile in any sense to the provision of good occupational pension schemes. Such schemes are highly prized, rightly and understandably, by men and women who are fortunate enough to be in good schemes. Therefore, in any future policy emanating from the present Government, that will be one of the basic principles and premises on which we shall operate.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Millions of married women like the married woman's option. Will the Government be depriving them of that option, which we always allowed them?
  Mr. O'Malley: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but it would be wrong on Second Reading of this Bill to indulge in long-term thinking about the shape of future pension schemes, including the married woman's option.
  Mr. McCrindle: On the question of occupational pension schemes, it is important that there should be a message coming forth very clearly from the Government Front Bench tonight to the industry and to the many employers who are now well advanced in making their arrangements under the Social Security Act 1973, accepting that the Government will no doubt want to introduce amendments in accordance with the philosophy which they have outlined over the years. But can the hon. Gentleman at least say that his advice to employers and to people in the pensions industry would be to go ahead with the arrangements for these occupational pension schemes in the knowledge that the basic structure of the Social Security Act is unlikely to be changed?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. O'Malley: I am in communication with many of the most important organisations which are concerned with this matter in the pensions world, and my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, a statement which clearly has to be absolutely consistent with our policies in the past.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is a matter of importance to the House as well as to those concerned with the provision of pensions. I beg the hon. Gentleman to study seriously the speech that I quoted made by his former right hon. Friend, in particular the sentence:
  "If the swing of the political pendulum is to swing the pensions pendulum as well, we may be in for a period of quite appalling uncertainty."
  Will the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do everything possible as quickly as possible to end that uncertainty?
  Mr. O'Malley: Certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce our decisions on our interim proposals affecting the Social Security Act 1973 at the earliest possible date. It would be going further than the contents of this Bill to say more.

  513
  In giving a second reading to the Bill, which I hope the House will do in a few moments' time, we shall be giving a Second Reading to one of the most important measures which the present Government will be introducing in this Parliament, because we are making a beginning with this uprating in transferring resources on a massive scale to the poorer and the older in the community. It is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Dormand.]
  Further Proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1973, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1965 to 1973 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Acts 1967 to 1973 as to the rate or amount of benefit and contributions, it is expedient to authorise the following payments out of money provided by Parliament—

  (1) Such additional payments as result from—

  (a) raising to £8·00 and £5·35 the rates of attendance allowance;

  (b) raising to £6·00 and £3·70 the rates of retirement pension payable by virtue of section 1(1)(a) or (b) of the National Insurance Act 1970 or section 5 of the National Insurance Act 1971 or raising the weekly rates of the increases (where payable) for children or adult dependants.

  (2) In connection with the increase of contributions under section 3 (flat rate contributions) of the National Insurance Act 1965 or under section 2(1)(a) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, the payment of any resulting increase in the sums payable by way of Exchequer supplement under section 7 of the National Insurance Act 1965 or section 2(1)(b) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965.

  (3) The payment to the National Insurance Fund, in addition to the Exchequer supplements under the National Insurance Act 1965, in respect of the financial year 1974–75 of the sum of £315 million instead
  514
  of the amount required by section 2(4) of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Act 1973.

  (4) Subject to the provision made by section 85 of the National Insurance Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund or by section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 for reimbursement out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, the payment of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Secretary of State for Social Services or any other government department which are so payable under either of these sections (any reference in this paragraph to section 61 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 being taken to include that section as applied by section 13 of the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967).

  (5) Subject to the provision made by subsection (4) of section 46 of the Social Security Act 1973 for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund, the payment of any increase in the sums so payable under subsection (2) of that section in respect of the expenses and benefits mentioned in that subsection where the increase is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session substituting a reference to earnings for the reference to prices in section 39(3)(a) of the said Act of 1973 or providing for an order made under the said section 39, in consequence of a review carried out in pursuance of that section in the year beginning on 6th April 1975, to come into force not later than the end of the week beginning with 28th July 1975.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Bill considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Before I call the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to move her amendment to Clause 1, I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that an additional amendment has been tabled to the Bill. The amendment is new Clause 4, entitled "Increase of Death Grant" and is in the names of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). Typed copies of the amendment are available in the Vote Office, together with a printed list of amendments to the Bill. I have decided to select the new clause, which will be called immediately after the debate on Amendment No. 8.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
    Clause 1

      WEEKLY RATES OF BENEFITS UNDER NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS 1965 AND 1966
      7.30 p.m.
      Mrs. Knight: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, at end insert:
      '(2) A woman who has become entitled to any benefits under the Insurance Act and who ceases to be an employed or self-employed person in order to care, without payment, for a member of her family in respect of whom an attendance allowance is payable, and who thereafter ceases to pay any of the contributions which she is liable to pay under Part I of that Act, shall be entitled to benefits under that Act paid at the same rates to which she would have been entitled if she had continued, from the date of her ceasing employment for the purpose referred to above, to pay all the contributions for which she would have been liable'.
      The amendment is an endeavour to help a group which has very few trumpeters on its behalf—the single women. Many disadvantaged groups are, paradoxically and happily, benefited because their disadvantage has been noticed, commented upon and acted upon by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. But the unmarried woman is doubly disadvantaged as very few people seem to care about her predicament. Although the Secretary of State mentioned widows and other groups in her Second Reading speech, she did not mention spinsters. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has left the Chamber and so will not hear what I have to say now on their behalf.
      To make the case for the amendment I should like to cite a constituent who is an unmarried lady of almost 50. She lost her fiancé in the war, and shortly after the war her father died. Because her mother was in indifferent health, she felt it her duty not to leave home but to stay and look after her. For almost 30 years she has looked after her mother at the same time as doing a full-time job. It is not easy, and as her mother has become older and weaker the burden on my constituent has increased. She has to go off to work in the morning having tried to see that the old lady will be all right for the day while she is away.
      One day a week my constituent has a home help, but apart from that the old lady is by herself for all the hours her
      516
      daughter is at work. My constituent is increasingly worried about her mother's condition. She has tried repeatedly over the past two or three years to find someone she can afford to pay to look after her while she is at work, but she has not been able to find such a help.
      My constituent is a trusted and expert employee, with a salary of about £32 a week. She now faces the problem of having no alternative but to give up her job and stay at home to look after her mother, who is nearly 80. The difficulty is that she will be neither unemployed nor sick and, therefore, not capable of drawing any benefit on her own behalf. She will certainly not be self-employed. She will be classed as non-employed Class 3.
      What is my constituent to do about paying her stamp? At the age of nearly 50 she recognises that in 10 years' time she will receive her pension, but unless she pays her stamp herself she will not receive the full pension. She is not too sure exactly what she will receive. Unfortunately, in dropping from a salary of just over £32 a week to nothing she will be in a serious situation and may be eligible for social security. She has not yet had the answer on that matter. I have not checked whether she and her mother own the house in which they live. If not, they may be eligible for rent rebate or help of some kind with the rent and rates.
      All that is certain is that the income going into her house will be her mother's pension and the £6·20 attendance allowance. The attendance allowance is paid at the highest rate, because the mother needs care throughout the day and night. If my constituent's income is less than £520 a year, she can apply for a small income exception and then she can pay a Class 3 contribution. But that is £1·23 a week, which is quite a lot of money for my constituent to find in the circumstances in which she envisages she will he. She feels that she may well not be able to afford to pay that, even if—and there are many "ifs" in this case—she is eligible to come under that rule.
      She still would not be covered for sickness or unemployment if she were to pay the £1·23. Within three or four years the old lady may die, and my constituent may seek another job. If she cannot find one—at her age it may not be all

      517
      that easy—she will not have covered herself by the £1·23 contribution if she becomes unemployed or sick. All that she will receive is her pension entitlement. If she cannot afford to pay at all from now on, leaving her work to look after her mother, I understand that at present rates her pension will be only £6·26 instead of the £7·75 for a woman of 60. On the basis of the Bill the figure for a single woman of 60 will be about £10, but she will draw only about £8 a week. Therefore, if she paid out the £1·23 every week as a Class 3 contribution all she would receive in benefit would be an extra 26p on top of the money she had paid in. That is a very hard position to be in.
      Suppose that my constituent does not give up her job. Suppose she says "I cannot afford to give it up. I do not know how I shall live." She may apply pressure to social workers and others to get her mother into an old persons' home. The latest figures I could obtain for the cost of keeping a person in such a home are for the year 1971–72. The average figure in London was then £17·50 a week and in the provinces it was £16. It is probably much more than that now, and it will certainly be more in the future.
      But this old lady is far from well and, therefore, may not be suitable for an old persons' home. Suppose she has a place in a geriatric hospital. The lowest 1972–73 figure that I could find for the weekly cost of keeping a patient in a geriatric hospital was £39·2. If she is in a geriatric bed in an ordinary hospital, as she might well have to be because of the pressure on beds in geriatric hospitals, the cost to the State will be £91·54 a week.
      Therefore, I feel sure that hon. Members will readily accept my contention that my constituent is saving the State so much by looking after her mother at home that we should not be so mean and niggardly as to tell her that she must take a cut in her pension because of the duties she is undertaking for her mother.
      I am convinced that there are many women who deserve and need our help and for whom little is done. We all acknowledge and accept that widows need help and we are glad to see what is being done for them in the Bill. However, single women have never had a husband to care for them or to provide for them. They have never had anyone
      518
      to manage their affairs for them, and very often a certain age group of unmarried ladies have elderly relatives to look after.
      If the amendment were accepted—hon. Members will understand what I seek to do—we would not only actuarially be getting a good bargain by encouraging women to stay at home and to take on attendance duties instead of having to let their relatives go into homes and hospitals but we would be making a much happier home for the old lady and for my constituent.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for providing the opportunity for the House to consider a problem of concern to all right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Lady is eminently right to say that we rarely if ever discuss human problems of this kind with any sort of party animus.
      The hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have been asked to say that she regrets having had to leave the Committee during this debate. She is away on ministerial duties and will return to the Committee as soon as she can. She will read what has been said by the hon. Lady with all her customary interest in human problems.
      I am grateful to the hon. Lady for notifying me that there had been a change in her amendment. I understand her difficulties, but the amendment is still unclear. Its intention, which has now been explained, is to give credits to a woman who gives up work to look after a relative who is receiving attendance allowance, thus enabling her to retain her entitlement to full benefits, notably retirement pension. The amendment is technically defective.
      We have not been able to estimate the cost of the amendment. The provision of credits for women who give up work to look after sick or elderly relatives is one of the objectives of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. The council also urges the provision of a cash benefit for a woman in that position. I am familiar with the council's work and its aims, and I believe

      519
      that the Committee will agree that it provides a useful service.
      At present a woman in the position which the hon. Lady has described can claim supplementary benefit, which can include the cost of a non-employed person's contribution. The latest figures show that 10,000 women in that position are receiving supplementary benefit. In addition, there are are some 4,500 men. As the full rate of retirement pension is payable when the person's contribution record averages 50 a year, it is possible for a woman to qualify for a full pension even though she has missed paying a number of contributions.
      The approach which successive Governments have adopted is that giving up work to meet attendance needs is not an insurable contingency and that supplementary benefit, without the usual requirement to register for work, provides an appropriate and flexible means of helping those daughters or other close relatives who stay at home to provide care and attention.
      7.45 p.m.
      The review of social security provision for the chronically sick and disabled that is currently in progress includes the circumstances and needs of their families. This review is being carried out under Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973 and my right hon. Friend is required to report to Parliament by 31st October 1974. In the circumstances it would be premature to attempt to deal with one small part of the problem in isolation. Those who have the interests of this deserving group at heart can reasonably be asked to await the comprehensive report which will be presented.
      What the hon. Lady has said will do a great deal to inform opinion outside the House. We are deeply pledged to meet the requirement of Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973. In the circumstances I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment. She knows of my personal interest in the problem. I think she will appreciate that I am working extremely hard to meet the requirements of Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1973.
      Mrs. Knight: I shall be perfectly happy to seek to withdraw the amendment. I intended not to cause a vote but to bring
      520
      the problem to the notice of the House of Commons. I take on board the point that the Minister has made—namely, that men are sometimes faced with similar circumstances and that the amendment refers only to women. I know of men giving up their jobs to look after their wives. It would be wrong if they did not receive help. It is true that arrangements are made, as I described them under Class 3, for my constituent and others like her to pay a £1·23 stamp, but that does not cover the lady for all benefits. That is one of the points which perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to consider. Having had his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1965
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert:
      '(2) In section 3 of the Insurance Act there shall be inserted after paragraph (c) the following proviso—
      "Provided that any self-employed person to whom this paragraph applies may, on proof of his average weekly earnings in any financial year, exercise an option to pay a total contribution in respect of that year of a sum not greater than twice the amount of the combined graduated and flate rate contributions that he would have paid if he had been an employed person with the same earnings".'
      The object of the amendment is to draw attention to the problems of the self-employed. The formula that I have adopted, which has the effect of reducing the contributions which the self-employed on low incomes will be required to pay, makes the appropriate gesture to the self-employed in order to correspond more or less to what I calculate to be the effect of the combined changes in the flat-rate and the earnings-related contributions which apply to employees in the contracted-out section of the National Insurance Scheme. I am not certain whether I should have applied the formula to the contracted-out or the contracted-in, but I hope that the Committee will forgive

      521
      me, particularly in view of the time available, if I do not go more fully into that.
      My object is that self-employed workers on low incomes should have a way of reducing the amount of the burden imposed on them by the flat-rate contribution. Had the House not been under such pressure I would have spoken on Second Reading and would have asked the Minister to give us the Department's thinking about the relationship between contributions and benefits, in particular the Secretary of State's thinking of earnings-related contributions and flat-rate benefits and the whole rôle of flat-rate contributions in the future of national insurance.
      I tabled Questions to try to elucidate what Government policy was on this and received only evasive and unsatisfactory replies. I am an enemy of flat-rate contributions and always have been for reasons which I have gone over in the past and do not need to elaborate now. Flat-rate contributions for the self-employed are a particularly heavy burden because so many are on low incomes in any event. In some ways the object of the Bill appears to be to aggravate the disadvantages of the self-employed on low incomes. All of them have to pay the increase of 42p in the case of a man over 18 and 34p in the case of a woman over 18, bringing their rates to £2·41 for a man and £2·01 for a woman.
      For a man whose total income is perhaps £18 to £20 a week such an exaction is an extremely heavy burden. We ought to consider the plight of the self-employed low paid just as much as we consider the plight of the low-paid employee when we are adjusting the burden of contributions to national insurance from time to time. The Government tend to forget the self-employed because they do not belong to trades unions and are not able to exert pressure on a Labour Government, yet there are about 1,800,000 of them. I believe, although I have no evidence for this, that the great majority of them have incomes below the national average wage of £40 a week. It is wrong that we should continue to impose the heavy burden of a flat-rate contribution on the self-employed without attempting to soften the edge at all, even for those whose earnings are very small.
      522
      If they are forced out of their gainful occupation because they cannot meet their contributions, we do not know what may become of them. They may not have the sort of skills or aptitudes which enable them to make a satisfactory career as employees. So they may be a far bigger burden to society and a serious social problem if we make it impossible for them to continue to meet their contributions. In this Bill the Government are taking an important step along the road to forcing many self-employed people out of the gainful employment by which they manage to survive and making them into a social problem.
      The Bill takes further forward the process, to which I have often drawn attention, of what I call the "gipsification" of the self-employed. I hope that I shall receive a sympathetic comment from the Minister about the intention of the amendment. I do not intend to press it to a Division because much more attention needs to be given to the precise basis on which we exact contributions to national insurance from the self-employed. I express my conviction that the present basis is wrong and that the increase the Government are proposing is unjust and will cause hardship.
      Mr. Raison: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has put forward a good point. While I appreciate that he does not wish to press the matter to a Division this evening, I hope that the Government will take this seriously in their consideration of future policy. There is no doubt that some self-employed people on low incomes can be badly hit by these new proposals.
      I quote from a letter received by one of my hon. Friends which makes the point very well. The letter came from a rural dean writing on behalf of his clergy and protesting at the new contribution rates. He said:
      "Although taxed through PAYE we are classed as self-employed. The new rates will take a considerable slice from what are already minimum incomes."
      Anyone who knows the sort of level of income which the clergy of the Church of England, and perhaps even more of the Nonconformist churches, are receiving will realise that this new measure imposes a considerable burden upon

      523
      them. I ask the Minister to take the problem seriously.
      Mr. William Wilson: I should not like it to be thought that only Conservative Members of the Committee are concerned about this problem. Anyone who understands the needs of the self-employed will appreciate that under our national insurance provisions such people quite often get the wrong end of the stick. The self-employed person is not able to qualify for unemployment pay in the ordinary way. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us what is the Department's thinking about the self-employed person. There is no doubt that grave injustice is often done to folk who are not able to provide in the ordinary way of business for pensions, sick pay and so on. If it is possible to arrange a system whereby contributions can be paid into a national scheme a need will have been met.
      Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for the way in which he moved his amendment and the indication which he has given. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). I do not believe that there is any monopoly of feeling for the low paid, whether self-employed or employed by some major undertaking.
      The amendment is clearly aimed at relieving the low paid self-employed person of some of the contribution liability. We would all accept that this is a worthy aim. The contribution for a self-employed man under the Bill is £2·41 a week. A self-employed man with a weekly profit of approximately £17 would, under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, pay £2·40—that is twice the proposed employee's contribution of 75p; namely £1·50, plus twice the graduated contribution of 45p, which is 90p. The profit level at which a self-employed person may claim exception from contribution liability is set out in the Bill at £650 a year; that is, about £12·50 a week. Since the amount of the contribution may, among other things, be excluded from the calculation, this means that a profit of £14·91 a week can bring exception. I find it difficult to accept the
      524
      amendment, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not pressing it—
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman assuming that the comparison is with an employee who is not contracted out? I find it difficult to be certain where the most honest comparison would be; but the object of my amendment was to taper the flat-rate contribution of the self-employed from about the same point at which the contributions are tapered for employees as a result of the Budget and the Bill.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right; I am speaking of a not-contractedout individual. I was about to say that I found it extremely difficult to accept this amendment for a number of reasons. First, contributions of self-employed people are payable weekly. Fresh legislation would be needed to remove this requirement if it were possible to exercise the proposed option after the end of the contribution year. In many cases this would be long after the end of the year, since profits may not be determined for several months—often not until many months after the end of the individual's business accounting year, and it is most unlikely that that would coincide with the period over which contributions were required to be paid.
      Secondly, the administrative complications implicit in introducing a variable rate of contribution for a self-employed person retrospectively and of his choice would, in themselves, rule out such a provision.
      Finally, as the small income exception arrangements would reduce the numbers who could benefit financially from the amendment to the narrow band of profit of between £15 and £17 a week, there would seem to be very little to be gained. I am therefore grateful that the hon. Gentleman is to withdraw his amendment.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the point made by Members on this side and hon. Members opposite. It is that this is a problem that needs the attention of the Government, and the Bill is aggravating it seriously. I sought to be in order and sought to make only a modest gesture

      525
      in the right direction which could not be ruled out on the ground that it would upset the finances of the national insurance system too much to be acceptable. The problem remains and has to be tackled.
      This is a job with which we expect the Minister to deal, in view of what is being said and in view of the aggravation of the problem as a result of the Bill. I hope that he will give the Committee an assurance that it will be studied and that a way will be found of relieving the burden of flat-rate contributions on self-employed people with low incomes. We shall not be satisfied if we do not have that assurance.
      Mr. Brown: Naturally, my right hon. Friend and I will consider what has been said. We all want to study the issue, and I hope that in our long-term proposals we shall be able to deal with the matter. I cannot give any absolute undertaking but I shall certainly confirm that we intend to look further at the matter.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: In view of the Minister's concluding remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      RELAXATION OF THE EARNINGS RULE
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 7, leave out '£13' and insert '£90'.
      The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we are to discuss new Clause 1 (Repeal of the earnings rule)—and Amendment No. 12, new Schedule (Amendments consequential on repeal of earnings rule). Both stand in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir B. Rhys Williams).
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: Once again I shall try to be as brief as possible in the circumstances in raising a subject that has often been raised in the House by hon. Members of all parties and that leaves all of us extremely unhappy. I am sure that that applies to hon. Mem-
      526
      bers on the Government side as much as to Opposition Members.
      The object of each of my amendments is in effect the same, but I tabled the one I have moved which raises the point of application of the earnings rule from £13 to £90 a week partly for procedural reasons. I did not choose the figure of £90 simply out of the air; broadly speaking, in weekly terms it is the point at which a taxpayer runs into the higher rate of tax as a result of the changes proposed in the Budget, and, therefore, it is the next crossover point at which a new event takes place in the taxpayer's relationship with the Community. I thought that a reasonable resting place for the earnings rule for the time being.
      For procedural reasons, I did not want to move the abandonment of Clause 4, to leave it out of the Bill altogether and to substitute new Clause 1, which abolishes the earnings rule, because we might have been stuck with the removal of Clause 4, which is a gesture in the right direction, and unable to secure the inclusion of the clause that I was proposing should take its place. The result of my efforts might have been to leave the situation as it is, instead of improving it slightly, which is what the Government are trying, commendably, to do.
      If the earnings rule and its application are to be amended, it is proper that we should examine exactly what it is doing in our national insurance system, if we can. I believe that this is a blot on the national insurance system and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, one not found in, for instance, continental countries, which operate pension schemes on broadly similar lines to our own.
      In France and Italy, I believe, most pensioners are exempt from any application of a rule of this kind. In Germany there is an earnings limit, but only for pensioners up to the age of 65. After that age the limit does not apply and those below the age of 65 are allowed earnings of 800 Deutschemark a month, which is double, or more, even the new rate, assuming that the Committee approves the Government's proposals.
      Obviously, this feature is crying out for special consideration, and I think that the Committee should study it, even

      527
      if only briefly, tonight. By what right do we insist that certain pensioners must lose their entitlement in certain circumstances? What is the basis of entitlement for the national insurance pension?
      I have often asked whether it is need, contributions or citizenship. From the miserable statements that Ministers are put up to make by the Department, whatever party is in power, it is nothing to do with need, contributions or citizenship, but the retirement benefit has to be related to proof that the pensioner has in fact retired.
      That rule—if it is the rule—seems to be shot to pieces in terms of actual practice. It defies social justice, because when a man has earned his pension by a life-long record of contributions, why should he lose his entitlement when he seeks to make a further contribution to society after he has reached the age of 65–60 for a woman—by continuing at work? It seems atrociously unfair, and I am sure that the vast majority of pensioners and, indeed, all members of the national insurance system, feel thoroughly uneasy and unhappy about it.
      What seem anomalous is that the rule does not apply to men over 70. Why not? If what they have to do is prove that they have retired, why does the rule apply only to men of 65 to 70 and then lapse? I am not complaining that it lapses, but I point to it as an inexplicable anomaly. The same is true of women who continue to work after the age of 65. That is something which the Department cannot explain.
      Mr. O'Malley: I understand the amendment which the hon. Gentleman is moving and I have looked at it carefully. The most useful thing I can do before the hon. Gentleman deploys the arguments, which he has put so well in the past—and he knows that I respect his knowledge and integrity in this matter—is to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in Standing Committee on the Social Security Bill on 27th February 1973 precisely about the abolition of the earnings rule:
      "All of us stand back a little warily from total abolition at this stage, on no other principle than that of cost—which is really the only principle involved. We hesitate to pre-empt £100 million as a priority at this
      528
      stage—or £115 million, as the hon. Gentleman said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th February 1973; col. 690.]
      The cost at the moment would be about £160 million, at a time when there is enormous competition for the deployment of public financial resources. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to be able to say that I am sure that he will bear that in mind.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attempt to be helpful. In fact I have before me the same quotation and I intended to come to it in due course. Perhaps I may throw back to the hon. Gentleman a very old saying,
      "Honesty is the best policy ".
      Although that may have a rather cynical ring, I believe that it applies just as much to government as to business, and it applies particularly in national insurance because there is an alienating effect when the contributors and beneficiaries feel that they are not getting a fair deal. This is one of the points where beneficiaries of national insurance feel that they are not getting a fair deal.
      I should like briefly to point to another of the anomalies that make the whole arrangement seem such a contrivance. The earnings rule does not apply to pensioners who have investment income. They may have as much investment income, I believe, as they like without incurring loss of their pension entitlement. It is only if they actually seek to contribute to society by working and earning that they lose it. This is especially bitter for someone who wishes to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement and has perhaps to compare himself with a neighbour who has income from investment, whereas he cannot catch up by working even if he tries.
      Also, it applies only partially to those who have small earnings. The House has chiselled away at this anomaly, and, because hon. Members dislike it so much, Governments have had to recognise the feeling of hon. Members and have had to phase the application of the earnings rule instead of having a deadline. By accepting the necessity for phasing, they have accepted that there is no justification. Also, of course, there are special rules for the self-employed, which also points to the fact that there is no guiding

      529
      principle behind this rule. The House is being asked by the Department and the Treasury to accept something inexplicable and wrong.
      The hon. Gentleman quoted the speech by the right hon. Lady in Standing Committee. I well remember it because I too contributed to that debate. He did not quote her further remarks, which appeared in the same column of HANSARD and dealt with increments for deferment. One of the options open to a man or woman of pensionable age who wishes to contribute to his or her business, or to continue to earn, is to defer his or her retirement and to get the so-called actuarially-adjusted benefit a few years later. This is such a shaming fraud that when I tried last year to elicit from the Department the actuarial basis on which this figure was calculated. I received an evasive reply.
      I now come to the quotation from the right hon. Lady. She said:
      "The increments for the deferment of the time of retirement are a very bad deal for the pensioner. … It has been a fraud."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th February 1973; c. 690.]
      Of course, anybody who examines it must agree with that. The pensioner does not really have the option, which is supposed to exist, of deferring the date of retirement, because if he does he simply loses benefit and gets only a fraudulent increase in exchange.
      The hon. Gentleman tried to inform the Committee about the costs of acceding to the sort of proposal that I am now making. We hope to compare what he said with what was said by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean):
      "The cost to the National Insurance Fund, including the loss of contribution income, is estimated to be about £135 million a year."
      It is now a larger figure because of the higher benefit. My hon. Friend went on to say:
      "The cost will arise mainly from paying pensions to over 200,000 people who, together with their wives, are not yet drawing pension because they still have regular and substantial earnings. Allowance is made for savings on sickness and unemployment benefit which would no longer be paid. On the basis that the pension would be taxed if paid in full on top of earnings the amount likely to be collected in income tax would be about £35 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January 1974; Vol. 849, c 1437–38.].
      530
      I challenge that figure of 200,000 and I challenge the entire basis of the estimate on which that figure of £135 million, or now £160 million, was made. What other considerations ought to be taken into the calculations? For instance, what effects would it have on the conduct of pensioners who now make no effort to work if the earnings rule were totally abolished?
      8.15 p.m.
      If there are as many as 200,000 pensioners who would benefit, what about all the others? There are 1,220,000 men between 65 and 70 and 1,702,000 women between 60 and 65. That is a total of nearly 3 million. There are also people entitled to benefits under other aspects of national insurance where the earnings rule applies. Are we trying to convince ourselves that of 3 million people within five years of retirement age only 200,000 would seek to work if the earnings rule were abolished? It does not make sense.
      What study have the Government made to ascertain the readiness to undertake work of all pensioners who do not undertake work at present? I put that down as a Parliamentary Question but received a reply on 8th April which showed that no study has been done at all. The Minister of State said that he would
      "consider whether it might be useful to make such a study".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 45.]
      I cannot help wondering whether that parliamentary reply went through without the hon Gentleman having seen it, because the tone of the reply implies that he does not care very much. I know him well enough to know that that is not so. But it does not look well in print, as he is bound to admit.
      Mr. O'Malley: The parliamentary reply to which the hon. Gentleman refers did not go through without my seeing it. I saw it and considered it very carefully. The hon. Gentleman will know that there was an inquiry into the subject from 1966 to 1967 and I thought it right that I should have time to look at the conclusions reached in that report and the general implications before deciding whether to use manpower to carry out another inquiry when one had already been carried out. I am not unsympathetic to the kind of research the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The more we

      531
      know about this area, the more helpful it is in the formulation of any future Government policy.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but there is still much more to be studied which perhaps does not fall within the ambit of his Department.
      I tabled a Question to the Treasury and asked what proportion of pensioners concealed their earnings to avoid the double blow of losing their pension and paying tax. If it becomes known that some people have earnings which result in their losing their pensions, they will also be liable for tax on them. That double blow makes it unattractive to go out to work. The reply I received from the Treasury on 8th April was that it was not possible to make an estimate. The Treasury obviously has not made a guess as to what the extent evasion is, but we all know that it is widespread.
      What is the effect on the total national income? The Treasury is not the only consideration here. The country must be considered too, and there is also the effect on the national income if we had the benefit of the work contributed by people at present pushed into idleness by the operation of the earnings rule. We might also consider the loss of income tax which does not accrue because people do not earn. The Treasury's answer was that there was no information on which estimates could be based.
      The categorical assurance given periodically to the House that nothing can be done about the earnings rule because the figures make it quite impossible is based on a sham. The Departments concerned have not done the necessary work to ascertain whether the position is true or false. There is the usual stonewall opposition, and Ministers are advised to oppose the relaxation of the earnings rule because the Department has set its heart against it.
      I think there is an extremely dangerous situation arising, which one could call an alienation or many other things, in which taxpayers and contributors to national insurance and beneficiaries feel that they are getting such a raw deal from society in that they are being asked
      532
      to contribute too much and getting too little in exchange. There are dangerous social effects in continuing to defy public opinion in a matter of this kind. I think we must warn the officers at the Treasury and at the Elephant and Castle that they cannot continue with this game for much longer. They will have to examine the case much more convincingly if they are to carry the Committee with them.
      I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on this matter tonight, because I have not had satisfactory evidence one way or the other as to what the true effect of the earnings rule must be. I hope I have said enough, however, to show the sort of questions that ought to be examined on this important question. The Department has no idea what the effect of abolishing the earnings rule will be on the supply of labour, the national income, the whole problem of tax evasion or the potential yield of tax and, therefore, the true cost to the Exchequer and to the nation. Hon. Members know that the rule is indefensible, unpopular and widely evaded.
      Once again, I must implore the Minister to tell the Committee that it is the Government's intention to get rid of this earnings rule altogether at the first possible opportunity.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) does not propose to ask the Committee to divide on his amendment, because I would feel unable to support it, having listened in Committee in the past on these Bills and been persuaded by what he described as the "stone walling arguments" of successive Ministers on the cost of the change of abolishing the earnings rule totally at the moment. Although I shall study my hon. Friend's arguments with care, I am not anxious this evening that we should be pressing for changes which would incur such considerable extra costs as I think the Minister is about to tell us about.
      In replying to my hon. Friend, however, I hope that the Minister will admit the serious problem underlying this amendment and the fact that a slightly wider principle is raised about the reactions of the public generally to the national insurance system, which Governments must face up to at some stage.

      533
      It appears to many members of the public—I believe with some justification—that successive Governments, in progressively easing the position of the totally destitute and those who are wholly dependent on the State, have begun to build up a sense of grievance amongst those of modest means, whether those means are saved or earned, and one must guard against the position where thrift or small part-time working in retirement are discouraged. On later measures we will raise the question of the extremely low level of disregards in assessing supplementary benefit and the provisions of the Finance Act which have lowered the threshold for the surtax surcharge on small sums of unearned income for those in retirement.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give some encouraging words to those on pension affected by the retirement rule, and perhaps in rejecting my hon. Friend's proposals he could consider two other matters which he might be able to introduce in another place which would go some way towards easing the effect of the earnings rule to a slightly greater extent than the welcome changes he has already made in the Act.
      First, there is the phasing mentioned by my hon. Friend. When it was introduced, the phasing was an extremely welcome improvement, so that only 50p in the pound is deducted at a certain level, and under the proposals of this Bill as I understand it £13·50 of earnings onwards will find only 50p in the pound deducted until £25 is reached. I believe that 50p in the pound is a savage degree of phasing. When one bears in mind that on that level of earnings going up the scale someone is probably going through the loss of other means-related benefits by way of help with the rent or the rates, a 50 per cent. tax in effect upon the national insurance pension is regarded as extremely punitive, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance about the possibility of stretching out this phasing, and introducing more steps before the pension right is totally extinguished by comparatively modest earnings.
      I draw the Minister's attention to my Amendment No. 6, which, I am told, is out of order, as a much more substantial amendment will be required to bring about the change I wish; namely, to
      534
      bring the earnings rule within the ambit of those benefits which have to be considered by the Government in the annual review. I will not quote to the hon. Member what he said in Committee, but I remember the passionate speeches made by the Secretary of State and himself when they pleaded that the earnings rule should go into the annual review. Now that the Minister has made the change to basing the annual review on average levels of earnings, logic demands that the earnings rule in pensions should at least keep pace with that and be kept in line with the other levels of benefit, in order that we can be guaranteed that the earnings rule will not get any more punitive in future years. I hope that the Minister can make some encouraging remarks on that in his reply.
      Sir G. Howe: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in welcoming the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has raised this subject. Although the whole Committee welcomes the relaxation embodied in Clause 4, I believe that we cannot too strongly underline the extent to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides remain discontented with the existence and operation of the earnings rule.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington brought expert knowledge to bear on his analysis of the problem. I do not want to go over the ground again, but I have increasingly come to believe, when considering this subject in and out of office—although not with any direct responsibility for it—that there is a degree of mythicality about some of the figures, such as they are that are quoted within, and thereby by the Department and the departmental spokesman in the information given in the Written Answer on 8th April of this year to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. The estimate of 20,000 retirement pensioners whose pension is now reduced or extinguished on account of their earnings has always struck me as particularly implausible; and most of the other figures are simply non-existent.
      I recognise what the Minister of State said about his own answer; namely, that he will consider whether it might be useful to make such a study. It may well be that that bold assertion represents a

      535
      triumph of ministerial will over an otherwise inert departmental recommendation. I know not, and I would not wish to press him too far to disclose, what happened.
      There has been a degree of durability about the earnings rule, about the figures that are quoted in support of it, and the arguments in support of it, which is truly remarkable. I sometimes wonder whether some humble member of the secretariat of the Beveridge Committee now lingers on in a corner of Alexander Fleming House as a bearded deputy secretary, long past retirement age, notwithstanding the provisions of the earnings rule, churning out the same arguments to Minister after Minister in response to Opposition after Opposition.
      I regret that the Government's policy of indiscriminate benefit in other fields may go further than we would like towards preventing them making even modest further changes in the earnings rule. I accept, if anyone is to accept the figures given, the figure for total abolition quoted by the Minister of State. If that figure is to be accepted, the difficulties are increased and made greater by the extent to which other indiscriminate benefits are deployed.
      The figures are doubtful. There is undoubtedly evasion, which brings diminishing respect for the law and the National Insurance Scheme. There is undoubtedly a reduction in the totality of national wealth from continued insistence on the retirement conditions, 32 years after Lord Beveridge produced his report.
      What is almost more important is that the impact of the earnings rule seems to be increasingly out of tune with the kind of social posture we ought to be adopting towards the desirability of keeping older people in work, rather than out of work. I do not mean keeping them in work perforce, but making it possible, and encouraging them to retire gradually and gracefully and to remain at work. It is a different approach, which commends itself as much to right hon. and hon. Members opposite as it does to me.
      For the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, it is clearly not possible to vote in support of this amendment tonight. However, I remind the Committee of our own party's
      536
      commitment in the manifesto on which we fought the previous General Election:
      "We shall continue to relax the earnings rule during the next Parliament. Our ultimate objective is to abolish it altogether."
      It is an objective shared by both sides of the Committee, and I hope that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends will not look askance at us if we return again and again to this subject, pressing them to press those who advise them to dig deeper into the figures, analyse the arguments more closely and see how much faster and further we can go. I welcome the opportunity of placing on record my party's position on this matter.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Robert C. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) does not like departmental dogma, but as he knows, the reason for having an earnings rule is that the pension is a retirement, and not an old-age, pension. If a person has to retire—
      Mr. G. B. Drayson: Was not this view insisted upon by the trade union movement when the 1946 Act was passed? The unions were afraid that employers would employ old-age pensioners to the detriment of young people. That situation has now gone by. Have they altered their attitude to it since then?
      Mr. Brown: I do not defend the earnings rule on principle, but the fact is that it is a retirement pension. I am quoting a bit of departmental dogma to the hon. Gentleman and he does not like it. But there is really not much between us on this issue. What matters is the cost of abolition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the Conservative Party's commitment in the election manifesto. It is true that it undertook to continue to relax the earnings rule and declared that its ultimate objective was its abolition. But he knew, as I do, that abolition would cost something like £160 million a year. He also knew that when the last Government had the opportunity to relax the rule in 1973, they did nothing about it. Indeed, in 1972 the slight relaxation in the earnings rule was forced upon them by a Private Member's Bill.
      Sir G. Howe: The position is now different. The Government have chosen

      537
      to spend almost as much as it would cost to abolish the earnings rule to reduce the price of milk by 1p a pint. I would seriously argue that there would be far greater joy and far greater social advantage throughout the country if any Government were to come forward and abolish the earnings rule instead of producing a generalised subsidy of that kind.
      Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot use the milk subsidy in support because his own Government also subsidised milk, as he knows. The extra penny affords benefit right across the board, mainly to people with children. It is up to us as a Government to determine the priorities. But if we talk of spending £160 million at this stage to abolish the earnings rule, many hon. Members would agree that if we have such sums to play with there are more deserving cases—for instance, the disabled—on which to dissipate the £160 million, rather than simply on the 220,000 persons—and their 120,000 dependent wives—who are in full-time employment.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister accepting this figure of £160 million absolutely without criticism?
      Mr. Brown: No, I am not accepting anything without criticism at all. But the fact remains that these were the figures that the previous Government were working on. I should hardly have thought that it was either fair or reasonable—the hon. Gentleman is normally a fair man—to suggest that within a month of taking office as a minority Government we have had time to get down departmentally to study whether the £160 million is £200 million or £100 million.
      The hon. Member for Kensington pointed out the difference between investment income and earned income. There may be something in his point, but national insurance benefits are, in general, given to compensate for an interruption of employment—which in this case results from the person's retirement. But to take all personal income into account in deciding a person's entitlement to retirement pension would make the pension a means-tested benefit. That would undermine the contributory nature of the scheme.
      The hon. Member for Kensington talked about the extra numbers of people who would be coming into employment.
      538
      It is a matter of opinion how many more people would come into employment. I am sure many hon. Members would question the desirability of more people over 65 coming into full-time employment. But whether the abolition of the earnings rule was economically advantageous to the country would depend on the number of pensioners who subsequently took up work. It is by no means certain that, however abolition of the rule were made effective, it would result in a large increase in employed pensioners.
      I pray in aid the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee dated January 1967. About the earnings rule the report says the committee was:
      "… doubtful whether it is realistic to suppose that there is any adjustment to the earnings rule which in itself would lead to any substantial addition to the number of elderly people in employment … but it thought it was likely that increases in the limit do result in somewhat more work being done by some pensioners."
      That is, by those pensioners already in employment.
      I have fairly well covered the points that have been made. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is not pressing his amendment to a Division because naturally we take on board all that has been said in the debate. I return to the point that it is the actual cost and priority that decide where the money goes.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: The Minister has not given me the assurances that I asked for. He has given a large number of arguments which, no doubt, will be used by Conservative canvassers.
      The case against the earnings rule seems to remain intact. I can only conclude by warning the Department that the time will come soon when the House of Commons will not support this sort of claptrap any more. The Government will have to prepare for an early day when the earnings rule must be abolished, because neither side of the Committee, I am sure, is prepared to stand for this situation much longer.
      I said that I would not press the amendment to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 39 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1973
      Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 24, after 'word', insert 'adult male industrial'.
      This is a probing amendment, but it is important because it enables us to try to find out in a little more detail exactly what lies behind the decision taken by the Secretary of State to replace prices by earnings in the section of the 1973 Act with which we are dealing. Section 39 of the 1973 Social Security Act leaves it to the Secretary of State to estimate
      "general levels of prices and earnings in such manner as he considers appropriate."
      That refers back to the issue under discussion. It is true that it is not too difficult to assess how prices may be fixed, because we have the retail price index.
      Now that the emphasis is to be on earnings, there appears to be a problem. The Secretary of State said in the Budget debate on 28th March that we must link pensions increases in future to the movement in average national earnings so that pensioners can be guaranteed a continuing share in our increasing national prosperity. Today the right hon. Lady has reiterated that claim. It is an important part of what the Government are setting out to do in the Bill.
      In practice, the use of earnings as a yardstick is not new. It is a fact that between 1970 and 1974, the period of the previous Conservative Government, pensions went up faster than both prices and earnings. Between June 1970 and January 1974 the level of prices was up by 37 per cent., earnings for all workers were up by 45 per cent. and pensions were up by 55 per cent. Therefore, over that period the increase in pensions was greater than the increase in both earnings and prices.
      The first purpose of our amendment is to clarify exactly what is meant by "earnings", which is to replace "prices" in Section 39(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1973. Section 39 states at the end that the Secretary of State
      "shall estimate general levels of prices and earnings in such manner as he considers appropriate having regard to the objects of the review."
      540
      I wonder whether we should not now be rather more specific, given the importance of the new proposal. I assume from the Secretary of State's words in the Budget debate that the right hon. Lady has in mind that pensions should be linked to all earnings, as opposed to male industrial earnings. I submit that that entitles us to ask exactly what yardstick the Secretary of State proposes to use in assessing the level of earnings. It might be the so-called new earnings survey. It might be the October earnings inquiry, or it might be the monthly earnings inquiry.
      I remind the House that those three surveys have different characteristics. The new earnings survey is an annual survey taken in April based on returns from employers concerning a random 1 per cent. sample of employees. Both manual and non-manual employees are covered. Separate figures are obtained for adult males of 21 and over, adult females of 18 and over, and juveniles, and a distinction is made between full-time and part-time employees. That is the first of what seemed to me to be the possible yardsticks.
      The second is the Department of Employment's October earnings inquiry. Since the introduction of the annual new earnings surveys, the departmental inquiry has been taken only in October of each year. The survey covers manual workers only, but the results are published separately for adult males, adult females and juveniles, with a distinction being made between full-time and part-time employees.
      Thirdly, there is the monthly inquiry into average earnings. Actual earnings figures are not published, but a monthly index is compiled from the information obtained from employers in the production industries, transport and communication and certain miscellaneous services. Manual and non-manual employees are covered and no distinction is made between males and females, or between full-time and part-time workers.
      8.45 p.m.
      There are three possible criteria that the Secretary of State may have in mind. It is important to try to establish for the record the basis of calculation. It is also important to ask at what time of the year the calculation will be made as the increases now are to be in July. These

      541
      surveys are taken at different times of the year and a particular time may have a considerable bearing on their meaning when we consider that July is to be the moment of the increases.
      I understand that hitherto when information has been given in reply to Parliamentary Questions, and so on, about the relationship between average earnings and social security benefits the measure invariably used has been adult male manual earnings from the October inquiry. Our amendment suggests that adult male industrial earnings should be the yardstick. I am not arguing that this is necessarily right. We simply put it forward because it is necessary to put forward some proposition to have the matter debated. The yardstick that we have put forward corresponds most closely to the October inquiry, but we are not pressing that it should necessarily be that one, nor that it should necessarily be tied to male earnings. We want the Government to define what they have in mind.
      There is another point on which we would like some elucidation from the Government. Despite the high-flown words which have been spoken about this new commitment to keep pensions rising relative to average earnings, it seems to us that the clause is largely window dressing. I should like to explain why this is so. It is essentially because it amends only Section 39(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1973, which provides:
      "In the course of a review of social security benefits under this section, the Secretary of State shall consider—
      (a) the extent to which current rates appear to him to have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain from time to time since the beginning of the year in which this section first came into force or, as the case may be, the end of the period to which he had regard for the purposes of the last review under this section".
      The proposal is to delete "prices" and to substitute "earnings".
      I understand that subsection (3)(b) will remain in the Act. That provides:
      "apart from the considerations of paragraph (a) above, whether any of the rates ought to be increased having regard to—

      (i) the general level of prices and earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review,

      (ii) the national economic situation as a whole and the general standard of living, and

      542

      (iii) such other matters as the Secretary of State thinks relevant to his review of benefits".

      If subsection (3)(b) remains in the 1973 Act it is evident that we already have power to take into account the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain. That power is specifically conferred by the subsection that I have just read.
      It is also evident that there is what might be called a get-out clause—
      "the national economic situation as a whole".
      I think that the Minister ought to be prepared to say that the fine words that we have heard about the level of pensions being tied to the level of earnings is subject to that qualification.
      Experience has shown that under a Labour Government economic situations are liable to get out of hand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We all recall what happened in the past to the notion of a free health service. Prescription charges had to be brought in. The Labour Party cannot claim that its record in these matters inspires confidence.
      I should like the Minister to explain to the House whether
      "the national economic situation as a whole"
      still applies and whether it is there to qualify the proud commitment to keeping pensions in line with earnings about which both he and the Secretary of State have boasted. It must apply.
      My intention is to probe two important points: first, how earnings are to be defined, and, secondly, the validity and meaning of Section 39(3)(b) of the 1973 Act.
      Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for moving what he described as a probing amendment and also for making a speech from which I learned something. His speech was fuller than my brief and I appreciate the work he has put into it. If the amendment would bring about an additional guarantee or improvement for retirement pensioners and other beneficiaries through a tightening of the definition—for example, through removing the word "earnings" and replacing it by "adult male industrial earnings"—we should be glad to accept it. But that is not the case.
      The phrase "adult male industrial earnings" refers to the index which is

      543
      generally used and means the average gross earnings of full-time male manual wage earners in manufacturing and some of the principal non-manufacturing industries. Those average earnings, with some of the corresponding figures for women, are taken from the inquiry conducted by the Department of Employment every October. The industries covered include nearly 10 million employees, but the principal industries not covered are agriculture, coal mining, nationalised and port transport, shipping, distribution, catering, commerce, banking and domestic services.
      If this index is to be used as a basis for assessing pensions, there are obvious defects. If it is written into the Bill the Department of Employment will be restricted if in the future it proposes to improve, make more sophisticated or further develop the provision or bring in additional groups. The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised a valid point. As he said, it is an October index but the uprating next year, for example, will be in July. Presumably the October index should be used. The Department is considering precisely this matter. The October index is not the only one, and no one is saying that it is ideal for the purposes of the estimates. There are also the monthly index and the new earnings survey which are carried out each April. These could prove to be more favourable yardsticks.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: Is overtime taken into account in calculating the index? Is it based upon a standard hour which takes account of overtime?
      Mr. O'Malley: It takes account of that factor. Nevertheless, as with all the indices in this sector, we do not suggest that it is the most satisfactory and sophisticated for the purposes of our calculations.
      In moving the amendment the hon. Gentleman has spotlighted a problem which the Department has regarding the July uprating in 1975. However, I recommend that we should not write in the words "adult male industrial" in addition to simply "earnings". To do so could fossilise that particular index as it stands at present. It could exclude the use of other indices which may be
      544
      more favourable or more suitable in future. It is likely that women's earnings, for example, will move faster than men's at a time when as a nation we are moving towards the concept of equal pay, although I suspect that that may be a somewhat lengthy process.
      We should leave the word "earnings" in a general form in this legislation as it has been in other legislation when there has been need to refer to an earnings index of some kind. To do this does not preclude the use of the index mentioned; nor does it exclude in future the use of more sophisticated indices or other indices which could be more favourable to retirement pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I hope that the Secretary of State does not subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's comments about equal pay for women.
      Mr. O'Malley: I would always be most aware not only of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but also of the hon. Lady in that matter. I made an assessment of what may turn out to be the situation. I hope that as a result of legislation and long-term trade union pressures there will be a much speedier movement than at present towards equality of income and opportunities for women.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about the amendment, but I remain a little disturbed. Perhaps he will forgive me if in my ignorance I probe the matter a little. I have always argued that pensions should be linked to earnings and I have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this would enhance pensions. What disturbs me are the figures used by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), which were not challenged. He said that pensions were better related to prices during the office of the Conservative Government and that if this had not been done—
      Mr. Raison: That was not what I said. My point was that during the period of the last Conservative Government pensions were raised more than prices and more than earnings. Whichever yardstick one chooses to use, we did better.
      Mr. Loughlin: Surely the basis of the hon. Gentleman's case was an argument as to whether pensions should be related to prices. HANSARD will prove this tomorrow morning.
      9.0 p.m.
      The hon. Gentleman argued also that pensions rose higher than wages—[Interruption.] Let me get this clear. There is no reason why I should not be able to ask my hon. Friend in all innocence whether earnings include premium time payments but exclude days lost through industrial disputes. If that is so, there is no earthly reason why the pensions, as a percentage of earnings, should not have risen faster than earnings themselves under the Tory Government, because their three years in office saw the biggest explosion of loss of earnings that we have had since 1926.
      When Tory Members make these comparisons they should tell the whole story. The truth is not that they did well for the pensioners but that they pursued a confrontation policy in industry which made the earnings figure much lower than it should have been. In 1972 we lost more working days and, therefore, more earnings than in any year since 1926. In 1971 and 1973 also, astronomical numbers of days were lost and, therefore, earnings were lost.
      Tory Members fake every possible figure they use. They can laugh—
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is funny.
      Mr. Loughlin: They fake every figure they use. If we relate pensions to earnings, whether male industrial earnings or overall earnings, those earnings would have been substantially reduced because of the loss of man hours through their industrial policy. Hon. Members opposite are tricksters of the worst kind.
      Mr. Raison: I will not be drawn by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who did not understand what I was saying. He has not understood what this little debate has been about. If he wants the facts, he was quite wrong. According to the October earnings inquiry, the index of male industrial earnings rose between 1971 and 1972 from 110 to 127 compared with 1970. That undermines what he said.
      546
      The Minister started encouragingly by saying that my research had been greater than his brief or his research, but I am not sure what I was meant to deduce from that. He totally failed to answer my second point. He produced an acceptable answer, although an uninspiring one, to the question of what earnings index should be used. I appreciate the difficulties which he has put forward. We do not believe that the yardstick that is included in our amendment is necessarily the right one, so we will not press him on that.
      But at least the Minister owes the Committee some comment on my point about Section 39()(b) of the Social Security Act 1973. I should be grateful if he would at least acknowledge that that provision gives the power to override the link between earnings and pensions of which he and his right hon. Friend have made so much. Would he at least acknowledge that the national economic situation can be used as a reason for not granting a pensions increase based on earnings?
      Mr. O'Malley: This situation existed before Section 39 of the 1973 Act which deals with the annual review of benefits, and talks about November and the end of November rather than October. However much the hon. Gentleman wriggles, this is the first time in legislation that there has been a commitment that pensions should rise and move with national average earnings.
      Mr. Raison: What I am putting to the hon. Gentleman is that the very next subsection in the 1973 Act produces a clear qualification that whether any of the rates ought to be increased should have regard to
      "the national economic situation as a whole"
      If the national economic situation as a whole is very grave, as I believe it may well be under a Labour Government, can that be used as a reason for the Government not increasing pensions in line with earnings?
      Mr. O'Malley: From behind the hon. Gentleman's elegant language, I now understand what he is asking. He is asking whether we shall rat on our commitment. A previous Secretary of State of a Conservative Government gave him-

      547
      self the opportunity to do so and presumably deliberately put this kind of commitment into the 1973 Act. We shall not do that.
      Mr. Raison: But the fact remains that the Government have not removed this provision. The Government are proposing to amend the rest of Section 39 and to make changes there. They could perfectly well have changed this subsection if they so desired. There is no reason why they could not do so. The Minister has said that he will not rat and that this is a firm commitment. If that is so, why did he not strike out this commitment in subsection (3)(b)?
      Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman is asking why one specific section of the Social Security Act 1973 was not changed. What we have done in the Bill is to make the minimum changes necessary in legislation to achieve our own objective. As the hon. Gentleman is pressing for changes in the 1973 legislation, may I say that I think that he will get changes?
      Mr. Raison: The Minister cannot get away with this. Clause 5 is specifically designed to amend Section 39 of the 1973 Act. There would have been no difficulty in adding another small amendment to get rid of that section if the Government so desired. I am not saying that the Government should have done it. I am saying that the Government are showing signs of hypocrisy in stating categorically that they will tie pensions increases to earnings when they are quite deliberately retaining this get-out clause.
      The Minister's arguments do him no credit. It would have been very much better if he had done his homework on this matter. I see that he is about to receive a note. Perhaps something has arrived from Job to help him out. Secondly, it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had come clean. As I have said, while we do not believe that our amendment is appropriate, the Minister's answers do him no credit.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. O'Malley: Hon. Members on the Opposition benches have to try to laugh
      548
      about something, for in their present position they can find little to laugh about. What I find fascinating is that the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Raison: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I have begged to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it proper for the debate to continue?
      The Deputy Chairman: I think that I should explain to the Committee as a whole that if after an hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw his amendment another hon. Member rises and speaks, the only way of dealing with that matter ultimately is by putting the Question, when possible it could be negatived.
      Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. When the hon. Gentleman begged leave to withdraw the amendment, I objected. Therefore, he cannot withdraw his amendment.
      The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's objection was sustained.
      Mr. O'Malley: It ill becomes the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to start criticising this Government about legislation which was introduced by the previous Conservative Secretary of State. The criticisms, which I do not accept, that we might intend to rat on our earnings dynamism because of that provision of the Act, can come only from a guilty conscience felt by Conservative Members who know that when the previous Government were making their famous pledges about price protection they were reserving to themselves, tucked away in a principal piece of legislation, the right to say "We shall promise the electorate price protection, but if we want to get out of that promise we shall do so, because this subsection in the Act gives us an escape route."
      We shall not use that escape route. When the Act is revised, as it will be, along with the whole of the social security structure, the hon. Gentleman can apologise to the Labour Government for the unjustified remarks he has made tonight. The fact that his Government would act in that way is no reason to suggest that we shall.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not the point. The point is one of some gravity and responsibility, to which I should like

      549
      the Minister to address himself. The Secretary of State said on 15th March:
      "We shall also ensure … that pensions thereafter are increased annually in proportion to increases in average national earnings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 524–525.]
      In his reply so far, the Minister is plainly conceding that the continued existence in Section 39(3) of the 1973 Act of paragraph (b)(ii), providing that the Secretary of State shall have regard to
      "the national economic situation as a whole",
      entitles the Secretary of State as a matter of law not to fulfil the pledge which the right hon. Lady gives to ensure that link.
      It may well be wise for any Government to retain that obligation to look at the national economic situation. It may well be particularly wise for the present Government to do so, in the light of their failure to keep pensions ahead of prices when they were last in office.
      I should like the Minister to concede that that provision continues to exist as a qualification of the right hon. Lady's pledge, that it exists although the Long Title of the Bill gives power to amend Section 39, and that it would be the simplest matter in the world to include a repeal of that subsection.
      Mrs. Castle: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has called my words into dispute, I should like to answer that point.
      I do not for a moment concede that the paragraph lends itself to the interpretation the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put upon it. If, however, the pledge given by the Conservatives that they would ensure that pensions were reviewed annually in line with prices was one that they made under Section 39, that had as much validity as, and no more than, my pledge to substitute the word "earnings" for "prices" in the subsection.
      Therefore, I think that it is pretty despicable of the right hon. and learned Government, who should know better and who has forensic authority at stake, to turn this kind of legal innuendo into a political attack. It is unworthy of him.
      When the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me why we do not seek the oportunity to amend a Conservative Secretary of State's wording, what the Opposition are implying, which I am not, is
      550
      that that wording gave their Secretary of State an escape route from his electoral commitments. I do not, and never have, put that interpretation upon it. But it in no way alters the validity of our pledge in relation to the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
      9.15 p.m.
      All that we are doing is to amend Section 39(3) of the 1973 Act, which says that
      "In the course of a review of social security benefits under this section the Secretary of State shall consider—"—
      this is the vital part, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it perfectly well—
      "(a) the extent to which current rates appear to him to have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices…"
      We propose to amend
      "retained their value in relation to the general level of prices"
      to read:
      "retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings".
      That is the statutory distinction that we are making. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman now tries to suggest that subsection (b) has a different authority—
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mrs. Castle: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Lady will only further darken counsel. I repeat that paragraph (b), with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to make such play, is of a different level of authority. Whatever interpretation he tries to put on subsection (3)(b), he is retrospectively blackening the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. His right hon. Friend put in an escape clause. Thus the right hon. and learned Gentleman's allegation has no validity. I find it highly amusing that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members now say "If you want to keep your election pledge, you should take out this naughty escape route from our clause that we put in. You should give the country firmer guarantees on earnings than we did on prices." That is an absolute piece of political irrelevancy which is designed to cast unwarranted doubt on our pledge, which has all the strength which the pledge of our predecessors did not possess.
      Sir G. Howe: The right hon Lady is obviously rattled, but the point that I make—
      Mrs. Castle: —not rattled—angry and contemptuous.
      Sir G. Howe: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will cool it for a moment. She referred to the opening words of subsection (3) and said that the words "shall consider" apply with equal force to the matters set out in paragraph (b). We are anxious that the Government should retain the qualification in paragraph (b) to their pledge, if qualification it be. We have not yet been told whether it is a qualification.
      Mr. O'Malley: It is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Act.
      Sir G. Howe: The Committee is now debating a Bill that makes provision for amending Section 39 of the 1973 Act. We ask the Minister—so far he has failed to answer—whether the reference to the national economic situation qualifies the pledge which was given by the right hon. Lady. The country wants to know the answer, because between June 1970 and the beginning of this year, under the Conservative Government, pensions rose faster than prices and faster than average earnings. The previous Labour Government made their initial increase, which took effect in March 1965, and thereafter, until June 1970, the single pension rose by 25 per cent. compared with a greater rise in prices of more than 27 per cent. and a 44 per cent. rise in average earnings. It is because of the lamentable failure of the previous Labour Government to keep pensions rising in line with earnings and prices that we want to know whether the Government accept that the paragraph in any way goes behind the pledge which the right hon. Lady has given.
      Mrs. Castle: Having listened to the right hon. and so-called learned Gentle-man—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not surprised that this country was plunged into such disaster following the Industrial Relations Bill which he piloted through the House.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Answer the question.
      Mrs. Castle: I will. I repeat what I said earlier, and I am glad that I am a better legal expert than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If only he had read the whole of Section 39 and in particular subsection (4), he would have found that that subsection makes it clear that subsection (3)(a) predominates and that the provisions of subsection (b) are at the discretion of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] The illiteracy of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is painful to watch.
      What subsection (4) says is that
      "If on his review the Secretary of State concludes that current rates have not retained their value as mentioned in subsection (3)(a) above, he shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament …"—
      That is where the instruction lies. It is further to subsection (3) of Section 39 that the Secretary of State is bound to consider the extent to which current rates appear to have retained their value in relation to prices. That is the key point. We are bound, and intend to be bound, to place upon ourselves a statutory obligation which we cannot evade and which we have no desire to evade.
      Mr. Raison: If the question which I put fairly and calmly to the Minister earlier had been properly answered, it would have saved a great deal of heat and a certain amount of ill temper on the part of the Secretary of State. The Minister completely ignored my question. I do not think that it is very much to the credit of the Government. On an important matter like this they should have done their homework rather than wait for succour from the Official Box at the last moment.
      Mr. O'Malley: What is perfectly clear is that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who presided over the Industrial Relations Act—are continuing the campaign of filth and smear which we have had from the Conservative Party during the election campaign. It is precisely that kind of technique which they are using on this occasion, attempting to cast doubts on the good faith of the Government's intention to move pensions in future with the movement in national average earnings. We promised to do that and that we shall do.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
      '(3) In subsection (3)(b) of the said section 39, after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
      (ia) the relationship between the rates of social security benefits and the impact on benefits of income tax and the pattern of allowances for tax purposes under the Finance Acts,'
      I hope that we may proceed to debate this important amendment with a little more tranquillity from the Government Front Bench than we have just experienced. This is a proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph in Section 39(3)(b) of the Social Security Act 1973. The amendment does not achieve all that we would wish. It does not go as far as we would like. Its intention is to discover the Government's position in relation to possible progress towards a tax-credit scheme or something of that kind.
      It was not possible for us to draft an amendment that was in order within the terms of the Bill and which would have required the Government to lay before the House their proposals for the implementation of a tax-credit scheme. I hope that this amendment will provide the opportunity for a short debate on the Government's intentions. The amendment requires the Government to have regard to the relationship between the rates of benefit and the impact on benefits of income tax and tax allowances.
      I know that the right hon. Lady, as a member of the Select Committee, has given a great deal of thought to this subject. We were concerned by the absence from the Queen's Speech of any reference to the preparation or implementation of a tax credit scheme. We have remained concerned by the notable lack of enthusiasm and silence on the part of the Government about any such scheme since they came into office. We want to press further to discover their intentions about this and go as far as we can to make them accept some obligations in relation to it.
      As the right hon. Lady said on Second Reading, she is concerned with progress towards the elimination of poverty, notably, perhaps, the elimination of family poverty. That is why we,
      554
      and others outside the House of Commons, have been concerned, at the absence, so far, of any provisions in relation to family allowances.
      We welcome the continuance of the family income supplement scheme as the interim scheme it was inevitably originally designed to be. It is possible to do much more with the £500 million, for example, which is to be spent on indiscriminate food subsidies, by the introduction of something like a tax credit scheme. Surely by now it is universally acknowledged that something more is necessary than the continuation, either of the present network of means-tested benefits or progress simply by an extension of general benefits by categories rather than by reference to families.
      It is now generally recognised that there is a good case for integrating the tax system and the benefit system. It is generally recognised that only in this way shall we respond to the universally accepted need to roll back the carpet of means tests of which the right hon. Lady spoke.
      The truth is that the tax system and the benefit system are inextricably interwoven. The amendment enjoins the Government to recognise that specifically; and we hope that they will do so by indicating their willingness to make progress by something like a tax credit scheme. The arguments in favour of this kind of approach have been voiced in the House of Commons by spokesmen on both sides under successive Governments for 10 or 15 years. I recollect reading speeches by the former Member for Kettering, Mr. Gilbert Mitchison, who was at one time the Labour Party spokesman on these matters. He was arguing in favour of an approach of this kind in the days when "receive as you need" was the jargon description of a scheme of that sort. Then he was followed by Douglas Houghton, again from the Dispatch Box, arguing for the Labour Government in favour of a minimum income guarantee which was part of the 1964 programme of the Labour Party.
      Since then, the jargon has rolled on and we talk now of a negative income tax. But, whatever one calls it, we believe that there is an overwhelming case in favour of making progress with the work under-taken by the last Government towards

      555
      the introduction, in stages if necessary, of a tax credit scheme. That has the merit that it would involve great simplification of our social and taxation system. It has the merit that automatically it would bring more help to families and individuals in real need without the need for individual application and, more importantly, without the need for means testing.
      The right hon. Lady, or it may have been her hon. Friend, spoke about the strategy which either side wants to adopt to get ordinary retirement pensioners off means-tested benefits. We certainly want to do that as far as it is possible. We believe that the quickest, simplest, fairest and most expeditious way of doing that is by making progress on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in his Green Paper published in October 1972, Cmnd. 5116.
      9.30 p.m.
      I know that the right hon. Lady adopted a different approach, but the majority of that Committee was in favour of making progress on those lines. I know that other members of the Committee now sitting on the Front Bench opposite took yet a further variation in their approach, and I think that to some extent Douglas Houghton was running a one-man approach of his own. [Interruption.] That right hon. Gentleman did yeoman service to the Labour Party as well as to the House for many years. It is odd that it should need me to pay tribute to that.
      I do not see myself how, fast enough and effectively enough, we are going to make the kind of progress that we all want towards the elimination of most means-tested benefits, towards the purposive and effective relief and conquest of poverty as far as it can possibly be done, without individual application, unless something in the nature of a tax credit scheme is proceeded with and brought forward by the Government.
      It is because we want to place an obligation upon the Government to do that and to explain their attitude towards it now I have moved the amendment.
      Mrs. Castle: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted, this is what I think is called a technically defec-
      556
      tive amendment in the sense that, in the first place, its meaning is far from clear. Secondly, if the amendment were accepted by the Committee and included in the Bill it would merely be another of those considerations which the Secretary of State at his discretion had to take into account in making the annual review under Section 39 of the 1973 Act. In view of our last fracas it is pertinent to point out that this would come within the discretionary subsection 3(b), and therefore it would merely become one of those considerations that the Secretary of State should, without commitment, have in mind.
      On the sheer merits of the content of the amendment I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press it very hard. I realise his difficulty in keeping within the terms of the Bill, and I am not trying to make any point out of that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was frank with the Committee and said that he merely wanted to use the amendment as something on which to hang what he hoped would be a short discussion on the tax-credit scheme in order to get our views on it.
      Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself in previous debates have made clear the Government's attitude to the tax-credit scheme which I had the pleasure of studying in the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark). As the Chancellor said during the Budget debate, we do not have any objection in principle to a negative income tax. Indeed, as has been said, the Labour Government initially started the exploration of it.
      As the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks a little puzzled, perhaps for his benefit I should read what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech:
      "We believed, as we explained at length in opposition, that there are serious drawbacks to the tax credit scheme proposed by the previous administration. They were fully described in the Minority Reports of the Select Committee. We have not taken any decision against the principle of a negative income tax, which was the subject of considerable study under the previous Labour Government, but our immediate priority has been to carry out the major increase in national insurance benefits".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol 871, c. 312.]
      I remind the Committee of that point.

      557
      We have serious criticims of the tax credit scheme that was examined by the Select Committee, and perhaps I may state briefly two of our objections. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that was to be a way of reaching an objective that we all share—that of rolling back means testing—but the trouble with the tax credit scheme is that it did not begin to tackle the problem of means testing. As the Green Paper which the previous Government produced pointed out, if the scheme had been introduced in October 1972 about 1 million national insurance beneficiaries would have had their incomes raised above the supplementary benefit level. That would have been 1 million out of 2¾ million people, and that would not even be half way towards getting rid of supplementary benefits. Indeed, apart from taking 800,000 pensioners above the supplementary benefit level, it would get rid of only one means test, the family income supplement. And whether it would achieve even that would depend on the way it was financed.
      Another of our objections was that the previous Government never at any time gave any indication of how they proposed to raise the illustrative figure of £1,300 million. Unless one knows how it is to be raised, one does not know the value of the so-called increase in benefits. Indeed if the Government, sticking by the argument that they made in the Select Committee and the House, were to contemplate financing this out of growth—that is fiscal drag—without any increase in tax rates, as the calculations of experts to the Committee made clear, people could be worse off.
      The one point on which there was unanimity among the members of the Select Committee, and I think that there is unanimity in the House, was in respect of the child credit. As a result of strong representations, the proposals for the child credit were, on the recommendation of the Select Committee, to be altered in such a way that they hardly became part of the tax credit scheme at all. We unanimously agreed that one could strike a blow against family poverty by sufficiently adequate cash allowances for all children, including the first, allowances which all agreed must be payable to the mother. In this way the allowance would not come as a credit to offset the tax through the father's wage packet.
      558
      It is possible to detach such an idea from the complex context of the tax credit scheme outlined by the Government. That is what we would propose to do, and that is what is meant by our child endowment scheme. On those lines, therefore, we should presumably be marching in harmony.
      We believe that more generous longterm pension proposals of the kind that we are now working out will be far more effective in taking pensioners off supplementally benefit than, on the previous Governments' own admission, the tax credit scheme would have been. This is an extremely complicated and fascinating matter. I hope that we shall have opportunity to discuss it in detail in the House. It is important and I believe that we should probe it. We should certainly be willing to examine whether it is possible to find some alternative form of tax credit system without the disadvantages we foresaw in the system proposed in the Green Paper, the defects of which my hon Friends and I have outlined in our minority report.
      It is, therefore, in my opinion a subject which we should continue to discuss and to probe. It is extremely complex. With all respect to the Committee I suggest that it does not arise on this uprating Bill. It is part of the long-term policy that we shall be discussing in all its facets in the months to come. Certainly if the amendment were to be adopted today it would add nothing to the substance of the considerations that the Secretary of State would have to have in mind during an uprating.
      Mr. William Clark: In moving this amendment my right hon. and learned Friend said that he accepted its technicalities and deficiencies. However, there is no question but that the idea behind the amendment is to get the tax credit system started. The right hon. Lady says that in their minority report the Government Members rejected the scheme. I remind her that they put in two minority reports, one by the right hon. Lady and one by the hon. Gentleman who is now the Chief Secretary. I am not trying to create party rancour, but it is fair to say that even in a Select Committee the Socialist Party would split three ways, for the right hon. Member for Sowerby, as he then was,

      559
      Mr. Houghton. voted for the majority report.
      The right hon. Lady has got the wrong angle on this subject. We are arguing in this context that if we take our tax system as it is and one takes any Chancellor from any party and he increases tax allowances, that is splendid only if one has sufficient income to absorb any increase in personal allowances. A tax credit system, however, would mean that such an increase was a positive benefit to the person entitled to it.
      The right hon. Lady is less than fair when she says that there are better methods, that abolishing family allowances and introducing a child credit is a good idea. That is only half of the story. If we are to have a child credit, it means that the child allowance, as we now know it, disappears out of the window, for one cannot have both.
      All the Chief Secretary was arguing in his minority report was lack of flexibility. But now he is in the Treasury he probably realises a little more clearly that there is as much flexibility in the tax credit system as per the majority report as there is in our present tax system.
      Another respect in which the right hon. Lady is less than fair is that she glibly says that if we are endeavouring to get rid of as much poverty as possible by the tax credit system, if the marriage allowance or the single allowance is increased, one can float off more and more people from supplementary benefit. The tax credit system would abolish FIS; it would increase the pension for the retired; and it would help the single-parent family.
      It would also help a person trying to buy his own house, for under the tax credit system he would get what is known as a tax credit mortgage and instead of paying 11 per cent., he would get 33 per cent. automatically knocked off. I make that about 7½ per cent. So here, at a stroke, we could help the owner-occupier. But I am sure that you would not want me, Mr. Thomas, in the context of a National Insurance Bill, to talk about house ownership, important though it may be.
      I think that the right hon. Lady should think about this again. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will press the amendment, because the Conservative
      560
      Party has gone on record as producing a report, albeit there were two minority reports. The Liberals voted with us, and I am sorry that they are not here to enjoy this debate, because they always profess so much concern for those in poverty and a desire to help all people. I regret that they are not here, but no doubt they are carrying on their community politics somewhere else.
      The tax credit system should not be put off, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will press this to a vote. As I have said, the Conservative Party accepted the majority report. My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted our report in toto. We put it in our manifesto, and I think we ought to show at every opportunity that we intend, when next we get into office, to introduce a system which will automatically take many thousands of people out of poverty and away from means-tested benefits. In time we will make the system more sophisticated and get more means-tested benefits brought into the tax credits system.
      For those reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will press this amendment and I regret that the right hon. Lady has not seen fit to accept it.
      9.45 p.m.
      Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to have had the opportunity of listening to the authoritative comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark) about the arguments that we have advanced during this short debate. They are forceful arguments and strongly favour continued progress towards a tax credit scheme.
      Of course, I listened with interest to what the right hon. Lady said. Manifestly, as was implicit in what my hon. Friend said, there may be scope for changes in one direction or another in the pattern, shape and financing of the tax credit scheme as it emerged from the last Select Committee analysis.
      To some extent the child credit part of such a scheme can be regarded as a first step. The fact that by no means all, indeed only a minority, of retirement pensioners would take a means test on that analysis indicates why it deserves further examination. I do not believe that if Beveridge's original conception of means-tested assistance as a safety-net

      561
      for the tiny minority is to be fulfilled we should ever get close enough to that without a redesigned tax credit system. That is the underlying argument, and it is for that reason that we attach high importance to this scheme and intend to press it for so long as this Parliament may last and thereafter in our own policies.
      We are grateful for the willingness of the right hon. Lady to examine possible alternative approaches. I am grateful that this is a measure on which, to some extent, the historically bipartisan approach to the problem in the House of Commons appears to be surviving. I do not think that the Conservative Party in opposition can regard the statement by the right hon. Lady as sufficiently acknowledging the importance we attach to this. My hon. Friend urged me to press this to a Division. I recognise that those who study the reports in the OFFICIAL REPORT hereafter may have some difficulty in seeing how far the amendment takes us towards the objective. In this case people are entitled to
      see why we have moved the amendment, why we speak in support of it.
      I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) on his brief visitation. We have been commenting in his absence on the absence of representatives of his party.
      Dr. Michael Winstanley: We are not often absent from the Lobby and we are not always accompanied by hon. Members on this side.
      Sir G. Howe: It is nevertheless significant that on this important matter, which goes to the heart of the pattern of social provision, the Liberal Party has been unrepresented by voice. We are glad that the Liberal Party is now represented in this form.
      For the reasons I have stated, I invite my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 253, Noes 282.

      Division No.12.]

      AYES

      [9.49 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gorst, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clegg, Walter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cockcroft, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Ancram, M.

      Cope, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Cordle, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Awdry, Daniel

      Corrie, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Costain, A. P.

      Gurden, Harold

      Banks, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Hall, Sir John

      Beith, Alan

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Bell, Ronald

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

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

      Hampson, Dr. Keith

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Hannam, John

      Benyon, W.

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Berry, Hon. Anthony

      Dixon, Piers

      Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hon.

      Biffen, John

      Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Paul

      Blaker, Peter

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Body, Richard

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Heseltine, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon. Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Higgins, Terence

      Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Holland, Philip

      Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Elliott, Sir Robert

      Hordern, Peter

      Bray, Ronald

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey,E.)

      Brewis, John

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Brittan, Leon

      Fidler Michael

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

      Hunt, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hurd, Douglas

      Buck, Antony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Budgen, Nick

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fox, Marcus

      Irvine, Bryant Godmen (Rye)

      Burden, F. A.

      Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&Stone)

      James, David

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)

      Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std&W'fd)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Jessel, Toby

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Channon, Paul

      Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Goodhart, Philip

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Jopling, Michael

      Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Goodlad, A.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'm'ngton)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Neave, Airey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanley, John

      Knox, David

      Newton, Tony (Braintree)

      Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

      Lamont, Norman

      Nicholls, Sir Harmer

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Lane, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Nott, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Osborn, John

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Lester, John (Beeston)

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Loveridge, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Percival, Ian

      Townsend, C. D.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Trotter, Neville

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Raison, Timothy

      Tyler, Paul

      MacGregor, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      McLaren, Martin

      Redmond, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Waddington, David

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Renton,Rt.Hn.SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're)

      Wainwright, R. (Colne Valley)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

      Wakeham, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Marten, Neil

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Mather, Carol

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wall, Patrick

      Maude, Angus

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mawby, Ray

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wells, John

      MayheW, Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Winstanley, Dr. Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Worsley, Sir Marcus

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

      Moate, Roger

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Money, Ernie

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Monro, Hector

      Shelton, William (L'mb'th,Streath'm)

      Dr. Gerard Vaughan and

      Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Richard Luce.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Silvester, Fred

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Sims, Roger

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Allaun, Frank

      Conlan, Bernard

      Flannery, Martin

      Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

      Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cox, Thomas

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Ashley, Jack

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ford, Ben

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Forrester, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cryer, G. R.

      Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cunningham, G.(Islington,S&F'eb'ry)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cunningham. Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Bates, Alf

      Davidson, Arthur

      Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

      Baxter, William

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      George, Bruce

      Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

      Graham, Ted

      Bishop, E. S.

      Deakins, Eric

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

      Grant, John (Islington, C.)

      Booth, Albert

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Aur

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hamling, William

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Doig, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Bradley, Tom

      Dormand, J. D.

      Harper, Joseph

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)

      Duffy, A E. P.

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.& Sh'ditch)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hattersley, Roy

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

      Hatton, Frank

      Buchanan,Richard(G'gow,Springbrn)

      Eadie, Alex

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Campbell, Ian

      Edge, Geoff

      Henderson,Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)

      Cant, R. B.

      Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)

      Hooley, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

      Horam, John

      Carter, Ray

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      English, Michael

      Huckfield, Leslle

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Cocks, Michael

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ewing,H.(St'ling,F'kirk&G'm'th)

      Coleman, Donald

      Fernyhough. Rt. Hn. E.

      Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

      564

      565

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mayhew,Christopher(G'wh,W'wch,E)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham D'ford)

      Hunter, Adam

      Meacher, Michael

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l,EdgeHilll)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

      Mendelson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jackson, Colin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Small, William

      Janner, Greville

      Millan, Bruce

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

      Snape, Peter

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

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

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

      Molloy, William

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

      Moonman, Eric

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      John, Brynmor

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)

      Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberayon)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Moyle, Roland

      Stott, Roger

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Nowens. Stanley (Harlow)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Swain, Thomas

      Judd, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Taverne, Dick

      Kaufman, Gerald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)

      Kelley, Richard

      O'Malley, Brian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Kerr, Russell

      Orbach, Maurice

      Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ovenden, John

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kinnock, Neil

      Owen, Dr. David

      Tinn, James

      Lambie, David

      Padley, Walter

      Tomlinson, John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Palmer, Arthur

      Torney, Tom

      Lamond, James

      Park, George (Coventry. N.E.)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Latham, Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lawson, Goorge (Motherwell&Wishaw)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Lee, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)

      Lester, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Phipos, Dr. Colin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Watkins, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Prescott, John

      Watt, Hamish

      Lipton, Marcus

      Radice, Giles

      Weitzman, David

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Loughlin, Charles

      Reid, George

      White, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Whitlock, William

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      McElhole, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng. Hchurch)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley(H'tf'd&St'nge)

      McGuire, Michael

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Rodgers,William (Teesside,St'ckton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      MacLennan. Robert

      Rooker. J. W.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      McMillan, Torn (Glasgow, C.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Wise. Mrs. Audrey

      Madden, M. o. F.

      Rowlands, Edward

      Woodall, Alec

      Magee, Bryan

      Sanderson, Neville

      Woof, Robert

      Mahon, Simon

      Sedgemore, Bryan

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Selby, Harry

      Young, David (Bolton, E.)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

      Marquand, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&P'plar)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

      Mr. John Golding.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the National Insurance Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour. [Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act
  566
  1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Representation of the People (No. 2) Act 1974.

  2. Ayr County Council Order Confirmation Act 1974.

  3. St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974.

  4. Renfrew County Council Order Confirmation Act 1974.

  5. Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act 1974.

  6. Glasgow Corporation (Control of Parking &c.) Order Confirmation Act 1974.

  7. Greenock Corporation Order Con firmation Act 1974.

  8. Zetland County Council Act 1974.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  10.3 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in Clause 5, page 5, line 4, at end insert:
  (2A) In subsection (3) of the said section 39, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  (c) the rate of change in the general level of prices and earnings with a view to considering the desirability of introducing legislation requiring more frequent reviews of benefit than is provided for in this section '.
  I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 4, at end insert:
  '(2B) After subsection 10 of the said section 39 there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
  (10A) Following each review of social security benefits under this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of his conclusions on the matters which he is required to consider by subsection (3)(c) above '.
  The two amendments are linked. Amendment No. 8 requires certain additional matters to be written into Section 39 of the 1973 Act. It is suggested that in the course of a review of benefits under that section the Secretary of State should consider the rate of change in the general level of prices and earnings with a view to considering the desirability of introducing legislation requiring more frequent reviews of benefits than the annual reviews provided for in that section. The linked amendment, Amendment No. 9, requires that any such review be followed by laying before the House a report of the Secretary of State's conclusions on this matter. The question is whether to impose on the Secretary of State an obligation to consider whether an annual review is enough in present circumstances. The introduction of an annual review was admittedly a great step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed this out in an earlier debate.
  There has previously been an erratic pattern whereby eventually about every two years benefits have been reviewed and uprated, but this has always been a
  568
  matter of increasing concern and agitation, and so both sides welcomed the provisions of Section 39 requiring an annual review to be undertaken. That great step forward is to the credit of the previous Government.
  In the present situation, in which I have already reminded the House of the anticipations of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection about the possible movement of prices in the year ahead, the question is whether an annual review is frequent enough or good enough. While we have no quarrel with the proposed timing for the introduction of these benefit increases or with the annual review on the basis of the Bill as it stands, we are now asking why there should not be more frequent reviews.
  In our election manifesto we said that we would move towards the introduction of reviews every six months. Hon. Members on bath sides must have felt increasingly attracted by this idea. I believe that the Canadian Government have recently proposed the introduction of quarterly reviews, and I understand from some of my hon. Friends that in some European countries—Belgium, I believe, is one—reviews are as frequent as monthly. This may be the kind of direction in which we should be moving, certainly if anything like the present or expected rate of inflation continues.
  One of the difficulties, I know, about more frequent reviews is the administrative problem for the Department—the same problem as gives rise to the difficulty in accelerating uprating. This is an area in which we hope further progress can be made. One of the matters which was always clear to me as holding back advance on this front is the extent to which, as a nation, we have so deeply embedded in our national life a weekly rhythm of payments and incomes. This is deeply ingrained in the concept of the weekly pay packet and weekly benefit, although one can depart from that by expressing an option.
  One hopes that it may be possible over the years ahead to move towards a monthly rhythm, which would certainly reduce enormously the administrative work and make this kind of uprating and a faster uprating much more possible.

  569
  But, short of that, 1 am now asking the Secretary of State to accept an obligation at the next and each successive review to consider whether more frequent reviews should not be undertaken and to report on her conclusions in the course of the report on that review. I hope that the two amendments will prove acceptable to the Government.
  Mrs. Castle: It is a hallmark of the inflationary world into which we have moved that there should have been such an inflation of the pensions policy proposals of the Conservative Party in the last few years. We only recently moved to annual reviews, and under this Bill we are moving to annual reviews on the basis of earnings, not just prices. The suggestion is now made that even that is not enough.
  Every Government who introduce an uprating are well aware that the erosion in the value of that pension starts from the very moment of the introduction of the uprating. We are aware of how long it will inevitably take to bring under control the runaway inflation of this country; that is why we introduced such an exceptionally large uprating. We have started with a margin over inflation and inflationary prospects that has not, I think, been embodied in any previous uprating.
  Let me give an illustration. The October 1973 uprating of the last Government represented, at the time it was announced, a 14·9 per cent. increase in long-term benefits over the figure of October 1972. But by the time it came into operation that 14·9 per cent. increase was worth only 3·5 per cent. in real terms. In this uprating the increase is 29 per cent. after only 10 months. Even at the worst estimate of the possible rate of inflation this year, by the time this up-rating is introduced in July it will still represent an increase of 15 per cent.—more than three times the value in real terms of the last Conservative uprating. Therefore, the Committee will realise that we have tried to give an uprating that will insulate pensioners to a greater extent than heretofore against the price rises that lie ahead. Of course, that is coupled with the Government's other policies for holding down price increases which are of particular interest to pensioners.
  570
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir Geoffrey Howe) likes to sneer about what he calls our indiscriminate expenditure on food subsidies. But it is not indiscriminate in a situation like this to say that we shall bring down the price of milk and peg the price of bread. I should have thought that that was a very discriminatory way of operating on the expenditure of the very hard hit group which we are trying most to help. It comes a little odd from the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about indiscriminate subsidies when his Government left us with the job of reducing some of the massive subsidies that they had been running up in, for example, the electricity industry. Then, when we do reduce those indiscriminate subsidies, the Opposition will complain that we have put up prices. It is a question of heads they hope they win and tails they hope we lose. But it will not prove as simple as that.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be more discriminating to use the money to increase family allowances?
  Mrs. Castle: It would not discriminate in favour of pensioners. I was talking about pensioners and how we were trying to keep down the costs of their budgets. Clearly, bread and milk figure very largely in those budgets. I have explained how we shall insulate pensioners against rent and rate increases by seeing that the pension increases do not affect rent or rate rebates and allowances. We have gone carefully down the list, to heating allowances and so on. So we have tried to create in this comprehensive uprating a greater protection for pensioners against price increases than existed hitherto.
  10.15 p.m.
  I owe it to the Committee to point out that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East has hinted at the administrative implications. But it is not only a question whether more frequent upratings would put a strain upon my staff. I say quite categorically that more frequent upratings would make unavoidable a substantial increase in the staff of my Department. They would not be possible or tolerable on any other basis. This is one of the considerations which any Secretary of State operating

  571
  under this amendment would have to bear in mind. What anyone who calls for more frequent upratings is asking for is an increase in the staff of my Department of about 2,500 or 3,000, or even more. I hope that once again we shall be spared the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party saying, on the one hand, that they want more frequent upratings but, on the other hand, then saying "Look at the wicked Labour Government. They have increased the number of their civil servants by these fantastic figures."
  Mr. McCrindle: To help the Committee to evaluate this situation, may I refer the right hon. Lady to what she said a few moments ago? It is stated that the increase that she proposes is 29 per cent., and that at worst, on introduction, that would be worth 15 per cent. Bearing in mind the reference of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to the possibility that inflation in the forthcoming year would go forward at up to 18 per cent., at what period during the 12 months following July does the right hon. Lady feel that the value of the pension that she is introducing would begin to evaporate?
  Mrs. Castle: I am taking into account the estimate of the possible increase in prices, the worst possible estimate, for the period up to July. That is included in my calculations and is part of the price movements in the coming year which, by these various devices, the Government are seeking to curb.
  I should like to to return to the point about the number of staff. It has been one of the more unpleasant features of Conservative policy and propaganda always to attack the "inflated bureaucracy" created by a Labour Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to inflate the bureaucracy. I am not one of those who oppose increasing the number of civil servants when it is essential to do so to give a better service to the people. But can we please now realise that we must make a choice, that either we want to give a better service or we want to bring down the number of civil servants? We cannot do both. I hope that we shall have the honesty to admit that.
  572
  I am asked in the amendment to have as one of the discretionary considerations
  " the desirability of introducing legislation requiring more frequent reviews of benefit ".
  Of course, any Government in the situation which the world is in of inflationary pressures would be compelled to have under consideration the extent to which even the most careful planning of uprating to forestall price increases could be undermined. If that happened, any Government and any House of Commons would have to consider it. Therefore, I am willing to accept the amendment, because it is a consideration that I should, of course, have to have in mind anyway.
  I repeat that we have given ourselves a margin that I hope will hold in real terms, but in accepting the amendment I accept that in the present fluid and difficult economic situation any Government would have to have that sort of consideration in mind.
  I am therefore happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The arguments in the Committee are becoming more absurd as the evening goes on. We had a complex discussion on indices to start with, where the difference might be only that between 112 and 113, and we were talking about a matter of some lop in £10. Now the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) talks about moving towards monthly reviews. When we talk like that, we are thinking of something like Latin American inflation.
  Clearly, the amount of leeway in the figures is already adequate. Even the proposal in the Conservative manifesto of a six-monthly review as a standard procedure was, I feel, only a gimmick, and it is appearing in the debate again as a gimmick.
  Rather than add to the administrative costs by having over-frequent reviews, a more subtle approach might be to rely on methods of economic forecasting, anticipating what the index will be, instead of adding to the burdens of my right hon. Friend's Department in the way suggested.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: One of the things that the country may or may not have come to learn during

  573
  the last election is that we are finding ourselves as a country, and possibly as a civilisation, in a zero growth situation. The real income of our community and of our civilisation is probably stabilising itself at current levels. There is little prospect of an increase in real terms. It seems that the Committee, if it is doing nothing else, is saying to the country "We are prepared now to institutionalise inflation. We are admitting defeat. We are saying that never again shall we be able to offer the prospect of a stable pound and a stable currency ". I find that a horrifying admission and realisation.
  Is the only possible alternative that Governments now have before them to institutionalise inflation to the point when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) seriously suggests that we might have to review pensions and income of other forms on a monthly basis? If that can be done on a monthly basis, it could quite seriously be decided that it should be done on a weekly or daily basis. Are we to have all the main computers of the Treasury churning out all the statistics which would be needed to give a daily point value to the currency? If we admit that we can go from a year to half a year and from half a year to a month, why should not we go from a month to a week and from a week to a day?
  The first question which we should ask ourselves is whether there is a practical alternative. Must we now as an administration, and as the engine of management of this country, seriously accept that inflation is so totally out of control that the only way in which we can pretend to guarantee a real income for the retired section of the community—to use the word "guarantee" would be a grave exaggeration—is by the extraordinary process of national self-bluff that we can go on and on dealing with our currency in the present way?
  I see that the Secretary of State is looking at me somewhat indulgently. Perhaps she has practical alternatives. She may well be looking at me and thinking that it is time that I suggested some practical alternatives. I accept that. There is only one serious objective which any serious Government of a serious civilisation could put forward, and that is to restore the stability of our country. If as a Par-
  574
  liament we now say that we shall institutionalise inflation not only in this sector, whilst dealing with possibly 8 million people who represent 15 per cent. of the population, but on a broad front wherever Parliament has a definite responsibility for fixed incomes and for the real income content of those incomes, then it seems that Parliament is making a most extraordinary confession of total defeat.
  We cannot even discuss the amendment without facing seriously the reality of what we are doing. There are other ways of proceeding which involve the acceptance on the economic front of a variety of economic self-disciplines which, as far as I have been able to judge, the nation is not prepared to accept. Unless that message does not produce a package deal that institutionalises inflation, the confession of defeat will be final and permanent.
  Sir G. Howe: It falls to me to thank the Government for their willingness to accept the amendment. In so doing, I must say a word about the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right to underline the extent to which the British people—and I hope that this is implicit in some of the things that were said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement—must face a world in which the achievement of growth on any steady basis is far more difficult than it has been in our political lifetime.
  The impact of world economic conditions must make a substantial difference to our expectations. My hon. Friend is right to ask how far the Committee and any Government should accept the institutionalisation of inflation. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like more than anything else, as would the electors, to see any Government achieve a stable currency.
  There appear to be factors at work in the opposite direction, even in the most well-disciplined economies around the world, which are, as it were, looking for a new Keynes to produce something in the way of a fresh solution. We are not near to finding that solution. No doubt part of the answer is to be found in an acceptance of some of the harsh realities of the difficulty of overcoming

  575
  inflation. It is worth pointing out that even the most economic purist from the Chicago school, and I have in mind Milton Friedman for one, actually argues now that if we are to obtain acceptance by a community of all that is necessary to overcome inflation—and that will not be easy—it is legitimate often to index benefits of this kind while the inflation persists.
  I hope that no one on either side of the Committee thinks that the provision for a periodic review of benefits—although it is part of what we must do to deal with inflation—represents, for me anyway, an acceptance of any form of institutionalising inflation. Far from it. While inflation is with us we have to be prepared to make this kind of change in our machinery.
  When I spoke about monthly reviews I was not arguing that that was the necessary or desirable pattern. I was commenting on the fact that I was told that it was done in Belgium. I was arguing the desirability of a monthly pattern of payment over the years to get away from the many hazards of storage of cash, administrative burdens and everything else involved in the weekly pattern. I referred to the monthly review only to demonstrate that other administrative systems find it easier to cope with more frequent reviews than does our own. The right hon. Lady said that a change to a more frequent review would involve an inflation of the bureaucracy. That can be presented as implicit in a change with the system we now have.
  It may be possible to improve on that system and by other changes, such as tax credit changes, to produce an offset in saving elsewhere. We are grateful to the Government for their willingness to accept the amendment and hope that they will also accept the consequential Amendment No. 9.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 9, in Clause 5, page 5, line 4, at end insert:
  ' (2B) After subsection (10) of the said section 39 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  (10A) Following each review of social security benefits under this section, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of his conclusions on the matters which he is required
  576
  to consider by subsection (3)(c) above '.—[Sir G. Howe.]
  Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I should be grateful for clarification of a matter of substance which I had hoped to raise on Amendment No. 6, standing in my name, which was not, unfortunately, selected, because, I am advised, a wider amendment to earlier legislation would have been required to reach the conclusion I wished. I am sure that the point is in order on Clause 5 as it refers to the annual review.
  I ask whether the Government will now concede that the annual review should now include the application of the earnings rule to retirement pensioners. As I sought to raise the matter on Clause 4 and the Under-Secretary of State replied, I will not go into the case at length again now, but he was unable to answer me fully then and perhaps he has now been more adequately briefed.
  I will not press the matter too hard because I am sure that the Government agree in principle with what I am saying. I remember how passionate in Opposition the right hon. Lady and the Minister of State were in pressing that we should include the earnings rule for retirement pensioners in the annual review. When the Under-Secretary of State tried to defend the earnings rule against my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) earlier, he did it so diffidently that it was clear that he shared our approach to it and had little faith in the brief from which he read extracts.
  I believe that the case is now even stronger than it was last year. The earnings rule for retirement pensioners must be kept in step with earnings in the annual review because otherwise failure to consider such earnings in any one year would lead to a tightening of the rule and an effect which none of us want.
  I trust that the Minister of State will answer sympathetically. The Government are quite excited about their commitment to an annual review in line with earnings, but apparently they are not sure that they should include it in statute. They have made a point of their commitment to keep pensions in line with

  577
  earnings, and I ask them to accept that the earnings rule should be included in the annual review as well.
  Mr. O'Malley: First, I repeat the point made earlier when we were discussing the general question of the earnings rule. Both sides of the Committee recognise the problems of conflicting financial priorities. Secondly, without commitment, I am of course prepared to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
    Clause 6

      MINOR SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY ENACTMENTS.
      Question proposed, That the clause, stand part of the Bill.
      Sir B. Rhys Williams: I should be grateful if the Minister of State would enlighten us as to the precise effect of this clause, which, if it means what we think it means, we welcome. It appears only to give the Secretary of State powers to set aside decisions where it appears just to do so back to 1965. Does this mean that hard cases which have been left unattended up to now because the Secretary of State had no power to deal with them and which arose before 1965 will still remain hard cases which cannot be dealt with? Or will it be possible to re-open cases, which all concerned felt were unjust, where the actual events took place before 1965?
      Mr. Raison: Subsection (4) refers to certain matters which would be dealt with by the Occupational Pensions Board in its discretion. Can the Minister of State tell us off the cuff what kind of matters these might be, and perhaps more specifically how the Government see the role of the board? There has been some doubt about the attitude of the Government towards the board. Anything that the hon. Gentleman could say on this subject would be helpful.
      Mr. O'Malley: I think it would be more sensible if I were to answer that general question when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes an
      578
      interim statement on the future of the Social Security Act 1973, and then defines the long-term position more clearly in our White Paper.
      The purpose of subsection (4) is to remove a doubt about the vices of four provisions in the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1973. The number of the statutory instrument is SI 1469. It gives power to make similar regulations if they are required.
      I will read carefully what the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said and I will write to him on the subject.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      INCREASE OF DEATH GRANT
      " In paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Insurance Act, for sub-paragraph (d) there shall be substituted:
      (d) over the age of 18/30·00."—[Mr. Boscawen.l
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boscawen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is a very modest but a just and humane clause. Unfortunately, it is a much more modest clause than I would have wished to introduce, but the Chair has ruled new Clause 2 out of order, although it covers all of the points which I wish to raise. This clause covers a very small group of very worthy citizens —those who in 1948 were within 10 years of retirement. There is another smaller group—perhaps even more worthy—who were too old for the scheme in 1948 because they were at that time over retirement age. Unfortunately, that small group who are not eligible for any death grant cannot be included in this Bill. I wish that group could be included.
      This is the third time that I have sought to introduce such a measure to successive Governments. I have to limit this clause to those who were within 10 years of retirement in 1948. Under successive Acts

      579
      they have been entitled only to a limited death grant of £15. Everyone else is entitled to a death grant of £30. Of course, I do not suggest that £30 is anywhere near adequate. I think it is totally inadequate. I understand from those who have advised me that it would require three times that sum to provide the most simple funeral, which would cost something like £80 or £90. By "simple" I mean a funeral with no flowers, no entry in the mourning book and no other trappings that most people regard as necessary for a decent funeral.
      However, it is not my intention to ask the House to raise the total death grant because that would cost a large sum of money and I do not think there would be any chance of having such a request accepted on this occasion. I particularly ask that this deserving group, some of whom are well over 80 and others over 90, who were within 10 years of retirement in 1948, should be entitled to the death grant.
      I was shocked by some comments in letters that I had after seeking to introduce a similar amendment last year. The people who really know about the very poor when they die are the town clerks and district council clerks who often have to administer the funerals of such people. A number of them have written and explained to me what it is like. I was shocked that such things should still continue in 1973 and 1974.
      Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider how much longer we can tolerate the low level of death grant for these people, particularly for the group who receive a reduced rate of grant through no fault of their own, but merely because they were so old when the 1948 Act was introduced. I wish that something could be done for those who are entitled to no grant at all. However, because of the way that the Bill is drafted by the Government, who did not seek to increase any of the grants, maternity or otherwise, I cannot include them.
      I hope that the Minister, who spoke so eloquently and fairly on this subject last year in Committee, will support the new clause. I realise, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that this blot or stain on our social
      580
      security system should have been erased years ago. Successive Governments have stood by the contributory principle: that as these people had not contributed the full amount they were not entitled to the full benefit. The contributory principle has been breached on a number of occasions—in particular, when we introduced the pension for the over-80s. I suggest that it ought to be breached again regarding the death grant.
      This is a modest, humane clause. There is no political mileage in it and no votes. It is something that we all wish to see carried out. I therefore ask the Committee to give its support to the new clause.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was shocked that throughout almost the whole of the beginning of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has left his place, was laughing and talking to his neighbour and not taking the matter as seriously as he should have done—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not true."]—I doubt whether younger hon. Members fully appreciate the importance that a highly independent and proud elderly person attaches to giving his or her loved partner a decent burial.
      I was born and brought up in the North-West at the time when the first Socialist Chancellor, Philip Snowden, brought in the means test. I know how much importance people in my part of the country attach to being able to put something on one side for a decent funeral for themselves without being a burden to those they leave behind.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells said, this is but a modest step in that direction, but it is a step which the Committee should take tonight. It will go only perhaps one third of the way towards making good a deficiency which arises because of the high cost of funerals. The elderly people who will benefit from the provision were paying their stamp when money was very hard to come by. I ask the Committee to treat the clause sympathetically and, if necessary, to come with us into the Lobby tonight.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. McCrindle: On Second Reading I spoke about the death grant and I

      581
      reminded the Minister in no spirit of malice how he and I had shared the same aspirations under the last Government. I listened to his reply with understanding and sympathy, but surely the Government can tonight show an earnest of their good intentions by accepting the clause. It touches at the heart of the people who are worst done by under the death grant arrangements.
      The Government are introducing, to their own pride and with our commendation, a major development in social security costing hundreds of millions of pounds. It seems that the additional amount which would be required to improve the death grant under the terms of the clause is very small by comparison. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the clause and begin to end the whole system of paupers' burials which are still with us and which are, to that extent, a condemnation of us all.
      Mr. O'Malley: I have taken part in debates on the death grant with the hon. Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) over a number of years. I agree with them that the current levels of death grant need revising. I do not seek to score political points when I say that they needed revising under the last Government.
      The grant was introduced by the Labour Government in 1946, and it was 1958 before that grant was increased from the original figure to £25. It was raised to its present level by the Labour Government in 1967. The grant is therefore high up the list of items which need careful and sympathetic consideration. I have argued that case in Opposition and I have no intention of changing my view simply because I have moved across the Floor of the House.
      No Minister at one uprating can commit any future Minister to a course of action at the next uprating. The primary problems this year are that we are spending £1,250 million in a full year on a very simple uprating to implement the £10 and £16 principle. We made the Bill as simple as possible and left out proposals of all kinds to make the issue easy to deal with in this difficult period. We are spending a great deal of money.
      582
      The new clause does not, in global terms, involve a great deal of money. But my difficulty, as a Minister of State in the Department is that while only X million of pounds may be proposed here and only Y million of pounds there the overall bill can be one of hundreds of millions of pounds, not just a few million pounds. Hon. Members opposite would find themselves similarly placed if our roles were reversed.
      I am not in a position—no Minister could be—to give a commitment about what will be in the next uprating which comes before the House of Commons. But it is my firm view, and I am sure the view of the Government, that death grants are an urgent priority. We should like to have the opportunity to review death grants as a whole rather than to deal with a specific, relatively small part of the matter. I do not wish to make anything of the argument of principle, although I could do. We have all previously argued about whether a particular benefit arises under contributory principles, and about whether it should or should not do so, but the fact remains that this is a contributory benefit as it stands at present.
      I hope that hon. Members opposite who have spoken on this matter will accept that we are prepared to consider the whole question of death grants as a matter of high priority before the next uprating. I hope that they accept that it would be preferable to deal with this matter on a comprehensive basis rather than by way of this new clause which is not the new clause which the hon. Gentleman wanted to move. He would have liked to move a different new clause, but was prevented from doing so because of the Money Resolution. This new clause deals with only a fraction of the problem and if hon. Members are prepared to withdraw it we are certainly prepared to consider the whole question of death grants as a high priority for the next uprating.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the way he responded to such an agonising appeal from his predecessor in office during the Committee stage of the previous Bill relating to this matter a year ago, when people were already dying at a considerable rate, as unfortunately they are. The hon. Gentleman gave a stony reaction to such a

      583
      commitment and his response was passionate eloquence in favour of this change. I was the unhappy Government Whip, trying to keep the Opposition together. Is he now to give that miserable Whip the task of turning out his party—
      Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Take that back.
      Mr. Clarke: I meant that only in anticipation of the hon. Gentleman's state of mind and was not referring to his qualities, but he will have the job of turning out Members opposite to vote for the case which the Minister has just put.
      Mr. O'Malley: I was not looking for a political row on this. I have tried to treat the contributions made as very important and to meet them as far as I could. The last uprating cost £550 million in a full year. This one, in very difficult economic circumstances, will cost £1,268 million. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has suggested that that is not responsible. I do not want to be unkind to him on an issue on which we are all sensitive but it is difficult to understand how he thinks an uprating of this size is not responsible, while at the same time he wants to make exceptions.
      In ideal circumstances, like everyone else, I should like to make exceptions. But if one added all these small matters together, one could easily spend several hundreds of millions extra.
      Mr. McCrindle: I understand the position that the Minister is taking, which is identical to the one for which he criticised his predecessor last year, but does he not realise that the debates are close to their end? He cannot be asked to accept many more amendments. So would he not show an earnest of good intentions of a general review of the death grant, which we wholly accept, by moving slightly forward to the very edge
      of this area and accepting the new clause, which is modest by any standards?
      Mr. O'Malley: There are some improvements which I, like everyone else, would like to see. There is a real claim in the matter of disregards alone. We should like improvements in all these important and emotive areas. I think that I have conceded more this evening on this point than any Minister in recent years. I want to see that kind of improvement.
      If hon. Members will accept my goodwill and good intentions, it may be possible to achieve far more improvement in this area. If hon. Members would be prepared to leave it at that now, I will take their points on board in the way I have mentioned. I understand and sympathise with them.
      Mr. Boscawen: Of course I accept the Minister's sincerity. He feels deeply on this important matter, as we all do. I also understand his embarrassment, which my hon. Friend also suffered when he rejected a similar amendment for the same reasons. But when we are spending a vast sum like £1,260 million, the public will ask why we could not afford to add this small amount to help this needy group That is very difficult to argue against.
      I accept that the Minister will have a full review, which is long overdue, and that it may be necessary not only to extend it to those who get no grant at all but also to uprate the grant to something like the true cost. But I cannot accept his refusal to introduce this small measure, and I for one will support it if it goes to the vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 36, Noes 253.

      Division No. 13.

      AYES

      [11.0 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Knox, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ancram, M.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Baker, Kenneth

      Lester, John (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sims, Roger

      Cockcroft, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)

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

      Mayhew,Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Durant, Tony

      Moate, Roger

      Winstanley, Dr. Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Worsley, Sir Marcus

      Hampson, Dr. Keith

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)

      Mr. Kenneth Clarke and

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Archer, Peter (Warley, West)

      George, Bruce

      Murray, Ronald King

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Golding, John

      Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

      Ashley, Jack

      Gourlay, Harry

      Oakes, Gordon

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Ted

      Ogden, Eric

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, John (Islington, C.)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

      Ovenden, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Owen, Dr. David

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)

      Hamling, William

      Padley, Walter

      Bates, Alf

      Hardy, Peter

      Palmer, Arthur

      Baxter, William

      Harper, Joseph

      Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Pendry, Tom

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hatton, Frank

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Booth, Albert

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Phipps. Dr. Colin

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg

      Bottomley, Rt. He. Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Horam, John

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

      Bradley, Tom

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Radice, Giles

      Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.& Sh'ditch)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

      Reid, George

      Buchanan,Richard (G' gow,Springbrn)

      Hunter, Adam

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Butler,Mrs.Joyce (H'gey,WoodGreen)

      Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Callaghan,Rt.Hn.James(Cardiff,S.E.)

      Janner, Greville

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton a Pr'wicn)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Campbell, Ian

      Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.

      Carmichael, Neil

      John, Brynmor

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Carter, Ray

      Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull,W.)

      Rodgers,William (Teesside,St'ckton)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cocks, Michael

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rowlands, Edward

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

      Judd, Frank

      Sedgemore, Bryan

      Concannon, J. D.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Selby, Harry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kerr, Russell

      Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

      Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, G.)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&P'plar)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lamborn, Harry

      Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

      Crosland, Rt. He. Anthony

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)

      Cryer, G. R.

      Latham, Arthur (CityofW'minsterP'ton)

      Siikin, Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)

      Cunningham,G.(Islington,S&F'sb'ry)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius

      Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)

      Lee, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

      Lever, Rt. Ha. Harold

      Snape, Peter

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

      Loughlin, Charles.

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Deakins Eric

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stott, Roger

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Strang, Gavin

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Delargy, Hugh

      McCartney, Hugh

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Swain, Thomas

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael

      Thomas, D. E. (Merloneth)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      MacLennan, Robert

      Tierney, Sydney

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

      McMillan Torn (Glasgow, C.)

      Tinn, James

      Eadie, Alex

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tomlinson, J. E.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Madden, M. 0. F.

      Torney, Tom

      Edge, Geoff

      Magee, Bryan

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

      Mahon, Simon

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Evans. Fred (Caerphilly)

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

      Watkins, David

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Weitzman, David

      Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&G'm'th)

      Meacher, Michael

      Wellbeloved, James

      Fernyhoug, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      White, James

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mendelson, John

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Flannery, Martin

      Mikardo, fan

      Whitlock, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Bruce

      Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

      Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.

      Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Ford, Ben

      Molloy, William

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Forrester, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Moyle, Roland

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

      586

      587

      Wilson, William (conventry, S.E.)

      Woof, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wise, Mrs. Audrey

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Woodall, Alec

      Young, David (Bolton, E.)

      Mr. J. D. Dormand.

      Question accordingly negatived.

  Schedule 1

    PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN SCHEDULE 3 TO THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1965
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 2, column 2, leave out '£0·25' and insert:
    '£0·25 (in respect of retirement pensions to which paragraph 11 of this table refers) £0·50 (in all other cases)'.
    This is an amendment which has some similarity to the previous amendment in that the Government find difficulty in contemplating any amendment that involves any increase in expenditure. It is therefore possible to deploy only amendments which would involve an absolutely trivial amount of expenditure. Since the Minister attacked me in the last debate for what he called inconsistency between what I said then and what I said on Second Reading and, indeed, what I am about to say, perhaps I should make my position clear.
    My understanding of the Government's position is that the huge expenditure for which the Minister rightly claims credit was entered into before the election as an election commitment. Nice round figures were chosen. They were chosen without any consideration of the cost which would be involved and the effect that that cost would have on other priorities, particularly a national insurance scheme.
    The figures for retirement pensions which were taken up by the Labour Party were first put forward a long time before the election by Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Had the election come even earlier, so that the actual value of that commitment had not been eroded so much by inflation, it is possible that the Labour Party would not have been able to put forward the figures that it was prepared to bandy about for so long.
    Attempts to plug gaps to deal with minor matters in the national insurance scheme have had to be cast aside, the Labour Party having saddled itself with
    588
    its pension commitment. However welcome that commitment is to the beneficiaries, and however much it represents a real shift in resources, such a commitment has left the Government with no room in which to maneouvre. The Minister has not been in a position to give one brass farthing to the smallest claim which has been put forward. In the debate on the last amendment we were not doubting the Minister's good faith but bringing home to him his political position.
    11.15 p.m.
    The Minister was so loaded up with the commitment which the Bill represents that he had to speak and vote against death grants for the over 80's because there was no room for such a trivial amount of expenditure, even though this was a proposition which he found it impossible to argue against as an urgent priority for people who are dying while they wait for this change to be made. This amendment refers to the age addition for retirement pensioners. How much would it cost to double the age addition for the comparatively small number of people over the age of 80? Will the Minister be able to accede to this request? I anticipate that he will not be able to do so. This illustrates how this particular orange has not a pip left to be squeezed out of it.
    If the hon. Gentleman is not able to satisfy me and the expenditure proves to be impossible, given the difficulties he has put himself in, will he say a brief word about the Government's approach to the age addition and this choice of priorities in retirement pensions? The age addition was brought in a few years ago and in my opinion is a desirable choice of priorities, made by the previous Government. The Tory Government meant it to be a foundation on which to build when resources allowed.
    When they first retire nowadays, pensioners are increasingly in good health. Those just over 65 will be allowed to carry on working if the earnings rule is eased. There will be some modest savings for them if the Government allow them to supplement the national insurance pension. It is when they reach the

    589
    age of 80 that more pressing financial difficulties arise. Such people are no longer able to remain in remunerative employment. Those who have been supplementing their pension by their savings find that they have exhausted those savings after 15 years in retirement. There are extremely sad cases of people living to a very great age and getting into more and more straitened circumstances in the last few years.
    I should like the Minister to say that he accepts that this was a valid choice of priorities and that when he next brings forward a National Insurance Bill—after a calmer and more detached period of thought—he will not allow the fact that the age addition is frozen in this Bill to mean that the Government are going back on their choice of priorities. In view of the small number of cases I hope he will say that this group of over 80s can look forward to some age addition in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has presented a persuasive and effective argument. I, too, look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this question of the age addition. It is a common practice of the Labour Party and of this Government to scoff at or disapprove of the discriminatory elements in our social policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) showed what a discriminatory or selective social policy could mean when he introduced this distinction between the genuinely old and those who merely happen to be over 60 or 65.
    He brought in the notion that if a person was over 80 he had personal needs not applying to the general run of pensioners of 60 or 65. The age addition was a thoroughly good idea. If the Government had not been so profligate in their approach to such matters as food subsidies and free family planning services, which will cost a certain amount of money, there would be money to spare for worthwhile exercises such as that put forward by my hon. Friend. I shall await the Minister's reply with interest.
    Mr. O'Malley: Both the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) have asked me to state the Government's atti-
    590
    tude towards the age addition. The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that members of the Labour Party, including members of the present administration, either scoffed at or disapproved of the age addition. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the history of the matter, he will see the reception that we gave to the scheme in 1971. We welcomed the announcement when it was made, and we think that this is one of the aspects of the national insurance system that needs careful examination at upratings.
    I think that I should point out that the Conservative Government did not increase the age addition automatically at each uprating. The system was introduced in September 1971, but the original sum of 25p was not increased at the uprating of 1972 or at that of 1973. The Committee may like to know what would be needed to restore the purchasing power of the original 25p. That would require not an extra 25p as is suggested in the amendment, but only another 6p if that was all that one wanted to do.
    I have said that the Government will consider the age addition, together with other aspects, at future upratings, and there are two other things that I should tell the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. In the second part of his speech the hon. Gentleman put his proposition in a reasonable way, having made his party points at the beginning. I do not object to that; I do it myself, and that is what the House of Commons is about. This would be a dull place if that were not so.
    It is not only a question of the global amount of £1,250 million that is being provided by the Bill. If we are to be able to introduce the uprating on 22nd July, features such as disregards have to be left out for that reason alone, but there is another reason that the Committee must consider.
    The death grant that we discussed a moment ago is, I find, an emotive issue, and it is a matter on which I have strong feelings. The acceptance of that proposal would have cost £2 million in a full year, while the acceptance of this amendment would cost £15 million in that period. The difficulty is that if one begins to add on £2 million, £15 million, £3 million and £5 million, one ends up with a substantial extra bill.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is no good argument for not doing any of these things to say that added together they would account for a lot of money. The hon. Gentleman should take one or two of the proposals that ought to be acceded to and accept them.
    Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point.
    Sir H. Nicholls: I am sorry.
    Mr. O'Malley: If the hon. Gentleman takes the matter on board, I think he will agree that we have dealt with the most important aspect of all. We have uprated long-term benefits by 29 per cent. That is the one that pensioners and long-term beneficiaries will value.
    We do not disapprove of the age addition—rather the reverse. We accept it as a valuable part of the national insurance system, and it will be considered along with other aspects of the scheme at future upratings.
    Next—this is a very important point—it would be impossible to introduce the uprating on 22nd July if we were to incorporate any increased benefits involving additional calculations in all individual cases. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he replied to the amendment. I am impressed by the way in which, at this time of night, problems of matching resources alongside desperately competing demands on Government can be so eloquently expressed by the Minister of State. This is becoming a more urgent matter. However, in view of the way in which the hon. Gentleman so fairly dealt with the case and accepted the obligation to deal with the age addition, and in view of the further point he made about the impossibility of applying the uprating on 22nd July, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I took the precaution of advising the Chair that I would wish to speak in the debate on whether this should be the First Schedule to the Bill. I have a point to make which
    592
    may take a little time. It is a matter which it would have been proper to raise on Second Reading if back benchers had not been brought under pressure not to speak on Second Reading for the convenience of the Government Front Bench. I will try to confine myself strictly to what is in the Schedule. I think that what I have to say is strictly in order at this point.
    I have on a number of occasions drawn attention to the relationship in the national insurance system to the benefits which are given to single people and the benefits which are given to couples under various headings of entitlement. On this occasion I have examined the relationship between single persons' and married couples' benefits where the beneficiary is a pensioner. I have also looked at unemployment and sickness benefit and injury benefit; and at the supplementary benefit rates which have been brought in for pensioners to correspond with the new higher rate of pension.
    There are significant anomalies which are important and which lead to conclusions as to what the Government might or should be doing. I should like to hear whether these are points which the Minister has taken note of, because they arise out of the Bill. Even though people may not be fully conscious of these anomalies, the Government at least should know what they are doing.
    There is an element in the rate of benefit for a single person which is obviously not repeated in the benefit for a couple, because, if it were, the benefit for the couple would be exactly double that for the single person. However, this is not so. The Minister is looking surprised, but I think he has heard me make this point before. If it is suggested that it is not necessary to give double for two people the benefit for a single person, we must assume that the national insurance system thinks that for two people there is a certain element which does not need to be covered twice.
    This is what I call the household element. Obviously heating, roof over the head, and certain other basic items of household expenditure do not need to be repeated where there is a couple. The nature of these household elements is worth examining to see what the Department's policy is. I calculate that for

    593
    pensioners the household element before the increase in allowance was £3 and it is now to be £4 a week, and the personal element was £4·75 and is now to be £6. As regards unemployed and sickness benefit, we find that less generous increases are proposed. For the unemployed or sick, the household element was £2·80 and is now £3·30—that is, an increase of 50p, whereas the increase in the case of pensioners is £1. The personal element was £4·55 and is now to be £5·30.
    For injury benefit we find that the household element was much higher: it was £5·55 and is now to be £6·05. That is an increase once again of 50p, the same as for the unemployed and the sick, but only half the increase for the pensioners, while the personal element that was formerly £4·55 is now to be £5·80. The personal element for the unemployed and the sick and those benefiting from the injury scheme is to remain the same, in spite of the other increases.
    11.30 p.m.
    It is the household elements that are of particular interest. The new supplementary benefit rates will have a personal element of £5·95 compared with a personal element in the pension of £6. I suppose that the difference of a shilling is to mark the inferior character of those in receipt of supplementary benefit by comparison with those drawing retirement pensions. But the household element for those receiving supplementary benefit is now to be £4·45, although it is only £4 for the pensioner. Moreover, the household element for those in receipt of supplementary benefit excludes the most important items which one would expect to be included, such as rent and heating and certain other items.
    One deduces from that that the Government accept, consciously or unconsciously, that the household outgoings of the pensioner family are more than are provided for by the national insurance system, but they do not provide the extra cover for the national insurance beneficiary because it is deemed that if he needs the money, he will apply for supplementary benefit. Therefore, the pensioner who does not apply for supplementary benefit, who is somehow managing on his pension, is suffering discrimination in respect of his household expenditure.
    594
    This is something of which the Committee should take serious note, because if we allow the schedule to go through unamended, as no doubt we shall at this late hour, we shall be enacting a system that is particularly adverse for pensioners who own their own houses, because the ownership of the house is what is not taken into account in the national insurance benefit calculations. If a man owns his own house he and his wife are much nearer to being able to manage than those who have to pay rent for their accommodation. It is the payment of rent that obliges a pensioner to apply for supplementary benefit because he cannot manage if he is required to meet outgoings on rent.
    Many of those in retirement on limited resources will be in subsidised accommodation, because they will still be entitled to remain in council house accommodation, or they may be living with relatives, which introduces an entirely different situation that once again the national insurance system does not take into account, although I think that it should. But others will be in furnished or unfurnished tenancies, in other words, almost certainly eligible for benefit under the Housing Finance Act.
    But the Department also takes no note of the benefits available to pensioners under the Housing Finance Act. There is all too little collaboration, if any, to ensure that pensioners obtain the benefits of the Housing Finance Act that are available from local authorities. I agree that those who apply for supplementary benefit automatically have their rent allowances obtained for them, and I suppose that there is virtually a 100 per cent. take-up of the Housing Finance Act provisions in that respect; but the people who seem to be missed out are those who do not apply for supplementary benefit.
    This is a matter to which the Minister should give urgent consideration. There should be a special campaign to encourage pensioners to apply for their rent allowances under the Housing Finance Act. Better still, I suggest that every taxpayer and every pensioner should be encouraged to report what rent he pays, or even obliged to report it as part of his tax return, giving his conditions of tenure. In that way the housing allowance could be calculated by the Inland Revenue—

    595
    not the local authority—and paid automatically. What in effect I am recommending is that a tax credit system which takes in a household allowance should be incorporated into the social security system.
    I do not want to elaborate the scheme further, partly in view of the hour, but partly because I may be verging on going out of order. I think that I have said enough to make my point, and I shall be pleased to hear what the Minister says.
    Mr. O'Malley: I think that the best thing for the Minister to say at this stage of the proceedings is that I have heard the hon. Member make some of his comments on two previous occasions on the relevant schedules to uprating Bills, and that as this is the first time I have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments when it falls to me to examine the detail of what he has said and how the elements he has described operate within the range of benefits laid down in the schedule, I shall be very pleased and willing to read what he has said and consider it fully. I will not only write to him about it but will see that his observations are properly considered and put before me in the Department.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule 1 agreed to.
    Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.

  Schedule 5

    COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 23, line 24, after 'dates', insert:
    'not later than 3rd June 1974'.
    I was tempted to raise the point which I wish now to raise in an earlier debate concerning the facilities available for more frequent upratings than the Government propose, but I think it is proper for me to stick to my amendment and make my remarks at this point.
    I am concerned because every time a big increase in pensions is announced we have to explain to pensioners that, although we are doing everything possible, it will be weeks before the benefit can be introduced. I am humiliated that
    596
    no Government seem to be able to tackle the administrative problem of bringing the national insurance system up to date so that we can get the benefits of living in the computer age. There may also be questions here about the necessity to keep the increase in national insurance pension back until we can bring the supplementary benefits into payment at the same time.
    I should like to hear from the Minister, and the Committee is entitled to know, whether the delay until 22nd July in the payment of the national insurance benefit at the higher rate is necessary in order to give time to allow supplementary benefit to be brought into line, whether it is the other way round or whether the same amount of time is necessary to adapt the basic pension and supplementary benefit. I have the impression that where supplementary benefit is concerned there is obviously an element of case work, and, therefore, it might be that the whole system is being kept to this grinding and humiliating delay by the supplementary benefit aspect. I do not know whether that is the case.
    I remember going with an all-party group of Members to Brussels a number of years ago. Brussels was probably selected by the computer company which sponsored our visit because it was the nearest and most convenient point for Members to go to spend a day and return the same day; but I believe that very much the same system could have been seen in France, Germany and other continental countries.
    What we saw in Belgium, however, convinced me that if we were prepared to install modern machinery we would be able to get rid of this humiliating delay and our pensioners would be able to get the benefit of increases decided on by Parliament in a much shorter time—probably a fortnight at most. That is the system that operates in Belgium. We had assurances there from the officials managing the machines that if they were given the new rates of benefit at the end of one month they could have them in payment within about a fortnight—say, by about the middle of the following month. When we went there, they were about to introduce their third uprating of that year.
    It must not be thought that the Belgian system is so simple that it is just a matter

    597
    of percentage increases. They have the same sort of historical anomalies and built-in exceptions as we have. Even if our system is more complicated and we have seven times the number of pensioners, once one has a machine which will handle this sort of problem—it is called up to do the same work each time there is an uprating—adaptations can be put into effect much more quickly.
    What are we waiting for? It crosses my mind, but it is an unworthy thought on which I shall not place emphasis, that if machines of this kind were introduced hastily in government there might be redundancies and that there may therefore be pressures not to introduce them. I am most sympathetic to those made redundant by the introduction of machines, but there is a national interest here, and I believe that the Government need to look at this matter again.
    If the nub of the matter is not that there is resistance to machines but that the system we use is in some way ill-adapted to the use of machines, let Ministers put their minds to adapting the system so that we can get the benefit of machinery. We should not have to go through this humiliation again and again whereby every time we raise pensions we are unable to implement the increase for weeks because so much work has to be done in the Department.
    I am certain that the right hon. Lady is sincere in saying she has done everything possible to get the payments made as soon as possible. I am certain that the officials are doing their utmost. Granted their administrative methods, and granted the machinery which we employ and the system which we have to operate, I am certain they are all doing their utmost to get the benefit we want the pensioners to have to the pensioners as quickly as possible.
    But there is something wrong here and we cannot go on like this. Senior civil servants are more and more wont to grumble about this country, saying that it is becoming ungovernable. I often think that when people have a grumble they should ask themselves why. I urge senior people in the Treasury, at the Elephant and Castle and in the other big Departments which have to do with the cash relationship between the individual and the State, that if they are
    598
    finding that there is increasing resentment, non-co-operation and misunderstanding of what they are doing on the part of the public they should ask themselves "Why?". They should find out whether they are really using the best possible systems, machines and administrative methods. If they are not, they should have the humility to invest in new machines at once.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps put the cart before the horse in dealing with the subject of supplementary benefits before that of pensions. There are 5 million benefit cases, including supplementary benefit cases, which have to be uprated individually by clerical action, and staffing resources are not available to do this sort of thing by 3rd June. The retirement and widows' pension books are produced by computer, and uprating in the week commencing 3rd June would necessitate over 4½ million additional order books being produced within a period of four weeks. This would be in addition to the production of 2 million normal books in the same period, and would not be within the capacity of the order book production machinery. Uprating earlier than 3rd June would further exacerbate the problem.
    Apart from the practical impossibility of uprating from 3rd June, there is the substantial hazard that if any uprating date earlier than 22nd July were to be substituted the normal payment machinery for pensions and benefits could well break down. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want that.
    Because the computer does not keep a detailed record of past payments of retirement and widows' pensions there is no possibility of back-dating the increased payments on the computer. All benefits are affected by a change of circumstances, and to pay arrears of the increase clerically within a reasonable time scale would be administratively impossible. The administrative costs of uprating on 3rd June cannot be sensibly estimated without major decisions having to be taken about the short cuts that would be necessary. They would clearly be very considerable.
    11.45 p.m.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to other countries and the fact that they could uprate, and he referred particularly to

    599
    Belgium. There are two basic factors which govern this situation. First, other countries' schemes are not so comprehensive, and in particular they do not have the equivalent of our national supplementary benefit scheme in which payments are tailored to individual needs and in which changes in the amount of other benefits have to be taken into account when the new amount payable is to be assessed. That is one of the major difficulties.
    The uprating is being carried out in 17 weeks which, in itself, any fair minded Member of the Committee will agree, is a reasonable achievement. I emphasise what my right hon. Friend has said more than once in the House and elsewhere. It is made possible only by tremendous and arduous team work of the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security, to whom we in this Committee should be extremely grateful.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: The Minister must not imply that I am not grateful to the people who are doing their utmost to operate the present system. Of course I am grateful, and the pensioners will be particularly grateful, too. But Ministers must take it on themselves to look at the system.
    The Minister implied that the book system which has been in use for many years in this country is the final solution and that there can be no other. There are plenty of other ways of making cash payments, particularly on a repetitive basis. The hon. Gentleman might think of coming to the rescue of the Post Office Giro and making use of that. If he has a prejudice against the Giro he might think of other methods of making cash transfers by machinery. It is not necessary to use manual methods to implement routine payments. The Department must modernise its ideas. We cannot tolerate the present situation any longer.
    The Minister has not convinced me that the Department is really up to date in its cash transfer methods. I hope he will bear this debate in mind and see that something is done tomorrow morning to modernise the whole approach to this administrative problem.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Briefly, I wish to lend my support to the approach enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member
    600
    for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I have a strong and growing impression that if in 10, 15 or 20 years' time people look back on the massive administrative conservatism with which the national insurance scheme has been administered over the years and contemplate the paper-shuffling, book—distributing systems to which we have been wedded for so long, they will be astonished and amazed that we have adhered to this system for as long as we have.
    The points made by my hon. Friend deserve to be considered very closely. I have often contemplated this matter, and I simply do not believe that it is necessary, in the kind of society in which we live, to have this massive employment of manual labour and drudgery that is woefully inefficient and expensive and does not serve the best interests of the beneficiaries in this country. I say that in no tendentious way because I am sure that this feeling is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope the Government will pursue the point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule 6 agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message yesterday relating to the Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  The Committee to join within the Committee appointed by the Lords on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, was nominated of Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Greville Janner, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Eddie Lyons, Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. David Waddington and Mr. William Wilson.
  Ordered,
  That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them with the Order necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

  RURAL TRANSPORT (NORFOLK)
  11.51 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I want to draw attention to the state of rural transport in my part of England—Norfolk—and in particular to the withdrawal of some services that we used to enjoy in the county.
  The problem is obviously enjoyed or suffered by many other rural areas where villages are widely spaced and there are no cross-country railway lines left. Indeed, the only communication by rail is between London and King's Lynn and London and Norwich.
  There are many more motor cars per 1,000 population in country areas because most people need cars to get to work. Many people who have to travel long distances to work—this includes farm workers—feel that they ought to have some reimbursement or tax allowance for their motor cars. This matter is not particularly within my remit tonight, but it is one about which people are increasingly concerned. The cost of transport in rural areas measured against the wages earned is a major factor in driving people from country districts. People must have cars to get to their work, and this leaves the elderly, the women, the young, the newly retired and others entirely without transport during the day.
  Matters are made much worse by the withdrawal of many bus services. The furthest westernmost village in my constituency is Welney, near Wisbech. Welney is well known because one of Peter Scott's wildfowl preserves is on Welney Washes. That village is often split into two by the fact that the Washes are flooded and the road between one half of the village and the other is also shut for several weeks at a time. Bus services have also been withdrawn from other villages.
  I appreciate the bus company's troubles. I have had many communications from
  602
  the bus company, which has had to alter its services because it does not get enough passengers to make them profitable.
  The most isolated villages are now entirely without any form of public transport. People need transport to get to the shops, to go to the dentist, the doctor, the solicitor, the cinema, and the youth club in the evening. They need transport to get to the welfare offices, employment offices, hospitals, and so on. Where a bus service does operate, it generally runs on a Saturday. That is understandable because in the country a large amount of shopping is done on Saturdays and it is the usual market day. Nevertheless Mr. Speaker, as you will know, on Saturdays the solicitors' offices are closed, as are the welfare offices and the employment offices. Dentists and doctors often do not hold surgeries then.
  So on the only day of the week that many people can travel by bus from their village to the local market towns many of these vital services, including of course the banks, are closed. That has grown into a major problem for our villages.
  It is a matter which has roused more and more feeling in my constituency. A large number of retired people who are not by any means wealthy have moved from North London, Essex and Southend into my constituency. They can perhaps afford to buy a house in Norfolk when they could not afford to do so in London. These people live perhaps on the old-age pension supplemented by, say, a police or gas board pension. All their lives they have lived close to good bus, rail and underground services and they have never run a car. On reaching retirement they cannot afford to run a car, and they are therefore dependent on the bus and other forms of public transport.
  Local authorities may pay subsidies towards the bus service and I know that my new local authorities are considering this. The burden of rates this year, however, is heavier for rural areas than for anywhere else. The rates were already high and to grant subsidies to the bus companies to keep even the limited services running will cost two or three times as much this year as last. That is without taking account of increasing services to the villages.
  I had hoped that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H.

  603
  Harrison) would be present tonight because he has inaugurated a mail bus service in his area. I understand that a similar service has been, or was to have been, inaugurated in Wales. But this mail bus service can have only a limited effect on the people who want to travel. We want minibuses and other vehicles which can operate at times suitable to groups of people, such as women's institues, young farmers' clubs—although members of those clubs would probably have their own cars—and many other groups who want to go out together for shopping, bingo, whist drives, or to the cinema or theatre. Many local groups of people would be enabled to get out of their villages to the local town if a small vehicle were provided. The mail bus would be of some help, but it would be limited.
  The main help for the rural communities is contained in Clauses 18 to 21 of the Road Traffic Bill which was introduced into this House from the House of Lords on, I believe, 15th January this year. Clauses 18 to 21 provided for a relaxation of the bus licensing system. At present anybody who wants to start a bus service in which he will ply for hire has to go to the licensing authority, and as a general rule he is opposed either by rail operators or existing bus companies.
  The Bill proposed that cars with eight seats or less and privately operated minibuses be excluded from the licensing system. In such circumstances an enterprising man with perhaps a part-time job and who may have a minibus which he uses for business during the day could, in the evenings take parties out and charge for the service. He would be able to take people out at times most convenient to them and bring them back home when the bingo, whist drive, theatre or cinema was over. He could perhaps also operate a similar scheme during the day.
  Other minibuses run by professional bus companies would be exempted from the licensing system if not used on existing bus routes to pick up and put down passengers. Such a service would be a great boon for rural areas. I am sure there would be many enterprising people who would use their cars or minibuses to run such services which would enable people to get away from their villages at times most convenient to them.
  604
  I urge the Minister to ask the Government to reintroduce this part of the Bill immediately, if they do not intend to bring back the whole of the Bill. I hope that Clauses 18 to 21 of the Bill, with suitable amendments as the Government may think fit, could be introduced quickly as a small Bill. This would bring relief to rural areas, particularly in my constituency where many bus services have been withdrawn in the past few months.
  12.4 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) for bringing to our attention the problems of his constituents, who now find that, because of the alteration in the bus passenger services, they are deprived of transport from various points.
  The provision of an adequate network of public transport services in a predominantly rural area is not confined to South-West Norfolk, but is only too familiar up and down the country.
  Bus operators in urban and rural areas alike have found themselves squeezed by falling levels of demand and the pressure of rising costs, in a period of increasing competition from the private car. The figures for the industry as a whole are dramatic and eloquent. In 1950 there were some 16,000 million passenger journeys. By 1970 this was down to about 9,000 million. Over the same period there was an increase in the number of cars on the road from about 2 million to over 11 million. That means that passenger journeys were down by nearly half in 20 years; the number of cars on the road was up fivefold.
  Successive Governments from the mid-1960s have made increasing amounts of money available to the bus industry chiefly in the form of a rebate of fuel duty, on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Government are upholding the decision of the previous administration to allow full remission of the duty on fuel for stage services instead of the previous 12½p per gallon remission, and new bus grants on the capital cost of new vehicles for stage carriage use. Direct Government assistance to the bus industry from these services is running currently at over £40 million a year.

  605
  By the late 1960s it was also clear that general support of this sort to the bus industry would still not be enough to arrest the decline in rural transport which had been taking place which he so graphically described. Traditionally, rural services which could never have been very attractive commercial operations to the bus operators had been kept going by cross-subsidisation from more profitable routes. The general deterioration in the finances of the bus industry meant that this prop was rapidly crumbling. So further measures were needed to try to meet the specific transport needs of people living in small villages or isolated hamlets who did not have alternative means of transport.
  Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968 made provision for the payment of rural bus grant, which enabled local authorities, at both county and district level, to give financial support to bus services running
  "for the benefit of persons residing in rural areas".
  Where the local authority gives this support, central Government contribute half. But it is up to the local authority in the first place to assess what it regards as the needs of the area; and this is a rôle which I am sure that central Government are right to leave to the local authorities.
  So far as the particular services mentioned by the hon. Member are concerned, I understand they are not grant-aided under this section, as they previously were. The fact that they are not grant-aided at present does not mean that the county or the district has refused them. It is merely because of the local government changeover on 1st April. I have no doubt that changes will be made within the county of Norfolk to restore these grants. The hon. Member may well approach either Norfolk County Council or West Norfolk District Council, and the district would then be responsible for 50 per cent. of the cost.
  But when the level of demand gets very low indeed, it is questionable whether support for a conventional bus is any longer the right answer. At this level of demand, which is by its nature sporadic and often unpredictable, there may be better ways of meeting the needs of those people—and there are a great many of them about—who do not have alternative means of transport, but who nevertheless need to get about to lead a reasonable
  606
  life—shopping, visiting friends, getting to the dentist, visiting hospitals or collecting a prescription from the chemist. Here there is scope for all sorts of local initiatives, as the pilot studies carried out by the Department in 1971, one as close as West Suffolk, showed. Among those studies various considerations were given to minibuses, postal buses and even, in some circumstances, voluntary car schemes—at that stage, where no fare was paid by the passenger but where assistance was given to the car owner by the county council by way of a grant.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the interesting point of the Road Traffic Bill which was before the House at the time of the Dissolution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing out that under the rules for an Adjournment debate I am not allowed to forecast future legislation. I shall certainly not break that rule. However, on this point my right hon. Friend is still considering the previous administration's Road Traffic Bill and undertaking consultations on it. Consultations are necessary with both sides of the passenger transport industry, the taxi industry, the bus industry, and so on, both from the point of view of the unions and the owners of taxis, because there can be abuses of such a system if there is no licensing. This must all be agreed if it is going to work fairly and properly. Consultations are taking place at present on this point.
  I turn now to the specific situation described by the hon. Gentleman in Norfolk. The Norfolk County Council has been closely involved in the question of support for rural bus services. In the past year it has been providing assistance to at least 16 bus services in the county which would otherwise have been withdrawn.
  Meanwhile, I understand that the biggest local bus operator, Eastern Counties Omnibus Company Limited, the local subsidiary of the National Bus Company, has been reviewing the whole network of services it operates in the area, on the basis of an extensive market research operation, to see whether it was possible to provide services which more closely match the present-day needs of the population. It looked at the routes which it had served in the past, the scope for rescheduling, and the main

  607
  patterns of journeys which the people in the area were actually now making. This led the company to put forward proposals for a complete restructuring of services, which I understand was the subject of full prior consultation with the county and district councils concerned. The proper procedures were followed by the Eastern Counties Omnibus Company.
  I am also told that the changes were the subject of a substantial publicity campaign by the bus company through newspaper and even television publicity, preparation and distribution of individual village timetables, and local public meetings at which representatives of the bus company were in attendance to explain the new schedules and timetables, and the need for the restructuring of the bus timetables in Norfolk.
  These are essentially matters within the responsibility of the local bus company and the National Bus Company, and I would be venturing into territory which lies outside my responsibilities if I were to enter into any more detailed discussion of the local services provided by the Eastern Counties company. But I understand that the new pattern of operations offers improved services in most areas and services which more closely reflect the pattern of journeys which most people want to make. But it has also, as the hon. Member has explained so clearly this evening, unfortunately meant a deterioration in the services to one or two villages which fitted less well into the general pattern. It is of course this feature of the situation which has led to this evening's debate.
  I understand also that Eastern Counties has written to the hon. Member setting out some of the background and the details of what it has done. It is not for
  608
  me to comment on any of this except to say that I know that Eastern Counties is very willing to consider any particular problems which have arisen as a result of the revised schedules, and to have local discussions about them. To the extent that any additional services impose a financial burden on the company, it would naturally look for financial support from the local authorities—again, either county or district.
  I have already stressed the crucial rôle played by local authorities in the operation of the rural bus grant. From the beginning of this month the new county authorities have a duty under Section 203 of the Local Government Act 1972
  "to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of the county".
  They are also given specific powers to make payments to public transport operators in their areas. These provisions clearly give the new county councils a very important rôle with respect to public transport in their areas. The new system of transport supplementary grants and transport policies and programmes which will come into effect on 1st April 1975 will encourage the new county councils to reassess their transport policies and priorities and relate their assessment of the rural transport needs of their area to their total programmes.
  The hon. Gentleman has done a service not only to his constituents in the villages but, by raising the matter so clearly, to all rural communities that unfortunately have to suffer from difficulties of transport to and from their villages.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Oil Industry (Drilling Technology Centre)
  Oil Industry (Drilling Technology Centre)
  Speed Limit (East Kilbride)
  Speed Limit (East Kilbride)
  Orkney Islands (Air Services)
  Orkney Islands (Air Services)
  Edinburgh (Traffic)
  Edinburgh (Traffic)
  Melville Report
  Melville Report
  Panel Patients
  Panel Patients
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  Rents
  Rents
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Biharis (Bangladesh)
  Biharis (Bangladesh)
  Chile (Arms Contracts)
  Chile (Arms Contracts)
  Mr. Miles (Arrest in Tanzania)
  Mr. Miles (Arrest in Tanzania)
  British Council (Belize)
  British Council (Belize)
  African Liberation Movements
  African Liberation Movements
  Weapon Prohibitions (Lucerne Conference)
  Weapon Prohibitions (Lucerne Conference)
  Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC)
  Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC)
ENVIRONMENT
  South West Economic Planning Council
  South West Economic Planning Council
  Sporting Events Overseas
  Sporting Events Overseas
  Roads (Rumble Strip Experiments)
  Roads (Rumble Strip Experiments)
  Rents and Mortgage Interest
  Rents and Mortgage Interest
  Religious Buildings
  Religious Buildings
  Housing (Lambeth)
  Housing (Lambeth)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Newmarket
  Newmarket
  Housing Need Estimates
  Housing Need Estimates
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Railways (Unfenced Tracks)
  Railways (Unfenced Tracks)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  North Circular Road (Widening)
  North Circular Road (Widening)
  Falsework
  Falsework
  Al27
  Al27
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  House Building
  House Building
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Davyhulme Sewage Works
  Davyhulme Sewage Works
  Manchester Ship Canal
  Manchester Ship Canal
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Amenity Loss Compensation (Publicity)
  Amenity Loss Compensation (Publicity)
  M25
  M25
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Shops (Rents)
  Shops (Rents)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  School Farmhouse, Wouldham
  School Farmhouse, Wouldham
  Roads (Worcestershire)
  Roads (Worcestershire)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Rents (Holiday Homes)
  Rents (Holiday Homes)
  Construction Industry (Supply of Materials)
  Construction Industry (Supply of Materials)
  Brighton-Southwick Trunk Road
  Brighton-Southwick Trunk Road
  Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930
  Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930
  Water Research Centre
  Water Research Centre
  New Towns (Housing)
  New Towns (Housing)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widows (Special Training Allowances)
  Widows (Special Training Allowances)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Dwellings (Ownership and Tenures)
  Dwellings (Ownership and Tenures)
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Hospitals (Noise Nuisance)
  Hospitals (Noise Nuisance)
  Spina Bifida Patients
  Spina Bifida Patients
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Children Under 16
  Children Under 16
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Mentally III and Handicapped Persons
  Mentally III and Handicapped Persons
  Doctors (South-East England)
  Doctors (South-East England)
  Heating Allowances (All-Electric Homes)
  Heating Allowances (All-Electric Homes)
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Blood Donations
  Blood Donations
  Dentists
  Dentists
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Feeding Stuffs (EEC Directive)
  Feeding Stuffs (EEC Directive)
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Beef Exports
  Beef Exports
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  French Apples
  French Apples
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Beam Trawling
  Beam Trawling
  Potato Acreages
  Potato Acreages
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  PUBLIC RECORDS
  PUBLIC RECORDS
  SMALL CLAIMS
  SMALL CLAIMS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
DEFENCE
  "Pig" Personnel Carriers
  "Pig" Personnel Carriers
  Missile Systems
  Missile Systems
  Yugoslavia (Naval Visit)
  Yugoslavia (Naval Visit)
  Rifles
  Rifles
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  RAF Hemswell
  RAF Hemswell
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
  Personnel
  Personnel
  Recruitment (Advertising)
  Recruitment (Advertising)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Art and Design Courses
  Art and Design Courses
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Truancy and Vandalism
  Truancy and Vandalism
  Local Education Authorities (Welfare Departments)
  Local Education Authorities (Welfare Departments)
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Genoese Silver Purchase)
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Genoese Silver Purchase)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Rural Schools (Closure)
  Rural Schools (Closure)
  NAME OF SCHOOL AND DATE OF APPROVAL
  NAME OF SCHOOL AND DATE OF APPROVAL
  Tonbridge and Mailing
  Tonbridge and Mailing
  Schools (Overcrowding)
  Schools (Overcrowding)
  Student Grants (Assessment)
  Student Grants (Assessment)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Women
  Disabled Women
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
ENERGY
  Electricity (Private Generators)
  Electricity (Private Generators)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Mining Industry
  Mining Industry
  Research
  Research
  Markham Colliery
  Markham Colliery
  Mineral Resources (Northern Ireland)
  Mineral Resources (Northern Ireland)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Offences Statistics
  Offences Statistics
  Urban Aid Programme (Hull)
  Urban Aid Programme (Hull)
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Chilean Refugees
  Chilean Refugees
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Public Records
  Public Records
  District Councils (Boundaries)
  District Councils (Boundaries)
INDUSTRY
  Development and Efficiency (Government Aid)
  Development and Efficiency (Government Aid)
  Triumph Motor Cycle Plant
  Triumph Motor Cycle Plant
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motoring Taxes
  Motoring Taxes
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Overtime Earnings
  Overtime Earnings
  Family Expenditure
  Family Expenditure
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Oil
  Oil
  Caravans (Tax Relief on Purchase)
  Caravans (Tax Relief on Purchase)
  Tobacco and Cigarettes
  Tobacco and Cigarettes
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Family Allowance (Clawback)
  Family Allowance (Clawback)
  Overseas Borrowings
  Overseas Borrowings
  Company Trading Profits
  Company Trading Profits
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Cross-border Roads
  Cross-border Roads
  Assembly (Official Report)
  Assembly (Official Report)
  Street Lighting (Co. Armagh)
  Street Lighting (Co. Armagh)
  Fugitive Offenders (Report)
  Fugitive Offenders (Report)
  Fatalities
  Fatalities
  Electoral Lists
  Electoral Lists
  Council of Ireland
  Council of Ireland
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Sahelian Africa
  Sahelian Africa
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Rents and Service Charges
  Rents and Service Charges
  PRIME MINISTERS' TALKS
  PRIME MINISTERS' TALKS
TRADE
  Manchester Airport (Routes)
  Manchester Airport (Routes)
WALES
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  North-West Wales
  North-West Wales

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

LORD FEATHER
Victor Grayson Hardie Feather, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Feather, of the City of Bradford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Henderson and the Baroness Gaitskell.

NAMIBIA: WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish an inquiry regarding the standard of wages and working conditions of Africans employed in the operations of British companies in Namibia (South West Africa).
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, the admirable report on the conditions and wages of African workers in British firms in South Africa was prepared by a Parliamentary sub-committee. It would be for Parliament rather than Her Majesty's Government to decide whether a similar inquiry should be conducted in the case of Namibia.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the report by the exiled Bishop of Damaraland which shows that, bad as wages are in South Africa, they
1218
are much worse in Namibia. In the case of three companies the figures are: in South Africa £33 a month, in Namibia less than £20 a month; in another case, £40 a month in South Africa, £15 in Namibia; and in a third case, miners, £31 a month in South Africa; less than £20 in Namibia. In view of the fact that the United Nations has declared Namibia to be independent of South Africa, is there not a particular reason why this investigation should be made?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly take note of what my noble friend has said. At the moment I cannot identify the publication he mentioned at the beginning of his supplementary question. I shall most certainly study the figures that he has given. As to the need for a separate inquiry into the position of Namibia, your Lordships' House will of course know that this is within the competence of the appropriate Select Committee as set up by Parliament.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these figures have been published in the national Press (in the respectable part of the national Press, so far as there is one now) and that they are serious? Is he also aware that this is not an inquiry relating only to Namibia, but an inquiry relating to companies registered in Britain, operating in Britain, deriving their trade mainly from Britain, and who carry British reputation with them all over the world? It is an appalling state of affairs.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while approving—may I ask whether the noble Lord would prefer to reply first?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me first to answer the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Hale, after which I shall be most glad to listen to the noble Lord. In no way do I deny or challenge the authenticity or correctness of the figures that have been adduced to-day. I said that we shall need to study them, and I shall certainly do so, and I hope to consult my noble friend about the sources and indeed the nature of these figures and their implication.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while approving of Lord

1219
Brockway's benevolent intention, may I ask whether the Minister will represent to this Committee in another place that they had better round the job off and inquire about wages in Russia, in Greece, in Chile and in any other country where the noble Lords dislike parts of the régime?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point. The Question was addressed to the position in Namibia, and within the limits of my capacity I tried to answer it.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be useful to have an inquiry into the wage rates being paid by British companies to Africans in independent black African countries so that a useful comparison could be made?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, quite possibly. I must repeat that the Committee set up by Parliament is quite competent. I mean the word "competent" in that it has the power to move, if it so wishes, to inquire into one or other country, region, or territory.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, may I suggest that my noble friend Lord Blyton should put his question, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby? In that way we shall not have this "to and fro" across the table.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question does not talk about Chile or Russia? Does he not consider that wages like this paid to miners in a place in South Africa are really disgraceful? Cannot the Tory Party get up and admit that?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should hope that there would be a general consensus that these conditions would be deprecated by all sections of this House, and indeed by the Parliament and people of this country. I entirely agree with what my noble friend has just said.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his repetition of the assurance that he gave in the House last week, that this is not a matter for Government. Since he has assured the House that it is his intention to recommend an investigation into wages in South-West Africa and therefore expend public funds, can he say to how many other countries in Southern Africa where wages are still lower such an investigation would apply? Overall have we not enough trouble on our hands without causing diplomatic irritation elsewhere?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point the noble Lord has raised, it is not for me to recommend that a certain investigation should be conducted. As I said, it is a Parliamentary rather than a Governmental initiative. Therefore we must await the actions and the decisions of the Expenditure Committee, who may or may not decide to hold such an inquiry as my noble friend suggested. Regarding the second point, at the moment I have not detailed, precise information as to the position in other comparable territories. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question I will do my best to help him.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, referring to my noble friend's first reply to me in which he said that this is a matter for Parliament, may I ask whether he is aware that the Select Committee in another place took the view that Namibia was outside its terms of reference, as the United Nations had declared it to be an independent country? In view of that fact, would Her Majesty's Government raise within the United Nations itself the possibility of this kind of investigation?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have more than once raised the question of Namibia. As my noble friend and your Lordships know, this has been very much a continuing matter, at least since 1920. The legal basis of the Mandate has been constantly discussed, I regret fruitlessly, at more than one international gathering, particularly in the United Nations Organisation. On the question of whether Namibia was ruled out by the Select Committee, that may be so. But there is nothing to prevent them from ruling it back into their consideration.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY FINANCES
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to defer the date by which they must achieve financial self-sufficiency, thus mitigating the heavy cost increases now falling on airlines by virtue of the Authority's increased charges.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, when the Policy Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority was approved by Parliament, it was recognised that if the Authority was to eliminate its deficit by 1977–78 this would involve certain increases in airlines' costs which in turn would have to be passed on to the users. My right honourable friend has to have regard to the interests not only of the users of airlines but also of the taxpayer, and his view is that the target date is still appropriate.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for that reply, which I fear is no more satisfactory than the one I received from the previous Government on the same subject. Is the noble Lord aware that even in the short period since then costs to airlines from sources outside the control of the C.A.A. have continued to rise sharply? Will he therefore see whether he is able to look at this matter again, particularly in relation to licensing charges, which cause as much irritation as anything else?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the whole question is being looked at all the time. There is a very considerable deficit, and although I understand the noble Lord's point of view, which I shared with him when the Bill went through Committee in this House, the fact still remains that, as with the last Government, the intention is to recover by 1977 the whole of the costs that are incurred by the operation of the Civil Aviation Authority's services.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Feather, whom we have been delighted to welcome here this afternoon, is to-day celebrating his birthday, and would the noble Lord agree that we should convey to him our warmest con-gratulations on a double happy event?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if there was anything that would merit a stay of the landing charges it would be the fact that my noble friend Lord Feather is enjoying a birthday. I share, and we all share, in those good wishes.

EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS
2.59 p.m.
LORD PLATT: 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 how soon they will be able to say what action they intend to take on the recommendations of the Littlewood Report on Experiments on Animals, which was published in April, 1965 [Cmnd. 2641).
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, almost half of the recommendations made by the Littlewood Committee endorse the retention of existing controls, or propose that statutory force should be given to restrictions now imposed administratively; to this extent the Committee's proposals are already in operation. Effect has been given to some of their other recommendations, but the majority of them would require legislation. The Government have no present plans for legislation on this subject.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in view of that not highly satisfactory reply, for which I thank the noble Lord, may I ask whether the Government will be prepared to proceed immediately with the reconstitution of the advisory committee and of its functions which, as the Littlewood Report pointed out, could be done without legislation?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it was the recommendation of the Royal Commission which met from 1906 to 1912 that

1223
there should be an advisory committee. It was laid down very clearly that the nominees should be from learned bodies representing human and veterinary medicine and science, and I believe that the noble Lord was a member of the advisory committee for some years. Having regard to the scientific nature of the work of the advisory committee, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that the requirements which were suggested by the Royal Commission have been met and they see no reason at all for reconstituting the committee.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there is a great deal of disquiet on this subject, and a great deal of feeling that a committee which consists wholly of medical and veterinary scientists, and which is chaired by a distinguished lawyer, is not entirely suitable for considering the position on animal experiments as it exists at the present time?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that the function of the advisory committee, as we understand it, is to advise on matters which are essentially scientific, and the members of the advisory committee are in a position to do precisely that.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there are any women sitting on this committee? I asked the question earlier and was given an answer in the negative. I hope that the position has since improved.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope I am right in saying to the noble Baroness that one member of the advisory committee is a woman, and I believe that one of the inspectors is also a woman. If I am wrong about that, I shall be only too pleased to write to the noble Baroness and say so.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as a member of the Littlewood Committee for a short while, my recollection is that one of the recommendations was that the number of inspectors should be substantially increased. Is my noble friend able to tell us how many more inspectors there are to-day than there were in 1965?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are now 14 inspectors in post, including the chief inspector and two superintendent inspectors. I believe I am right in saying that when the Littlewood Committee made its recommendation there were 8 inspectors, and when the Committee was set up there were only 6. To-day there are 14.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will the Minister agree that since 1965 there has been a tremendous increase in the number of experiments on living animals, and that there is increasing concern about the number of animals that are used for purely cosmetic experiments—I do not use that term in a scientific sense: I mean experiments connected with the production of cosmetics, as distinct from the saving of human life? Also, will the Minister agree that although in 1965 there were 12 inspectors there are now 13 or 14, which is an increase of 2, and that this grave concern which is felt about the enormous increase in experiments on living animals should be reflected in some legislation?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend I would say that between 1965 and 1971 the total number of experiments increased by about 850,000, but the figure for 1972 showed a reduction of more than 250,000. In 1972, the inspectors made over 4,000 visits to registered laboratories, mostly without prior notice, and my information is that at the present moment the 14 inspectors can deal adequately with the demands made on them.

FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider providing funds for the major political Parties so as to decrease their moral and financial dependence on money obtained from other sources.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the gracious Speech

1225
made it clear that the Government will consider the provision of financial assistance to enable Opposition Parties to fulfill their Parliamentary functions more effectively.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very satisfactory reply. May I ask him whether he realises that I have a Motion on the Order Paper to ask the Government to consider other matters which may help in the increased efficiency of our democratic system?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, did the Minister say that the Government might provide money for the Opposition? Why only the Opposition?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I think these proposals were put forward in the gracious Speech because Opposition Parties inevitably find themselves in substantially greater difficulties than when in Government. That is why it was felt appropriate to have this matter considered as early as possible.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House very much welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's seeking to find ways of providing financial assistance for Opposition Parties. We hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in consultation with noble Lords on the Liberal Benches and with the Front Bench on this side of the House, will find some ways of strengthening the facilities which are available to us while we are in Opposition.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while associating myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has just said, may I ask whether the Government intend to provide funds in proportion to the number of votes which each Party received at the last General Election?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, this is one of the many interesting questions which can be considered when these talks take place.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true to say, considering all the needs and the pressures on this Government, that if there are politicians who cannot withstand moral and financial dependence on other sources, they should
1226
be weeded out? Is it not also true that even if Members of Parliament are not paid as much as, say, Congressmen in America, their salary is not exactly what one would call a peppercorn salary?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, all these questions can be considered when the talks take place.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, are the Government aware that the obscurity of this Question is such that one does not know whether the Government will subsidise political Parties to fight Elections? If that is intended, I presume that if I borrowed £500 from my noble friend Lord Shepherd to put 500 mavericks into Parliament and got 50 of them in, I could claim this aid. If this proposal means that any Opposition Members will get help and the same inside knowledge to be able to ask constructive questions and to know what is going on in the Government, then I am for it. Nevertheless, nothing could more encourage damned intellectualism than a damned silly proposition like this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will advise me later whether that was in fact a question. I suggest that we now proceed to the next business.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before we pass on to the next business may I say that I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the grievous consequences to democracy that might ensue if grants from public funds should be given to what are called "Parties", for that will strengthen immeasurably the power of the Whips which, if I may say so with great respect to both sides, will not work for the efficiency of the House. Will the Government, before they start giving money to Parties, provide sufficient facilities in this House to enable any noble Lords who want to take this place seriously, and not as a place for the dead who remain unburied, to do their job efficiently?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will take careful note of what my noble friend has said. I do not think that the latter part of his question arises on the Question before the House, but I will take note of his comments.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the possibility of a proliferation of Opposition Parties if it is known that the Government are ready to finance them through the taxpayers? What is to be the criterion? Is it to be determined by numbers or by electoral votes? Is this not, after all, a cockeyed idea?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did suggest that we should move to the next Business. In view of the interest of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, this might be a matter upon which we could have a short debate. Then other noble Lords apart from the Leaders of the political Parties, might have an opportunity of expressing their views on this topical subject.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on mortgage rates. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that light refreshments will be available to-night.
CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for the prohibition of new feuduties and other periodical payments from land; for the right to redeem feuduties and other such perpetual payments on a term day; for the redemption by law of feuduties and
1228
other such payments on transfer of land for valuable consideration; for limitations on the residential use of property subject to long lease and other rights of occupancy; for the variation of heritable securities in the event of residential use of the security subjects; for restrictions on certain rights of reversion, redemption and pre-emption; for limitation of the right to raise an action of irritancy for non-payment of feuduty; for abolition of the right to create leasehold casualties for the recognition of interposed leases; for amendment of the law relating to registration of leases; for abolition of the registration and recording of documents in the Office of Chancery; and for related matters. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

SMALL AUTHORITIES (LOTTERIES) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to empower small authorities to raise funds by lottery and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event of the National Insurance Bill being received from the Commons, Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the First and Second Readings of the Bill on Tuesday April 30.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I will do so briefly. The terms of the Motion are identical to that which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when Leader of the House, moved for setting up a Scrutiny Committee for European Instruments. The House will be pleased to know that the Committee of Selection will be meeting on May 1 to consider the names of noble Lords who should serve on this important Committee. I hope that the meeting of the House of Lords Offices Committee this afternoon will agree the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of Committees, whose principal duty will be to chair this particular Committee.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the Committee and any sub-committees have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records; and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
1230
That the Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a significant Motion. It is the second time that it has been introduced into your Lordships' House, and it is a matter of some satisfaction to the House as a whole—not just to noble Lords on this side of the House—that the Government have been able to come forward with a Motion establishing the European Communities Committee with identical terms of reference to those which were agreed by the House before the Dissolution of Parliament in February. It is clearly the wish of the House that the terms of reference should be those which were proposed by the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and which were endorsed by a well-attended meeting of the Procedure Committee. It is I think unfortunate that the General Election should have delayed the setting up of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House by some weeks, but we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who was himself an active member of Lord Maybray-King's Committee, is determined to press on with its establishment and to get it working as soon as possible. So this Motion is extremely welcome to noble Lords on this side of the House and indeed I know, having myself moved the previous Motion at that Dispatch Box, to the House as a whole.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I approve this Motion most heartily. I think it is correct to say that it is an important Committee and we wish it well in its work. Is there any indication as to how soon "soon" will be?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, before the Motion is approved, may I ask my noble friend a question? Is he aware that I do not propose to oppose the Motion, although I do not think it will be of the slightest use?—but that is another matter. I wish to ask a question that should have been asked when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on behalf of the then Government and now leading for the Opposition, had the previous Motion down on the Order Paper. The

1231
question relates to the proposed activities of the Committee and sub-committees. I notice that they have power "to adjourn from place to place". This is somewhat ambiguous. If it is not ambiguous, it is rather too comprehensive. Can my noble friend say what that means? Does it mean that the Committees can go for joyrides to Strasbourg, Bonn, Brussels or Paris, and even further afield? What is to be the criterion? What is to be the actual geographical latitude? We ought to know about that before we approve the Order.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and in some respects to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, for the welcome they have given to the Motion. To the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who asked how soon the Committee will be set up, I hope that it will be in the first week after the Easter Recess, when I hope to move a Motion appointing the Deputy Chairman; and then of course the Members will be appointed and the Committee should be able to start work immediately. Therefore I am thinking very much of the short term.
In regard to my noble friend's view as to the use of the Committee, I fear that, as on a number of other matters, I do not agree with him. I think it will be a useful Committee and may well prove to have a significant effect on procedure and attitudes in your Lordships' House. As to the words "adjourn from place to place", my understanding is that in your Lordships' House we like to have as much latitude as possible in our terms of reference and this clearly gives an opportunity for this Committee, if it so wished, to move from here perhaps to the old Middlesex Hall; or, if necessary, it could go to Brussels if it felt that it had a special reason to go there. But what we have sought here is to ensure that the Committee shall have the fullest freedom and flexibility to perform its undoubtedly important work.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am inclined to oppose this Motion because of what my noble friend has just said. I can understand if there is a limit to the geographical activities of this Committee and its sub-committees—that is one
1232
thing. But it is another story if they are permitted to go abroad.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, surely no noble Lord is allowed to speak more than once.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is entirely true. I have sought to explain to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that if he disagrees with the Motion of course he knows that he has the opportunity so to do. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, clearly a noble Lord may speak for a second time only with the leave of the House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in point of fact I only asked a question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can I not oppose the Motion?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I move that the leave of the House be given to my noble friend to speak a second time.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry, my Lords; I have been here quite a long time, and I have never yet known that one noble Lord could speak on behalf of the whole House. We have debated this matter and I do not think I have anything further to say on the point the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has raised. I think, therefore, that we ought to proceed.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I fancied I raised a legitimate point—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, am I out of order?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: I am out of order, am I?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, with great respect, to whom am I to speak? I do not advise you to provoke me too much.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel we are getting into difficulties. I think the view of your Lordships' House is quite clear, and though I hate having to

1233
say it to my noble friend, because I know how strongly he feels on this matter, I think he is pressing the House rather too far and I hope that he will not go any further.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very glad to get a little support from the Front Bench, but if Members of your Lordships' House think they are going to shout me down they are making a terrible mistake. I do not stand for that.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: Do not start that business, you on the Opposition Benches. You will not stop me from speaking if I want to speak. It is better to speak more than once than not to speak at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: Do not shout me down, because if you start that business some of you will be shouted down: understand that! I will not have it from you or anybody else.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SHINWELL: You will not stop me from speaking. I will respond to my noble friend, but not to you.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take what is the sense of this House. This House is generous. We stray from time to time, but we have now gone so far that one has to draw the line and say that we should now put the Motion to the House for a vote if it is necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
3.24 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Hylton-Foster be appointed to the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Strang.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE, PEOPLE BILL
3.25 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill and, I trust, a non-controversial one. It has a single purpose; that is, to raise the limits on candidates' expenses at local government elections in England and Wales and in Scotland.
Towards the end of the last Parliament, as the noble Lord who preceded me in my present Office is aware, following a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, legislation was passed to raise the limits of candidates' expenses at a Parliamentary election to the equivalent in present purchasing power of the limits set in 1969. Owing to the shortage of time and the absence of opportunity for consultation with the local authority associations and political Parties, that legislation did not include the raising of the limits for local elections. This Bill is the outcome of full consultation. Its timing is dictated by the forthcoming London borough elections and the elections to the new local authorities in Scotland.
The limits fixed in 1969 for all local government elections in Great Britain, with the exception of G.L.C. elections, were £30, plus 5p for every six electors. For the G.L.C. elections the limit was £200, plus 5p for every four electors, and this figure is still considered adequate and is not touched by the Bill. The limit for the other elections is to be raised to £45, plus 1p for each elector. This will help candidates to meet rising costs, such as printing and postage costs. In actual money terms it means that in a ward with 1,200 electors the limit rises from £40 to £57. In award with 6,000 electors the increase is from £80 to £105. It may be said that these limits are not high enough, given the great increase in printing costs and the recently increased postal charges. The increases in the Bill are strictly proportionate to those made last February for Parliamentary elections and I do not think that further increases can be justified. I believe that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it was the very last day of the last Parliament when we were considering the brother Bill about Parliamentary elections. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has fully explained this one. I have no objection whatever to this Bill, and I do not think that anybody on this side of the House would have any objection. I noticed that my honourable friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made one rather interesting point, about two notional different sets of municipal elections, which seems to me to warrant some further thought, though not obviously for the purposes of this Bill. There must now be a growing collection of items to do with representation of the people in the hands of the Home Office which have already been considered by the Speaker's Conference and by others concerned, and perhaps in due course we may have a Bill on this subject where we can actually put down some Amendments. The last two Bills have gone through all their stages on the same day. Perhaps some of your Lordships, interested in local government, would have been inclined to raise matters on this Bill, whereas the previous one affected only Members of another place. Perhaps sooner or later the noble Lord will bring something else forward, or alternatively, if there are individual points that my noble friends or other Members of the House wish to raise on this subject, I am sure that they can write to him and have that matter put on the agenda, if it is not there already. The last remark I should like to make is that I received a mild rebuke from a number of my noble friends for saying 5p and 1p. I therefore make amends by saying 5 pence and one penny.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MOBILITY OF THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the Report on Mobility of Physically Disabled People; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion
1236
standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should first like to express my appreciation to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate, many of them at some inconvenience to themselves: my three noble friends (if I may so address them) who are sitting immediately behind Hansard; the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who is making his maiden speech; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who has come specially to the House on this occasion. I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords for the interest they have shown in this subject. Indeed, my Lords, we are victims of our own success. So many noble Lords have volunteered to speak that we are going to have to show how disciplined we are, and set a pattern for the House, by no one taking more than ten minutes to make their speech. Noble Lords will watch to make sure that I do not break my own rule.
My Lords, this is a debate about the Sharp Report, which refers to various details concerning about 359,000 disabled people. It seems to me, my Lords, that this debate falls into three divisions: the Report itself, the history of the Report and the action upon its recommendations. I should like to say immediately that I congratulate the Government on the appointment of a Minister for the Disabled. This is something long overdue; and we all know my right honourable friend who will fill that post to be compassionate, and one who is deeply interested in the subject. I should also like to congratulate the Government on publishing the Sharp Report so quickly after coming into office. In the debate on the Unstarred Question which I asked on February 5, the Minister then replying said that the Report was a very complex matter and had all sorts of financial implications as well as implications of eligibility; that the Government were studying it with great care, and that they would eventually publish the Report. He also told us that the motor industry's research association Reports, which are very relevant to this, were never published. Indeed, he said it would not be advisable for them to be published. Now, my Lords, in just under two months (with a General Election intervening, it is true, and a different Government) we have both these reports available, and so the question is much easier to debate in depth.
The terms of reference, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, herself, were wide-ranging. They covered not only medical problems but housing and mobility in and out of buildings. With such a splendid array of speakers, and with the time factor hanging over me, I have decided to confine myself to one subject. I will not say, my Lords, that I will deal with it "briefly", because I have found that that is quite fatal: anybody who says he will speak briefly is still on his feet two hours later. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, makes the point very well when she says that it was indeed the difficulties into which the vehicle service had run which prompted her inquiry. Indeed, sonic people who wrote or talked to her seemed to think that this was the only matter with which she had to deal. She makes the point that, important as this matter is, it is not the most important. Now I think I should like to differ from her here. I feel that the situation of the disabled driver is one which is not only vitally important but urgent; and we must take the Sharp Report in conjunction with the details of the tests carried out by the motor industry's research establishment and the Report of the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs.
My Lords, I greatly welcome the main conclusions of the Sharp Report. The three-wheeler is condemned as dangerous, noisy, uncomfortable and liable to break down, and it cannot carry a passenger. Lady Sharp herself says—and I quote:
"I soon came to the conclusion that it should be replaced by a small car as and when it is practicable to do so."
A three-wheeler, my Lords—and this is a very telling point—costs more than a car. I would only say that I think it a pity that the Report did not go more deeply into the question of safety, as it would then have come out in a more determined fashion in favour of immediate action. If we look at the analysis of some of the 1,300 letters from disabled drivers which were sent in to the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs—and these were not based on structured questions, but were actual accounts of the drivers' experiences and how they saw the three-wheeled "trike"—we see that some 51 users had actually returned their vehicles to the Department, saying that
1238
they were unsafe and unreliable. When one considers that this meant that these folk were virtually housebound, I think it shows the force of their feeling.
The type of accidents that were there described range from tricycles being blown over to turning over when braking and swerving, doors bursting open, steering wheels collapsing and in severe cases the tricycle actually catching fire. All "trike" drivers, says the Report, were concerned with the fact that they considered the tricycles unreliable and unsafe, not only to themselves but to other road users. Various words were used to describe them. "Death traps", "Coffins on wheels", were some of the expressions used in the Report. Even if we do not place an emphasis on safety, Lady Sharp has accepted that the invalid tricycle should be replaced by a small car. As I have said, my Lords, she has made the very telling point that the "trike" costs more than a car. A car has an obvious advantage socially, and the majority of people would prefer it. The disadvantage of the "trike"—one of many—is that it cannot carry a passenger. Nor, indeed, can the driver receive instruction except from outside the vehicle.
So I was a little disturbed to see my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Services repeating what the previous Minister had said in a debate; namely, that it would not be doing a service to the many contented users to take away something which gave them pleasure and mobility. Indeed, my Lords, one irate lady wrote to me saying that I was going to take away her "trike". Her letter was, of course, anonymous, as most unpleasant letters usually are. But there is no doubt that there is a certain area of confusion here. I should like to ask what kind of driver could handle this very tricky three-wheeled vehicle, but could not handle a car which had been specially adapted? And, if it is unsafe, should it continue to be used? I remember the debate on flammable nightwear, when it was said that children could literally be burnt if they were wearing these highly flammable nightdresses. The argument then put forward was that there are people who like this type of nightdress, which burns quickly. I would suggest that even if people like it, if a thing is unsafe it is

1239
surely not wise that they should continue to use it.
I agree with Lady Sharp that both disabled non-drivers and disabled drivers should be eligible to have a car. Last weekend I met a woman with a completely disabled husband. Equally, I have frequently met husbands with completely disabled wives. In this case, the disabled individual is almost totally housebound. It seems reasonable to suggest that the Government should supply these vehicles; and, indeed, that they should allow some extra grant-aid for petrol costs, and see that all servicing and spare parts are available over a wide area. My Lords, I plead with the Government to-day to take some immediate action on this recommendation of the Sharp Report. It is particularly important at this moment, when the Department is negotiating a contract to purchase more of these three-wheelers for yet another year. My Lords, I would seriously ask what further consultations are needed on this particular point. I appreciate they may need to talk again on the questions of housing, employment and eligibility, possibly, but Lady Sharp has made it clear that the three-wheelet should go—and this after hearing the comments of the people with whom the consultations would take place.
My Lords, let this not be a reason for any dragging of feet. There are estimates of costs given, and there are a number of possible users. But, my Lords—and I do plead here—this is a situation where cost must not be allowed to cloud the argument. The Government must accept the need to stop production of the tricycle. I welcome the statement of intention of the Government to have discussions with the disabled and I recognise the need for such discussions, but that need must not be used as a reason to delay the changeover to cars.
My Lords, I quote the Prime Minister who, in speaking as Leader of the Opposition in October, 1973, said:
"The problem of the invalid tricycle has been too long deferred. Every question, every representation has been shoved off with the excuse that we must wait for Sharp. Even when we get the Sharp Report the responsibility cannot be shoved off again, the reponsibility lies fairly and squarely with the Government."
1240
Exactly. My Lords, I know that the Minister to-day is not going to disappoint me and those brave and energetic people, the disabled drivers, who mounted their own campaign—a splendid exercise in self-help which I consider calls for the Government and all of us to take notice.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on returning once again to this most interesting and important question, and at a very topical moment when the Report has been published. We are delighted to have its author speaking in the debate to-day, and now to have an opportunity to go at the new Government with the same fervour and force as she used to go at us when we were on that side of the House. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, every success in replying to her. He has as one advantage on this occasion the fact that the "mobile Bench" are here at only three-quarter strength. I warn him that usually there are present four rather than three. It is also a very great pleasure to know that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, is to take part in this debate. We know what a tremendous interest he has taken in this subject, and we were aware that he was with us on the last occasion when we debated it.
It is not a habit of mine to re-read my speeches, but I did re-read the speech I made so very recently and from which the noble Baroness has in fact quoted when saying that I called this, "a very complex matter with a number of financial implications". I do not wish in any way to change my words. I think that in ignoring the financial implications the noble Baroness over-simplifies the position. It is indeed extremely complex. In the first instance, although it is true that a car is cheaper to provide than a three-wheeler, the very fact that it is so attractive would mean that a number of extra people who at present do not apply for a three-wheeler would apply for a car. In fact the estimate in the Report is that twice as many people would apply for a car as at present apply for the three-wheeler, and that means at once doubling the cost of provision.
In the second place—and this is also clearly brought out in the Sharp Report

1241
—once you have opted for a car and have agreed to provide a car you no longer have a reason for not providing a car for the disabled who cannot themselves drive. Again you are increasing the number of vehicles you have to provide and increasing the cost of their provision. The noble Baroness in writing her Report obviously saw the logic of this and endeavoured to meet it by producing a set of criteria which would have to be satisfied before a car was issued. These are the criteria in paragraph 48—for getting to work, or to a place of further education or training, or looking after a household. Certainly this proposition is attractive at first sight. Unfortunately its adoption would mean that a number of people who are at present eligible for vehicles would no longer receive them, and of those who at present have a vehicle some 13,500 would lose that vehicle when it was no longer usable. To me this is quite unacceptable. The net result is that the cost of these proposals is really formidable. The proposals suggested by the noble Baroness would cost another £3 million; but if it is unacceptable to leave out others who are at present eligible, then the cost soars to an extra £12 million or more, and we must surely ask ourselves what is the right priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, clearly thinks that the provision of suitably adapted housing is a top priority that falls within the scope of her inquiry, and of course quite outside her inquiry there are a number of other problems in the general field of disablement income. Your Lordships will remember that when we were debating the Social Security Act of 1973 a number of these points were raised—an income for the disabled housewife was one; an income for a person who was devoting her life to looking after a disabled person was another. These are also very well deserving causes and all of them, I feel, must be judged together when we are talking about devoting large sums of money to the improvement of our services for the disabled.
Thanks to an Amendment passed in this House, the 1973 Act put a deadline of October this year for the Government to produce a statement of their plans for future provision for the disabled. The Government have made use of this particular provision to say that they will make their decisions on this Report as
1242
well as on other matters concerning the disabled at that time. We shall be very interested, if they still are the Government, to hear what those proposals are. Where we are critical in general of the Government's social policy to date is in their lack of discrimination and selectivity in benefits. The money that is available for social purposes is extremely limited. Even at the time when we were achieving a growth rate of 5 per cent. we never had enough money to do all we should have liked to do. Money is in very short supply, and it is surely unfair to those people who really need money and financial support if it is wasted on those who do not require assistance; and yet the Government are going ahead with some £500 million of food subsidies and with a rent freeze, all of which will help rich and poor alike.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggests that at least the provision of cars, or cash allowances in lieu of cars, should be subject to a means test. I should like to know whether the Government have made up their mind on this point. I believe the suggestion is right in principle. The noble Baroness points out that there is some difficulty in applying it in the case of cars rather than cash allowances, but I should have thought that a scheme could be devised which would be fair and would mean that people who already have a car and are quite well off would not be subsidised, while those who really needed one would get the benefit.
My Lords, the other question that I would like to ask is whether the Government have given any consideration to the practical implementation of the provision of cars. Would it really be possible to provide 40,000 cars within any reasonable time scale? How quickly could they be provided, and what would happen in the event of switching to cars, to the supply of three-wheelers? Surely it would no longer be economic for producers to continue to manufacture three-wheelers, and we might well find that three-wheelers would go out of use. Although the noble Baroness might like that, because she alleges it is not a safe vehicle, I know of a great many people who depend on the three-wheeler and who very much appreciate it and could not use cars. There are those among the war pensioners who opt for the three-wheeler rather than the car. This proves my point.

1243
My Lords, I have to watch the clock, and as I have one minute to go I will mention briefly the other problems of mobility on which the noble Baroness touches in Part III of her Report. First of all, in the medical field, may I say how very glad I was to see that the initiatives of my right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph in the realm of rehabilitation have been recognised. As part of them, he set in train negotiations on the future of the rehabilitation professions, the physiotherapists, the occupational therapists and the remedial gymnasts. I do not know whether the noble Lord can say anything about the progress which has been made on those discussions. I should be most grateful if he could do so.
Finally, I was very pleased to read the tribute which was paid to ALAcs—the artificial limb and appliance centres. They have come in for a great deal of criticism one way or another in the past, but this Report pays them a tribute which, as I say, I was very pleased to read. Now, my Lords, my time is up. I have a great deal more to say, but I am afraid I ought to stop now.
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SNOWDON: My Lords, since this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, I ask for your usual indulgence. I am, needless to say, extremely honoured to be given the chance to speak here to day on a subject whose problems have concerned me over recent years. The most commendable Report of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has reminded us that there are almost 1¼ million adults in this country whose disabilities severely handicap them. That means that one in every dozen or so households is intimately concerned in their problems, sharing the frustrations of a world not built, and a society not adjusted, to let them be wholly a part of it.
Of course, progress has been made and attitudes are more generous than in the days of Charles Dickens. The recent appointment of a Minister for the Disabled—the first, I believe, in the world with sole responsibility for that part of our community—was a most heartening and enlightened step forward. I hope that this office will endure and that other countries will follow this lead, for obviously
1244
the problems are international as much as national. But there is far to go before the humane ideals which inspired the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970 are adequately met. They demand, and we must still demand, no less than the dignified integration of disabled people into our lives, and us into theirs, whenever and wherever that can be achieved. This means far more than just providing ramps for wheelchairs in our public buildings, more than providing extra accommodation in places of entertainment or quotas of stairless, stepless houses in new housing schemes, or specific proportions of disabled people in every work force. All that and other necessary points dealing with schools, recreation and other services were, of course, covered by the Act; but real needs go much deeper.
How can we assure the acceptance of disabled people, and their needs and rights, by the rest of the community—not merely as a charitable burden but as an unpatronising, unself-conscious, automatic act? When I say "by the rest of the community" I mean by all the rest of us: not the young, whose record in this field these days is better than ever before, but by the adult population; by the sort of unsympathetic managements who, despite the Act, still discriminate against handicapped people and ban wheelchairs from their cinemas, theatres, exhibition halls and stores, using their own unsolved fire precautions as their excuse; by such administrators of our social services as treat the disadvantaged as a nuisance; by those who put disabled people all in a coach together and then well-meaningly label them as though they were a circus act; by anyone who isolates the handicapped in any way or lets them feel that they are less than full members of society or robs them of the right to be anonymous. These, my Lords, are the people who must be taught.
Disabled people have enough problems. They do not wish to complain, or be made exceptions of, or to be granted favours. They need the same facilities to go where they want when they want, and not only in groups on certain days. That is why they have to be met more than halfway, not only by the Government and the Department of Health, but by all of us. We have still, in 1974, in spite of Section 1 of the Act, urgently to

1245
identify the needs of the disabled. We still have not done nearly enough research in consultation with them, as opposed to laying down the law for them. It seems that what is needed for the disabled—as indeed for the aged, too—is an all-out communal effort to discover, again in consultation, what they do not have, so that they may be given it.
This debate is about their mobility. The Department of Health does not even know with any exactness how many people need specialised, as distinct from adapted, cars. We do not know, and neither do all disabled people, what their rights are, what technical aids are available and what financial aid they may claim. Is there not something wrong when disabled people form themselves not just into social clubs or advisory bodies—that is fair enough—but also into pressure groups? I should like to see every regional authority in the country running central local showrooms equipped with all the latest appliances, devices, designs, prototypes and information which make a disabled life easier, whether for the home or for mobility out of doors. These showrooms should ensure a two-way exchange of ideas designed equally for the encouragement of the disabled as for the enlightenment of everyone else.
My Lords, nowhere, to my mind, have the attitudes which must be altered shown themselves to worse advantage than in the matter of invalid motorised tricycles. Their social shortcomings are recognised in Lady Sharp's Report, though, loneliness apart, more might have been made of the medical risks to a disabled person forced to travel solo. Her conclusion that four-wheelers should be substituted for the tricycles seems incontestable. The outstanding question is: when will the phasing-out start? It is also essential that nobody now mobile is made immobile.
Last month the Secretary of State for Health repeated once more that, and I quote:
"… there are no reasons on grounds of safety alone why the three-wheeler should be withdrawn".
The basis for this judgment was the short and entirely inadequate series of MIRA tests last year. In a front impact test the present model burst its petrol tank (mounted over the driver's knees) and buckled at the sides. In the wind gust tests, it slewed from a true course by
1246
twice the recommended amount. Are these grounds for declaring the present production model safe—let alone for giving a clean bill to all 20,000-odd tricycles of all models now on the road, any one of which would have its chassis over-ridden if in collision with virtually any other type of vehicle, with possibly disastrous consequences?
The tricycle is still being produced, and it is made largely of foreign parts—unstable, easily upsettable, unreliable, flimsy, inflammable; still without a jack or spare wheel; without bumpers, without an anti-roll bar; with the petrol tank still just in front of the driver, the interior bristling with sharp levers, its steering column non-collapsible, the internal noise insupportable, and with its perfectly appalling accident record.
My Lords, this is the vehicle for the disabled. They are not given the choice of a safer car. It may be driven by a paraplegic or someone suffering from the progressive deterioration of muscular dystrophy, so of course it matters if it reacts to a cross-wind by an average of 100 per cent. more than it ought to. The direct steering of these trikes is, as your Lordships may know, so sensitive that the tendency is to over-correct any sudden swerve at the best of times. That is bad enough, but the end will be calamitous if, as has often happened, the seat comes adrift without warning and slides violently sideways.
Who can blame the driver if, when that sort of thing happens on a bend, he panics and, voluntarily or involuntarily, brakes hard? This one does by pushing the handlebars downwards. The chances are that the tricycle will turn right over, and with the wind to help such a thing is even easier. The swerving tests at Cranfield last summer were abandoned for fear of an accident. The model 70 can travel as fast as 60 m.p.h. But, my Lords, I have myself turned over in one travelling at less than 20 m.p.h. In my case the petrol tank did not burst, but petrol poured on the ground and I was unable to get out unaided.
Nothing will convince me that this lethal machine is intrinsically suitable for a disabled person, or that its production should be allowed to continue for a moment longer; and, least of all, the argument which I have heard deployed by

1247
the Department of Health, that its instability induces greater caution in the driver and therefore promotes greater safety in its use. A Departmental public relations officer I spoke to had never had time to drive a tricycle; a Departmental engineer claimed to have found it absolutely safe when overtaking lorries in the fast lane of our motorways, and an administrator at the Department advised me to "lay off this safety lark". Another official told me that as I was not disabled I was not qualified to pass judgment on a car designed for the disabled.
It has been stated that the organisations for the disabled are to be consulted before changes are made and that we must hear in mind the report on social security provisions for the disabled next autumn. My Lords, I can already see delay mounting up before the trike is replaced by a real car—before replacement even starts. We know that thousands of small cars are going to be needed, irrespective of how the new criteria for their ownership may be defined, especially if we are changing over to an all-British vehicle. Could not the decision to order them be taken at once, so that by the time we have finished arguing about who is to have them some, at least, will be ready? I thank your Lordships for listening to me so patiently.
4.3 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Earl who has just made an admirable and humane maiden speech; I hope it will be one of many in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, might have been siting on the "mobile Bench" with us in a wheelchair, for the noble Earl has had polio. He gives great encouragement to thousands of disabled people and their helpers, and encourages others to help. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, for this interest.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for instigating this debate. It is such a pity that some noble Lords who would have liked to speak have not been able to do so because of shortage of time. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for having undertaken her mammoth task. The noble Baroness states housing to be the first necessity for the disabled, but for a young person
1248
who becomes a prisoner within a house this might be worse than death. With Chairs of Rehabilitation at Edinburgh and Southampton there is at least hope that rehabilitation in the British Isles may at long last reach a higher status in medicine than it has in the past. Housing and mobility are part of a fully comprehensive rehabilitation programme. This should be the right of all disabled people so that they may have the opportunity to develop to their full potential.
I hope mobility for the disabled will remain under the Department of Health and Social Security, and that the Government will take counsel from all the medical staff in charge of the physically disabled before considering transferring responsibilities. Paragraph 143 of the Report worries me. It reads:
"This could best be provided by empowering officials to decide applications for cars, after review of the personal circumstances."
Disabled people are very often frightened by officials and officialdom. They have often suffered many indignities due to their disabilities. Is this humiliation going to continue for the rest of their lives? If the Government can find a way to supply mobility other than by way of the means test I think it would be much more acceptable. If in regard to the supplying of cars to the disabled, the means test is used, might not the Government be penalising the industrious, decent workers who are worried if they do not have something in the bank to fall back on, yet be rewarding the dodgers?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said that there have not been many complaints about wheelchairs. I would query that statement. May I ask the Government thoroughly to examine this aspect and to consult the disabled users and the medical experts as to which chairs they find most acceptable? As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, it is essential that children's needs are reviewed as they grow. I had the pleasure of opening a lovely special school in Barnsley a few months ago. Some of the children there were acutely disabled. The school had the most excellent facilities. Two physiotherapists were needed to give the children the necessary treatment. It has been impossible to get even one part-time physiotherapist. The physiotherapists are the

1249
people who are most able to make disabled people, children or adult, mobile. Can the Government do something to encourage more of these vitally needed skilled therapists?
For disabled people who cannot drive a car or a tricycle an outside chair is often their last hope of independence. I am delighted to hear the Departments are working on the design of one. When a desperate lady wrote to me from Cardiff saying that she longed for an outside chair I was lucky to find two voluntary societies who raised the money and bought her one. She wrote afterwards to me saying, "I feel like a bird let out of a cage." And at Christmas she wrote again, saying what a wonderful summer she had had of freedom from being housebound. She was ecstatic about all the things she had done.
There does not seem to be an emergency breakdown service at week-ends for people living alone and depending on indoor powered chairs. A community worker told me he found the disabled lady he took out once a week from her high-rise flat dragging along the floor on her hands and knees. The powered chair had broken down; he could find no agency able to repair it. I have also heard from several people that there is a long delay in repairing electric chairs. On Sunday I heard of two in Halifax which had been waiting for six months.
In paragraph 115 of the Report the noble Baroness mentions dropped kerbs—a very important point. I wish the noble Baroness had mentioned the way a door to public conveniences is hinged. I have found very few which I have been able to shut behind me. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the many porters who help disabled people in and out of trains. With the new swinging doors inside the corridors this is not easy. We could not do without this sort of manpower. If turnstiles and turning doors could be discouraged this would help mobility not only for chairs, but for ambulant people walking with crutches who often find them dangerous. I agree with what the noble Baroness says about war pensioners, but I should like their preferential treatment extended to the police.
1250
My Lords, I am pleased the noble Baroness has been in favour of the four-wheeled car as a more satisfactory vehicle for the disabled. I think public opinion was the basis for this Report. The public feel uncomfortable when they see the familiar little blue three-wheelers broken down, pushed into the side of the road, with a stranded, lonely figure inside. Before I had a car, I drove a tricycle, which constantly broke down. I knew only too well all the disadvantages of those vehicles. But all the same, I would rather have a three-wheeler than nothing. What frightens me in what Lady Sharp has said about those who would or would not be eligible for a car is that some people who now have a tricycle would have nothing. The public would not know. The disabled people would be shut away out of sight in their houses. This would be cruelty personified. I hope no Government will ever let that happen. It is a pleasure to allocate something useful, but to tell someone they can no longer have their one bit of freedom, which has almost become a part of them, would be almost as bad as carrying out the death sentence. There still seems to be a place for the tricycle—for those who cannot manage a car, or for those between sixteen and seventeen who are permitted to drive them. Your Lordships will know this to be a most sensitive age, when young people need independence from their parents. They may have to reach work or further education.
My Lords, the disabled passenger also needs assistance. So often he needs more help and seems to get less. This matter is so much more complicated. A mobility grant scheme for them seems to be the most suitable. No disabled person is similar to another, nor are their circumstances the same. But all chairbound people have one thing in common, be they a disabled driver or passenger: they are all hit hard by rising prices, especially of petrol. Their mobility is no luxury; it is an essential of life. When dealing with this vital necessity I hope that the people with mobility problems will not be lumped together as "the disabled", but will be grouped according to their disabilities and their individual needs.

BUILDING SOCIETY MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
4.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in seeking permission of your Lordships' House to repeat a statement, may I join with the noble Baroness in expressing my personal congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on having made his maiden speech. It was a speech of distinguished quality.
My Lords, the Statement is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the subject of mortgages, and I will use his words:
"The Government's immediate objective is to increase the flow of funds available for mortgage lending, while holding the mortgage rate at its present level. The building societies, on the other hand, have argued in recent days that a sufficient net inflow of new savings cannot be assured except by an increase in their investment rate, which in turn would require an increase in the mortgage rate to above, and probably significantly above, the present 11 per cent.
In order to avoid this further damaging increase in housing costs, while yet making more money available for house purchase, the Government have offered to arrange immediate short-term loan facilities for building societies up to £100 million at a rate of 10½ per cent. The Bank of England would make advances at the minimum lending rate, which is currently 12¼ per cent. The cost of meeting the difference—about £150,000 per month at present rates—would be met by my Department's Vote, subject to Parliament's approval. We also undertook to arrange for a further £400 million to be available from the end of April, if circumstances then still required this, at an average rate of £100 million a month.
"This initiative would, in the Government's view, meet the immediate major problem. It would help the societies to lend more money quickly for house purchase without imposing further financial burdens on home owners and home buyers. The Government also believe that the present
1252
difficulties of the societies in attracting an adequate supply of funds will diminish as we succeed in our intention of reducing the level of interest rates generally.
"The Council of the Building Societies Association considered these proposals at a meeting yesterday afternoon. They were not able to agree to accept them without a further discussion with the Government. I have therefore agreed to meet the Association's representatives once again at 5 o'clock this afternoon. Our proposals will, I believe, make a significant contribution towards stabilising both the cost and the flow of mortgage funds. I hope and expect, therefore, that following our further discussion with the Association's representatives, the Council will decide at their next meeting on April 19 to accept the Government's proposals and to recommend no increase in the mortgage rate."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would start by thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement in this House this afternoon, and on behalf of my noble friends behind me to say that we welcome the offer contained in it. I hope that, as a result of the further information and assurances that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State can give to the societies when they meet him a little later this afternoon, it will be possible for the initiative to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Meanwhile, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all home owners in saying that there is an intense sense of relief that the rates of interest are not to rise for the time being.
My Lords, it was a year ago almost to the day when my right honourable friend, Mr. Rippon, had to make similar temporary short-term arrangements with the building societies. There has been widespread expectation and hope since then that the building societies will be able to come forward with further long-term solutions to these problems so that we do not again have to proceed from hand to mouth in this way. I am sure the House would be grateful if the noble Lord could say anything about the development of those long-term solutions.

1253
The House will be glad to note from the Statement that Her Majesty's Government give such high priority to home buyers. One hundred million pounds a month is a lot of money, and this is a welcome expression of the Government's understanding of the importance of the subject. To cast our minds back to the Budget and the policy contained therein, most of it, in so far as it bore on this problem, made the solution more difficult. If the noble Lord could point to any particular aspect of the Budget Statement and indicate how it has actually helped in furthering the Government's policy in this particular respect, I am sure that the House will be grateful to hear it.
4.18 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I think we must all agree that it is very important that there should be an inflow into the building societies to enable them to carry on their proper functions, and that if possible the rate of interest to home buyers should not be increased above the present 11 per cent. With regard to the proposed loan of £100 million at 10½ per cent., and a further possible £400 million, would the noble Lord agree that there are a number of detailed points that require very carefully looking into, as suggested by the Financial Times this morning? To give only one example, the object would be defeated if, as a result of the conditions imposed, there was a net outflow instead of an inflow of savings from other sources.
I have noticed that it is stated in the Press that the Government are angry with the building societies, and some rather uncomplimentary remarks have been made about them. I should have thought that that was not very diplomatic when these discussions were taking place. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can throw any light on that subject. But as a meeting is to take place at 5 o'clock, it would not serve any useful purpose for me to raise other detailed points. I hope the meeting is successful and that a solution will be found.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sand
1254
ford, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the welcome they have given to this Statement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this major problem of the finance of house ownership throughout the country needs a radical look, and certainly it is somehing to which all the major political Parties ought to be paying particular attention. I hope that Lord Sandford will forgive me if I do not follow him in his questioning in regard to the Budget. It is an involved argument balancing one factor against another. All I would say is that, on balance, I believe that the Budget was favourable to the building societies; but I will not pursue the matter any further because of the debate we have before us. In regard to the point that Lord Wade raised about anger with the building societies, all Governments have a sense of frustration and disappointment when their first overtures are repulsed. Sometimes in the media it may appear to be anger, but I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we shall have a satisfactory outcome on April 19.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, will the noble Lord please justify his confidence that interest rates will come down? There has been a recent hardening of interest rates in the United States. Secondly, if the interest rates to investors are held down at an artificially low level will this not mean, as The Times said this morning, that investors will be subsidising house owners twice over: once as taxpayers and once by not getting the market rate of return on their interest-bearing money?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to the noble Earl's second supplementary question, I think he will find that, as a consequence of the Budget, the net return after tax is now more favourable to the lender to a building society than it was before. If, however, one takes an investment in the building societies—and here one should stress that they are secure; in fact, they are an unrivalled source of investment and income—one finds that the rate of return to a building society investor compares favourably with most secure sources of investment. I would be quite happy to debate other matters with the noble Earl, but I have a feeling that we have already intruded in a most sensitive debate, and

1255
perhaps we should leave the more monetary and statistical matters to another day and return now to the debate on the handicapped.

MOBILITY OF THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED
4.23 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on his magnificent maiden speech. He certainly drew great emphasis to the whole of this problem and I recognised many of his points from real life. I also wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing the debate, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her Report—it is a very good advertisement for the advantages of having a committee of one. I welcome greatly the attempt to co-ordinate all aspects of the problem; there are so many sides to it, so many Government Departments responsible.
I also welcome the new Minister for the disabled, and I hope he can do something to piece this jig-saw together. His 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was a great milestone and has frequent reflections in the Sharp Report. I agree with the conclusion that housing is really the first priority. After all, a roof over one's head is a matter of the most immediate concern to everybody, and for the disabled person it can determine whether he or she lives at home or is sent to an institution. I agree that it is not a matter of specially designed housing; it is largely a matter of educating architects of houses and public buildings, and also a matter of the design of wheelchairs for manoeuvring in these houses and buildings.
Again, the Report accurately portrays the link between public and personal transport. Obviously, the more accessible and useful taxis, buses, trains, et cetera can be, the less reliance will have to be placed on cars or three-wheelers. The circular, mentioned in paragraph 117 of the Report, was the result of a bargain with the Government during the passage of the 1970 Bill through this House. I
1256
am glad it seems to be having some effect; at least it has a mention in the Report. All these mobility problems are interrelated, and it seems logical to me that they should all be, so far as possible, the concern of the local authorities, who already have a large number of obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; and this should ultimately, as the Report suggests, include the vehicle service. On the question of the vehicle service, which forms Part II and 70 paragraphs of the Report, I have always realised that this was a complex problem, after attempts to amend the 1970 Act, which I have mentioned, and repeated attempts to secure the same treatment for the disabled passenger as for the disabled driver. I am glad the Report comes down very firmly on this point, because it has been a scandal up till now.
I was most interested to see that a three-wheeler now costs £20 to £25 per annum more to run than a small car. If we could have established this point four years ago I am sure that the three-wheeler would now he seen only in museums. Its dangers and limitations have already been very well dealt with by Lady Phillips and Lord Snowdon. I should like to illustrate a point, perhaps from the other way round, of my own personal experience. I drive about 15,000 or 16,000 miles a year, mostly on my own—and I do not think that that is a reflection on my driving. But one meets most of the problems other drivers meet. Although it might be tempting fate too far if I were to claim, in Wordsworth's words,
"The moving accident is not my trade; To freeze the blood I have no ready arts";
nevertheless, I think I may claim a reasonable record, until I recently ran into trouble, having contracted influenza, I regret to say I think in your Lordships' House. After a few days in bed I unwisely went out topped up with drugs and had what one might call an enjoyable meal, and drove home afterwards. I duly went to sleep when approaching a corner and left the road at about 25 m.p.h. I cleared a ditch, removed 15 yards of hedge, and landed three or four feet down in a field. This was fairly late at night and I was on my own. In fact, the car stayed on all four wheels. I was completely unhurt. I suppose there is nothing particularly

1257
unusual about this; it is the kind of scrape motorists get into. But I am firmly convinced that, if I had been in a three-wheeler, I should have spent, at the best, all night upside down in the ditch and, at the worst, perhaps would not be here to-day at all. That is approaching the problem from the other side.
However, to return to the Report, I was most interested in the proposal to allocate vehicles or grants on grounds of social need, rather than on physical incapacity. The Report recommends a system based on discretion. Obviously, great tact will be essential here. I hope that is a feasible system. One reservation, I think already expressed, is my belief that more than 60 per cent. (which is the figure mentioned in paragraph 77 of the Report) of those eligible at the moment for a vehicle or grant will put up a good case to retain their position; and I should not like to be the person to deprive them. The great problem remains what these vehicles should be, and whether vehicles as such, or mobility grants in lieu, should be offered. For reasons already expressed, I believe that the three-wheeler should be phased out; that is, those in the pipeline should be completed, but the keel, so to speak, should not be laid for any more. I believe—and I am supported in this belief by Mr. Graham Hill, who is in fact here this afternoon—that a production car can be adapted to suit the needs of any disabled driver. Mr. Hill reminded me this morning of the case of a gentleman called Paul Bates who can drive a car with the use only of his fingers, helped by micro-switches, and another gentleman, Mr. Neil Harvey, who can steer with his feet. One personal problem which I encounter is how to drag a wheelchair into a car. At present the three-wheeler is more convenient for this manoeuvre but I do not believe this problem is insoluble for a production car.
Again personally I am happy with the present system of people buying their I believe the system should be extended and everyone who qualifies, regardless of means and simply as a claim on national insurance, should continue to receive the £100. This will cover the conversion to hand controls and all sorts of running repairs at present done by the able-bodied own cars and receiving the £100 per annum grant in lieu of the three-wheeler.
1258
themselves. After that, additional grants should be allocated according to means. Personally I am not put off by the question of a means test; so much is done on that basis nowadays, including the Housing Finance Act, and other measures.
Whether this system, or one of allocating cars as such is adopted, it is widely recognised that the cost of the service will increase. The Report allows for an increase of £3 million per annum. This seems to be modest, particularly when I believe the additional cost can be partially regarded as an investment. In fields such as education, on which we spend so much, these do not yield immediate returns in the purely economic sense. I hope it is not naive to suggest that increased expenditure in this field will create much hope and opportunity and prevent people becoming a burden on the State, and from this we shall all benefit. My final thought is that in wartime we "mobilise" the people. That is the word we use. Let us now, at this precarious moment in the country's fortunes, mobilise a largely untapped source of energy and of national manpower.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have to announce that the time limit for this debate, taking account of the ten minutes spent on the Statement on mortgages, expires at ten minutes past six.
4.34 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am glad to hear that we are allowed "injury time". We have heard two excellent and practical speeches in succession from noble Lords who understand this problem better than the rest of us. I should like to join in the chorus of welcome for the recommendation to replace three-wheelers by ordinary four-wheeled cars. It has seemed to me for some time, when I have thought of these frail three-wheelers with their disabled occupants launching themselves out into the busy traffic, among the juggernauts, that the Department was playing the role of the Witch of the North in Kipling's verse, which runs:
"The kind took off with the sunset—
The fog came up with the tide,
When the Witch of the North took an Egg-shell
With a little Blue Devil inside.
'Sink,' she said, 'or swim,' she said.
'It's all you will get from me.
And that is the finish of him!' she said,
And the Egg-shell went to sea."

1259
I welcome, secondly, the recommendation in the Report that when the time comes for a car to be withdrawn the disabled person shall have an opportunity to purchase it on advantageous terms. I cannot think of many things more haunting to a man than the thought that when his time of employment ends—or whatever it may be—his eligibility for a car, which has been his lifeblood, will cease and he will be stranded without it.
Thirdly, I welcome the recommendation to extend eligibility to non-drivers as well as to the disabled who are able to drive. The Report appears to recommend three possible courses of action in relation to the new class of non-drivers. First, they can have the car itself, provided that a person living with them, or in occasional circumstances a neighbour, can be nominated as the driver. In the alternative it is recommended that they might have a fixed allowance, which is recommended as being £125, towards the cost of running their own car. Thirdly, the Report touches upon car hire and taxis for disabled non-drivers, but I suppose this third course would be about the most expensive way of meeting their needs.
My Lords, the Report is so comprehensive, and seems to have dealt with practically every aspect of the subject which one can think of, that it surprises me to reflect that there is surely quite a large class of disabled non-drivers whose need is not met by any of the three courses of action proposed. It seems to me that many a disabled non-driver must have not one but several friends who from time to time drive him in their own car, and I imagine that the limiting factor is always the reluctance of the disabled person to impose himself upon the generosity of his friends. Why not give this person a mileage allowance, tailored to his own individual needs? If that were done he would be able to go to his friends and not be ashamed to ask for generosity, because it would not be entirely generosity. It would be known that he was in receipt of a mileage allowance and he would be able to make repayment to his friends for the service they had rendered to him. I do not believe that an individual mileage allowance such as this would be difficult to calculate—though I suppose there is an
1260
insurance problem. I suppose that these drivers would be driving people for reward, which might be contrary to their insurance policies. Nevertheless, I imagine that in consultation with the insurance industry this difficulty could be overcome.
With regard to assessing each mileage allowance I suppose one starts with journeys to work, which it is quite easy to calculate. There is no difficulty about that. I suppose there would then be a weekly mileage allowance for leisure purposes, and it could be a fixed mileage allowance applying to each person. Presumably there would also be an annual holiday allowance, which would be a fixed allowance for each person; and, finally, a compassionate allowance for people needing to visit close relatives who perhaps are unable to visit them. I imagine that those four headings would about cover it. Then it would be necessary to decide the range of the mileage allowance, and I suppose it could be in some sort of relationship to the mileage allowance which your Lordships receive, which I think is not exactly munificent. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, tabling a Question, asking what proportion of the cost of running a car was supposed to be covered by the mileage allowance.
I merely put this suggestion forward as a possible course of action which I believe would be better than providing some disabled non-drivers with a car, and which might better fulfill the needs of a great many of them.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for this great solo effort which has taken her a long time and which we are now debating, because this is one of the most important social problems before us to-day. But while the noble Baroness has made a detailed examination, I feel that her terms of reference were restricted. May I remind your Lordships again punt what the terms of reference were:
"To re-examine the limitations imposed upon persons whose mobility is reduced by severe physical disablement, not occasioned by old age …"
In my opinion, this restriction makes the title of the Report Mobility of Physically Disabled People, less than accurate,

1261
because it excludes a large number of people, mentally alert, and who will stay mentally alert for many years but whose mobility is impaired. I believe that the record of the number of disabled people under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 will only be an effective guide to our discussions in the future if the degree of disablement which it describes is associated with all diseases at all ages. I am quite sure that what is known as the "mobile Bench" will know that I have the most profound sympathy with them, and will not criticise me for what I am going to say. In fact, I know them so well that I think they will echo in their hearts what I am going to say.
My Lords, while I have sympathy with those who suffer from paraplegia, with those who suffer from loss of a limb, from poliomyelitis and other major disabilities, nevertheless we must not forget that osteo-arthritis is responsible for a vast amount of suffering and immobility in the population. Yet it seems to me that the housebound arthritic can be outside the terms of reference of this Report. for it is argued that the condition is occasioned by old age. At this stage of our discussions, it is very important that we should ask for a definition of old age in this context, particularly in these days when the expectation of life is growing and where a person who, in the past, would have been regarded really as aged and of little further use to society is now active, alert and playing an important part in our affairs.
I must ask the House to forgive me for putting this medical aspect of this problem, which is closely concerned with medicine, but some degree of osteoarthritis, particularly in large joints, is present in practically 100 per cent. of persons over the age of 50, although fortunately, of course, it does not always cause disability. Arthritis is not uncommon in women at the menopause. In view of the fact that the average expectation of life for a woman is 75 and that she can find her walking ability seriously impaired between the ages of 50 and 60, is she to be excluded from any help with transport on the grounds that osteoarthritis is generally occasioned by old age? That is what I read into these terms of reference, and if this is so, we must readjust our thinking. Similarly
1262
with a man, who develops arthritis in the hip more frequently than does a woman. This frequently occurs in men following a manual occupation, or even doing sedentary work. Is he not to be entitled to help on the grounds that osteoarthritis is associated with age? If osteoarthritis in late middle age can entitle a man or woman to a car, then there will be a great deal of ill-feeling engendered in those denied one in early old age.
My Lords, I am taking an entirely different approach from those who have already spoken on this subject in this debate. It is recommended that a change to a four-wheeled car will enable a disabled person who is unable or who does not want to drive to choose an appropriate person to be the driver. Of course, in consequence it has also been said that the demand for cars will be greatly increased. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, therefore recommends that a test based on physical handicap and on the need to get to a job, to get to a place of further education and to keep the family together, should entitle an individual to a car. Undoubtedly the change from a high-powered, three-wheeled, dangerous vehicle (as we have already heard) to a family car will attract the attention of the public to this new social service. I ask your Lordships to envisage a housebound person who is not entitled to a car under this criterion sitting at his window and seeing a disabled neighbour driven by a son, a daughter or a friend while the onlooker, the sad housebound individual who has been described here in such graphic terms by many speakers, cannot command the same service. Can we really support such a policy? Although apart from the principle on the grounds of expediency, Ministers should recognise that this will cause a great deal of trouble.
I believe, therefore, that if we intend to deal more generously with the physically disabled, we must be guided by one principle and one principle alone; namely, to treat them alike whatever their disabilities or age. I believe the only equitable answer is to give a disablement income as of right. Let the disabled use that income for whatever kind of vehicle or transport they want. I am fortified in my opinion by the decision of the E.E.C. countries who have been debating this matter. A number

1263
of them have agreed that this is the right approach. I was delighted to see that on Friday of last week the British Medical Journal, which looks at these things from a medical point of view, also advises this policy.
My Lords, I would like to add a few words in conclusion on the subject of transport. I feel that the housebound individual is never far removed from transport if that person lives in a town. The roads in our urban areas have now become garages, and given the resources such as I suggest, the housebound individual could pay a neighbour to use his car occasionally, could pay a garage and could have a car just when it is thought necessary. Indeed, this might be the beginning of a most humane transport service. It could become a part of a new service for the aged with which the public could be encouraged to co-operate, because with the vast number of cars that we have at present, which are used little during most of their life, these could supplement the transport of the aged housebound.
4.49 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I may start by generalising for a moment or two on the Report, and in particular refer to the opening comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when speaking of the scope of the Report. Although the Report is supposed to deal with the mobility of the physically disabled, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says in paragraphs 7 and 8 that she considers mobility in and about the house is perhaps more important, she devotes certainly more than half of the Report to mobility by motor vehicles. Indeed, I think I have heard every speech made in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and with the exception of the last moment or two of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, everybody has spoken about motor vehicles and their use. This, of course, illustrates not only the emotive feelings motor cars normally evoke in speeches, but the absolute and vital necessity of this kind of personalised transportation, not only to our economic wellbeing but also to our social wellbeing. So if I do not discuss eligibility for motor vehicles, I am sure that your Lordships will excuse me.
1264
Coming to paragraph 33, which deals with costs, I find it sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was not able to make proper comparisons. I find it odd, to say the least, that reliable figures of the cost of a piece of merchandise which is going to be supplied by Government at the taxpayers' expense cannot be made available. I can understand that the usual answer is that it is not the custom. My own researches indicate to me that a specialist motor car, the Invacar, currently provided, is considerably more expensive than a conventional motor car. While the Report discusses the relative annual running and operating costs to the Government at £155 for a conventional small car, I should have liked to see that backed up with a little more fact, because I would find it very difficult, notwithstanding bulk purchase ability, to buy, allow for depreciation, operate and insure a small motor car for £155 per annum.
My last general point on the report concerns paragraphs 58 and 62, which deal largely with "cash or car"—whether the Department should provide cash or car. I think in the present climate—that is that we do not have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, suggested, disability payment—of provision of certain items to assist mobility, I would come down very much in favour of the provision of a motor vehicle. When I say that, I do not know that I particularly go along with what is inherent in the Report, the provision of a necessarily small motor car, nor indeed the continual reference to a mini-motor car, because there are very many other English-made motor cars which can be equally suitable.
I turn for a moment to paragraph 65, which says:
"The Departments should continue to meet the cost of insurance while the cars remain their property. But the disabled person should be responsible for maintenance which, given an ordinary car, could be carried out at the garage of his choice".
I quarrel with that. In my view, it is far more desirable that the Department maintain some control over the maintenance of the vehicle. If one looks at Appendix F, dealing with mileages, one sees that on balance the bulk of motor cars used now cover a very low mileage per annum. It is an unhappy fact that many motorists think that because they do not go very

1265
far the motor car does not need maintenance. I fear that, unless one prescribes regular maintenance checks and maintenance repairs to a schedule, a cash allowance to undertake maintenance would not effect what we are seeking to achieve. If maintenance is not carried out properly, it may mean that at the end of the period the car is quite worthless. And it can, of course, become increasingly unsafe as time marches on, let alone mileage.
My last special point deals with paragraphs 34 and 35. It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Aberdare that there are many people currently using the three-wheeler who would be quite incapable of using the conventional motor car. I do not believe this to be so. My engineering and motoring experience suggests to me that, given sufficient money, there is no conventional car currently available in the United Kingdom, made perhaps by our European partners, or it may be by British manufacturers, that cannot be successfully adapted for use by the very large majority of disabled persons. This is why I said that I was a little disappointed at the use of the description "small car". One may get a very large man who cannot easily fit into a mini. Nevertheless, adaptations of roofs and doorways can be made to a variety of motor cars so that access can be made quite easy for the largest and some of the most infirm people. Micro-switches, servo-assisted hydraulics can be brought into play, so that there is no question of the people concerned having to lift heavy panels.
It may well be that certain preferences, because of usage, for the three-wheeler may have to be swept away. It may well be that a number of disabled people would, in the fullness of time, if the three-wheeler were removed from service, be deprived of their motor car. While I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, had to say about this, I think the large majority of people would accept that if more disabled people were given mobility in adapted conventional motor cars, and were able to enjoy greater benefits, perhaps those very few who were denied all would forgive them.
4.58 p.m.
BARONESS SHARP: My Lords, I do not intend to say very much in this debate, because I have had my say in the Report. It is not at all a final say; nor did I dream that it could be such a thing. What I hoped when producing the Report was that it would enable decisions to be taken, not necessarily exactly the things I had suggested, but decisions after debates in both Houses of Parliament and discussions with the disabled. The one thing I was quite clear about, as I went on with my inquiry, was that changes are needed, not only changes in the vehicle service, and, as I was quite clear, the replacement of the three-wheeler by the ordinary car, but changes in the whole treatment of the disabled.
The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, whose maiden speech I listened to with very great pleasure and admiration, reminded us that there are 1¼ million people who are sufficiently seriously disabled to be very much restricted in their activity. This is a huge problem, and it is no wonder to me that Ministers, particularly the Minister for the Disabled, feel that they would like to be able to review the whole problem before they take any decisions. The amount of money they will be able to use for the disabled is limited, and clearly they want to make sure that they are using it to the best advantage. The physically disabled whose mobility is severely reduced—the people I was particularly dealing with—number at least half a million, and even for them the vehicle service can help only a few. Whatever is done with the vehicle service it is going to touch only a small part of this number of people, and perhaps all of them need some kind of help. Many of them get some kind of help through wheelchairs and other arrangements, but most of them need a good deal more help than they are getting, particularly with this problem of mobility. So I can sympathise with Ministers who say that they must have a look round the whole business of cash benefits before they can take their decisions on this. Nevertheless, I feel—and here I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—that there is an urgency about some decisions to be taken on the vehicle service. That suggests to my mind that

1267
they should be taken in advance of the total review of the cash benefits, and I think that they could be taken.
When I come to the particular problem of the vehicle service, there is one thing that I should like to say first—and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, reminded me of this outside the Chamber; and I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, has said much the same to her—that is that there is an impression among disabled people (I know that they have had letters, and I too have received letters since the Report was published) that there is a possibility that almost any day now some people may be deprived of their three-wheeler cars. Of course there is absolutely no such suggestion in my Report and, I am quite certain, no such idea in the minds of any Minister or any responsible person. It would be a great benefit to the disabled who drive the three-wheelers if the Press and the media could make it clear, perhaps following this debate, that it is not suggested by anybody that anyone is going to lose his three-wheeler, or car, or cash allowance in lieu, in the near future. The question of what may happen in the years to come is something else again—and I hope to say something about that in a moment; but nobody is threatened in the near future.
It seems to me that there are some decisions that could be taken right away. Obviously the first is that in so far as the Government are going to continue in the long run to provide personal transport, or provide the means to purchase personal transport, to physically disabled people, it should be by the car. There has been some reference in to-day's debate to the question of whether there are some disabled people who cannot drive a car. I am quite certain that there are some. There are some who can drive the trike but who cannot drive the car. Once it is a car, however, you have the benefit that you should be able to get somebody to drive it for you. There are a few who will feel deprived if, in the long run, the three-wheeler disappears, but they are very few. We have to remember that out of nearly 10,000 war pensioners who have the choice of car or trike I think that I am right in saying that less than 300 take the trike. It is alleged that some of them say that they take it because they like to
1268
be alone and that they do not want to take their wives around, but I think that that may be rare. I hope so. This is the first decision that could be taken; that cars begin to be provided. But then of course there is the very difficult question—for whom. I have come in for a lot of criticism for suggesting that the condition of eligibility for the car has to be different from that for the trike. It is not only because of the enormously increased cost—increased demand and therefore increased cost—that we should be involved in, if we say let the conditions of eligibility be the same as they are now. That is to say, that it essentially depends on the degree of disability, the virtual inability to walk, which is what entitles anyone to a trike or, being rather less disabled, nevertheless the need of personal transport to do a job. If you extend that eligibility to everybody who can get a car driven for them as well as to all those who now drive the trikes, my calculation—and I am pretty certain it was an underestimate, but it was the best I was able to do with the advice given to me—was that you will have at least three times as many people demanding the car, and probably a good deal more.
This is of course what has held up the Ministry of Health and Social Security all these years. They have known for a long time past that the car ought to replace the trike for a lot of reasons; not only the danger, but the passenger carrying capacity, and the demand of the disabled for the article which was already, a year or two ago, somewhat cheaper than the trike. But they have been completely baffled how to grapple with the size of the demand knowing, as they do—and we come back here to the first point that was made—the huge needs of disabled people of all kinds. And of course it is not only the disabled, but all the people with whom the Ministry of Health and Social Security have to deal. This is undoubtedly a very difficult problem.
One thing I should like to say is that there have been several references in this debate to-day to the unacceptability of withdrawing at any point from anybody the transport which they have had. The awkwardness of the whole affair is that I do not believe myself—but I could be wrong—that you can continue providing the specialised vehicle for the disabled person if you are also giving everybody

1269
the choice of a car, so that you have a very small demand indeed for the invalid vehicle. Nevertheless, if one introduces the car it is my guess that it will be six, seven, or eight years before the three-wheeler finally disappears, always provided that it is not driven off the road by arguments about danger, and what should be done, than perhaps need not be settled now,
I am not going to argue about danger with the very much greater experts on this subject in the House. However, I must say that I think the argument about danger has been exaggerated. I am not saying that the three-wheeler, as it is tested, is not in many ways very dangerous. I am not saying that in some ways it is not dangerous on the road. It is obviously susceptible to side winds. What I am saying is that in all the researches I made I was unable to find that it was very more dangerous in use. It was rather more dangerous in use. There has been some confusion caused by the statistics of accidents. You have to remember that the three-wheeler is repaired without charge by the Departments. Therefore, if the three-wheeler driver has a bump or a scratch and in due course gets this repaired it is reported as an accident, and it is the sort of accident for which most of us ordinary drivers would pay ourselves and is not reported.
I tried to compare serious accidents. There are no statistics. The only statistics that I could get were for fatal accidents, and the number of three-wheelers on the road was rather too small for this to be at all significant. They did show a slightly higher rate of fatal accidents. I was having to try to compare it per mile, because of course accidents per mile is what really matters, and the figures for that were not at all satisfactory. But, on the whole, I did not find that the three-wheeler was significantly more dangerous in use, though I admit that to a considerable extent this is due to the care with which the disabled drove it. The plea I am making here—and, goodness knows! it is no plea to keep the three-wheeler, which I want to see go for a whole lot of reasons—is that, while not claiming to be an expert on safety, I believe that we should not so press the danger argument that the Government feel forced to close down the three-wheeler earlier than would otherwise be necessary.
1270
I really do not believe that that would be in the interests of the disabled, unless we were satisfied that it is too dangerous to keep on the roads even with such modifications as may be under consideration. Therefore, I hope that the Government will first decide that cars should be substituted for three-wheelers.
They will then have the problem of whom to provide them for. I can see that that will be a really difficult problem, and it was the real teaser throughout the whole inquiry. I believe that those whose personal circumstances, as well as the extent of their disability, meant that they have an exceptional need for transport should come first, and I should have thought it was possible for the Government to say, "We will start with the ones who are clear, whether they can drive or not. We should start with drivers and disabled passengers alike, the ones who need transport to do a job or the housewife who needs transport to manage her household and keep it going." A new category which I am extremely anxious to introduce, and which I should like to see included at once, is the student or the person who needs further training, who is not eligible at the moment for any personal transport at all. I met a few cases of this kind and was deeply distressed to think that for them, for whom time is of the essence, the opportunity for getting further education and training is going by. Whether they have a three-wheeler or a car is not very material, so long as they are admitted at once for transport.
There are other cases in regard to which the present rules are plainly too narrow; for example, if you need a car to get to work you can have one if you are able to walk only a certain distance. I forget exactly how many yards it is, but the medical officers of the Department judge whether you can walk that distance which may be about 250 yards. What matters to you is not whether you can walk 250 yards, but whether having walked it you will be able to catch a bus. So I want to suggest that the present rules should be expanded at once to allow regard to be had to the availability of public transport; in other words, to one's need of a car in one's circumstances given the need to get to work. In other respects I thought that the present rules were plainly too narrow and too rigid and could, and should, be widened at

1271
once. So that the plea which I would make to the Department is, "Make a start".
One of my difficulties about estimating how many people would be eligible under different headings was that I was largely having to guess. I had a great deal of help from the Department and from others in the Government service, but at the end of the day it is still largely guesswork to estimate how many people are disabled to a certain degree. Then, of course, it is complete guesswork if you go on to ask, "For what do they need a car? What are their family circumstances? What are their circumstances in relation to the availability of public transport?" If the Department could at least make a start on getting cars and making them available to the clearest, most easily defined categories, they would be getting a certain amount of much-needed information about the size of the problem.
That is really all I want to say now, except that I should like to go back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. Despite all the limelight that has concentrated on the vehicle service, the real problem of the physically disabled, with whom I was particularly concerned, is a much bigger one than can be solved by providing personal transport, however it is done and however widely one goes. One of the main conclusions that I reached in my Report was that the great difficulty of the disabled, at the time I was writing it, was the diffusion of responsibility among a whole variety of agencies for certain aspects of this mobility problem. I believe I said that one point which clearly emerged from my inquiry was that the mobility of the disabled needs the concentrated attention of somebody, somewhere, which at the time I was writing it simply did not get, because responsibility was scattered around a whole lot of agencies. For that reason I should like to add my voice to those of others in your Lordships' House, who have said how much they welcome the appointment of a Minister for the Disabled.
5.16 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would wish me to say how much this
1272
afternoon's short debate has been enhanced by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Also, in declaring my interest as President of the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club, I should like to welcome the noble Baroness's Report as an important contribution towards a better understanding of the total mobility problems of disabled people. She is certainly to be congratulated on the lucid way in which she has presented her case and the closely reasoned arguments in support of her proposals, and I am sure that the Club and all those other disabled people regard her Report as a sure foundation on which we can build a better mobility service for the disabled in the future.
However, many people have been deeply concerned that it would appear that some 40 per cent. of the existing recipients of mobility help would have this help withdrawn if the proposed new criteria of eligibility were accepted. I am particularly reminded of the deep distress felt by many disabled drivers when on a previous occasion it was announced that certain disabled drivers would have their vehicles withdrawn when they gave up work. While I appreciate the administrative problems of preventing abuses, I believe that an alternative and more acceptable arrangement could have been made to close loopholes without distressing those who had established long-term bona fide claims to their vehicles.
I would remind the House that we are dealing with a deeply human problem which cannot be resolved by the sole application of reason and cold logic. The sudden removal of vehicles from those whose lives have become shaped by their use would be an unacceptable deprivation and a lowering of their standard of living. So in this context I am sure that we would particularly welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that is not really intended and is unacceptable to the Government, and that further discussions will take place with the organisations for the disabled.
Naturally, the recommendation that invalid tricycles should be replaced by small cars is one which most people would heartily welcome. It is a long overdue recommendation and is something which should have been implemented years ago. However, the recommendation

1273
lacks the urgency which it certainly merits in the light of other available evidence concerning the safety of invalid tricycles. It is a national disgrace that a vehicle specially designed for physically disabled people should have been continually built—"developed" is certainly not the right word—with such scant regard for drivers' safety, and with such little recognition of pending legislation and the universal trend towards higher standards of automobile safety; indeed, the growing compulsion on both manufacturers and drivers in various directions. After all, disabled drivers are, by definition, suffering from some limitations—perhaps of dexterity, balance, feel or even reflex action.
In the light of this, is there not a moral, if not a legal, duty on all of us to see that special care is taken to ensure drivers' safety, aspects of which are certainly shown to be absent in the design of invalid tricycles? Their continued provision now costs more, not only in financial terms, but in fear, human misery and suffering such as is experienced by so many users of these vehicles. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, referred to the Motor Industry Research Association test reports on the invalid tricycle when it was shown that the steering system failed to meet the required standard. Additionally, the requirement of draft regulations on tire risk were not met. Extensive modifications had to be made to the tricycle before it met the required standards, but none of these modifications have yet been incorporated in the production models. Therefore how much longer have we to go on subjecting disabled drivers to risks which are legally unacceptable in a modern production car?
I am most happy to see here this afternoon many members of disabled organisations, and Graham Hill who has done so much to present the case, but so far as I am aware no manufacturers are present, which is sad. Certainly further evidence confirms the widely reported experiences of disabled drivers about tricycles behaving badly in windy weather. However, there is no relevance to the argument that other vehicles, as well as tricycles, display similar characteristics. The ordinary car buyer has a choice and he can refer to the motoring Press for comment and opinion. He can therefore avoid buying a car whose performance
1274
and road holding is unacceptable. By contrast, the invalid tricycle driver has no such opportunities. It is little wonder that Lady Sharp reports that probably only 50 per cent. of people eligible actually take up vehicles under the present arrangements. Surely the only relevant question seems to be whether or not there is a car at comparable cost that is better than an invalid tricycle, and if so, that should be the minimum standard to be improved upon for disabled drivers.
I must confess that the wind gust tests filled me with horror and I feel that it is only apt to describe them as "mobile accidents looking for somewhere to happen." Faced with this situation a commercial manufacturer of an ordinary vehicle would be obliged to withdraw them for modification, or alternatively to compensate their customers. Therefore, I feel that it would be only right and propel for the Government to make available sufficient resources to offer all users of invalid tricycles the immediate option of a lump sum payment to buy a car in lieu of an invalid tricycle if they so wish. The problem of supply, touched upon by Lady Sharp, is obviously a major drawback if the Government are to accept responsibility for a quick changeover to a car.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Aberdare about the question of priorities. We have a Government which gives millions of pounds in subsidies for milk and bread when I feel that the disabled have a much better claim to subsidies right across the board. I suggest that we cannot wait for four or five years, which has been suggested as a reasonable transition period. To-day disabled drivers are at risk. The responsibility for us all is to ensure that this situation is no longer tolerated by any Government alive to its social and moral duties. The situation has become desperate and the remedy requires extraordinary measures. The disabled cannot, and I do not think that we must, wait any longer. I am sorry that we cannot yet say farewell to the three-wheeler; maybe Lady Sharp's Report was its death sentence, but I am sorry that to-day is not its funeral. Road conditions have changed so much and three-wheelers were a tremendous advance in their day but they are now totally unable to keep up with modern traffic and modern mobility.

1275
I feel that it is absolutely essential that, in any changeover to cars, a distinction must be made between the disabled user of a vehicle who is unemployed and a user who works. For the former it is absolutely essential that the Department of Health and Social Security should continue its practice of providing full maintenance, while, on the other hand, it might be reasonable to expect that the latter should be able to bear the full cost of all maintenance. There will obviously have to be some administrative safeguards against abuses, but this aspect should be examined. While we look at the cost of the vehicle service and compare it with other expenditure on social security provisions, it is really a very small part of the total Government support for the disabled, sick and elderly. The average cost of providing a car under present arrangements works out at about £3 a week and I welcome the Government's intentions to look at vehicle service in the context of their plans for a disability income.
I feel very strongly that a completely satisfactory answer to mobility help for disabled people can be found only if there is a mobility element in total disability income. I suggest that this amount should be the equivalent of current Government expenditure at about £3 per week. There is also the problem of licensing which I think at the moment is the question of a refund. This again should be raised as a question of exemption because the exemption tax disc is extremely useful for identifying vehicles of disabled people at places like toll bridges and for tunnel concessions.
In a question earlier this year I raised a point about special car parks in shopping centres. In her Report Lady Sharp makes it quite clear that she has a great deal of sympathy for the scheme of mobility grants and I accept that there is good sense in this. But the setting up of the machinery is obviously going to be complicated. A major difficulty of the car scheme is that people normally have to accept the car that the Department is contracted to buy, with all the attendant risks that this entails. A grant for purchasing spreads this among many manufacturers and it also gives the disabled person a certain amount of choice. Finally may I say how pleased I am that Lady
1276
Sharp has established a principle that mobility help should be given to disabled drivers as well as disabled passengers. I am sure that everyone will accept this as a welcome idea and certainly there can be no disagreement about it.
5.27 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, now that the local government reorganisation has come into effect the overall responsibility for the health and welfare of the disabled, as well as others, rests with five Government Departments—the National Health Service, the Social Service Authority, the Housing Authority, the Department of Health and the Department of Employment. However, the main executive responsibility lies with local authorities under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and extended by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Under Section 1 of the latter Act local authorities have a duty to compile a register of disabled persons in their area. The rate of progress in this varies from one authority to another and I should like to ask the Government when the complete returns will be available. To me this knowledge seems to be a basic requirement to enable authorities to make definite plans. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is a landmark in the concept of caring for the disabled. It has made a real impact, but the pressure must be kept up. If money were unlimited the problem would be much easier to solve, but in our present economic situation care must be taken to ensure that one group among the disabled does not compete with another for inadequate funds.
I agree with the Report that every disabled person should have a home in which he or she can be as independent as possible. But too much attention has been focussed on the provision of specially designed housing. Yes, provision for the disabled should be included in every new housing scheme, but also, bearing in mind the economic situation, much more could be done to adapt available housing. Simple matters like doors being widened to take a wheelchair and ramps being put over steps would not be so costly and would be of enormous benefit.
I have just three points about the vehicle service. First, outdoor mobility should be provided for those too disabled

1277
to drive, that is disabled passengers, equivalent to the help now offered to disabled drivers. The existing discrimination against the more severely disabled is unjust and must be ended.
Secondly, please do not abolish the invalid tricycle altogether, because for many it is a useful and welcome means of outdoor mobility. Some people cannot drive adapted cars and others do not wish to try. Young disabled people can drive invalid tricycles at the age of 16 years, but they are not allowed to drive a car until they are 17. This is an important year in a young person's life, particularly in respect of education and employment. It is also a time when they are anxious to break free and become independent of adults. Mobility outdoors is an essential part of the process of rehabilitation, and equally essential in the socialisation process of young disabled people. Confine them within four walls and you stifle their development and preclude their ever being fully rehabilitated. It is often the stimulus of getting out and about in society that makes disabled people realise what the world has to offer, what they should aim for and what they can achieve. It is a stimulus that makes them want to exploit their abilities and become independent and self-supporting.
Thirdly, motoring is not a luxury for people who cannot walk and cannot use public transport. Action must be taken to ensure that currently disabled passengers and disabled drivers remain mobile in the face of very severe increases in the cost of motoring. Immediate action is also required to remove the requirement for exemption from vehicle excise duty for disabled passengers who have a conspicuously and permanently adapted vehicle. I understand that this would require the amendment of Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971, as amended by Section 128(2) of the Finance Act 1972. People who cannot walk and cannot use public transport should not be subjected to motoring taxes. Such taxes for these people constitute a tax on mobility.
Co-ordination of all the Departments concerned must be achieved to get the best possible results in the matter of mobility for the disabled. There are far too many fragments at present. With a little more thought and money the disabled
1278
would be enabled to live fuller, altogether happier, lives. Even quite a little mobility can make all the difference between independence and dependence.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on his maiden speech I should like to join with him in the concern which he showed that the attitude of society—indeed our own attitude, indeed my own attitude—towards disabled people needs changing. As an example of that, on occasions I have to visit No. 10 Belgrave Square which as your Lordships may know is the headquarters of the Institute of Directors. I do not visit there very often, but there are two very large steps outside. My normal way of tackling this is to get out of my wheelchair and swing my legs up the steps. But they are fairly large ones, they are marble and they are a bit slippery, so I wrote to the Director and said, "Can a simple iron handrail be put up here?" This is the answer I received from him.
"I am terribly sorry but the Grosvenor Estate is extremely sticky on this sort of thing. They demand that every house and every porch in the Square should look exactly the same and they do not allow us to make even minor additions such as the one you suggest."
May I suggest to the owners of the Grosvenor Estate that they should consider the spirit of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The noble Countess, Countess Loudoun, mentioned a moment or two ago the importance of outdoor mobility for disabled people and the stimulus that they get from being able to go out and attend meetings. I should only like to place on record the stimulus I get and am very fortunate to get from attending meetings and debates in your Lordships' House. I should like to say a word in favour of a cash grant rather than the supplying of cars, because people's needs vary and if you gave them a cash grant you would enable them to choose the particular vehicle that was most suited to their needs.
For some people it may be that they need only limited outdoor mobility and a powered outdoor wheelchair might be what they really need. I myself have a rather splendid vehicle which is called a "Gnat" which your Lordships may not have seen before but which has three

1279
wheels and although it is a three-wheeler I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, would feel absolutely happy in it. It has very large squashy tyres, one in the front and two behind, and it will go almost anywhere. I take it into the woods and I plant trees and cut down trees in it. This is the sort of physical exercise that disabled people particularly need. I feel sure that there will be many other people in the same sort of situation and it might be that a vehicle of this kind might suit them even better than a car. I realise that there are considerable difficulties, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned in her Report, in the way of giving cash grants instead of providing a car, but I do not feel that these are insuperable and, as I say, it would enable the particular need of the particular person—and all our needs vary—to be met.
5.36 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Phillips for introducing this debate to-day. I should be less than frank if I did not say to her and to your Lordships that I thought some hours ago that this debate would have served a better purpose in two or three months' time when the Government had had an opportunity of looking at all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. But having listened to the debate to-day, it is quite clear that my noble friend Lady Phillips did quite the right thing because I believe that we have collected a great deal of information to-day which will be of value to Her Majesty's Government.
I assure all speakers that a careful note has been taken of all the points raised. If I do not now deal with each one of them separately, I assure your Lordships that they will be brought to the attention, not only of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but also my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled, with whom I have had a number of discussions quite recently. I say that because if I appear not to give very definite answers to your Lordships on a number of matters that have been raised, it is not due to lack of sympathy on my part.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I tell you that for a long period
1280
I myself was totally paralysed. I have spent a good deal of time in a wheelchair. When I came to your Lordships' House both my legs were in calipers and I was using two sticks. It is an indication of what your Lordships have done for me over the years that I have been able to get rid of my sticks and my calipers. I have certain disabilities which are not apparent—perhaps it gives me an opportunity, having said that, to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for being out of the Chamber for the first two or three minutes of his speech.
May I say, as a number of other noble Lords have said, how pleased we have been to have with us and to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon. It is with some diffidence that I draw attention to the fact that it has taken him thirteen years, I think, to make his maiden speech. Having heard it and knowing of his competence in this field, we hope that he will come here and make speeches regularly in less than thirteen years, because this is a matter which is of concern to everyone in your Lordships' House. My honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has had discussions recently not only with the noble Earl but I believe with Mr. Graham Hill, who is present to-day, and I know how much he has valued the discussions he has had with them.
The noble Earl described the three-wheeler as a lethal machine. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind him that every car on the road is a lethal machine. He referred to the appalling accident rate. The accident rate in the case of three-wheelers is not so bad, I think, as a good many people make out. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, dealt with this aspect perhaps rather more effectively than I can myself, but serious injuries are very few. I am informed there were only thirty-six serious injuries in the last year, and that is serious injuries extending beyond cuts and bruises. There were only five fires in three-wheelers last year, most of which were due to small wiring fires. Then, just over 1 per cent. of three-wheelers—and I do not say this with any pride, because it is a high figure—turned over; but I think this compares reasonably with our own cars, those which we use for war pensioners and for restricted National Health categories.

1281
May I also refer to three specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked me; and perhaps the House ought to know that, with his characteristic kindness, he gave me advance notice of them. The first was: what are the Government's views with regard to the means test, to which reference has been made? Obviously, the noble Lord and those who sit with him on that side of the House will know that the term "means test" is rather anathema to people on this side of the House; but having said that perhaps I may say that, if I have understood the Report correctly. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, supports this in principle but tentatively concludes that it may be impracticable to apply it to the provision of cars.
It is possible that difficulties also arise in applying a means test to a lump sum grant. In either case the Department would be in the position (I would have thought in the invidious position) of having to recover periodical payments, probably monthly, from a substantial number of disabled people. On the other hand, a means test at an effective level would clearly go some way towards limiting the extra costs. But I think we have to face the fact that there is a question of manpower involved here; and, if I may repeat what I have already said, there may also he involved, as far as this side of the House is concerned, a matter of principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also asked whether it would be possible to provide 40,000 cars and, if so, how quickly. I think I must be perfectly frank with him and say that there are discussions going on with motor manufacturers. I think this question is not going to be resolved very quickly. There are a number of matters, as he knows probably better than anyone in your Lordships' House, which have to be taken into account, and I can only say that those negotiations will proceed in order to achieve the best possible arrangement. The noble Lord also asked me what progress has been made in the discussions on the future of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedial gymnasts. I can only say—and it is not a very satisfactory reply, I acknowledge—that these discussions are proceeding, and we hope that something tangible will come out of them. As the noble Lord will know, there is a
1282
great deal of competition on the part of local authorities, who are attracting, I think, an abnormal number of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and others, and I think the general field of medical as well as social work is feeling the effect of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill have raised a number of matters which, if they will forgive me, I do not propose to deal with this afternoon. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised quite an interesting point, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill raised quite a number. I think we must look at them all in some depth. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, does not think it impertinent on my part, I should like to say that we in the Government wish to congratulate her warmly on carrying out a very thorough survey on a subject which is recognised by everyone who knows about it to be a particularly difficult and daunting one. But she has produced a really first-class Report, and while we may not agree with everything the noble Baroness has said, I think we must accept the fact that the clarity of her thought and the precision and style of her writing is an example to most of us in your Lordships' House.
The Report raises a number of complex issues. It deals with many aspects of the mobility of disabled people. The noble Baroness acknowledges that suitable housing, coupled with the means to be mobile inside the house, is a No. 1 priority. On this, my right honourable friend's Department and the Department of the Environment are collaborating on the advice which should be given to housing authorities. The suggestion of the noble Baroness on mobility housing is very constructive, and is one aspect which both Departments are at this present moment considering. It was problems concerning the vehicle service for disabled people, however, which prompted the inquiry, and in consequence the noble Baroness devotes the main part of her Report to that subject. She concluded that the existing three-wheeled invalid vehicles which are issued to disabled people should be replaced by a suitably adapted small car, this conclusion being based mainly on the grounds that the car now represents better value for money and that it would be more acceptable to

1283
disabled people as it would enable them to take their husband or wife and their family with them.
The noble Baroness makes it clear in her Report that her terms of reference required her to have regard to the help in cash or kind which the available resources permit, or could permit, and she consequently recommended a change in the criteria for eligibility so that in effect only those who need a car—and I emphasise that she uses the word "need"—for the support of themselves or their families would qualify. Again, the noble Baroness makes clear the fact that the greater attraction of the car means that to make it available even to her restricted categories of eligible disabled people would substantially increase the potential number of beneficiaries, and that, of course, the cost would be considerably more. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he mentioned something in the region of £22 million being an increase of £12 million on the money spent at the present moment, was not very far wrong; and, whatever a Government may want to do, with the best will in the world one has to take that factor into account.
At the same time, this fact has to be seen against the background of rendering ineligible for a car nearly 14,000 of those who already have a three-wheeler, not to mention future generations of disabled people who, while eligible under the present criteria, would never become eligible under the criteria of the noble Baroness. As my right honourable friend indicated in her Statement on March 25 in another place, the Government consider that any proposal to withdraw a vehicle from those now having the use of one, even with the transitional safeguards proposed, would be quite wrong.
In arriving at this conclusion the Government have in mind the great importance of mobility to relieve the social isolation of disabled people. The Report also raises other complex problems including those of administration, of cost and of supply. For example, the question of determining social need is one of great complexity, as I am sure the noble Baroness herself recognises, and there would need to be much discussion before this could be clarified to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. Even then it is
1284
doubtful whether the clarification would meet with everybody's approval.
Another matter which raises difficult problems is the question of retaining the three-wheeler for those disabled people who wish to retain it. We heard a good deal this afternoon about the, shall I say, ineffectiveness of the three-wheeler and its dangers. It may come as a surprise to noble Lords to learn that there are quite a number in this category, most commonly because they could not comfortably drive a car and for whom the provision of a car would not be the answer because they are physically unable to drive it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would think otherwise, but this is the information we have as a result of investigation. It is impossible to forecast what effect a change-over to either cash or cars would have on three-wheeler production. This is another matter which we shall have to consider against the background of the overall review.
It is because of these questions that my right honourable friend has initiated a process of consultation with interested individuals and organisations especially those representing the disabled people themselves and professional bodies. Her Department has already written to a large number of people and organisations inviting views on a variety of questions. Above all my right honourable friend is determined that the process of consultation shall be truly meaningful. Similarly my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will also be carrying out their own consultations.
Noble Lords have referred to the question of safety of the three-wheeler at present issued. Despite statements that have been made in this House and elsewhere about the safety of the invalid three-wheelers, I am most concerned that I should be able to reassure those severely disabled people who rely on these vehicles. Allegations continue to be made that they are intrinsically dangerous and that they should be withdrawn from the roads. I do not think this is really borne out by serious investigations. I cannot do better than reaffirm the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on March 25 when she introduced the

1285
Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that there are no reasons for thinking that this is so. I sincerely hope that the alarm that may well have been created in the minds of those who continue to use these vehicles by the statements that have been made, some of which have been reported in a rather irresponsible and unbalanced manner, will accordingly be dispelled.
I am aware that the investigations made by the Cranfield Institute of Technology last year and the conclusions that have been drawn from their reported results continue to attract a good deal of attention. I think it is important to recognise that they were carried out in a somewhat artificial environment by people who were not necessarily conversant with the special controls and design of the invalid three-wheeler. The experience on the roads of many thousands of users, which is really of more practical significance, over a period of nearly a quarter of a century has certainly not confirmed these opinions. Experience therefore suggests that if these three-wheelers are driven sensibly within the limits of performance that can reasonably be expected of a vehicle of this kind then, except perhaps in appalling weather conditions, they are quite safe. There has been much theoretical philosophising, but no real evidence has been produced to contradict this view. Indeed, quite a considerable number of disabled people have taken the trouble to write to Ministers categorically dissociating themselves from the criticisms which have been published in the Press.
The invalid three-wheeler is, and always will be, a functional vehicle. Indeed, many of the features which have been incorporated specifically to cater for the needs of the most severely disabled are those which have given rise to criticisms by drivers accustomed to more conventional vehicles. It is accepted that it is not perfect and endeavours to improve it will continue to be made. But your Lordships will not lose sight of the fact that for well over 20 years model after model, each an improvement on its predecessor, has given severely disabled people a new dimension in life and I believe a new outlook. Model 70, even before modification, did not in fact behave as badly as certain reports had suggested it might. Indeed, it seems to have done
1286
quite well. The first test was quite reassuring, but it is my right honourable friend's intention during the next few months to withdraw Model 70 three-wheelers from the fleet with a view to altering the mounting of the petrol tank in the way that was done for the third Model 70 test by the Motor Industry Research Association. Future vehicles will of course incorporate this modification.
The view held by the Government about the side wind tests is that, although the Model 70's behaviour was somewhat worse than that of some other comparable vehicles, one must bear in mind that some commercial four-wheeled vehicles also failed to meet the experimental safety criteria in the side wind tests. The short answer is that liberties cannot be taken in driving it which would be permissible with a vehicle having different characteristics. It might also be reassuring to the House to know that although no formal Motor Industry Research Association report was commissioned on the subject, tests of the Model 70 on their pave track have shown that the structure of the vehicle is such that in general it withstands the stress of road use at least as well as the generality of other road vehicles.
I have felt it right to deal at some length with the question of safety of three-wheelers if only in the interests of those who are using them. But having said that, I must add that the Government fully appreciate the force of the comparisons between the three-wheeler and the car which the noble Baroness makes in her Report. She points out that the car is better value for money, that it is less noisy and, more important, that most disabled people prefer it. Regarding the payment of cash grants instead of cars to disabled people with which they could buy cars for themselves rather than the Government providing them, I am aware that this course of action is favoured by some of the organisations representing disabled people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, considered this matter and concluded that the Government should issue cars and not cash, on the grounds that it would not be right to provide grants without ensuring that at least the amount of the grant was spent on a car, while at the same time it would be unattractive to have to follow up every case in order

1287
to find out what in fact had been spent. Moreover, it seems not impossible that payments could have considerable repercussions over the whole field of cash benefits. One has to take into account the whole question of social insurance disablement benefits, which extend not only over a very large area of benefits but involve a large number of people.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, also be aware of the positive advantage in the supply of cars rather than cash grants, in that the Government, by taking advantage of bulk buying, can buy more cheaply than the individual and can also ensure that the disabled person is provided with a vehicle in good condition and one to which proper adaptations have been made. By insuring the car in the name of the disabled driver or anyone else who is nominated to drive, the Government can help to ensure that the car is driven only by the disabled person or for his benefit. I do not wish to prejudge this issue by suggesting that the Government have formed a view on the rightness or otherwise in issuing cars instead of cash, because I am fully aware (as are the Government) of the various arguments both for and against. I would only repeat that this is one of the many matters which the Government and the Ministers concerned will have to go into.
There are a number of other things which I should like to say and which I came here prepared to say, but in view of the time and the fact that my noble friend Lady Phillips will no doubt wish to say a few words at the conclusion of the debate, I should again like to say that if I have not answered, either superficially or in detail, the matters which have been raised this afternoon, they will be recorded in Hansard and I will see that my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, and my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled, are made aware of every word that has been spoken in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Finally, on behalf of the Government, I should like to thank those who have taken part in the debate, because a number of very interesting matters have been brought forward and I think your Lordships will realise that we are faced with a very complicated situation. My final word of thanks is again addressed to the
1288
noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, not only for the very obvious ability reflected in the Report but also for the time and energy which she has devoted to it.
6.3 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this has been a very remarkable debate: it has been very well disciplined, with everyone keeping to time. I was going to say that the Minister was the exception here, but I suppose that my noble friend has certain privileges in such matters. Some noble Lords were moved to poetry, which was quite splendid. I should also like to mention the very moving maiden speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in which he emphasised something that I think we all feel—that in this society of ours we waste not only material, but also people; and any means by which a person who is housebound or immobile can be brought back into the mainstream of society ought to be instantly investigated.
I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister has chosen to read a brief which must, I think, have been prepared for the last Government. I would hardly call that an example of open-mindedness. It seems to me that the Government have prejudged the issues. This I find very disturbing. My brother last week introduced me to somebody as "My sister, the trouble-shooter". I would only say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I shall be sitting very near to him and I shall return to this subject on many occasions because I feel that it will be necessary.
I should like to say a word on safety. When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, finally compiled her Report she herself said that she had not seen the motor industry's research reports because they were not then completed. I would say to my noble friend the Minister, and to all your Lordships, that if those pressure groups who are concerned because the drivers are disabled, feel this matter is sufficiently serious for them, through someone in another place, to take it to the Parliamentary Commissioner—and if they really feel strongly about that—I would suggest there is an element which should be investigated. I wonder whether the Minister would at some stage publish the accident figures in this connection. I have been unable

1289
to find these figures. Indeed a very curious aspect of the matter is the great gap which seems to exist in the information available—in other words, the fact that we have no record concerning disabled people. This is curious to me because, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act actually came into effect four years ago. The noble Baroness said that she had no idea of the size of the problem. I would ask the Minister to accept my word for the fact that, just as he can produce statistics, so can many of us. The vehicle is unsafe. It may not always give rise to accidents, but to say that the accidents which occur are the fault of the driver is less than fair. I am sorry that that suggestion was again voiced.
One thing has come out very loud and clear from the speeches of many of your Lordships, and that is that the three-wheeler should be phased out. Two noble Lords, speaking with expertise from different angles, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, pointed out that the car can be adapted to suit any driver. Also, I think a case for the non-driver has been strongly made. The practical suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale were, as always, very valuable. This is a problem which must not be allowed to be shelved. I know only too well from my own small experience in Government that anything a Government wish to do they can do, and anything they do not wish to do they can delay by calling in aid committees, Royal Commissions and consultations of various kinds.
Finally, I would say that there are areas on which the last word on consultation has been spoken and we now ask for action.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if your Lordships would allow me just to say this, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lady Phillips that I was not dealing with a brief that was prepared for the last Government. I should also like her to know that part of that brief was of my own creation, because I happen to be very interested in this subject. The original brief, in case anyone is interested, has been altered in various places and I should not like your Lordships
1290
to feel that we were working on information that had been collected some months ago.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am of course delighted to hear that. If I were to use a colloquial expression, I would have said, "You could have fooled me"; but, naturally, I would not use such an expression in your Lordships' House. There is one point I should have dealt with earlier, but I do not wish to be deluged and therefore I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRESS FREEDOM AND CENSORSHIP BY WORKERS
6.9 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to draw attention to the desirability of an official inquiry or a Royal Commission to examine the manner in which people working in the Press are increasingly exercising censorship on the content of advertisements, comments and news, and to the effect that this has on the freedom of the Press; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity, in the last debate before the Easter Recess, to draw attention to something which is very precious in this House and in our country; and that is the freedom of the Press and the part it plays in our democracy.
I feel that our newspaper industry is sick at a time when democracy, if not sick, is certainly strained and ailing in important quarters. In a true democracy we take the freedom of the Press very seriously indeed, and I should like to draw attention to one element of this which I believe is being eroded and which should be publicised—that is, the increasing tendency for a few of those working in printing to exercise their power over the content of advertisements, caricatures, news and comment. The Prime Minister has said that he might appoint an inquiry to look into the ownership of the Press. That is a view, incidentally, shared by the Left Wing trade union leader, Mr. Briginshaw of NATSOPA. I am sure it is not for that reason that the Prime Minister has expressed this desire. The Leader of the

1291
Opposition has urged him also to look at the economic factors now besetting the Press. Everyone of your Lordships will agree that certainly the economics are currently very alarming.
The very steep rise in the cost of newsprint has highlighted the crisis which is developing. The newsprint bill will jump from £140 million to £210 million for the "nationals" this year. This is an enormous increase and burden for the newspapers to carry. I think it is also recognised—and the Economist Intelligence Unit published a report on this in 1966—that pay in the newspaper industry is on the generous side compared with almost every other industry. The figure of £100 a week is not unusual; I think some of the more highly specialised operatives in the Financial Times might be earning £200 a week.
It is also true to say that the Economist Intelligence Unit was right when it drew attention to the degree of over-manning; it reckoned that 50 per cent. more men were employed in the machine rooms above what was strictly necessary, and 50 per cent. more men were employed in the process department above what was necessary; there was also 30 per cent. over-manning in the foundry. Also there is a need to look at the training and entry into the industry. In some areas there has been very little recruitment over many years, and one knows of people of a very extreme age still being employed. There was a recent case of one person who was aged 90 and still working. I am sure that that was exceptional; but certainly the retirement age is not rigidly adhered to as it is in so many other industries.
Also, it is a pity when the finances of our newspapers are under severe strain that there has been almost a Luddite approach to the more modern machinery and modem ways of type-setting on newspapers; the computer type-setting techniques which are used widely in other countries, even in Eastern European countries—Czechoslovakia uses them extensively—have not been adopted here. I believe the Evening Standard tried it for a period of two years but eventually had to call it off. They were not allowed to state that this was due to union difficulties; but I believe that the pay structure was one of the great objections
1292
to the introduction of this new, labour-saving technique.
In Holland and Canada one finds women typists operating computer typesetting machines. I have a feeling that unless something is done in this country we shall not get women typists operating and setting our Press in this century. I also noticed, as will your Lordships, that although we now have laws against discrimination in our country it is strange that whenever you ring up a newspaper you always speak to a male telephone operator. I know there is a good excuse, that is, that they are ready to take shorthand notes, but I have never found the female sex either slow in operating telephone switchboards or slow in taking accurate shorthand notes. Most of us have had to live with private secretaries—I am sorry, my Lords, perhaps I should re-phrase that remark!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, many of us have had wide experience of dictating hundreds of letters to outstanding and understanding women secretaries who help us deal with our Parliamentay correspondence.
One of the greatest difficulties for our newspapers is that they are so desperately vulnerable to stoppages; this is particularly so when the first edition is coming up and has to catch trains to all parts of the country. If a newspaper does not catch the distribution network, it is a perishable article which is no use at all the following day. We in industry can try to make up time if we have stoppages and difficulties; we can try to accelerate the production time so that we can catch up and meet the needs of our customers particularly our export customers. But that is not possible with newspapers. If you miss the connection, all the money is wasted, and very often an immense sum of money is involved.
On March 30, the Scottish Daily Express ceased printing in Glasgow. This was sad, and one understands the anxieties locally where unemployment is relatively high. If you look at the stoppages which that newspaper has had to cope with in the last 13 months—and I have a list in my hand—there were no less than 56 in a period of just over a year. Forty of these were truly damaging and only 16 less damaging. How

1293
impossible it must be to build up a reputation in a newspaper for punctuality and delivery of communication which so many breakfast tables depend on when you have that degree of stoppage and disorganisation! It is interesting to see that this compares with no stoppages in 12 years at the Daily Express office in Manchester. You have the same newspaper, one in Glasgow with 56 stoppages in a year and at another printing centre, Manchester, no stoppages in 12 years. This is a very marked difference which cannot be entirely through management's fault; there must be a whole host of other reasons as well. I notice that management readily accepts that some of the responsibility rests with them.
On the last edition of the Scottish Daily Express the self-styled Action Committee took a news story off the front page (and I also have an example of this) after this page had been passed by the editor for publication. They inserted their own news. This is surely an unwarranted interference with the liberty and management of that paper. The story they put in said that they were promised considerable Government support if they set up their own newspaper. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell us that that is not a fully justified statement. This was the latest action in union censorship which came about long after I put down this particular Motion for debate in your Lordships' House.
I want to take a few examples which have affected both our national and provincial newspapers over the past years. In the past four years there have been a growing number of instances in which printing union workers have either prevented the publication of material with which they disagree or have allowed its publication only with disclaimers which have to be printed alongside. On May 3, 1970, the Observer published a long report on conditions in the newspaper industry. This was fairly unusual, because newspapers do not normally report very extensively on their own misgivings, anxieties and difficulties.
In the following week the newspaper published a lengthy reply from the father of the branch of SOGAT, which stands for the Society of Graphical and Allied Trade Unions. The Observer received a letter from a printer describing himself as, "a
1294
not very proud member of the silent majority who seemed to be content to watch papers bleed and die." The Observer decided to print this anony-mously, as the man wished. He did not want to risk his trade union membership by being identified. While the early editions were being printed, four union leaders demanded that his name and address should be printed, or the letter should be removed instantly. Later workers stopped all production. The editor finally gave way to the unions and the letter was withdrawn. The editor said he did not feel very proud of the action he had been forced to take.
On December 9, 1971, Jak, that well-known Evening Standard cartoonist, drew up a cartoon referring to the power workers' strike. The cartoon appeared in the first edition of that paper. The Federated House Chapel voted to stop production immediately. After negotiation, the editor agreed to a disclaimer from the unions being published. This contained the words:
"The Chapel most strongly deprecates the cartoon and feels it goes above and beyond the bounds of humour and fair comment."
I will now give an example of a provincial paper. In January, 1971, the Bristol Evening Post planned to publish a report of a rally which was held by NATSOPA members to protest against the Industrial Relations Bill. The NATSOPA members objected to this report and refused to produce the paper's last edition. Here is another case of disruptive action.
In October, 1971, the Daily Express was involved in an incident, the first, I think, when journalists supported the stoppage on account of editorial content. The father of the chapel of the N.U.J. objected to a cartoon by Cummings which linked the supply of I.R.A.'s arms and bombs to the U.S.S.R. The journalists voted for the cartoon to be changed. Later, engineers and technicians stopped work, and over 350,000 copies of the paper were lost. The key figure in so many of these is Mr. Richard Briginshaw, who is the General Secretary of NATSOPA. He is acknowledged to be a militant Left-Wing extremist. There were two instances of censorship which involved him personally.
In November, 1970, the Observer published an article concerning the efforts of a small group in NATSOPA to prevent

1295
the break-up of SOGAT in which their union then constituted a Division, known as Division 1. Briginshaw threatened to stop publication of the Observer forthwith if the article was published. His action was partially successful, since the article was held back. More recently, Mr. Briginshaw's expression of wrath prevented the Evening Standard from publishing the news that he is a director of an agency through which all clerical vacancies in NATSOPA are recruited. Fortunately this news was printed by a paper which your Lordships will probably study most assiduously, Private Eye, and later in the Spectator. Private Eye of July 13, 1973, reported that when Mr. Jeremy Deeds, of the Evening Standard, referred this to Mr. Briginshaw he got the reply:
"Mr. Deeds, I would not like to put you into a position whereby the production of your newspaper this evening could be affected."
The journalist asked if this was threatening industrial action on the Evening Standard, when Mr. Briginshaw repeated the threat in the same terms.
I notice, my Lords, that he is due to retire shortly, and David Wilson, of the Observer, discovered from him that he would not spurn a peerage if it was offered to him. He went on to explain that one attraction was that he could fight for the abolition of the House of Lords from within this Chamber. I hope that we shall civilise him (shall I say?) if he does appear among us and point out how much we value the newspaper industry and freedom in our democracy.
I now turn to what instigated my action, and that was an advertisement which I have in my hand and which appeared in The Times, on Friday, the 27th. Your Lordships may have seen it under the heading."Banned—The Threat to Press Freedom." That was an advertisement sponsored by Aims of Industry. This organisation was convinced that in most cases the difficulties they met in placing this advertisement arose from the print unions. They met their first difficulty over an advertisement attacking the extreme Left of the trade union movement. This came in the Sunday Express where there was difficulty with the workers, and where the paper was forced to carry a notice from them
1296
disclaiming the advertisement. The paper also offered free advertising space the following Sunday to Mr. Ray Buckton, the Left Wing Leader of ASLEF. He did not, in fact, take it up.
Then there was also an effort to publish advertisements in the Daily Mirror. Later on the I.P.C. announced that all Aims of Industry advertisements were banned in that paper, both the anti-extremist ones and those attacking Labour's nationalisation plans. There were two sets of advertisements. One was attacking the extreme Left Wing of the unions, and the other was attacking the nationalisation plans by the trade unions—
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that the Daily Mirror announced this?
LORD ORR-EWING: No, my Lords. If I said that, I did not mean it: I was speaking very carefully. Initially the Daily Mirror published advertisements, but later the I.P.C. announced to Aims of Industry, as I understand it, that Aims' advertisements were banned. They had a very healthy response from those advertisements. I think that 17,000 of the very large readership of the Daily Mirror wrote, and a great majority of these letters approved the tone of the advertisements. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is going to speak next in this debate. Since he is one of our great experts in this House in this field with a great deal of experience, I am sure he will throw light on this particular subject.
The Sunday Times accepted their anti-extremist advertisement. But when it appeared, so did another, on the opposite page, from the joint NATSOPA chapels. This attacked the Conservative Government and carried pictures of Mr. Heath and all the other Tory Leaders. I do not know whether the pictures were flattering or not, or whether during a General Election campaign the Representation of the People Act was near being broken. Aims of Industry then decided to try to press for a Royal Commission on the freedom of the Press and on broadcasting, and it took full page advertisements in The Times and The Guardian to say so. I will show noble Lords that advertisement. The Times

1297
lost production while a disclaimer was being agreed. This disclaimer said:
"The night printing workers of The Times, while disagreeing with the content of the Aims of Industry advertisement on page 11, are proving their belief in the freedom of the Press by printing this advertisement."
Well, my Lords, I do not think we object to that. But if it is always a condition that you stop the Press while you are organising a disclaimer, it is certainly an interference, and it is certainly damaging financially to the Press affected.
It is sad when I think that in the last two decades we have lost many newspapers with a hundred years of tradition. The News Chronicle has gone; The Star has gone; the Daily Sketch has gone; Reynold's News and others have gone. The Prime Minister has said that there might be an Inquiry into ownership, I think your Lordships will agree there is certainly a need for an examination into the economics of our national papers and our local papers. I hope that this Inquiry will be broadened to look also into the organisation of those who make their career in our newspaper industry. We in this House must be especially vigilant whenever democracy is at risk. I feel that if urgent action is not taken, there is imminent danger of some of our national newspapers collapsing. This would be enormously harmful to the whole fabric of our democracy.
My Lords, if these words are not printed fully, and without a disclaimer at the side, in tomorrow's newspapers, you must draw your own conclusions, and I would hope that my own case for an Inquiry covering all these aspects would be fully made out. I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for introducing this important subject. He and I have taken part in most of the debates on communications in recent years, and we have always shared a good deal of common ground. He has taken the debate today rather more widely than I had expected from the Order Paper. He has gone into the economics of the industry, which is extremely relevant, but I will not follow him into those paths today. I think that we should have a debate on that aspect of newspapers in the near future.
1298
I have always shared a certain amount of common ground with the noble Lord, and I do so today. I hope the noble Lord will not be disappointed—I am sure he will not be surprised—if I also express sharp differences from him. First of all, let me emphasise our ground of agreement. What we both believe is that it is wrong, and dangerous, for the staffs of newspapers to censor their content. This is not just a personal view that I personally am expressing. My union, the National Union of Journalists, is opposed to all newspaper censorship, whether it is imposed from outside the newspaper office or inside a newspaper office by one of the Chapels, that is by the trade unions inside that office. Another organisation to which I am proud to belong, the International Press Institute, is equally adamant in its belief that an editor's freedom to edit must not be shackled by the staff, or indeed by anybody. After several incidents—including the incident which the noble Lord has recounted this afternoon, incidents in which newspaper production had been impeded or threatened by the staff because they found something in the newspaper which they were producing was unacceptable—I myself took part in a deputation from the British Committee of the Institute which discussed these problems with the Newspaper Publishers' Association. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, presided at that meeting and I regret that he is not here to participate in the debate this afternoon. The threat to the production from—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We listen to him with the greatest interest and respect on subjects of this kind, but it would help to clear my mind, and perhaps the minds of other noble Lords, if he could just declare his interest. We know what his interest is. Particularly since one or two of the newspapers with which he is connected have been mentioned in the debate already, it would be helpful to have it on the Record at this stage.
LORD ARDWICK: Of course, my Lords; certainly. I was coming to that but I was reserving it until I came to the particular point of criticism of the newspapers which I serve. But it is as well to say that I work for the Mirror

1299
newspapers, one of the groups of newspapers which the noble Lord has criticised, although he has criticised that group, I think, rather gently.
As I was saying, threats to the production from newspaper staffs are a fairly recent development. There were dim memories in the industry of something terrible that had happened from the compositors of the Daily Mail during the General Strike, but there was no repetition of this kind of conduct until quite recently—at least, I never heard of it. Well, what has happened? What has changed? There are several interlocking causes. First is the sharpening of the industrial climate in an age of demoralising inflation; next is the contemporary passion for instant, direct action when you have a grievance; and the third is the new candour. In the newspaper industry we used prudently to report our own internal industrial troubles briefly and formally, preferably taking a kind of non-partisan, rather uninformative, formal paragraph from the Press Association. Then the young men in the industry, particularly the young journalists, began to accuse us of cowardice and suppression, and this became a rather fashionable thing to do. But now, of course, whenever a newspaper reports the troubles of its own industry as zealously as it does the troubles of other industries it is always open to the charge that management is using it as an organ of propaganda in the struggle. That is how I think one of the incidents of which the noble Lord has spoken this afternoon began.
Certainly, editors and newspaper managements have given a lot of thought to this problem over the last year or two, and I think there is now a kind of consensus, although there is no formal agreement, about what should be done in these circumstances. If the staff rightly object to an item as inaccurate I think the general feeling is that it should be corrected, just as one would correct any other inaccuracy in the paper. Sometimes a compositor comes to you and says: "Look. I live there. You've got the name of that place wrong"; and you correct it. In the same way, if there is an obvious factual inaccuracy in something you are dealing with, you put it right. If they object, however, that the side of
1300
their case is inadequately presented, then I think the general belief, the consensus, is that they should be invited to state it and to print it as soon as possible in a responsible way, which is probably in the next issue. But what editors and management must never do is to withhold an item at the request of the staff simply because they dislike it and they threaten to stop production. Editors and management must be prepared to risk a stoppage rather than to submit to this kind of shop floor censorship. So I think we are agreed so far on this matter.
I come now to a different but related problem: the problem of political advertising. The editorial view was put sharply ail succinctly by the Guardian in dealing with the Aims of Industry problem. On October 19 the Guardian said:
"Unless political advertisements are factually inaccurate or are misleading, we do not refuse or censor them. It would be wrong to do so. Freedom of the press applies as much to advertisers as to editors."
Well, of course it does not really, but, still, it was a rather useful general statement to make. It gives a broad picture of the position. But what is "inaccurate" in political advertising? What is misleading? What indeed, as Pilate asked, is the Truth? One of the dilemmas in this matter is that some aspects of politics are not mere matters of opinion; they are also matters of moral conviction and so they are not arguable; they are absolute. I would myself refuse any political advertising with a racial content, even if it were within the law. I would not have accepted, as The Times did, after very deep and anxious thought about it, I believe, an advertisement which pleaded for a change in the law relating to drugs.
Another dilemma is that an editor must always take care not to outrage his readers. One of his constant preoccupations is the tone of his newspaper. His readers are unique. They are special to him. They are his readers; they are nobody else's readers and he cannot be bound by the rules that guide other editors with other readers. For example, frank and vernacular accounts of sexual experience, which may delight the readers of my old paper the Guardian, or of the Sunday Times, might well horrify the readers of a popular newspaper. Certainly they would not be allowed to appear in any of the popular newspapers for which

1301
I have worked. Or an editor who has a powerful cartoonist on his staff may find it necessary to reject, perhaps two or three times a year, a cartoon because it goes beyond the bounds of acceptability. It would outrage too many readers. It would outrage common sense and decency. Cartoonists are like that. They are very brave men. They see things in black and white. And every cartoonist sometimes, once or twice a year perhaps, has to be held back by the most liberal of editors. Sensibility to the tone of his paper, and feeling for the susceptibilities of his readers, is an important aspect of an editor's qualification for his task.
So an editor is under no obligation to print every advertisement which comes to him, even if he cannot fault it as inaccurate or as misleading. He may think it morally indefensible or that it will outrage his readers. I would not expect, for example, the editor of the Catholic Herald to print those lively, provocative advertisements on birth control and venereal disease put out by the Health Education Council. There is a further dilemma, although it is a pretty rare one. What are the effects of the things he is going to print likely to be on the behaviour of readers? Words may restrain or words may incite; they may heal or they may inflame, and their power will depend upon the prevailing public mood.
Now I come to the advertisements devised by the Aims of Industry. Do not let us think of this as a kind of high-minded body which is concerned solely with the political education of the citizens of this country. These, my Lords, were not pieces of well reasoned political philosophy. They have even got that pompous pretence of seriousness that you get in what is now called prestige advertising. Some of them were as arresting and as shocking in their way as are the advertisements of the Health Education Council. They were in fact the most sensational political advertisements ever put out in this country in my recollection. And they were not just a flash in the pan. It was not just a question of the odd advertisement being put in the odd newspaper. They were part of a great and powerful campaign. Aims of Industry collected half a million pounds—so it was said in the newspapers, and it was never contradicted—to buy
1302
newspaper space, to print posters and to distribute "literature" on two main themes: the perils of nationalisation and the perils of allowing extremists to take over the British trade union movement.
These themes were the precursors of what were to be two of the main themes in the election campaign of the Party opposite and for that reason—and that reason alone—they were chosen. It was part of a political campaign. One of the advertisements was headed: "Don't be fooled out of your freedom", and it showed a picture of that tyrant and that man of blood who has (thank God!) been dead for twenty years—the late Joseph Stalin. Of course he was denounced by his successors. But this advertisement said, "The Communists who figured so openly in recent industrial disputes are making no secret of their real intentions: they want to destroy the system under which we live. This is their reason—the only reason"—I repeat, my Lords "the only reason"—"for causing dislocation in industry and the maximum of hardship for everybody".
Surely I am not being absurd when I draw the implication from that advertisement that the Aims of Industry were trying to put forward the idea that all recent disputes were caused by Communists; that they were not really industrial disputes, but were part of a revolutionary attack to destroy the system. These advertisements seem to me, and I think to many other people—at least on my side of politics—to make all militants look like Communists and all strikes to look like political strikes. It reminds me of a story about the McCarthyite days in the United States of America, when a little man got up at a meeting and said: "Look, I hate Marx, I loathe Lenin, I detest Trotsky and Stalin and the whole Communist Party, but I must say that I think we are paying too much rent". I think that is the situation that one gets into if one does not watch out. If you take this kind of thing too seriously everybody with a grievance looks like a militant and every militant looks like a Red.
I should like to give two more examples. First, "Are there Reds under the bed?" This was one more of the advertisements in the series. "Is there a plan to wreck our economy in order to change our political system? Does the

1303
Communist Party plan to take over the trade unions in order to dominate the Labour Party? We believe the answer is 'Yes'." So do I, my Lords. They have been trying to do this all my life. This is why we have been proscribing their front organisations; this is why we have denied them access to our political Party. Of course they have not succeeded, and they will not succeed. Of course the militants have a field day at the moment when inflation is raging as it never has done before. Inflation raged under the last Government and then of course the rank and file became desperate and reckless and very susceptible to the propaganda of the militants. But the remedy is not a subscription to the Aims of Industry; it is not an advertising campaign; it is a successful counter-inflationary policy, and let us hope to God that this Government manage to find one. As the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, inflation is inconsistent with the continuance of our democratic system. That is the enemy; that is the villain. Indeed, the campaign of the Party opposite during the Election died on their lips round about February 15 and when, a day or so later, Mr. Barber appeared on television with a programme rather in the mood of the Aims of Industry advertisements, the nation, and quite a number of the members of the Party opposite, were horrified because he had totally misjudged the mood of the nation, which was much more serious, and more concerned with deeper things than those which Mr. Barber chose to speak about in his programme.
The course of the Daily Mirror—the paper I work for—is well known in this matter. The Daily Mirror published one of the Aims of Industry advertisements before the industrial situation had become so tense. I think the first publication was on December 29, which was when the three-day week was nominally operating but did not appear to be operating because we were still covered by the Christmas and the New Year holiday. Later the Daily Mirror refused advertisements on the grounds that at a time of national emergency they were tendentious and divisive. It does not mean anything to us and it is not regarded as criticism, at least in the Daily Mirror office, that certain newspapers, such as The Times and the New Statesman, printed those advertisements
1304
which we did not think suitable. It depends upon your readership. The Times is not the favourite newspaper among members of the National Union of Mineworkers, and, so far as I know, it is not handed eagerly from hand to hand in the factories at Dagenham. But later on the Daily Mirror, when approached by the director of Aims of Industry, did publish an advertisement which was felt to be less divisive, less contentious, though quite a bold and brave and forthcoming advertisement which dealt with nationalisation. Mr. Michael Ivens, the Director of Aims of Industry, has publicly admitted that the Daily Mirror never excused itself for its action on the grounds that its workers would not print the advertisements. They were rejected for what was considered to be good editorial reasons at that particular moment in British history.
Perhaps an inquiry is needed but not, I think, into the freedom of the Press; rather into the freedom of quasi-political organisations which try to spend half a million pounds just before and during a General Election campaign in the hope of securing the defeat of one Party. There is no suggestion that Aims of Industry went outside the law or defied the law. The object of the inquiry (if ever there is one) should be whether the law of elections is in need of amendment. What that body aimed to do, the way in which it was operating and the money it was using, was against the spirit of British election law, that vast wealth should not be used to distort the electoral process.
6.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what interested me about the first two speeches—I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced this debate to-day, and we have listened with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has said—was that there was an underlying agreement on the basic point of what my noble friend was saying. If I took down correctly what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said, it was that it was wrong and dangerous for staffs of newspapers to censor their content. I think this is the acre of the whole thing. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, accused my noble friend of going a little wide—and my noble friend did so, I think quite rightly, in opening. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, also went a

1305
little wide towards the end of his speech because he was speaking about the responsibilities of an editor and where an editor would be justified in accepting or refusing an advertisement. Nobody would dispute an editor's entire right to accept or reject any article, any report that he received from any of his journalists, any comment that he received in the form of a letter or any advertisement. Nobody doubts that this is entirely the responsibility of the editor, but surely the point is that the editor is trained to exercise this responsibility. He knows how to do it. He wants to keep his paper open to various expressions of opinion and he does that through his columns. He judges news on what is newsworthy—or I suggest he should do so, but that is a point I shall come to a little later—and he accepts advertisements in general because they add to his revenue. But he is free to reject any advertisement, indeed he is required to reject them when they do not conform with the Code of Advertising Practice.
Here perhaps I should declare an interest, as I am the Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. This is splendid. No one can criticise in any way an editor for not accepting an advertisement. I would not criticise the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, or the Daily Mirror, or anyone else for not choosing to accept particular kinds of advertisement. I think myself the noble Lord went a little far in criticising the manner in which Aims of Industry seeks to get its views known. After all, what other manner is there in which it can get its views known? The noble Lord may say, "But there was an Election in the offing", but to all intents and purposes that Election might not have been in the offing for 18 months, so it would not have been fair to say that Aims of Industry tried to get its views known when an Election was on the way.
My Lords, surely it is right that all shades of opinion and all types of views should be able to be made known. The other essential point we have to face is that we have all known of instances where it is not a case of the staff saying, "You cannot print that", but it is a case of a general fear (and we have heard of this in many instances) that if certain facts were printed it would cause offence to readers, or would be to the disadvantage of the staff and so would not be
1306
acceptable to them. This is one of the underlying fears that exist. There is on the one hand pressure that arises through industrial action not to print an advertisement, not to print a letter, or not to print an article, and so on, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is the underlying fear that if such-and-such a story were printed, it would cause an adverse reaction from the readers' point of view, or it might provoke the staff.
One hears examples of stories not printed. One even hears it said: "It is no use our trying to print that story. We would never get it through." We also hear it said by journalists," If I were to print that story, I would never get any further information from the trades unions." We have heard these things said. This is the sort of censorship or fear of censorship that exists in many quarters.
My Lords, I believe that truth has many aspects. Equally, I believe it is entirely wrong for me or for anyone else to insist on only the facet of truth that I wish should be printed, and nothing else. If the facet of truth that I would want to print if I were editor differs from what others wish to see printed, than I would be happy for my part that the others should express their opinions too. But I cannot accept the intolerance that is exemplified in the kind of industrial action which prevents stories, letters, or even advertisements from being printed. I support my noble friend in this. This is something which ought to be included in any kind of inquiry carried out if we are really going to maintain the freedom of our Press. I do not know how others view this, but I think I might end this short speech by quoting the very well-known words of Robert Burns:
"Here's freedom to them that wad read;
Here's freedom to them that wad write.
There's nane ever feared that the truth should be heard
But them wham the truth would indict."
6.58 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has assisted the House by introducing this debate, because it enables us to air some matters which have needed to be publicly aired. I think we are not wrong if we take the debate a little outside the terms of the Motion, as

1307
most noble Lords have done so far, because there are a number of matters which interlock. I am intervening in order to make two points—rather distinct ones. I have already apologised to the noble Lords who will be summing up for the fact that I may find it impossible to stay to the end. I apologise also to the House, although at the rate we are going at present I may be able to stay to the end.
My Lords, I thought my speech was not going to be controversial. In terms of the proposer of the Motion and the attitude which the major Parties will take, what I have to say is not controversial, but I find myself with very great timidity crossing swords with someone as experienced and knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. I have been a journalist of a kind for some time. I have had quite a lot to do with editing small magazines, never anything other than small magazines, and compared with the noble Lord my experience is virtually nothing. But at an early stage of my career I came to the conclusion that there was something like an absolute duty to publish any advertisement. I think the Guardian was right in what it said, as quoted by the noble Lord. I do not think it has an absolute right. To begin with it has an absolute duty. It is governed by the law and it is governed, I accept, by the Code of the advertising industry, but I do not think it is governed by the fact that advertisements will not necessarily be liked by its readership.
My Lords, I take the view—and I accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—that one's readership is an entity with whom one is carrying on a dialogue. One has a particular kind of people in mind. Obviously the editor is the person who decides what should go into the paper in the ordinary editorial space. Access to the general public is limited. Access to anyone or anybody who wishes to talk to the general public is very limited in this country. If they are to be denied paid access to some of these media because their views are popular or too bluntly put, this is not right. Everyone should have the right to publish advertisements which are not inaccurate, against the law or against the Code of Advertising. Of course, I can think of extreme examples. I did some thinking about whether I, as an editor, would
1308
refuse advertisements. I think the New Statesman was quite right to accept the Aims of Industry advertisement. I think it was quite right some time ago to accept the advertisements from South Africa House, which very much annoyed many of its readers. I think the papers who do this are right on the whole, and that wherever there is a question of doubt, it should be resolved in favour of access to the media.
My Lords, some of the more cynical of your Lordships may say that that is a very convenient doctrine for a newspaper owner or editor, or for someone who wishes his paper to make a lot of money to take, that "We all like to get as much money as we can and, to hell with the moles!". But it does not always work quite like that. One of the points implied by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick (and he will correct me if I am wrong), was that in fact one may well suffer financially by putting in advertisements which are not liked by the readership. Certainly when I had a small magazine called New Christian, which I know one or two of your Lordships have read, the kind of advertisement for the marriage bureaux and those to do with mental health, and so on, which we accepted on the back page were disliked by many of our readers.
I have never been able to weigh up whether or not we gained more revenue from the adverts than we lost in subscriptions, but it must have been a fairly near thing; so it is not always just a matter of it paying. I think that point is in fact one that should be more widely accepted in the newspaper industry than it is: this duty, in a civilisation where we do not offer all that much access to the public, of taking advertisements wherever it is possible. I entirely agree that I dislike a society where a body like Aims of Industry can collect half a million pounds to produce this, and (as I heard from murmurings behind me) if it is said the trade union can produce the same amount to advertise, in fact big business has more money than the trade unions have. I do not like the kind of society where people with the big purses, whether trade unions or big business, can have access to advertising denied to other people. But that is another matter, a matter of the kind of society we live in, and it is not a matter for an editor or newspaper owners.

1309
I move to the second point. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was absolutely right to bring into the question of overmanning and the economics of the newspaper industry, the question of—I will not say overpaying, because we should all wish everyone to have as much pay as they can have, but the relative overpaying of people in the newspaper world. I myself would not think that this is at the moment very important at all, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, initiated this debate because he fears it is something which must grow, and if it did grow then it would become important. I think part of the reason why it could become dangerous is this basic problem of the monopoly position of unions in a small industry, where, it has been said, they can do much harm very quickly if they should so judge. This is the reason why the industry is overmanned; this is the reason why the industry is overpaid; this is the reason why, if the unions decided they wanted to start exercising editorial control or control over advertising, it would take great courage and great stamina from the papers to stand up to them. This is the reason why papers are going broke.
I think we must get down to the basic problem. I beg your Lordships not just to write it off as an opportunity for me to plug what is a bit of my own Party's deeply-felt industrial policy if I say that the only way I see of solving this problem is through an examination into the ownership of the newspaper industry, and, incidentally, through an application of the ideals of co-ownership and co-partnership. I do not want to replace the irresponsibility of the Press Lords—and, thank goodness! these days they are, most of them, extremely responsible; I mean irresponsibility in a technical sense—by the irresponsibility of a workers' co-operative, which may be just as irresponsible.
I should like to see a framework for all industry, but I think it is particularly important in the industry of the media—where there is a co-ownership, co-partnership of capital and labour—so that the industry is not threatening to cut its own throat, as it is at the moment and so that there could be a working together for the good of all. I believe that if we solved the financial problems of the
1310
industry and if we managed to tackle some of the more fundamental problems in regard to the unions in the newspaper industry, then much of what we have been talking about would drop into place, would not rear its head so much, would not increase.
This would be a way of tackling many of the ills at their very roots. I think there is no easy way round the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Part of his analysis I think we all accept. Except by changing the whole atmosphere in this particular industry and revolutionising it, if any noble Lord can find a better method than the one which I have outlined, which is deeply rooted in my Party's philosophy, I would be glad to hear it. But so far it is the best idea I can think of.
7.6 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing, for allowing us to discuss this very topical matter. Unlike most noble Lords who have spoken, I have no connections of any kind with the newspaper industry. I speak very much as a greenhorn here, one who is an avid reader of newspapers, but with, I must confess, little knowledge of the background of newspaper organisation. But I think anybody who has taken part in election campaigns—and I have spoken in some five election campaigns—will perhaps have been conscious of the fact that the reports in some of the newspapers of what goes on in the constituencies may well vary from what one has found, leaving aside one's own political beliefs. This is perhaps why there is a certain scepticism now towards the communications media.
After the recent Election campaign I think almost everybody, politicians and all others, tended to say "Well, we have had enough of politics on the media. Let us get back, for Heaven's sake, to normal viewing". And yet, taking the Motion a little wide for the moment, one has also to accept the fact that there are a number of disabled people and elderly people who cannot get out to the hustings, and must therefore obtain their political information from the media, from television, radio or the newspapers. I join with others in deploring the fact that some of our longstanding newspapers are

1311
no longer in existence. My noble friend mentioned the News Chronicle, a paper which, to my mind, epitomised all that is best in journalism, reporting which struck me as being absolutely fair, even when I and others perhaps disagreed with their views. But we are in an age where takeovers are in evidence, and we must perhaps expect certain newspapers and other communication media to go to the wall.
This is where I believe local newspapers play a very vital part. Where I live in Surrey we are fortunate in having a high standard of local journalism, although sometimes one sees in the correspondence column an editor's comment that "this correspondence is now closed". If this is on a national issue this may be justified, but if it is on a local issue then one wonders whether perhaps the editor has not taken rather too much power into his own hands, because there are certain local issues, particularly in any rural part of the country, where newspapers have a very vital role to play.
We all recall the thalidomide tragedy. As one who has particular interest, though not a financial one in the National Health Service, I followed, as did ether noble Lords, the articles and pictures in the Sunday Times on this matter. I believe that the Sunday Times did an admirable job in getting over the publicity on this dreadful matter. I am not a lawyer, and it may well be that legally they were threatening to overstep the bounds. If this is the case, and if it is the law of the land, then it may well be that there had to be some curbing of what they said. But I hope that if a Royal Commission, or any other body, is set up, it will look into such vital matters as the thalidomide tragedy, or any future tragedy of that magnitude, should it by some misfortune occur, so that the maximum publicity can be given, provided that it comes from responsible journalism, without undue censorship taking place for legal reasons.
The position of mental hospitals and other such places is a difficult one when it comes to journalism, because there is a tendency among some newspapers to exaggerate conditions in these places and to give the public outside the impression that the staff are behaving inhumanely. I am sure that this is unintentional, but
1312
it gives the wrong idea, particularly to relatives of people in these places. This is another matter that I think comes within the ambit of this Question, and would clearly have to be looked into by any review body.
The question involved here is one of enormous difficulty. The problem with the terms of reference of a Royal Commission, as I see it, would be to give them teeth that would bite without giving too much power. An inquiry may well be needed into the more blatant forms of malpractice, such as deliberate misquoting. But having said that, and when one looks at the newspaper industry in many other countries (and they have their problems), with all the faults of our industry it is surmounting many of its problems most ably.
7.14 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I too rise to support to the fullest possible degree the Motion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I have attended this debate not only with the purpose of speaking but in order to listen, because we have been hearing about the activities of trade unions in the Press, and the vital work that a Royal Commission or any official inquiry would do would be to bring to light some of the dangers which exist in the trade union movement. I, for one, am longing to hear something good about trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has given us some encouraging words about this matter. I speak from a layman's point of view, and I speak also as a worker. I have a form of trade union, a staff association, and I have seen it work with very favourable and happy results in obtaining cordial relationships between management and employees. The stories that we read in the Press, see on television, or hear on radio, are such that hardly a day goes by without us hearing of some trouble being stirred up somewhere. So much so that we begin to believe that the two words "trade union" mean only one thing, "trouble". I repeat, I want to hear something good about trade unions, and I am sure that I am not alone in saying this.
One hundred years ago there were virtually no trade unions at all. An employer had such power that it came to be almost a matter of life and death over his workers. The originators of the

1313
trade unions were very brave and courageous men. Workers trying to form a trade union, advocating its formation, or considering joining one, were regarded with the gravest suspicion, as if they were people who might undermine all society, just as some of the militant trade unionists we hear about now are regarded. But the courage of those men was rewarded. They won against great odds. They transformed for the better the way of life of this country. Nowadays, even the most hard-hearted, grasping employer would not try to recreate any of those old conditions. Even if he had the power, he would not dare to do so.
Trade unionists won one very great victory, and a lasting one, but it looks as though they are still trying to fight the battle. Trade unions to-day are applying to certain industries such pressures that somebody who employs anybody else must sometimes think that he is committing a crime. If one believes all that the public are allowed to see on television or read in newspapers, or hear on the radio, one wonders whether an employer is really such a terrible person that he has to be fought until he has to give way to what are referred to as "pressures", but in some cases come down virtually to outrageous blackmail.
Are we living in a world that is madder than it really needs to be? Are these pressures being applied against a section of the community, or to the nation as a whole? Do workers really expect to get more money for less work? Do they really think like that? I certainly sincerely hope not. If there should be any truth in that then there must be lurking somewhere in the background a very sinister, ominous force. With more pressures being applied to employers by the employees, not only will the employers be ruined but the workers will be throwing away their jobs and their incomes, and, more important, the very heritage of the British worker.
We all know the phrase, "Workers of the world, unite!", but there now seems to be going up the cry, "Workers, cut each other's throats! Every man for himself! Never mind where the money comes from so long as we get it! "Are these the conditions for which the early trade unionists struggled and gave up so much to bring about'? One feels that if
1314
the situation gets any worse there will be a rumbling in the ground as of earthquakes, caused by those pioneers' revolving at high speed in their graves. Where does this sinister power exist? It seems to be in some secret centralised place.
Here I come to another aspect of the subject, which is centralisation. The cry by unions, local government and industry is for autonomy; and yet there is more centralisation. It will not be too much away from the point if I give a couple of examples. First, I now find that when I want to renew my driving licence I do not have to go to the local office, but have to send away for it to somewhere in Wales. Secondly, for the first time for many years I was recently off work for several days which entitled me to sickness benefit, but instead of going to my local office I had to send for it to a place in Aldershot.
There is centralisation of the Press and the unions, which is natural because Fleet Street is the great centre. But, alas! the newspapers are using very old-fashioned methods which is why the question of over-staffing has arisen. In other counties, type-setting can be done by women working on a typewriter connected with a computer. I do not know much about the working of this sort of machinery, but if it can do the job properly it can bring about great efficiency. Our main newspapers are making slow progress towards becoming more efficient and trade unionists, through ignorance more than malevolence, are the cause.
If the number of main dailies is to be reduced, is it possible to turn to the country's local newspapers for an enjoyable variety of reading? The local newspapers have lower costs and smaller staffs; they use smaller print, do not go in for big headlines and can print more stories. Some of them are even going ahead with national type-setting. Transport is getting faster and in a short time a London morning edition can be on newsagents' counters hundreds of miles away. Is it possible to reverse the process and let some of the local papers come to London? I should very much enjoy reading the world news or the local news in papers printed in places where I have lived, worked or visited. My boyhood was spent in the region of Darlington and I should love to get a regular supply of the good old Northern Echo.

1315
Many millions of people who now live and work in London would also, I am sure, welcome seeing some of their old newspapers again.
Let us try this evening to give a lead to the trade unions, and let our message be, quite simply, "Watch it, or you will ruin your jobs, and one day you may wake up to find, all too late, that the power and freedom you had is in the hands of other people, who will limit that power and freedom so much that there will be hardly any left."So let us have our official Inquiry, and may all connected with the Press—editorial staff as well as workers—come forward without fear to air their grievances and tell of their successes for the benefit not only of the Government or Parliament but also of the public, who want to know, as is their right, the true facts.
7.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Press and the media arouse very mixed feelings among ordinary people. This seems to be reflected in the twin reactions of, first, no sympathy whatsoever for politicians, of whatever Party, who claim that they have been hard done by, and, secondly, the whacking great libel damages which are given by juries. I am sure that this debate will be even less reported than are most of the debates in your Lordships' House. One gentleman in the Press Gallery has been gazing fixedly at a stained glass window. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Press, which is quite understandable, to report its own facts. There also seems to be an agreement between the media that they should not report their faults either, because if one started to report the faults of the other we might get the true situation. There is a strong element of, "Dog must not go anywhere near any other dog and eat it."
Before I came to your Lordships' House this afternoon, I wanted to get myself informed upon this subject so I called upon two senior and very able journalists, who said, "For heaven's sake! don't say which paper we come from." One added, "I shall get 'the chop'", while the other said, "All my copy will be blacked." They even said, "Don't say whether we are from an evening paper, a daily paper or a Sunday
1316
paper." I should like to give your Lordships some of the salient facts which they produced for me and which I hope will be of some interest. Before I do so, however, let me make it clear that I do not mean to say, and do not want to be interpreted in any way as saying, that nobody should not be paid the maximum amount possible. Presumably that is what everybody works for. But within the print unions there seems to have been a certain desire to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs. This happened in the United States, especially in New York where there used to be three daily papers and today there is only one, all because of the demands for money which simply could not be met out of revenue.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will obviously correct my figures if I am wrong, but I have been lead to believe that a Linotype operator gets between £120 and £180 a week for a four-day week, with seven weeks' annual holiday. A lady wrote to one of the papers to which I have referred, and which I am not allowed to say is an evening paper, a daily paper or a Sunday paper, to complain that her husband was unemployed and that next door there lived a gentleman who worked for a national newspaper and was earning £120 a week for a four-day week and drove a lorry for the rest of the time. She said, "This is not fair." I know that it is not fair, but the paper would not publish that letter.
The firing and hiring of workers in the print room is totally under the control of the unions concerned. They have manning scales which, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, are anything up to three times bigger than they need be. If those manning scales are not fully met, the wages of the men who are not there are split between the men who are there, up to a third of whom can be hanging about doing nothing. It is a waste of talent, time and money. Then there is the system of the "Blow", which I believe, if I have it right, is known as the rest period. It can be organised so much that a print worker can work up to, say, 11.30 on the Daily Express and from 11.30 to the end of the production period of another daily newspaper at the same rates of pay. In an overmanned industry, this cannot possibly be right. The Economist Intelligence Unit also commented on the fact that workers'

1317
standards slipped badly from 11 o'clock to about 12.30 or 1 a.m. This may not be completely unconnected with the fact that pub closing times are about 11 o'clock.
Then there is the difficulty we can foresee coming of the journalists' and print unions' differentials. The journalists have been saying, "We do a more skilled job and we want more money because the print unions are getting too much". So there have been work-to-rules and labour stoppages by journalists. What happens if journalists get their money? It is the old, old story of differentials. The print unions will say, "We used to get more than the journalists and we now want more differentials established again". My Lords, this cannot be right.
The present troubles of the Daily Telegraph are due to the fact that when the paper was increasing the number of pages it wanted printed it agreed to pay print workers more money for more pages printed: the greater the number of pages, the higher the wage went up. Now, because the paper is reducing the number of pages it is printing, the unions say, "We will not accept a cut in our money rate". This, in my view, is an element of "wanting to have your cake and eat it". But I suppose we all want to do that. However, what we have not seen is any report in any newspaper as to why this wages/labour interruption is going on. If the coal mines or the shipbuilding industry were concerned, there would be investigation teams producing full details about them. But, as I said before, the Press, completely understandably, are saying absolutely nothing about their current problem. On the radio this morning I heard, "You will not get your copy of the Daily Telegraph in London because there has been a printing dispute".
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, spoke, as we should expect, very clearly. When he attacked the Aims of Industry advertisements, saying that they were divisive, one is entitled to draw his attention to the headline of the Daily Mirror on Election Day, 1951, saying, "Whose finger is on the trigger?". I do not think that showed the balm of human kindness and love of your opponent: That is "putting the boot in" as hard as you can; and that, I assume, is what the noble Lord would call "divisive".
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will forgive me for intervening. I think that Sir Winston Churchill's lawyers "put the boot in" on us and we had to pay considerable damages. I may be wrong, I speak only from memory, as I was not there at the time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I was being perhaps a little selective and was not saying that Sir Winston Churchill's lawyers did "put the boot in" and did get damages, as I knew perfectly well they had done, but there still was an element of divisiveness in this; and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, does not deny that.
He also spoke correctly about the fundamental freedom of an editor, which we must all uphold. But I thought, with the greatest respect to him, that he was ducking the issue of censorship by the print workers' union. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made the point that Aims of Industry were only trying to do what the T.U.C. were trying to do; and surely this is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It would be wrong to say that one can do it and that the other cannot. It is essential that the trade unions should have their freedom to support which Party they like, just as it is essential and fundamental to all of us that other groups should have the same freedom. This seems to be an unnecessary thing to say, but as we are having a debate on censorship perhaps it ought to be underlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that some of our newspapers had carried out marvellous investigatory journalism. But if this investigative journalism is to go on, what will happen if censorship, of which we have had several instances to-day, affects some of their interests so that much of this investigatory journalism cannot go on? This must be worrying to people who believe in freedom. After all, we have in this country, I think, some very good newspapers. One could say that The Times, the Guardian, and even the Daily Mirror, are papers of which any country could be proud. I think Voltaire summed it up best when he said:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That seems to me what freedom is about. It is what we are discussing at the

1319
moment, and it is on this that we ought to concentrate our attention.
7.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, towards the end of this extremely interesting debate on my noble friend's Motion, most of the things that could be said on the subject, and quite a few things off the subject, have already been said, but it would be right for me to set out briefly the views of the Opposition. We believe, as most noble Lords have expressed their beliefs, that it is extremely important that the editor should be the final arbiter as to the content of his newspaper. His is the responsibility, and his must be the judgment, very finely balanced at times, as to what is right to include or to exclude, both in the way of editorial and advertisement.
These are the sort of decisions that must be taken by one man; they could never be taken adequately by a committee and the editor should not be unduly influenced from either side. I think that most responsible managements in Fleet Street realise this. Admittedly the management appoints the editor in the first place and presumably when they do so they choose a man who could be expected to carry out his responsibilities in a particular way. The noble Lord, the late Lord Beaverbrook, used to claim that he never influenced his newspaper."But it is remarkable," he said, "how frequently my editors' views coincide with my own". Admittedly the Press has been dominated by great ruling families, each perhaps with their own idiosyncracies. This system has many faults, but they are newspaper people through and through. They are prepared to stand up against commercial or political pressures and what influence they bring to bear on their papers is brought by people with the interests of the newspaper world primarily at heart. I think that most of their employees, both journalists and technicians, recognise that fact.
If it should be felt by some people that a particular union might have as much right as a particular management to influence the content of a newspaper, it should be remembered that instances, such as have been described in your Lordships' House this afternoon, have been prompted by completely outside interests, political or personal, having no connection
1320
with the Press at all. This, we are all agreed, is wrong.
My noble friend suggests a Royal Commission as the means of clearing this problem up, but I do not go so far as that with him. I feel that all such an inquiry could do would be to establish that newspapers are in a perilous financial situation; that they are very highly over manned; that managements leave a certain amount to be desired; and that unions exercise a certain amount of undue pressure, all of which facts we know already. I think that by far the better solution for these abuses is that they should be brought out into the open so that the influence of public opinion and public disapproval can be brought to hear, and in this particular direction my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has made a very valuable start this afternoon.
7.41 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on at least one of his propositions and I think that every single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken this evening has agreed on this proposition; that is, that I, like them, am opposed to censorship in any form. I do not believe that it should be exercised over the content of advertisements, over comment, or over news. However, I must confess that I am a little puzzled about why the anxiety the noble Lord expressed this evening appeared to be, if I may say so with the greatest possible respect, rather selective. I understand entirely the views of those who say that they are against censorship of any form, imposed by anyone. But the noble Lord's position is rather different. By the terms of his Motion he wants not some form of inquiry into the general question of censorship, but only that practised by, to quote the Motion, "people working in the Press".
It is, I should have thought, a rather curious limitation to impose on any inquiry—an inquiry, if I may say so, for which there seems to be a high degree of enthusiasm, although the noble Lord who preceded me did not go so far as to commit himself or his Party to this, because both Aims of Industry and Mr. Briginshaw are calling for an inquiry or Royal Commission or something of that sort, and as the House is aware, the

1321
Prime Minister has indicated in another place that the Government are now considering this proposal very seriously So far as the noble Lord is concerned, the inquiry which he seeks is, apparently, to be asked to investigate the threat of censorship, but only if it can be shown to be directed to people working from within the Press. As I hope to show, the issues he has raised are rather more fundamental than that.
Before I go any further, perhaps I might briefly mention two issues. First, is the current situation in the newspaper industry to which a large number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate have alluded No one in the House can fail to be aware of the serious problem now confronting the industry. The Scottish Daily Express has closed its printing plant in Glasgow and the Evening Citizen has gone out of business altogether. Only London now has two evening newspapers; and many other newspapers in this country are facing significant financial difficulties. One noble Lord referred to the difficulties in New York which followed the industrial disputes in the newspaper industry there, and indeed there were massive closures which threw many people, both journalists and printing workers, out of work. I hope that the example of New York will be considered very carefully by everybody in the newspaper industry in this country. In my view and in that of the Government, the type of situation that now confronts the industry is of such crucial importance that unnecessary industrial disputes should be avoided in the industry. Nothing could more gravely jeopardise the future of several newspapers. It is a time when everyone who cares about the future of the British Press should exercise the maximum degree of restraint.
Secondly, there is an altogether different issue. The noble Lord this afternoon referred to the refusal by some newspapers to publish advertisements from Aims of Industry. I think it is not going too far to say that he implied that this was an act of almost unique wickedness on the part of those newspapers. But I must tell him that this is simply not so. Let me give him two examples. I should like to draw his attention to the Order Paper of another place where in January a number of my
1322
honourable friends tabled the following Motion:
"That this House being mindful that freedom of the Press is freedom for the public to obtain full information on all issues of public concern, deplores the refusal of the Western Mail, the South Wales Echo and the South Wales Argus to publish an official advertisement from the National Union of Mineworkers and calls on the newspaper concerned to exercise greater fairness in their presentation of the miners' case."
What the noble Lord cited today therefore was by no means an isolated example. But there is a further example of what I am saying, and that is the case of the Evening Star in Ipswich which refused to publish an advertisement from a trade union, A.S.T.M.S. In their adjudication the Press Council said that the newspaper appeared to accept a firm booking by giving the union a proof on April 23, 1971, without any suggestion that the advertisement was subsequently going to be refused or rejected for any reason. The function being advertised was to be held on April 29, 1971, and the complainant was relying on publicity, said the Council, in the newspaper of April 28. I must emphasise this particular point to the noble Lord. The Press Council said that a newspaper is entitled to refuse an advertisement. However, on this occasion they said that it was unfair of this particular newspaper to tell the union on the afternoon of April 27, the day before the intended publication, that the advertisement would not be inserted. In the circumstances, the complaint against the Evening Star was upheld. So here are two cases where trade unions were making precisely the same complaint as the noble Lord did this afternoon. If, like A.S.T.M.S., Aims of Industry feel aggrieved and I have no doubt that they feel aggrieved—and feel that they were unjustly treated, they should take their case to the Press Council in precisely the same way as anybody else does.
I now return to the general question of censorship. Anyone, like my noble friend Lord Ardwick—whose experience in the industry is extremely substantial—and me whose experience is of a far briefer duration until I arrived rather suddenly in your Lordships' House—have had in our careers, I am sure, the experience of attempted censorship of newspapers. That is the lot of anybody who works in the industry. Very rarely, however, I must tell the noble Lord and others who have

1323
spoken in this debate, does this come from people in the printing unions—the precise point that was made. So far as my own experience is concerned I have never had personal knowledge of this, though I do not in any way deny that the episodes of which the noble Lord complained, and I entirely agree with him in the complaint he made on this particular point, took place. Sometimes, from time to time, the pressures come—and I have known of it myself—from advertisers. And if a newspaper is in any sort of financial difficulties and there is pressure from an advertiser, and that pressure is supported by the management of the newspaper concerned, frankly it is difficult to resist and sometimes it succeeds. I do not say it happens day after day in national and provincial newspapers, but it is not unknown and is extremely damaging and dangerous to the industry when it occurs.
There are other examples of attempted censorship. My former editor, who was a Member of this House, the late Lord Francis-Williams, tells in his biography of the habit of Sir Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister during the war, of reading all the newspapers before going to bed. It is from personal experience an extremely bad thing to do, particularly if one reads anything disagreeable about oneself just before going to bed. But this was his habit, and sometimes when he did not like what he read he would complain bitterly to his Minister of Information, Brendan Bracken, also later a Member of this House. And when he could not get hold of Lord Bracken he would telephone the Ministry of Information. When he did so, Lord Francis-Williams said, the conversation would invariably be the same: "I understand you are Controller of Censorship, Mr. Williams," Sir Winston would say. When Lord Francis-Williams admitted the charge, Sir Winston would continue, "Then can you explain to me, Mr. Williams, why you are allowing the Daily Mirror"—I regret to inform my noble friend Lord Ardwick that it was normally the Daily Mirror although Lord Francis-Williams adds sometimes it was the Daily Mail or the Daily Herald, of which my noble friend also has some personal experience—"to criticise the Government in unbridled terms tomorrow? Am I to assume", said
1324
Sir Winston, "that you agree with these grave charges?" Lord Francis-Williams said he would explain to the Prime Minister that censorship was confined to facts and had no control over opinion, but this Sir Winston would never believe. "If I told him that under the powers of censorship bestowed by Parliament it was impossible to stop what he wanted to be stopped, he would say, 'Impossible! Impossible! I have no patience with the impossible. You talk like a bureaucrat, Mr. Williams '. Or", said Lord Francis-Williams, "if he was in a sunnier mood he would say, 'Nonsense, Mr. Williams. You are a man of influence. Pray use it!'".
There are, of course, other examples, not all of which took place during the war. One of the more notable (this came out in the debate in another place on the Royal Commission's Report on the Press) was given to a reporter on a Northcliffe newspaper in Newcastle in 1931. The instruction was a very clear one:
"Every line you write must be aimed at strengthening Mr. Ramsay Macdonald's candidature at Seaham and increasing his majority. Nothing which can adversely affect Mr. Macdonald's candidature is to be allowed."
I think it is only fair to say, as a member of the working Press, that I think we have moved some substantial distance since then. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Shinwell himself corrected the matter only four years later.
Sixteen years later the position had not improved a great deal, although, as I say, it has done now. As the House may recall, there was a critical by-election in the Gravesend Division of Kent in November, 1947. The contest took place at the nadir of the then Labour Government's fortunes. It was sharp, and it was bitter. By this time the Royal Commission was sitting, and in its Report it analysed the coverage of the campaign by the Press, in particular the degree of selective censorship that had been experienced on this occasion (and I think the noble Lord would agree by his definition) by people working "within the Press" against their political opponents.
The Royal Commission's conclusions upon the matter may be of some interest to your Lordships. They said:
"(i) With the possible exception of The Times. there could be no doubt in the reader's

1325
mind as to which side different newspapers supported.
"(ii) News and comment were inextricably mixed in the `news' reports and special articles on the campaign.
"(iii) In reporting election meetings it was general for each newspaper to suggest that the speakers belonging to the party which it supported were received either in awed silence or with thunderous cheers, whereas the opposing speakers were constantly heckled and booed.
"(iv) There was little attempt, in the majority of newspapers, to give an adequate presentation of the views of the party to which the particular newspaper was opposed.
"(v) In the Gravesend election"—
and I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will have some personal experience of this particular problem—
"where there was no Liberal candidate, the newspapers on both sides attempted to suggest that the Liberals supported the Party which the newspaper favoured."
It may be that the House may take the unflattering view that the influence of the journalist in the reporting of news or in the writing of editorials is not all that significant, and they may agree with Humbert Wolfe that:
"There's no reason to bribe or twist
The honest British journalist.
But seeing what unhribed he'll do,
There's really no occasion to."
Certainly one has to admit that some of our most powerful newspapers have got things wrong with a degree of regularity which would have driven any politician in a democracy out of office. To take one example, just as the submarine war was getting under way in late 1939 the Daily Express published the following truly remarkable editorial:
"The public should revolt against the food rationing system, that dreadful and terrible iniquity which some of the Ministers want to adopt. There is no necessity for the trouble and expense of rationing merely because there may be a shortage of this or that inessential commodity. It is admitted everywhere now that butter is plentiful, and full supplies are coming in, and the sinking of ships in the North Sea will not interfere with them seriously. The shortage of bacon will only be temporary."
Of course the Daily Express also assured its readers that there would be no war in 1939. It told them later that Mr. Nehru would be quite incapable of running India, and that the Egyptians would not be able to pilot ships through the Suez Canal. On almost every single political issue of the last 40 years, not only has the Daily Express been on the wrong side but every one of its central campaigning
1326
issues has ended in disastrous failure.
It may be said that the Daily Express is in a class by itself; that the influence of the rest of the Press is powerful, and that in a difficult industrial situation such as that experienced recently it is understandable, if regrettable, that people in the industry should take action if they believe that that power is being unfairly or grossly misused. I think that on this matter the trouble is that the nearer people are to newspapers the more they tend to accept newspapers' sometimes inflated view of their own political importance. There is no evidence from either side of the Atlantic that newspapers wield this degree of power. In 1932 the overwhelming majority of the American Press supported Mr. Hoover and opposed Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt won decisively. In 1936, after four years of the New Deal, the American Press were even more bitterly opposed to Mr. Roosevelt. He won by a landslide. In 1948 Mr. Truman had less Press support than any President in living memory. He was written off. Yet he won. And in the recent General Election the Labour Party received less backing from the Press than in any Election since the war. Yet my right honourable friend is now Prime Minister.
But, of course, it is impossible to go to the opposite extreme from this and to argue that newspapers are totally without influence. Over a prolonged period they can certainly influence public attitudes on a wide range of issues, including politics. Yes, restricted though the power of the Press may be, it is clearly right that they should accept the same legal limitations over their conduct as the rest of us during a General Election campaign—and of course they do. Any advertisement aimed at securing the return to Parliament of a particular candidate has to be authorised by that candidate's agent, and only then will the newspaper accept it. And the agent, of course, has to include the cost of that advertisement in his return of Election expenses.
But on the occasion of the recent General Election (and if the noble Lord who introduced this Motion to-day will forgive me for saying so, he tended rather to skate over this particular problem) something of a very different character occurred. One large and powerful organisation, Aims of Industry,

1327
decided to flout the spirit and the intention of the law. They decided to exploit a loophole caused by the Tronoh Mines case of 1952. In that case, as the House may recall, brought by the then Attorney-General, the company was accused of publishing a political advertisement in The Times during the course of the 1951 General Election without the authority of the Conservative agent for the Cities of London and Westminster. The only reason why this constituency was chosen was because The Times was published within it. The court held that because the advertisement could not be said to have been exclusively directed towards securing the return of this particular candidate the charge would have to be dismissed. Since then the law has remained uncertain. The intention has certainly been clear, and both major political Parties have accepted that they must behave strictly within the intention of the law.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I cannot let this go by. I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's verbal pyrotechnics and red herrings that he has dragged so attractively across the trail; no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will deal with them. But when we come to this question of the Representation of the People Act and the Tronoh Mines case (and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening on this without my notes, because I had not realised that this matter would be raised) I had to deal with this to a very large degree during the last General Election. He will remember—and it may be that he has the judgments on this and related cases with him—that the judges tended in these cases to say that Parliament could never possibly have intended the kind of thing that he is saying they did intend. The judgments are very clear on this; the law is not uncertain. The fact that it has suited the Conservative and Labour Parties to say that it is uncertain, and therefore not to allow general advertisements or themselves to produce general advertisements in the papers, is another matter. The law is perfectly certain since the Tronoh Mines case, and the judgments on these matters are extremely clear.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can understand, if I may say so, the sensitivity of the noble Lord, because the Liberal Party, in whose General Election campaign he took a leading part, unlike the Labour and Conservative Parties, continued a political advertising campaign during the General Election. So I am sure he would be particularly eager to have this point explored on a future occasion, as I think it must be. But I repeat that since the war both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party national poster and Press advertising campaigns have ended as promptly as possible after the announcement of a General Election. So far as the Conservative Party are concerned, that is exactly what they did on the last occasion. Therefore when, on February 7, the right honourable gentleman, the now Leader of the Opposition, announced the General Election, the Conservative and the Labour Parties behaved as before. National advertising was stopped and local poster sites became the responsibility of the local agents and had to be charged against Election expenses. If I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, he referred to the Aims of Industry campaign as having been introduced with an Election in the offing. But if one looks at the trend of their advertising campaign and the sort of advertisements which have been discussed in this debate this afternoon, one sees there was an enormous growth of Aims of Industry advertising as soon as the General Election was announced. Their campaign, far from being cooled off, was intensified: large display advertisements appeared in a number of national newspapers from February 11 to 27. The copy was of course carefully prepared. They did not include the name of any candidate. If one had been included of course he would have been unseated by an Election Petition.
I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made no reference to this aspect of the problem which he identified in his speech this evening. Is there not to be a single word of reproach for the men who decided to behave in this way? I must tell the noble Lord quite bluntly that although the Government are totally opposed—I repeat, totally opposed—to any industrial action directed against the content of newspapers in any

1329
circumstances whatever, it is hardly surprising, in the feverish atmosphere of an Election campaign, that the behaviour of Aims of Industry caused serious trouble in some newspaper offices. It was not just one small and unimportant campaign. On their national campaign alone, I understand that Aims of Industry spent, after the announcement that there would be an Election on February 28, a sum of money equivalent to the maximum expenses allowed to no less than 40 Conservative candidates in the last General Election, and their total resources, as my noble friend said, were far greater than that. Everyone involved in British politics, including, if I may say so, the Liberal Party which on this occasion also engaged in a national advertising campaign, has a clear interest in maintaining the tightest control over expenditure in our campaigns. We have only to look at the recent history of the United States to see what happens when there is inadequate control over political campaign expenses. Having myself spent six months in the United States in 1972 studying their system of Presidential Primaries, I know how much the overwhelming majority of members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives respect our system of tight legal controls over the expenses of candidates. In the recent General Election in Britain, for the first time in our modern political history a deliberate attempt was made to run a large political campaign outside the strict controls imposed by the Representation of the People Act. It failed in its objective.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Not outside the controls; inside the controls as established in the courts and the law of this land.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I can understand why the noble Lord takes a keen interest in this matter. I do not in any way use the point over-greatly against him. He had a leading part presumably, in the decision of the Liberal Party to behave as it did, and I am saying that that behaviour, and also the behaviour of the Aims of Industry, in my view makes it necessary to review matters very carefully in the future. That is what the Government propose to do. I think it is highly desirable that in these circumstances the Government and all political Parties should review the matter. The present state of the law
1330
and its imprecise character, if the noble Lord will forgive me, in my view requires review.
8.5 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who stayed back from their Easter Recess to take part in this debate and make it a very useful one. Good views have been expressed from all parts of the House. We all very much enjoyed the Minister's wind-up speech, particularly the early part. I enjoyed the reminiscences of the wartime very much, but I think we all recognise that many freedoms do have to be given up to win a war. I do not think that those freedoms we gave up were in any way wasted, and we tried—in fact I think we succeeded—in the ten years that followed to restore all those freedoms which we jeopardised in order to win the war.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to what he believes is a need for some reform in the electoral laws. If this is so, his Party, his Government, were in power from 1964 to 1970—in fact they could have gone on until 1971 if they had wanted to. They had seven years to put this right if they believed there was an injustice. Still a belated conversion is better than no conversion at all. I was very glad to learn, before the noble Lord sat down, that they are now going to examine this matter among other matters. I particularly drew attention to the fact that over the last four years there has been an increasing number of examples, which I quoted, where I thought there had been some form of censorship by those working in the newspaper industry. If there has been a similar number of examples on the trade union side then I welcome this inquiry. I am not seeking to make it one-sided at all.
I just feel that it is not right that there should be a form of censorship which is not outwardly known in our democracy. If there is any form of banning then perhaps the inquiry will look into this and evolve some solution to the problem. I would point out that two wrongs do not make a right. The noble Lord quoted trade unions; I quoted other organisations with another viewpoint. I am delighted to learn that the Government are going to examine this and I

1331
hope that they will take into account all the matters which have been raised in this debate. It is no good curing this small anxiety, and I think an emerging anxiety, if the economic conditions and the conditions under which people work in our Press drive them all into bankruptcy. We shall be wasting our time. I am glad that the inquiry will be more widely based as a result of our deliberations. I am delighted he has accepted the idea which will include this particular aspect of the problem. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
RENFREW COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (CON- TROL OF PARKING, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (MIS- CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Janner.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to use this opportunity to correct a slight mistake that I made during the Second Reading debate on this Bill in the last Parliament, and I apologise to the noble Lord for rising at this time. As a Fellow of the Zoological Society, the Secretary asked me whether I would take this opportunity to put the matter right, and this is what I hope to do now. During the debate on Second Reading, I stated that the London Zoo had received a subsidy of £2 million in the course of the last two or three years. I was incorrect in giving that figure. The London Zoo has received a grant of £650,000. They also had a loan of £250,000, repayment of which has been waived, and they have also been promised £700,000. I only hope that that promise will be carried out.
That is all I have to say, except to express the hope, now that this Bill is leaving your Lordships' House and going to another place, that the sponsors will try to consult the owners of zoological gardens as to the Bill's contents and its progress, because in the past I feel there has been too little consultation of this kind.
May I also say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said during the Committee stage: that zoology is the science of life. I am rather disappointed in this Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, its object, first and foremost, is the promotion of the wellbeing of the animals in captivity—but the only animals protected by this Bill are those in zoological gardens open to the public—and of course there are many other private zoological gardens which are not open to the public. Many private individuals have exotic animals in captivity, and therefore I would hope that the law might ultimately embrace all those animals. If that does not happen this Bill, certainly as regards animals, is illogical.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may, I should like very briefly to say something that I had intended to say at Committee stage regarding an Amendment which we had expected to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene

1333
and Ferrard. However, the Committee stage ended rather quickly, and I should like now to take this opportunity of making the point which I had originally intended to make earlier.
During the Second Reading debate, I said that the attitude of the Government to the principle of the Bill was one of neutrality but that we were content to leave it to your Lordships' House to decide whether it should proceed. That remains the position to-day. If, as seems to be the case, it is your Lordships' wish that the Bill should pass, the Government are content that this should be so. However, perhaps I may be allowed to mention one or two points to which I drew attention on Second Reading. I tried then to illustrate the fact that the Bill imposes a very tight timetable for doing all the things that need to be done between the Bill's enactment and the appointed day, 12 months later, when the provisions will become fully operative.
My noble friend Lord Janner, in replying to the Second Reading debate, told us that he was confident that if the Bill became law zoos would be content to pay the fees required of them. This, however, was not quite the point that was troubling me then and it is for that reason I have intervened this evening. My concern is not so much that zoos will be unwilling to pay the fees, but as to whether, within the time limit imposed by the Bill, it will have been possible for the Council to have been appointed, to recruit its staff and to set up the necessary registers and administrative structure so that it is ready to receive the fees and to make the necessary registrations before the appointed day. If, through any unforeseen circumstances and no fault of its own it has failed to do so, the inevitable effect of Clause 3(1) of the Bill, as I understand it, will be that after the appointed day no zoo would be able to charge an entrance fee.
It is that matter with which the Government are mainly concerned. Perhaps the sponsors may wish to reflect on this and consider whether it would be appropriate, if the Bill makes progress in another place, to explore the possibility of including some provision which would allow greater flexibility in determining the appointed day, rather than to leave it as now specified in Clause 13, as being 12
1334
months after the Bill has passed. I hope that suggestion will prove helpful.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I say at once that we were very anxious all the way through to see that those who were connected with Government offices should have every opportunity of going very carefully into the proposals made. While I appreciate the point raised by my noble friend, which will certainly be given consideration, the important thing is that time has been going on. For years we have been prevented from bringing this Bill to fruition, and really it is a little too much to ask of the sponsors that they should continue to allow very much further time for the Bill to become an Act. Ample opportunity has been given throughout, and Members of both Houses know exactly what is in the Bill. These matters have been before this House three times; and they were brought before the other House on one occasion. Therefore, I hope that we shall have every assistance in getting the Bill through as speedily at possible. I shall certainly give consideration to the point made by my noble friend and I hope we shall be assisted to get the Bill through speedily so that the animals may be protected. I am sure that would be the wish of anyone who is honestly concerned about the matter.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE CONCORDE PROJECT
8.18 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON LORD KINGS NORTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that a number of relevant considerations do not yet appear to have been adequately presented to the public, they will undertake not to make a decision on Concorde before Parliament has had a sufficient opportunity to debate the matter. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe we are all waiting, some of us with some anxiety, to hear from the Government what their policy on Concorde is to be. But while we have this anxiety to hear from the Government something definitive on this vital matter, I think we do not want them to form their conclusions until after

1335
the most careful and deliberate consideration. My chief object in asking this Unstarred Question, is to urge the Government to treat the matter urgently, but still to take every relevant factor into account. The matter is complex; the Government have not been long in Office, and they must take the time necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the necessary detail and to balance all the factors.
My Lords, Concorde has been part of our lives in this country and in France for a long time. Basic research began as long ago as 1956: feasibility and design studies started in 1959. Discussions between the British Air Corporation and Sud Aviation started in 1961 and the British and French Governments signed a collaboration agreement in November, 1962. Perhaps this is the date which we should take as the real starting point. If we do, then we have been on the job together for eleven years. Some 21,000 people are at work in this country on the Concorde programme, many parts for the 16 aircraft already authorised exist, and material has been ordered for six more. Six aircraft have flown. The project is the most imaginative and important to develop in European technology since the jet engine, and despite what has been said about the cost of the programme, I am convinced that Concorde can prove to be a major national asset to Britain and to France.
In view of all this, I cannot believe that cancellation of the project is in the mind of either Government, and I only mention cancellation because it was one of the five options presented by Mr. Wedgwood Benn in his Statement in another place on March 18. These options were presented solely in terms of cost, and perhaps the last four can legitimately be considered on this basis. Cancellation however is an option of an altogether different kind and quite apart from the national issue of abdicating from a leading position in technology, of casting away a national asset, to accept it is to accept a redeployment problem of a most serious kind. Although he was not writing about Concorde, the appalling difficulty of redeployment and the effect it would have on morale are clear from a perceptive article which the noble
1336
Lord, Lord Beswick, publicshed in Flight International in January, 1972.
I feel therefore that this option must have been included by Mr. Benn just for completeness: had it not been included, someone would have asked for it: but it is not really possible, and if it were attempted the social damage would far outweigh the monetary savings. But when we look at the other options solely in terms of cost, I feel we are on a more practical and sensible and more readily calculable basis. But—and here I make a most serious plea—I believe that the way all these Concorde figures are presented is utterly misleading. Always we are given the cumulative figures, and never the annual costs.
I know that Mr. Benn's figures have been criticised. I have no special knowledge which leads me to question them and until appraisal of them produces new ones, I accept them. But consider the development cost, put at £535 million at January, 1974, prices, of which so far £405 million has been spent. Taking the 1962 starting date this is an average of about £35 million per annum. Surely, for the most important advance in civil aviation since the jet engine revolution, this is not an unacceptable figure. All the other figures in Mr. Wedgwood Benn's table in Hansard for March 18 should be translated in a similar way to give annual expenditure, actual and projected.
While on this subject of cost there is the matter of running costs. It is reported that British Airways have said that operating Concorde could significantly worsen their financial results by some millions of pounds a year. Even £26 million has been mentioned. These are presumably estimates in which the price of kerosene figures largely. But at a time when alternative fuels in other fields than aviation are being sought, and when we shall shortly be able to influence oil prices with our own oil supplies, it is surely premature to be pessimistic about future prices. My personal belief is that in a few years the situation of hydrocarbon fuels will be vastly different.
Moreover, I understand that these figures refer to the whole overseas fleet, including the Concordes. But surely the important figures are those relating to running a "Concorde only" fleet. This is what must be of interest to prospective customers. My understanding of the

1337
manufacturers' calculations is that even with kerosene at 60 cents per U.S. gallon (it was 13 cents last year) Concorde breaks even with a load factor less than 50 per cent. But I think we must be very careful in considering the running cost figures available to us. I believe that, in an effort to be realistic we can be too pessimistic. I can never forget that B.O.A.C. estimated that the VC 10 would not pay. But they could not foresee its immense appeal to the travelling public, and it proved to be one of their great economic successes. It would be a bold prophet who assessed the appeal of Concorde at less than that of the VC 10.
I am prepared to believe, my Lords, that cool appraisal, in the light of prevailing circumstances in Britain and in France, could reasonably lead to some adjustment of the pace at which the programme proceeds, and I would not be too worried which of the options B C D and E was chosen at this stage. But while in the short term it is not unreasonable to decide on the basis of estimated annual expenditure, in the long term, much broader considerations must surely apply. By this I mean that in an age when economic prosperity depends utterly on technological advance, an age when the economic race is to the technologically strong, Concorde can make a major contribution to the prosperity of both nations. The United States has tremendous benefit from its Apollo programme. The Russians, too, have great prestige from their space programme and, let it be admitted straight away, despite the Paris Air Show disaster, from their TU 144. France and Britain, in this heavyweight championship, have the Concorde, and to falter in its development and production would sadly damage our technological status and our economy.
I feel that many people do not understand the ancillary advantages of a programme of this kind. We all understand the direct advantage—travel at unprecedented speed to the far corners of the earth. But the impact of the achievement of this aeronautical objective on other technologies—on electronics, on structural engineering, on metallurgical development, on communications techniques, on more mundane areas of technology—is enormous. Those who have studied how aeronautical progress has impinged on
1338
engineering industries outside aerospace will understand this. Concorde is the spearhead of a great technological forward thrust, a forward thrust which surely must be sustained, a forward thrust which must inevitably redound to the great benefit of the United Kingdom and France.
If indeed money supply is the major difficulty, even on the basis of the modest figures that derive from an annual cost presentation, then we must keep the project moving forward on a more parsimonious basis until better times permit a more vigorous policy. And if we are to believe—and I do believe—that in only a very few years we shall be in a much more prosperous phase, because of our indigenous oil and gas supplies, then if we must go slower for a while, it need not be for long. And we can do some very valuable work in the next two years. If noble Lords will hear with me for two minutes, I will be specific.
It is likely that a Special Category certificate of airworthiness will be granted to Concordes 3 and 4 in February, 1975. This will permit these aircraft to do the manufacturer's endurance flying trials, and, when these have been completed by the middle of 1975, will permit the granting of a full certificate of airworthiness to the operational type. The operator's route flying will then be done, and it should be possible, from the technical point of view, to bring the aircraft into service late in 1975.
According to present plans, British Airways and Air France will each have three aircraft, the minimum number required to mount a scheduled operation satisfactorily, by April, 1976. But I understand that a total of four production aircraft could be available considerably earlier, so that British Airways and Air France could mount a combined scheduled operation towards the end of 1975. According to Mr. Donne, of the Financial Times, this has already been canvassed, and I strongly urge that it should be reconsidered. We should then have the earliest possible demonstration of the appeal or otherwise which a transatlantic supersonic scheduled service would have, and our subsequent programme could be tailored accordingly.
My Lords, there are many people in the United States and the Soviet Union who

1339
hope that our Concorde programme will fizzle out. All those behind the United States' supersonic project, cancelled at enormous expense you will recall would like to have another go, which is only likely if Concorde falters. The Russians would love to have the chance of establishing a transatlantic service. If they did, my Lords, and Concorde was not there already, what would happen? America would revive its supersonic project and a few years later, British Airways and Air France would be buying, at enormous expense, and with shocking effects on our balance of payments, American or Russian aircraft, no doubt respectively justifying the expenditure, as we justified the expenditure on the Boeing 707 after the cancellation of the V.1000, on the grounds that no suitable British or French aircraft was available. It is an unpleasant picture, my Lords. So I submit that to falter now would be a madness, and that we should go forward at the briskest pace consistent with our present means, firm in the faith, my Lords, that Concorde is the vehicle which the world of the eighties will inevitably demand.
8.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, although our numbers have somewhat dwindled in the House, it gives me very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and to congratulate him and to support him on the important issue he raised tonight on Concorde. My Lords, there have been many occasions in the past, and I hope there will be many occasions in the future, when the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has addressed the House on aviation matters. On all occasions his wide experience, drawn from his distinguished career, offers the House, if I may say so, a quality of thought and wisdom which enriches our debates. My Lords, all those who care about British aviation, both in and outside the House, I am sure will be very grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has expressed with great clarity the value of Concorde both to the British industry and to the country.
My Lords, I put down my name tonight in support of the noble Lord for one simple reason. I believe in Concorde and I believe in its long-term future. I believe there are very good grounds for supporting it. It was interesting for
1340
me to read from a recent opinion poll that a great majority of people in the country supported Concorde, although you would think from many occasions from the vocal minority and some of the recent Press reports, that the opposite was the case. My Lords, many, I believe, support Concorde because it has become a tangible part of the British flag despite development cost problems. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, described, a great national asset; it stands as a shining proof of our advance technological capabilities. It is poised on the threshold of a vast and exciting new chapter of civil air transport; namely, supersonic flights.
My Lords, with all of these encouraging thoughts, it is perhaps tragic that at this very moment, when it is about to leave the nest, Concorde is surrounded by a massive choking cloud of uncertainty, an uncertainty based on criticisms most of which can never be proved or disproved until it goes into service; an uncertainty which, while it exists, can only damage and sap the morale and impetus of all those involved in this great project; an uncertainty which needs to be lifted as quickly as possible. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would agree with that since I believe he wrote that in his very perceptive article in Flight last January.
My Lords, in saying this I do not blame the Government wishing to review the whole of the Concorde programme on taking office. The development has reached a very vital stage and it has many problems to be faced, not least the production line and the acceptance at international airports. But my Lords, I question the Government's handling of their review, in particular the value of publishing an official D.T.I. Statement, a Statement hardly helpful to negotiations with any would-be purchasers, and a Statement which was promptly challenged on fact and queried on interpretation by the British manufacturers, B.A.C. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could tell us later whether the Minister consulted our French partners before publishing the Statement; and why, in view of the importance of that Statement, no prior consultation took place, apparently, with B.A.C.?
My Lords, that Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, sets

1341
out five options which the Government felt that they were faced with. One of these, of course, was cancellation. In view of the seriousness of this course of action, as the noble Lord has already said, would the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, consider—if clearly this option is not to be proceeded with, but other options need to be examined in depth and time with our French partners—an early announcement which could help to remove the speculation of cancellation? My Lords, while we are on the question of cancellation, and in view of the very wide gulf between the D.T.I. Statement and the B.A.C. subsequent statement, can the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also undertake to publish at an early date an agreed statement covering all the factors of cancellation including the likely unemployment in Bristol?
My Lords, when one challenges critics of Concorde as to why they think the costs of Concorde have escalated over the last twelve years, almost always one finds that the blame goes entirely on irresponsible estimating of the manufacturers. The facts, of course, do not bear this out at all. The facts as I am informed, are that over the past 12 years 37 per cent. of the increase has lain at the door of inflation; 31 per cent. has been due to the change in specifications; and only some 20 per cent. on new technology. I think that that is a very remarkable figure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, could confirm those figures.
The second point that critics of Concorde often argue is that no airline wants Concorde. This again I believe to be far from the truth, and in the case of British Airways I am of the view, although I am not of course quoting anyone, that every single member of the board of British Airways is pro-Concorde. But at this moment British Airways is faced with a dichotomy of interests. It has a clear financial duty laid down by Parliament to look after the commercial interests. So of course have many of the other—in fact, all the other—independent airlines, Concorde must therefore be available on the right terms, particularly when airlines are faced with the staggering recent increases in fuel.
My Lords, what are the right terms? I believe the terms are very clear. They are not the present terms being offered,
1342
particularly when one sees as a background the present short-term financial problems facing the whole of the airlines, and also when one recognises that Concorde is essentially a long-term investment. The right terms, I submit to the House, are to lease Concorde to the airlines. This would give a most valuable flexibility on funding and a much needed injection of confidence to the airlines. Leasing would I believe ensure a reasonable number of Concordes going into service, which is the only way in which many of the present imponderables vexing those involved with the present Government review can be settled. Leasing would also show the world that the British and French Governments regard Concorde as a long-term investment—an investment which, given time, as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, will surely encourage America and other countries to become partners. My Lords, I believe that the fate of Concorde rests now in the Government's having the will to see it through. To its critics we know it resembles a white elephant. To its supporters it represents the obvious future of civil air transport. I hope that the supporters win, for cancellation at this stage could bring, I believe, irreparable harm both to the short-term and long-term interests of our aviation industry.
8.42 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I welcome very much the opportunity created by my noble friend Lord Kings Norton for an examination of the current pros and cons of Concorde, but I beg to question whether this is not the wrong time altogether to attempt to take anything but a holding opinion on this great project. In my view, it would be totally wrong to cancel the project at this stage and to end up with nothing at all to show for the multi-million pounds that, in good faith, we have spent on this unique development. I submit that we have suffered too much in the past by dropping aircraft projects before they have been really disproved or proved. Take for example the Princess flying boats, the burly Brabazon, the Vickers 1000, particularly the TSR2, and especially half the programme for the now well proven and highly successful VC10.
I submit that if we run out of courage on Concorde to-day we invite being looked upon as global commercial

1343
cowards—a reputation that ill becomes those who were once the leading merchant adventurers of the world. I sometimes wonder, as an engineer and an airline operator, whether we have in our civil servants and our Treasury officials and the like, a proponderance of brilliant academic ability but perhaps a lack of technical and mechanical sympathy and enthusiasm. Let us review what in fact we have in Concorde to-day. We have the design and prototype-making of a very, very fast aeroplane that handles well, does the speed for which it was designed, has shown in considerably long tests no obvious fundamental structural or aerodynamic faults. True, it has cost a lot of money and is going to cost more. But it is not the cost of the Concorde that has escalated; it is the value of money that has gone down.
Our partners in France are going ahead. Russia seems undaunted by the tragic crash at the Paris Air Show when super-abundance of enthusiasm in the cockpit exceeded the caution needed at the controls of such a sensitive flying machine. In contrast, our Concorde, the Anglo-French version, embodies a control system that sternly and automatically prevents any overloading of stresses on the structure in a manoeuvre, no matter how exuberant the pilot may be. That is a fundamental difference. And so commercially I contend that to-day we simply do not know what are the true costs versus the ultimate earning ability of the Concorde project as a whole. True, the recent rise in fuel prices is a sombre problem, but so it is to all forms of turbine transport. No one knows yet, until all the tests are finished, what the true cost per seat mile or per tonne kilometre for cargo makeweight will be on the Concorde. No one really knows how much more money will be required to get the engines acceptable to airport and environmental authorities as regards pollution by noise and particle emission. But, as in other areas of development, the major moneys on solving these problems have already been spent. To carry on with the development is not throwing good money after bad; it is using more money to make good money even better.
We all know that there has not been immediate response from the airline markets of the world to Concorde in its
1344
present form. But let us not forget that a modest nine have in fact been ordered, which means that when six of them, as my noble friend Lord Kings Norton has said, are operational, British and French national airlines can begin scheduled services. Only then shall we know the real cost benefits of the job, and in the interim period between now and then we clearly, to my mind, must go on building slowly the rest of the 16 aircraft for which parts and components have already been made and in effect paid for. True again, we should during that interim period clear our minds of any highfalutin' ideas that very high employment and mass or continuous line production can be justified at this point of time. We have to be satisfied now with batch production, which may be not the most economical method in the long flight, but we must trim the wings of Concorde to the prevailing economic air; and above all, my Lords, not let it stall and fall.
8.48 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it was, I suppose, about 34 years ago that I went to work at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and at that time at the Ministry of Aircraft Production there was a director called Roxbee Cox. We learnt at the Royal Aircraft Establishment that Roxbee Cox was a very shrewd man. I am glad to see that he is here in another form this evening with us—and he remains as shrewd as he was then. My Lords, this problem of aircraft is an extremely difficult and complicated one. It is very easy to make a ship exactly like the previous ship—occasionally it has to be towed to Bermuda. One finds that it is not difficult to make a locomotive which is not very different from the previous locomotive. But when you move to making aircraft, and make something which is quite different from what has been done before, you are faced with an entirely different problem.
I have been appalled over the last few years to read the illiterate nonsense which has appeared in the Observer, in particular. It is so stupid, so ill-informed that it is incredible, telling us that the Concorde is no good. They told us first that it would not fly. When it flew, then they had to switch round and find some other excuse. They then found that an American with the best motives

1345
in the world—it is true that the Americans had recently cancelled their supersonic programme, but that does not matter—found that there were extreme dangers in supersonic flight. He happened to be a physical chemist, as I am. I am no engineer. My only connection with this problem of aircraft is that I spent three years of the war at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. This physical chemist did some very careful calculations and found that at a height, 10,000 feet higher than Concorde would fly, there would be an effect upon the ozone concentration. Of course the Observer immediately said, "Ah, well, of course this means that the ozone concentration will be affected and consequently the amount of photo-chemical radiation which comes through to ground level will be vastly increased by Concorde." Abolutcly untrue; absolutely and totally untrue because the calculations had been done for 10,000 feet higher. The man who did the calculations never claimed that those calculations were other than preliminary ones, but even accepting them the whole of that environmental argument was irrelevant to Concorde. But the Observer blew this up as a matter of major importance. The Observer, which from the time of Garvin has been wrong on almost every subject under the sun, today wants to be wrong also on every subject concerned with aircraft.
When we look at this matter we have to ask ourselves: what is this cost of Concorde? The Observer talks about a thousand million pounds and then splits it between France and this country. But this money has never been spent on building aircraft; it has been spent on investigating supersonic flight, which is quite a different matter. It is an important matter; it is a highly important matter. This money has been spent and we have learnt what are the problems of supersonic flight. Some of your Lordships may have been to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and seen what they have done. What have they done? They have had a whole team at work for years studying the effects of radiation upon aircraft at high altitudes.
To call this the cost of building Concorde is absurd. It is important that these effects should be found out, and it is essential that we should do it if we are ever going to fly at high altitudes.
1346
I do not know whether we are, but if we are we must surely know in advance what are the risks involved.
If Concorde is flown commercially, it will be the best tested aircraft ever flown in human experience. This is what I find so extraordinary: on the one hand people say, "Look at the appalling environmental risks you take"; but on the other hand if you set about trying to investigate these environmental risks they say, "But you are being grossly extravagant". They cannot have it both ways. You are either going to say that you ignore the environment or you study the environment. The study of the environment for Concorde has been the most careful and thorough ever done in human experience, and when one talks about a thousand million pounds, the Observer and all their satellites are talking absolute bunk when they say that this money has been wasted. It has not been wasted. Every bit of this money has gone towards producing something of importance and significance in human knowledge.
I am one of these ridiculous people called pure scientists. I am not an engineer; I know nothing about the construction of these things. What I do know is this: knowledge is extremely important and significant for the future of mankind, and unless we have knowledge we grope in the dark, and what has been spent so far on Concorde has been of immense value and significance to the future of mankind. So that even if we had never built a single aeroplane that flew supersonically I would regard what has been spent so far as money well spent.
The question then arises as to what do we do in the future. That is a different matter. I do not know; I am unable to say. I am neither an economist (thank God!) nor am I a technologist. I do not know the answer to these questions. But what I would say is this. Surely from this point on, having reached this stage, we now go ahead on straight matters of assessment of the economic advantage, neglecting entirely what has been done in the past, because that has been a contribution to our basic understanding. It has not built a single Concorde that will fly in service.
What do we do next? We are now faced with a totally different problem.

1347
If we decide that we do not go on with the development of Concorde then we have to recognise that—what is it?22,000 people will be thrown out of work. All right, this may be a thing that we can do. We should be a little careful (should we not?) if we threw the same percentage of miners out of work from the mining industry? I merely illustrate that we are dealing with an industry.
If we scrap Concorde, do not imagine that these 22,000 people can be switched to building houses. This is the great fallacy of the present time. People imagine that if you are spending £10 million or £100 million on building aircraft, you can magically switch that over to finding the same amount of money for doctors. But you know, my Lords, they are not the same people. The people who have been trained as aerodynamicists or as builders of aircraft are not also people who can be technicians in hospitals or who can be doctors. Nor can they build houses—well, perhaps they can build houses but they would be damned inefficient at it and it would be a highly extravagant way of using skilled manpower to turn them over to doing something else.
I am not saying that necessarily we should go ahead with this, but I say that the Government must pay very careful attention to how the people who have been trained to build aircraft are going to be used. If they say that we should stop Concorde, then everyone in the Bristol area has the right to say: "What is happening to my job? Where am I going to go?" I know that this argument can be carried too far, and that it would mean that one never closed down a dying industry. But do we regard the aircraft industry as a dying industry? If not, then it seems to me we have to pay a great deal of attention to the argument that we must continue building advanced aircraft. I do not know the answer, but I am sure that the Government (who I know are a very wise Government; the wisest we have ever had) will pay every attention to this.
9.1 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such a fascinating, and I can only say scintillating, speech such as the one we have been privileged to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. I felt rather sorry for the noble
1348
Lord, Lord Kings Norton, because he has introduced a debate on a very important subject with a remarkably thin House. But one of the quirks of your Lordships' House is that the importance of the subject is not necessarily reflected in the attendance within the Chamber.
My Lords, I have indeed much sympathy with the Government over this problem, as I did with the last, because we are dealing with a huge gamble. The stakes are high, the prizes are high; or they may be low—they may even be a minus quantity. But the fact is that the stakes are high. The difficulty, of course, is that not all the prizes can be measured in financial terms. My noble friend Lord Thomas was right when he said that it was impossible to know the cost. How does one quantify in money terms the value of spin-off, or the value to this entity or another of research, or the breaking up of design teams, or the effect. whether physical or emotional, of unemployment, or the dropping (if drop we do) of one sphere in which we are overall leaders in the world? These facts cannot be measured in money terms, yet they have a direct bearing on any decision which is taken.
There are many who say that Concorde should be allowed to progress only if it can be shown to pay its way, and that a strict balance sheet should be drawn up to see whether Concorde is viable. Of course it is entirely right to draw up a balance sheet, but with the best will in the world such a balance sheet cannot be accurate. If anyone had known when the project was first mooted that the most accurate figures which could then be produced of the actual cost would be as we know them to-day, I do not suppose the concept would ever have got off the ground. But, equally, when to-day people try to evaluate whether Concorde will be financially viable when put into service, there are so many imponderables that it is impossible to calculate with even a modicum of a degree of accuracy what the result will be. Even the original estimate of British Airways varied between a plus of £6 million and a minus of £26 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, was entirely right when he said that this is not the value of Concorde, but an estimate of the likely effect of Concorde's operations on the airlines' total financial

1349
result. That is a very different thing. But how can any figure be more accurate when there is not, even now, one route yet agreed in the whole world, when one does not know whether one can fly to Tokyo via Russia, or whether the Americans will allow Concorde even to land at Kennedy Airport?—or if they do what fare structure they will be prepared to agree for a transatlantic flight. Nor can it be accurately forecast what would be the effect on the passenger complement of the aircraft if all the first-class passengers were siphoned off from a subsonic aircraft and put into Concorde. That would be fine for Concorde, but damaging for other aircraft which might well be flown by the same airline. Again, over what period of years should an aircraft be depreciated? The normal is to depreciate aircraft over 14 years, but when they are operating, as Concorde does, with a skin temperature of 120 degrees Centigrade I find this quite frightening. As someone said the other day, rather succinctly, "Fried chicken"! But when you are operating with figures of this kind, figures which are totally unknown, how can one get any reasonable degree of accuracy from a depreciation figure? We are therefore operating a very big gamble.
My Lords, the prospect of Concorde is an exciting challenge. I think that everyone who has spoken this evening has indicated that this is an exciting challenge, one in which at the moment we are leaders of the world. One thing that is satisfying to know is that it is an issue which rises above Party politics, because people in all Parties are in favour or against Concorde. But the important thing is that the decision, when taken, should be as near the right decision as we can hope to get it. I think the Government were entirely right to review the whole project of Concorde. I would only recall (and I do this in no sense of criticism but in a sense of historical fact) that one of my noble friends behind me referred to the TSR 2 which was cancelled some years ago because of its tremendous cost. I know that many people went through a lot of heart-searching over this decision. In fact the TSR 2 was cancelled because the F111 was cheaper. But, in the event, the F111 proved an unserviceable aircraft, and we had to pay out £48 million in compensation in order not to have the F111.
1350
Yet we did not have the TSR 2 either, and the design teams were broken up. It is easy to cancel a thing at a stroke, my Lords, but he who does so bears a heavy responsibility for the summary execution of the years of research that have gone before.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I sympathise with him and with his Government in the decision they have to make. I hope that he will permit me to make a criticism over the way in which this matter has been handled. I do not make any criticism of the fact that the Secretary of State considered it right to go into all the facts and the figures and to try to come to a decision. But I do criticise his presentation of the case. I am bound to say that I doubted the wisdom of giving all the details and the figures for public scrutiny. Certainly it is right that the taxpayer should know how much money is involved in this, and what his stake is. But there comes a point where commercial considerations have to be taken into account; and in any business where there is risk the total divulgence of the nature of the risk merely vastly increases the risk and makes the chance of the bird's coming home to roost even more slender. I think the figures which the noble Lord's right honourable friend gave were the figures of the Department of Trade and Industry, and, as I understand it, there was no consultation between the Department and the British Aircraft Corporation, who are in large part the manufacturers of this aircraft. That seems to me extraordinary, because when one is trying to get at precise figures one would have thought one would have consultation with the manufacturers in advance of publishing those figures.
Then the presentation of those figures was such as forced British Airways to issue its statement in regard to what it considered the operating costs of Concorde. Your Lordships will remember that it was said that it was likely to be at the lower end of the scale of plus £6 million to minus £26 million. Of course, that is very damaging to Concorde. That would have been fine and justifiable if the decision had been taken to cancel, but if that comes out in advance of a decision, and if the decision is not to cancel, then you are presented with the task of having to try to sell an aircraft of which all the

1351
bad points have been elicited in public in advance. I should have thought that was unfortunate. Of course, in this respect British Airways are not renowned for their generosity of anticipation of results. As the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton said, when the VC10 was being considered they said, "This is going to be a terribly expensive aircraft to run; it will not be commercially viable." Yet in fact when the aircraft came into operation it was commercially viable and proved a financial success. The trouble then was that we could not sell any VC10s abroad.
After all, my Lords, the Concorde is in essence a partnership; and one must share with one's partner the successes, the failures, the problems and the difficulties. I was surprised that the noble Lord's right honourable friend did not see his French counterpart before announcing these figures. In fact, he announced the figures, and then went down and saw the people at Bristol; and it was only after that that he went and saw his French counterpart. I do not say this in an offensive way, and I hope the noble Lord will not take it as being in an offensive way. But I thought, if I may say so, that this was a method of presentation which could have been improved upon.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may intervene on that point, in fact the French were told before the publication of the figures.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am glad to have that information, which I did not know, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving it to me.
My Lords, the Government have a great responsibility over Concorde. If it is cancelled we drop our lead in one sphere of the world's activities in which we are years ahead of other countries. I have never been one for approving huge prestige projects just because they are prestige projects. One hopes that a prestige project will have something other than prestige and will be a useful and viable entity as well.
I hope that the noble Lord's Government, when they come to make their decision, will take very carefully indeed into account one other factor, and that is the possible cost of damages in compensation. The other day, in a supplementary question, I asked the noble Lord,
1352
Lord Beswick, what in fact was the assessment of damages to the French Government, and he said that was a hypothetical question. I do not think it is a hypothetical question. I accept that the answer may not be known and it may not be possible to know it, because if you cancel you either have discussions with the Government or you are taken to court; you do not know the results. But an assessment must surely be made, because upon the level of compensation which may have to be paid could well depend whether the act of cancellation would become more expensive than the act of continuing with the Concorde. Even the British Aircraft Corporation have said that in their view the difference between cancellation and continuation is only a matter of £35 million, without taking into account any damages which might have to be paid to the French Government.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, one final question. He knows more about this plane, I suppose, than almost anyone else in this House, and I have frequently seen him wearing the Concorde tie. Whatever the financial arguments may be, I have a sneaking feeling that he himself would be sorry to see this aircraft cancelled. One accepts that when one is in Government one is obliged to accept decisions which are unpalatable, but I hope that he will be able to give the House the assurance that on Concorde the Government will not take a decision with the French Government until after the new French Government comes into power following the new Presidential Election. Clearly any decision of such a nature as this should be taken with the wholehearted consent of a Government. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me the assurance for which I ask. It seems such an elementary and na¿ve question to ask that I hardly dare ask it, but in some odd way I thought it might be desirable to ask it, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me an affirmative reply.
9.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to all the opinions expressed. I, with others, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, for giving your Lordships the opportunity of expressing your views. I

1353
am particularly grateful to him for saying that he does not expect me, on this occasion, to give definitive answers to all the questions that have been raised. My approach to this issue, as is that of my right honourable friend and indeed the whole Government, is that we want to get at the truth. That is the reason why those figures were published. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have suggested that the manner of publication was mistaken, and I appreciate why they make that charge. But I would say that before we took office such was the weight of pressure built up for cancellation that the publication of these figures has given us a valuable opportunity to review the situation properly. In my judgment publication has been justified.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? Would he agree that while it is obviously vital to publish figures, one should get them right? The charge that we are making is that they were not right.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the figures which were published were figures which had been prepared before we took office. It would have been wrong if we had tampered with them in any way. We thought that it was right to say, "These are the figures. Now let us look at what has been said," and that is what we are doing. We now want to get at the truth; but the truth in this matter, as in quite a number of other human affairs, is many sided. Nothing could be more complex than the economics of Concorde, and nothing could be more mistaken than to consider them only in the short term. My duty, I conceive, tonight is to put some aspects which ought, in my view, as a member of the Government with some responsibility for looking at these matters, to be considered as well as those bare figures put forward in the Statement by my right honourable friend.
First, about the aircraft itself, as others have said, we are not here talking of some airy-fairy project which might or might not do what is claimed for it. We are talking of an aeroplane which is actually flying and which, on the basis of flight measurements and assessments made to date, shows every prospect of meeting the contractual guarantees to British Airways.
1354
As to costs, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, put them, I thought, in the proper perspective when he said £35 million a year so far. There are some people who talk of expensive white elephants. No doubt, if one looks at these things from a certain standpoint, the wonderful St. Paul's Cathedral could be called an expensive white elephant. Certainly the seat/mile costs of worshipping God could have been brought down if Christopher Wren had designed a tin-roofed mission hut. But he took a wider and more hopeful view of mankind's future.
In my view, mankind in the future will want to travel, safely and comfortably, at more than the speed of sound. We shall not be able to stop that. It is the proper development of that facility with which we should now be concerned. If we cancel Concorde Britain will have no influence whatsoever in this important aspect of mankind's future activity. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the longer-term view and the longer-term market must be borne in mind. Moreover, if we are assessing sales and profitability let us remember the markets generated in the years ahead for spares by an aircraft sold now. Britain's exports are now profiting by sales of spares for aircraft types sold 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
Much has been made of the British Airways' estimate of the effect on their finances of the Concorde operation—and I choose those words deliberately. They did not say anything about a loss; they talked about the effect on their finances. Each airline must do its own sums and British Airways are looking again at their assessments, but there are other aspects of those original figures which, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said, should be borne in mind.
A significant proportion of the British Airways' figures which have been bandied about relate not to the failure of Concorde but to its success. It is an assessment of the unsuccessful way in which other services would lose first-class passengers to the Concorde service. One survey suggests that from 65 per cent. to 90 per cent. of first-class passengers would prefer to pay a first-class fare plus a 10 per cent. surcharge and travel by Concorde. Even more interesting was the

1355
number of economy passengers who, given something worth while extra in terms of speed, would also pay that surcharge. Some 35 per cent. to 60 per cent. depending upon the route, said that they were interested. Incidentally, one may well reflect upon the hypothetical situation if British Airways did not operate Concorde and Air France did. The British, the American and the other services would still lose their first-class passengers to the Concorde service—and it would be a quite unqualified loss in that case.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about the prizes to be won. I am reminded of the evidence which was given to the Congressional Committee on Science and Aeronautics on February 22, 1974, when one expert witness said that if supersonic aircraft are operated but not by the Americans from now to 1985 that will represent a potential loss of revenue to United States' airlines of up to 30 billion dollars through the loss of their first-class passengers to the supersonic services. There is one other point to be made if one is considering operating costs, before we condemn a particular aeroplane because an airline is making out a case for financial assistance as British Airways are doing. Both Pan Am and TWA are now making a case to the American Government for subsidies wholly on the basis of 747 operations—not Concorde operations.
Noble Lords have asked about cancellation costs. The figure of £80 million which we found had been reached is the best estimate of strict contractual liability, plus statutory redundancy payments and unemployment benefits. They are being re-examined and no adjustment has as yet been made, but there would undoubtedly be additional indirect costs and social dis-benefits. The Lord Mayor of Bristol, when he led a deputation to the Prime Minister, referred to calculations made by the Bristol Polytechnic which estimated £67 million as the cost in the Bristol area alone in income tax, social security benefits et cetera and the consequent multiplier effect, all in addition to the strict contractual cost. Moreover, as the noble Earl said, various figures have been used in the TSR.2 case as to the cancellation costs, but one must bear in mind the consequential losses
1356
from the subsequent purchase and then cancellation of the F.111 aircraft. I agree with what the noble Earl said about that.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke of ancillary benefits, and he had the courage to use the term "spin-off". It is now a little old-fashioned to talk about spin-off, but there has been a very real one. If I may mention it, I had it brought home to me when I travelled up to Stockport last year on British Railways' high-speed train. At 125 m.p.h. someone threw a brick at the cab window and in the ordinary way that window would have been smashed, the driver would probably have been severely injured, and there may have been tragedy on the train. In fact, the cabin window withstood that impact. They did not know who I was and I inquired about the material. I was delighted to be told that it was a material developed for the Concorde aircraft.
My Lords, I want to say something about pollution. I am second to none in wanting a cleaner world and a more pleasing environment. But I wish some of those who spend so much time and money in frightening people about, for example, the effect on the upper atmosphere ozone content of Concorde would spend more time in picking up empty Coca-Cola tins from the street. Moreover, my admiration for the high-minded attitude of the anti-Concorde project is decidedly lessened when I read in their latest expensive advertisement that we should hand over our share of the Concorde to the French for nothing. Apparently all their doubts about the environmental damage dissolve if they are caused by the French and not by the British.
The various options open to us are to be considered in depth, I assure noble Lords opposite, in the light of the quite remarkable number of representations which have been made to us directly and indirectly and, of course, in the light of what has been said here this evening. I will not confirm or deny the figures which the noble Earl gave. I will simply say that they are being studied, but that before a decision is reached the latest figures can be offered. These options must also be considered with our French partners. Talks are taking place at official level, but the examination at Ministerial level is delayed by the French

1357
Presidential Election. I cannot give a precise date when my right honourable friend will have his next meeting with French partners, but I can say that there will be no decision until that examination has taken place. I hope that gives the noble Earl the assurance for which he has asked.
I have listened now to many delegations, mostly of trade unionists, who are proud of Concorde and want to see it in service and selling to the airlines. They all stress, however, that it is not simply a matter of retaining jobs. It is not a matter of empty pride or prestige. It is more to do with the basic confidence of the British people to keep abreast of technical developments and to maintain our place in the world. Many underdeveloped countries are looking forward to getting a better living from higher commodity prices. Countries hitherto dependent on peasant economies are developing their secondary industries. If there is any scope left for us in the world and if we are to pay our way we shall need to concentrate more and more on science-based sophisticated production. I hope that it will be against that background that we shall make the eventual decision on Concorde.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Representation of the People (No. 2) Act.
Ayr County Council Order Confirmation Act.
St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act.
Renfrew County Council Order Confirmation Act.
Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act.
Glasgow Corporation (Control of Parking &c.) Order Confirmation Act.
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act.
Zetland County Council Act.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.
  ISLAMABAD AND CANBERRA: ENTRY CERTIFICATES
  ISLAMABAD AND CANBERRA: ENTRY CERTIFICATES
  AIRCRAFT FUEL SUPPLIES
  AIRCRAFT FUEL SUPPLIES
  NORTH SEA OIL AND TREATY OF ROME
  NORTH SEA OIL AND TREATY OF ROME
  E.E.C.: THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  E.E.C.: THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  THERMAL REACTORS: ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
  THERMAL REACTORS: ADVISORY BOARD REPORT
  SICKNESS BENEFIT: LATE CLAIMS
  SICKNESS BENEFIT: LATE CLAIMS
  CLEANING OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY
  CLEANING OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY
  BEEF PRICES
  BEEF PRICES
  VICTORIA CROSS AND GEORGE CROSS HOLDERS
  VICTORIA CROSS AND GEORGE CROSS HOLDERS
  THE CASE OF MR. LUKE DOUGHERTY
  THE CASE OF MR. LUKE DOUGHERTY
  LAW REFORM: BAIL PROCEDURES AND YOUNG ADULT OFFENDERS
  LAW REFORM: BAIL PROCEDURES AND YOUNG ADULT OFFENDERS
  JAPANESE SEAWEED
  JAPANESE SEAWEED
  E.E.C. CO-ORDINATION OF POLICIES
  E.E.C. CO-ORDINATION OF POLICIES
  BEEF PRICES AND PRODUCTION
  BEEF PRICES AND PRODUCTION
  PIG PRODUCTION
  PIG PRODUCTION
  PIG MEAT IMPORTS
  PIG MEAT IMPORTS
  E.E.C. MEMBERSHIP AND FOOD PRICES
  E.E.C. MEMBERSHIP AND FOOD PRICES