Sitting of 21 April 1980

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

    Economic Activity
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the level of economic activity in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): No, Sir. The Government's economic polices are designed to reduce inflation and create the conditions for soundly based economic expansion.
    Mr. Jones: In Wales, is not the consequence of the Budget a decline in economic activity and a likely surge of unemployment? Will not this hurt the economy of Wales, given the steel cutbacks that we have already had? Did the right hon. Gentleman make clear to his Cabinet colleagues that the Budget
    2
    would be a deeply injurious blow to the prospects of working people in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not accept that the Budget is damaging to Wales. It is designed to restore economic health after the mess left to us by the previous Government and to defeat inflation. The Budget contained a notable package of measures for small businesses which will be of particular advantage to Wales. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the unemployment trend was rising steeply when we came into office.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: After 12 months at the Welsh Office, is the Secretary of State now in a position to say who is responsible for the high unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: As I pointed out in my first speech from the Dispatch Box, the first brief that I was given on entering office warned that unemployment would go on rising substantially, that we were on a rising trend of unemployment in Wales and that unemployment had more than doubled under the previous Government. It will take time to change round the Welsh economy after the mess left by our predecessors.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the great interest in economic activity displayed by Labour Members, will my right hon. Friend say whether they have supported his request to the TUC to call off its day of national sabotage on 14 May?
    Mr. Edwards: I am bound to say that I hope they have. Perhaps one or other of the Labour Members will say whether they support this lunatic step, which can do only more damage to the economy in Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: Following his visit to Gwynedd last week, does the Secretary of State now fully appreciate the likely drop in economic activity in that part of Wales? Will he bring forward an urgent programme of capital expenditure in the public sector, in order, at least in the short term, to make up for this fall?
    Mr. Edwards: I am very much aware of the serious problems facing that part of Wales. We had a useful and constructive discussion with the local authorities, and I value the way in which they approach these problems. We shall consider very carefully the proposals that they put to us. I have already told the hon. Member that we shall be reviewing regional development status in areas when the situation changes.
    Mr. Alec Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that at least there is unanimity among us over our dissatisfaction with the level of economic activity in Wales. With 92,000 unemployed, and 50,000 redundancies announced since the Secretary of State took office, how can he justify the cuts in public expenditure of £26 million in industry, energy, trade and employment between this year and 1982–83? Can he tell us what effect this is likely to have on economic activity in Wales?
    May I add that Labour Members support the trade unions and the people of Wales in their determination and in the actions that they propose on 14 May?
    Mr. Edwards: I think that the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made will do considerable additional damage to the Welsh economy. [Interruption.] It is the kind of encouragement and incitement to industrial damage and disruption that can only be harmful to Wales. It is completely in line with the previous language used by right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches about the creation of industrial deserts. It seems to be their object to worsen the atmosphere in Wales and to make things more difficult.
    4
    As for the redundancy notifications, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, as he has quoted a figure of 50,000, that these are not a firm guide to actual job losses; indeed, some 6,000 of those redundancy notifications have been withdrawn since they were made. We have announced—and I have announced—a massive programme of additional measures. Expenditure on the Welsh Development Agency is up, and we have announced a very large measure of remedial action in the steel closure areas.

    Enterprise Zones
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh local authorities have notified his Department that they are interested in exploring the possibility of enterprise zones within their areas.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Two, apart from Swansea city council and West Glamorgan county council.
    Mr. Hooson: While I realise that it will take time for the success of enterprise zones to be evaluated, may I ask my right hon Friend to ensure that other possible sites are being identified for extension of this policy?
    Mr. Edwards: As my hon. Friend knows, this is an experiment. We have suggested one initial site. We are now consulting the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and other public bodies about possible alternative sites, and we shall consider carefully any representations that are made to us.
    Mr. Anderson: On the basis of the current discussions with the Swansea city council, when does the Secretary of State expect the proposed enterprise zone to come into effect? Will he indicate any possible changes in the guidelines, and will there be an opportunity to discuss those guidelines in the House?
    Mr. Edwards: We hope to complete the process of consultation by the time that the House rises for the Summer Recess. Subject to the legislation going through, we hope that the enterprise zones will be in existence by the end of the year. I note that the hon. Gentleman has written to me suggesting some changes in boundaries if the Swansea valley site is selected. I am encouraged by the hon.

    5
    Gentleman's suggestion that the area might be extended. That suggests that perhaps he and others see virtues in this experiment.
    Sir Raymond Gower: As special measures will be taken in areas where there have been steel closures or the scaling down of activity and as there will be this special experiment in this enterprise zone, and possibly in another enterprise zone, will that not place some burden on agencies, such as the Welsh Development Agency, and possibly on the other parts of Wales which are in neither the steel areas nor the enterprise zone? Will he keep a watch on this aspect, because it could easily be overlooked?
    Mr. Edwards: The Welsh Development Agency is not directly responsible for the management of the enterprise zone, though it will be carrying out some land clearance and site preparation in the area if the Swansea valley site is chosen.
    I am aware of the additional burdens placed on the agency and I have authorised the recruitment of additional staff for the agency, which tells me that it has the resources to take the action that it thinks is necessary at present.
    Mr. Alec Jones: If one or more of these enterprise zones is established in Wales, where will the public expenditure to finance them come from? Will it be additional money to the Secretary of State's budget or will it mean cuts in other items in that budget? If the latter is the case, some of the already poor areas in Wales will have to finance the steel closure areas.
    Mr. Edwards: We made it absolutely clear that, as far as the 100 per cent. rate relief is concerned, the local authorities will not have to meet that cost. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not coming from other parts of my budget.

    New Firms
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many firms and of what nationality, known to his Department, have been set up in Wales since May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Ninety-two firms are known to my Department to have set up in Wales since May 1979, of which 15 are known to have started production. Of the total, 79 are of British
    6
    origin, five American, three Swedish, two German, one Canadian, one Swiss and one Danish.
    Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates a new interest in Wales, not only from those within the United Kingdom but from abroad, and shows an awakening of greater confidence in Wales and in what the Government are doing in the Principality to stimulate industrial development.
    Mr. Edwards: I think that it gives the lie to the "industrial desert" assertion. I am glad to report that interest continues, because we have made 30 formal allocations in the first quarter of this year.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this position is inadequate when Wales, under this Administration, is facing a redundancy level of 1,000 jobs for every week that the Government are in office? Far from there being an indication of new interest, is it not a fact that most of the factories that have already set up were under negotiation—some virtually at the end of negotiation—when there was a change of Administration? As so many of the new firms that come to Wales go to Government factories, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if press reports that the WDA is to sell off £66 million worth of factories prove to be true, the occupants rather than property investors will be given the first opportunity to buy those factories?
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman left us a few good things, not a total picture of devastation, when he left office. Some of the jobs were in the pipeline. As I pointed out, there were 30 formal allocations in the first quarter of this year, and that shows a continuing interest in Wales.
    As to the proposal by the agency to sell factories, those who are occupying them will be given an opportunity to buy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that private sector contributions to the finances of the Welsh Development Agency would not be welcome. They would clearly substantially enlarge the scope for its activities and should be encouraged.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Do not these figures suggest how lunatic would be the policy of import controls, as advocated

    7
    by some sections of the Labour Party, as they would tend to discourage inward investment?
    Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State tell the House to what extent the Welsh Development Agency was involved in attracting the companies to which he referred in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best)? Will he also refer this matter to the Secretary of State for Industry, with particular reference to the Northern region, which has been pressing for a Northern development agency?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a breakdown, but the Welsh Development Agency clearly played an active role in attracting many of these companies, and many of them are occupying WDA factories. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is well aware of the WDA's record and of what has been happening in Wales.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the regulations governing the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on roads for which his Department is directly or indirectly responsible.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): I do not think that this will prove necessary. As regards trunk roads, the regulations for the provision of crossings are applied flexibly and with particular regard to the safety of pedestrians. The provision of pedestrian crossings on other roads is the responsibility of local authorities.
    Sir. A. Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of the village of Gwernymynydd will be extremely grateful to him for the decision that he has taken to provide a pedestrian crossing on the road that is to be straightened out there? None the less, does he accept that it is becoming unreasonably difficult to get consent to pedestrian crossings across trunk roads, even in cases where the need is absolutely paramount? Is there not a need for a reappraisal of priorities here?
    Mr. Roberts: I am grateful that the people of Gwernymynydd are pleased
    8
    about the pedestrian crossing. I assure my hon. Friend that the safety of pedestrians will remain the yardstick for decisions to be made on pedestrian crossings.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage the fostering and growth in the use of the Welsh language.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I refer the hon. Member to the speech I made at Llanrwst on 15 April. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and I am having it printed for wider circulation. In this speech, among other things, I announced a major increase in the Government's financial support for the language.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the statement made in Llanrwst, as far as it goes, and recognise that it goes a substantial step forward? None the less, is he aware that we were also interested to note his words when he said that education through the medium of the Welsh language gave an additional educational experience to a child? In these circumstances, will he give a lead from the Dispatch Box in suggesting to parents of children who are about to enter school that they should actively consider the possibility of sending their children to a bilingual Welsh language primary or nursery school?
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for adding his encouraging support to a number of other congratulatory messages that I have received from those who are concerned about the future of the Welsh language. I made it clear in my speech that parental consultation is to be an important part of the future role of education authorities and that they must take full account of the views of parents in this matter. I think that my speech clearly indicated that there was nothing in our experience in education in Wales that suggested that learning Welsh could be harmful to children. In many parts of Wales, it must clearly be of considerable advantage that they should be able to speak Welsh.
    Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend know of the particular pleasure caused by his announcement that financial provision will be made for the project in Nant Gwrtheyrn for a Welsh language centre

    9
    and for teaching the Welsh language in this village?
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, it is now up to those involved to raise private sector money to enable me to produce the grant which would enable them to round off the appeal and meet the total. It is now up to the individuals to see whether they can make a success of this project.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that many people in Wales felt that the best boost to the Welsh language would be the fourth television channel? As he sees the evidence of lawbreaking around Wales as a result of the Government's decision, is he beginning to realise the damage that the cynical contempt shown by the present Government has done to relations in Wales? How does he explain the fact that the Conservatives fought an election campaign on introducing the fourth channel and then abandoned that decision within two weeks of coming into office? Is he aware that such a blatant abuse of the democratic process plays into the hands of the militants by making ordinary law-abiding people feel cheated?
    Mr. Edwards: I have justified and explained the change of policy that we announced in the speech that I made at Llanrwst. Indeed, I have done so in the House of Commons, so I do not need to repeat myself. But I hope that the implications behind the right hon. Gentleman's words from the Dispatch Box just now were not that extremism might in any sense be justified. That would really be a monstrous suggestion.

    Council House Sales
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council-owned dwellings in Wales have been purchased by their tenants during the past 12 months; and whether this constitutes an upturn in the numbers of such sales.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): In 1979 1,187 council-owned dwellings were sold, an increase of 156 compared with the 1978 figure.
    Sir R. Gower: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that some of the authorities which are now selling houses are a little inexperienced in this sort of work? Will
    10
    his Department give all possible advice and help in appropriate circumstances?
    Mr. Roberts: Some 17 authorities in Wales are selling council houses. They are accumulating experience. Obviously, we expect a considerable increase in sales when the Housing Bill is enacted.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is not one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman expects an increase in the sales of council houses that the Government are forcing up rents to incredible levels? He has already imposed a £2 a week average increase by withdrawing subsidies, and in the next year or two we shall see in the valley communities the £20-a-week council house rent. That might well force people to buy their properties, but it does nothing for the homeless of Wales. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole of his housing investment programme for the next year?
    Mr. Roberts: No, we shall certainly not do that. But the reason why we expect an increase in sales is that under the Housing Bill we are for the first time giving to council tenants a right to buy. From our experience in our constituencies, we know that there are many people who wish to buy their own homes and who have hitherto been denied that opportunity by their councils and local authorities.
    Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. Friend make arrangements in areas in which local authorities have opposed this policy to ensure that tenants will have the right to buy their council houses and flats?
    Mr. Roberts: There will be no question but that council tenants will have the right to buy once the Housing Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Anderson: Has the Under-Secretary seen the warnings from the respected chairman of the Council for the Principality that if the proposed cuts by the Welsh Office of the housing investment programme continue, this will mean a complete halt to council house building in Wales next year? Even if this is only partially true and if council house sales continue, do not the Administration have some concern for those who are at the receiving end—young couples and those on the waiting lists—who will find it increasingly impossible to have a decent roof over their heads?
    Mr. Roberts: It is not true that the Government's housing allocations for this year will mean the end of council house building. It is entirely up to the local authorities concerned to decide what they do with the money that has been allocated to them. Hon. Members will know that every authority in Wales has this year been allocated 80 per cent., at least, of its previous year's allocation, as promised by the previous Government in November 1978——
    Mr. Rowlands: Making 37 per cent. less.
    Mr. Roberts: I hear the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) objecting from a sedentary position. I assure him that his authority has had 92 per cent. of its allocation for last year.
    Mr. Rowlands: In real terms?
    Mr. Roberts: Every authority can increase the money allocated to it, by selling council houses.

    Mobility of Industry
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of firms which have decided to move, within Wales, from areas which no longer attract development grants to development areas or special development areas.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: There is no realistic basis on which to make such an estimate. I am aware of only one company which has decided to move within Wales as a result of the changes in assisted area boundaries and the associated changes in regional development grants.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Minister inform the House whether the Ofrex company is considering moving, perhaps out of Wales? Will he also bear in mind that in the Ogmore constituency it is expected that we shall have 4,000 redundant steel workers as a result of the rundown by the British Steel Corporation at Port Talbot and that we could very well have a further 5,000 redundant miners within the Ogmore constituency? Will he dispel the rumours about the future of the Wyndham Western colliery in the Nant-y-Moel area of the Ogmore valley, which could mean redundancy there and an
    12
    industrial desert in the Ogmore constituency, because in the Ogmore valley it is the only employer of labour?
    Mr. Edwards: It is true that Ofrex Engineering Ltd. has written to me arguing that the changes in policy could influence future development at its premises. I have already said a number of times in the House and elsewhere that we are considering the future of the development area status of the areas affected by steel closures. They cover the areas referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Specific mine closures are a matter for the NCB.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, even since his visit to my constituency recently, yet another factory has announced its closure—the Spillers factory near Pwllheli? In those circumstances, is not the time right to look at the whole of regional policy and incentives to see whether a new package can be put together in order to maintain, sustain and develop companies in development areas rather than lose them, which is our current experience?
    Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although regional incentives have an important role to play, they have not been the answer to his particular part of the United Kingdom in the past. They certainly do not offer an automatic solution to the current difficulties that are faced there. But I have already told the hon. Member that I am carefully considering the representations that have been made to me, and I repeat that assurance.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of new jobs likely to be created in Wales in 1980–81.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Nearly 19,000 manufacturing jobs are currently estimated to arise in Wales over the next three to four years from projects which have been allocated Government-financed factories or offered selective financial assistance. About 4,000 of these jobs should materialise within the current year.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is not the right hon. Gentleman becoming something of a job charlatan in going around Wales and

    13
    speaking of these jobs in the pipeline—18,000 jobs over the next four years—when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has just pointed out, about 44,000 net redundancies have been notified in a mere 10 months of the present Government? Are not some extra special measures now needed, given the jobs crisis that Wales is facing?
    Mr. Edwards: That is why, of course, we have announced special measures. The hon. Gentleman repeatedly seems to cast doubts on these jobs. They are important projects. They are Government-financed and aided projects. They are well spread in Wales. Incidentally, they are only the manufacturing projects resulting from Government financial assistance for factories. In this total no account is taken of other jobs, particularly in the service sector. I give just one example. There are 600 jobs coming to Cardiff through the new AA offices. Plenty of other similar developments are taking place.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that the figures my right hon. Friend has given do not include any natural growth that might occur in existing firms and companies which do not apply for some grant or for some new building?
    Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely right, and that is the point that I have just made. They do not include jobs in projects that do not receive financial assistance or are not allocated Government-financed factories: nor do they include jobs in the service industries.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What are the prospects for school leavers? Can the right hon. Gentleman name any new projects for the Deeside and Buckley area in northeast Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: The Manpower Services Commission hopes to meet the guarantees to school leavers. The hon. Gentleman knows that Shotton has some extremely attractive sites and is one of the best locations in Britain. Projects such as the titanium and Point of Air projects have been announced. The hon. Gentleman asked for specific projects, and I have referred to two.
    Mr. Hooson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the constant stream of predictions of gloom and doom from the Opposition have done nothing to help
    14
    create jobs in Wales for the coming years?
    Mr. Edwards: Incitements to industrial action, such as have been made by the Opposition this afternoon, will certainly not help the creation of jobs in Wales in the coming year. I couple that with the previous talk of industrial deserts. Such talk is doing untold harm to Wales and is making the job of creating fresh jobs in Wales much more difficult. I agree with my hon. Friend that such predictions are disgraceful.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if any damage is being done to Wales it is being done by a Government of whom the Secretary of State is a prominent member? Will he accept that some jobs in the pipeline do not materialise and that even when they do they often take longer to materialise than had been envisaged? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to trot around Wales talking about 18,000 jobs when he knows that they should be compared with the 50,000 redundancies that have been announced this year. When are we likely to see a fair match or, as the Prime Minister might say, "a broad balance" between the number of redundancies and the number of jobs created by the Government?
    Mr. Edwards: It is pretty cool to be lectured by the right hon. Member from the Dispatch Box about things that do not materialise when jobs are in the pipeline. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that of the 50,000 notified redundancies 6,000 have been withdrawn. They do not all materialise, either.

    West Glamorgan
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further measures he is considering to meet the jobs crisis in West Glamorgan.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have already announced a major programme of industrial site preparation and advance factory building in West Glamorgan, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is reviewing the assisted area grading of the areas affected by job losses at Port Talbot.
    Mr. Anderson: Reviewing, reviewing and reviewing. For how long will the Govment dally and fiddle while the economies of the steel areas burn? Were we not promised last December that a decision

    15
    on regional development status would be made by the end of January? All the key factors are known. The position is becoming worse and worse. What is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. Edwards: All the factors are not known, because agreements have not yet been reached between the British Steel Corporation and the unions. I have repeatedly made clear that we shall announce decisions on regrading very quickly after firm decisions have been made about the future of Port Talbot and Llanwern.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take account of the decision in the British Steel Corporation, and I would have some sympathy if that were the only possible tragedy confronting West Glamorgan. We are already facing redundancies at Louis Marx and——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he must ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman is giving information.
    Mr. Williams: As long as there is an interrogative in the sentence, it constitutes a question. Is he aware——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Williams: As I was saying, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of job losses apart from those in the steel industry? Is he aware that jobs have been lost among such long-standing employers as Louis Marks and Mettoy in Swansea and that there is a risk to jobs in Metal Box at Neath? Will he make an immediate declaration that West Glamorgan will be given special development area status?
    Mr. Edwards: I am aware of other job losses, but I am also aware that current unemployment levels in the area do not justify special development area status. I am sure that it would be in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents if all the relevant facts were made available before that decision is taken.
    Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the steel strike the average loss per worker was about £1,300? Does he not agree that nobody wins in a strike, particularly one of such
    16
    magnitude and duration? Does he not also agree that all the Opposition's protestations about the day of action merely show that they have utterly separated themselves from reality? Is there not now a new understanding that one does not preserve jobs by going on strike?
    Mr. Edwards: More tragic than the financial loss is the fact that the strike weakened the BSC even further and made additional job losses more likely. Every strike threatens jobs and that is why it is so wrong and wicked that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) should encourage them.

    Council for the Principality
    Mr. AlanWilliams asked the Secretary of State for Wales when next he intends to meet the Council for the Principality.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no immediate plans to meet the Council for the Principality, though I expect to meet its representatives on the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance when it meets on 15 May.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us his estimate of the cost of the Clegg award as it affects teachers in Wales? Will he compensate Welsh local authorities for those costs, or does he expect the cost to be met by further cuts in education or by the sacking of teachers?
    Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman would receive a more helpful and detailed answer if he asked a specific rather than a general question. In making their allocation to local authorities, the Government made estimates of the likely cost of a Clegg award. Provision has been made in the financial allocation to local authorities, from which they can plan.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the cut in the housing improvement programme in Wales of £28·5 million it is impossible for local authorities to complete as many houses next year as they did this year? What message will he give to the Council for the Principality and to the homeless people of Wales when the Government will sell more houses than they are building?
    Mr. Edwards: Under the Labour Government there was a declining trend in house building. We have continued those policies and met their guarantee of an 80 per cent. allocation. I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary—[Interruption.] Again, we get an intervention from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) from a sedentary position. His local authority has received 92 per cent. of its previous allocation.
    Mr. Best: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, given the percentage of poor housing stock in Wales, the emphasis should be not on new building but on improving the existing housing stock?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have just announced an important new initiative that will help local authorities to improve houses for sale.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that 15,000 to 20.000 building workers are unemployed in Wales, that 60,000 families are on waiting lists for council houses and that it is therefore ridiculous to pay people to be out of work?
    Mr. Edwards: Jobs will not be created if we cannot reduce public expenditure, public borrowing and interest rates. Such reductions must remain the Government's central objectives.

    Self-Employed Persons and Small Firms
    Mr Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to help the self-employed and small firms in Wales during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government in their fiscal and other policies are giving high priority to helping the self-employed and small businesses. My Department and the agencies for which I am responsible recognise the importance of the small business sector in our economy in Wales and will give every possible assistance and encouragement.
    Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply, but I am sure he is aware that many self-employed
    18
    people and small firms in Wales are finding life very difficult these days because of high interest rates——
    Mr. Russell Kerr: And many other things.
    Mr. Howells: The Secretary of State is responsible for Wales on behalf of the Welsh people. Will he take the matter up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade him to lower the bank interest rate forthwith to help the economy in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad that I shall have the hon. Gentleman's support in all our measures to reduce public sector borrowing, which is essential if we are to reduce interest rates. I am glad that he regards it as an important priority. I hope that he will also agree that the Chancellor announced an important package of measures for small businesses in the Budget.
    Mr. Hooson: In seeking to help small businesses, particularly in Mid-Wales, the area covered by the rural development board, will the Secretary of State discuss with the board the possibility of extending its activities to encourage service businesses no less than manufacturing ones?
    Mr. Edwards: I have discussed the encouragement of service ventures with the agency and with the board. Under the Act they have the power to support service industries, and I know that in planning their industrial locations they are taking increasing account of the need for a service element on the sites as well as purely manufacturing development.

  INDUSTRY

    Hosiery and Knitwear Industries
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take steps to assist the hosiery and knitwear industries.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): The Government's economic policies are designed to deal with the causes of inflation and encourage industries throughout the country to become more competitive and so expand.
    Mr. Janner: When the Secretary of State went to Leicester last week and

    19
    visited hosiery and knitwear factories, was he told of the deep recession into which those traditional industries are sinking and of the high unemployment among them? Will he do his best to help those industries, not least by ensuring that VAT is not charged on children's clothing and that the tremendously high proposed increases in gas and other fuel prices will be cushioned for them?
    Mr. Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend visited the city, he was indeed told of the problems faced by the industries there. He made a careful note of them. I know that he is keenly aware of, and interested in, the problems. The hon. and learned Member's second point, about VAT on children's clothing, is a matter for the Treasury. I shall ensure, as I have on behalf of the clothing industry already, that its views are well understood. The effect of the Government's fuel policies is a matter for the Department of Energy.
    Mr. Dalyell: What will be done about the problems that I have raised five times in the House in recent months about origin labelling? Do the Government understand that a sweater such as the one I am wearing may be labelled so as to make one think that it is Shetland wear when, in fact, it may come from Indonesia or Hong Kong? What will the Government do to make it clear where woollen textile imports come from?
    Mr. Mitchell: If origin labelling on the garment is incorrect, there is an established procedure for prosecution by the inspectors of the local authorities and, if need be, for confiscation of the goods. If the hon. Gentleman is referring generally to labelling not being provided or being misleading, that is a matter for the Minister for Consumer Affairs.

    Post Office (Statutory Monopolies)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the conclusions of his review of the statutory monopolies enjoyed by the Post Office.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am relieved to hear that, because my right hon. Friend was promising us a statement about the monopoly of the mails earlier this year. Can my hon. Friend assure us that when my right hon. Friend makes his statement he will take into account the fact that the Monopolies Commission has now concluded, as if we needed it to tell us, that the monopoly of the mails is acting against the public interest? Will the Minister draw the appropriate conclusions as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will, of course, have noted that point. As for the length of time that it has taken for this matter to be completed, it is complex and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the implications of any decision must be considered carefully.
    Mr. Armstrong: Will the Minister remember that any application of the free market philosophy to the Post Office without regard to the social consequences will bring great disadvantage to people in rural areas, particularly areas such as Weardale in my constituency, and that the Post Office must be retained as a great public service for the community and not be subject just to the free market philosophy?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take account of the comments by the right hon. Gentleman but also of the need, both in rural areas and elsewhere, for efficiency in the operation of the postal service.
    Mr. Renton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social consequences of getting mail delivered in rural areas within a day or two instead of 10 days or a fortnight as at present would also be beneficial? Is it his intention to allow private firms to go a little further and to bid for the handling of mail in inner cities and between big cities? Will that be done on a competitive tendering basis?
    Mr. Mitchell: These are all matters for the result of the review, though my right hon. Friend will no doubt note what my hon. Friend has said. As for speeding up the process in rural areas, if there are examples of delays of as long as 10 days I hope that my hon. Friend will draw them to my attention or to that of my right hon. Friend.

  TRADE

    Trans-Siberian Container Service
    Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps are being taken, whether through the EEC or otherwise, to combat the damage to free world liner trades between Europe and the Far East arising from the non-commercial rates quoted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for its trans-Siberian container service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The first step is to develop a common appreciation among the Governments in Europe and in the Far East of the extent of the threat from the trans-Siberian land bridge. The matter is under discussion within the OECD.
    Mr. Lyell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I ask him to remember that the USSR already takes 30 per cent. of the westbound trade and 24 per cent. of the eastbound trade, according to the General Council of British Shipping, and that urgent action is therefore necessary? What is the next step that my hon. Friend has in mind?
    Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend refers to certain figures. I think that he should make it plain that it is the Japanese trade about which he is speaking. The next step must be to collect appropriate information, because the information we have is not entirely comprehensive, and then to consider within the Community to what extent the Community as a whole can take any action that it might feel appropriate.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is this not another example of the Russians subsidising an activity to the detriment of the free world and of Britain in particular?
    Mr. Tebbit: Since Russia does not issue financial statistics of such operations, it is difficult to say positively that it is subsidised, but certainly the rates offered raise that suspicion in most people's minds.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    British Orchestras (Russian Tours)
    Mr. Freudasked the Lord Privy Seal how many British orchestras have toured the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Arts Council or British Council sponsorship; what has been the cost of this sponsorship; and how many Soviet cultural visits have been arranged in each of the last four months.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): No British orchestras have toured the USSR and no Soviet cultural visits have been arranged under Arts Council or British Council sponsorship in the last four months. Under the terms of the charter, the Arts Council is not permitted to provide funds for cultural visits and tours outside Britain.
    Mr. Freud: The House will be pleased with that reply, because the Minister will know that it is different from the reply that he would have given three months ago. Can he tell us how many tours have been cancelled?
    Mr. Blaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a question on that point. I cannot answer it off the cuff.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister take such opportunities as he gets to inform the Soviet authorities that cultural contacts with their country would be much more welcome if they were to grant human rights to people who live there and in particular if they allowed Andrei Sakharov, Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak out of exile?
    Mr. Blaker: We have made our position clear a number of times on that subject to the Soviet authorities. We particularly deplore the fact that the Soviet authorities are conducting a "clean-up", as they describe it, of the places in which various events connected with the Olympic Games are intended to occur, so that there is no contact between people they regard as undesirable and visitors to the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foreign Office make it clear that the Soviet swimmers who are here at present are welcome?
    Mr. Blaker: We take the view that we should set ourselves against events which would enhance Soviet prestige or give the impression that nothing in our relationship with the Soviet Union had changed. That is why we have taken our position on the Olympic Games. The Soviet Government have made it perfectly clear that they intend, if they possibly can, to make a big propaganda bonanza out of the Games.
    Mr. English: While the Minister is getting his civil servants to give him a proper brief to answer the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), will he include in his comments the orchestras that are sponsored by other organisations and are receiving public money, such as from the BBC?
    Mr. Blaker: I am not aware that any orchestras sponsored by the BBC have toured the Soviet Union in recent months. Perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) had in mind the proposed tour by the English Chamber Orchestra. On our advice, that tour was cancelled after the intervention of the British Council. With the assistance of the British Council, the English Chamber Orchestra was able to find other engagements in order to avoid any loss of revenue.
    Mr. Faulds——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow an extra minute at the end of the next series of questions in order to call the Front Bench on this question.
    Mr. Faulds: Thank you for accommodating me, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister accept that this is an area in which we on the Labour side of the House feel that displeasure at Soviet aggression should be made clear by keeping the Soviet Union culturally at arm's length, for a while?
    Mr. Blaker: I believe that the Government's policies have had that effect. The Soviet authorities can have no doubt that we have demonstrated to them our displeasure at the events in Afghanistan by terminating various contracts in the cultural field and in other areas.

  THE ARTS IN WALES
  Mr. Bestasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further measures he intends to stimulate the arts in Wales.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 March 1980.
  Mr. Best: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the commitment that the Government have made to the arts in Wales. Will he look very carefully to see whether Government money gives sufficient opportunity in Wales to Welsh dramatists, artists and producers?
  Mr. Macfarlane: I find it difficult to believe that Welshmen are incapable of looking after their own interests, where-ever they may be. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, because the Government do not control the grant once it is distributed to the Welsh Arts Council. The use of the grant must remain the council's responsibility.
  Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern about the future of the Welsh National Youth Orchestra, which has a magnificent track record? Will he save us from the philistines in the Welsh Office?
  Mr. Macfarlane: I have a feeling that the hon. Member has made that remark about philistines in the Welsh Office before. I must repeat that there are no philistines in the Welsh Office in the Conservative Administration. The hon. Member's comments are well known. Perhaps he could lend a helping hand in that area by trying to encourage sponsorship from private sources in South Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that at district and county level expenditure on sport is six times as high as expenditure on the arts in Wales? This does not mean that expenditure on sport should be cut but means that more should be spent on the arts. Will he look again at the amount that goes to the Arts Council?
  Mr. Macfarlane: No, I cannot look again at the amounts that go to the various arts organisations. The Welsh Arts Council receives just over 7 per cent. of the total Arts Council money. The British Film Institute gives in excess of 7 per cent. of its total allocation, and the Crafts Council gives more than 28 per cent. of its total allocation for the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is unfair to Wales.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress made in the setting up of the National Heritage Fund trustees; and where their headquarters are likely to be.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St John-Stevas): The appointment of Lord Charteris as chairman of the trustees was announced on 16 April. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be announcing the names of other trustees in the very near future. The choice of their headquarters is a matter for the trustees themselves to decide.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the council meeting of the National Trust for Scotland on Friday a wide welcome was given to the appointment of Martin Charteris? On the basis of only one long conversation with him, when he was the Queen's private secretary, and his active role during proceedings on the National Heritage Bill, I believe that he is an extremely good choice. May I express the hope that the trust decides to set up not on the sixteenth floor of some convenient building but in a building where restoration work can be done and an example set?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: On behalf of Lord Charteris, I am extremely grateful for the hon. Member's kind words. On behalf of myself, I am also grateful, and I am sure I speak also for the Prime Minister when I say that she will be delighted that her appointment has commanded the hon. Member's support.
  The question of the building is a matter for the trustees, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member. We do not want to see them in some hideous tower block. It would be appropriate for them to have their headquarters in a building of historic interest and aesthetic worth.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I also join in congratulating the Government on appointing Lord Charteris as the chairman? Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of Lord Charteris to the importance of the documents and manuscripts held up and down the country by county council muniment rooms and
  26
  other organisations? There is a great danger that these documents, which are so important to scholars, might be lost. Already, the Warwickshire documents have been sold to the United States, and certainly in my county of Staffordshire we believe that these manuscripts should be protected.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his congratulations. I shall certainly draw the attention of Lord Charteris to his points. Documents are just as much a part of the national heritage as buildings and objects.
  Mr. Faulds: Ditto, ditto in relation to Lord Charteris. Has the right hon. Gentleman drawn the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that since the starting date for the National Heritage Fund on 1 April, £126,000 has so far been lost and that for every day's delay in the announcement of the names of the trustees another £6,000 is lost? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the price of an important painting? When can we have the announcement of the names of these trustees?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I have indicated, the Prime Minister is considering the matter and an announcement is imminent. Changes were made for the arrangements for the appointment of trustees at a very late stage in the National Heritage Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, although he was unable, due to indisposition, to be present on that occasion.
  I thank the hon. Member for his congratulations. Never in my 20 years in Parliament have I been greeted with such universal acclaim.
  Mr. Cormack: May I associate myself with the congratulations of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on the appointment of the Provost of Eton to be chairman of the trustees? May I urge my right hon. Friend to urge the Prime Minister to consider as a matter of the utmost urgency the comments made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)? It is of the utmost importance that these trustees should be able to function within the next 10 days.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on that remark to my right hon.

  27
  Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for his encomium, which I add to the enormous bouquet that has been presented to me today from all parts of the House.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
  Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member wait just two minutes?

  WORKS OF ART (SALES)
  Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the sale of works of art by public bodies.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The museums and galleries for which I am responsible have very restricted powers to sell items from their collections, and these powers mainly affect duplicates and objects no longer of use. The powers of other public bodies vary widely, but I am sure that those responsible for them are well aware of the strong arguments against disposing of items, however acquired.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister intervene to stop the Glasgow university from selling off 11 Whistler paintings to try to raise £320,000 for a new art gallery? Since Government cuts in university budgets are behind this philistine proposal to sell off part of the nation's cultural heritage, will the Minister consider giving extra financial assistance to the university to help? In any event, will he place a ban on the export of those paintings?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, the universities are not my responsibility but that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The art gallery is not his responsibility, because it is an independent art gallery. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that, subject to representations, the sale has been postponed in an effort to find funds from another source. It is a matter for the university authorities, and if they sell some of those minor paintings it would be within the terms of the bequest.
  Mr. Cormack: While I acknowledge that such action would be within the terms of the bequest, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a wide measure
  28
  of support for the sentiments advanced by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on this matter? Will he, perhaps, put in a good word with the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, when they are appointed, on behalf of Glasgow art gallery, so that it may be an early recipient of the generosity of the fund?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. However, it would be a mistake for me to start putting in good words for various applicants to the fund, because that would put both me and them in an invidious position. I understand that the Glasgow art gallery has applied to the fund, and I wish it well.
  Mr. Faulds: In view of the prevailing economic climate, and the pressures for disposal and dispersal, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it advisable to set up a committee to look into the sale of works of art by both public and semi-public bodies, including the Churches? I would welcome a carefully contemplated reply rather than a speedy, witty one.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Careful contemplation and wit are not necessarily contradictory as the hon. Gentleman thinks. I shall consider what he has said, but there are so many committees in the arts world at the moment, that whether another committee is necessary is open to doubt.
  Mr. David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of the galleries and museums over which he has even the remotest control it is reasonable that people running them should be free to buy and sell to fill gaps in their collections, and that they should not sit with pictures in their cellars that are redundant, and for which there is no gallery space?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: What my hon. Friend has said is unexceptionable. They are, and should be, free to do so. But, like everyone else in charge of art objects, they are trustees for the nation and the heritage.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend

29
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is in Belfast today consulting his security advisers about the unsuccessful mortar attack on Newry police station during this weekend.
On Saturday 19 April at lunch time an explosion occurred in the gable wall of Newry RUC station. A minute later an explosion occurred on a lorry parked some 100 yards away and screened from the police station by intervening buildings. The lorry had been hijacked by holding a family at gunpoint at Crossmaglen from 10 am until about the time of the explosion.
Investigation revealed a number of loaded mortar tubes, which the Army successfully disarmed. Twenty-six civilians and two policemen were injured. I am glad to say that, with one exception—a boy who suffered a broken leg—the injuries sustained were not serious, and those who were injured were quickly released from hospital.
I cannot express too strongly the revulsion felt by the Government, and, I feel sure, by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as by the public at large, at this callous attack, which put sharply at risk the lives and limbs of ordinary members of the public. Needless to say, intensive police investigations into this outrage are continuing.
I extend my profound apologies to hon. Members to whom the courtesy of advance notice of a statement is usually given for the failure of the Government on this occasion to produce the statement as rapidly as is normal. That was because we wished to get the most up-to-date information from Belfast, and the lines there are sometimes interrupted.
Mr. John: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the Opposition's abhorrence of all the crimes committed during the last week, including the murder of a former UDR member and the destruction of hotels, to which no reference was made in his statement? Important though damage to property is, particularly in denying employment, at a time of high unemployment in Northern Ireland, does he agree that it is clearly subordinate to the death and injury caused? Will he convey our deep sympathy to the bereaved and to the injured?
I should like to put a series of questions to the Minister. Clearly, some of
30
the crimes—for example, one of the hotel explosions last Tuesday—originated in the Republic. Will the Secretary of State's talks help in a practical way to strengthen cross-border security? Is it not disturbing that the attack on the police station at Newry was launched from a not inconspicuous vehicle by a timing device? Does the hon. Gentleman know how long it was parked at the site before the explosions occurred? Does he accept that there is a case either for preventing parking within a certain distance of a police station or for regular checks by the police to prevent vehicles being parked in such a perimeter, so as to deny a repetition of this incident and to deny terrorists the opportunity of setting off explosions by timing devices?
Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his words of condolence, which I am sure are echoed in every part of the House and which are certainly shared by the Government for those who were damaged or injured in this senseless outrage.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject of security was touched upon during the recent exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Republic. The talks were helpful and constructive.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise information about the time during which the lorry was parked on the site from which the damage was done. That is part of the ongoing investigation by the police. In my statement I indicated that the hijacking occurred at 10 o'clock that day, although information about the hijacking did not come through until after the outrage. The lorry was parked some distance from the target, with intervening buildings screening it. The question of regular investigation of suspiciously parked vehicles is part of the regular work of the security forces. I cannot say until after the investigations have been completed whether routine checks had been made on the vehicle.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister of State aware that nothing can excuse the Government's failure to inform the right hon. Member for the constituency concerned that there was an intention to make a statement today? Is he further aware that the gain, if any, of a few minutes' additional information is not sufficient compensation for the failure to observe the

31
normal courtesy of the House in making a statement available 20 minutes or so in advance to those primarily concerned? Are the Government aware that the greatest contribution that they can make to the prevention of a repetition of these and similar events is to desist from behaviour that conveys to the IRA the message that the status and future of Northern Ireland might be radically altered?
Mr. Alison: There is no one to whom I should be more inclined to extend the courtesy of providing information about such events as these than the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will accept my profound apologies that he was not informed in advance of the statement. I asked my private office to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members to whom such a statement might be relevant were given notice in advance. I assumed that the information reached the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise for the lapse.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned not having been given an advance copy of the statement. I have already apologised for that. My decision was that the latest and most relevant information should be provided, and there was some difficulty in communications.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's point about the wider aspects of the political situation in the Province. It is in the minds of the Government at all times to conduct political and security operations with a view to maximising the effectiveness of the security of innocent members of the public in the Province. In our judgment, nothing in the Government's present policy in any way undermines the security and defence effort that we are making in the Province.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the Minister's statement, but does he understand that the people of Northern Ireland will find it strange that he makes a statement when no lives are taken—although it was no doubt a serious incident—but when lives are taken and young police officers are brutally murdered and people are concerned no statement is forthcoming? Does he accept that the people of Northern Ireland will wish to identify with the statement by the official Opposition spokesman and that our condolences and sympathy go to all those people who have been bereaved?
32
Will the Minister tell the House what steps he will take to stop the genocide of Protestants in the border areas of Fermanagh, where the most prominent Protestant citizens are being gunned down week by week until farmsteads and homesteads are bereft of fathers and where families are being wiped out systematically? What will the Minister do about that serious situation?
Mr. Alison: It is not fair to say that we do not make statements except on odd occasions when individual lives are lost. We made a statement today because of the exceptional character of the potential threat. We make statements frequently when individual lives or groups of lives are lost. It is not the Government's normal practice to make a statement on the occasion of each death that occurs in the Province. We publish regular figures. The regular opportunities to question Ministers and our regular debates on security make possible broad statements and information. We give information to the House when we judge that it is particularly relevant. We often give information when individuals are killed.
I note the hon. Member's reference to the security position in Fermanagh. The Government are acutely aware that one life lost is one too many and is unacceptable. The security operations in Fermanagh and elsewhere are the most considered, the most effective and most determined possible within the logistical limitations placed upon any Government when conducting such operations. We cannot always guarantee that we shall prevent each potential murderer from committing a murder. It is beyond the wit of any security force to prohibit every assassination. We prevent and inhibit many and we apprehend and imprison many of the terrorists who commit the murders. I am certain that we shall capture the men responsible for the murders to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government identified the origin of the mortar shells? Were they home-made? If not, what was their country of origin?
Mr. Alison: That is a subject of the investigations. Although I tried to give the House the latest possible information, which is one reason why some of the material was late in being presented to the

33
House, I am not yet able to answer that question definitely.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I join in the expression of revulsion at the horrific act by the IRA in Newry. Does the Minister accept that such acts fail to cause death more because of the bad way in which they are handled by the IRA than because of the good security that the Government are providing for the people of Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the origin of the explosives used at Newry was the Republic of Ireland? What steps is he taking to ensure that no further substances cross the border?
What is the latest news on investigations into the murder of Frederick Victor Wilson, the young police reservist who was killed in a Belfast car park? What progress has been made in finding his killers? Will the hon. Gentleman pass on to those responsible the appreciation of Northern Ireland people of the Army bomb disposal officers, who carried out a magnificent task in defusing the remaining cartridges?
Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall convey his thanks to the officers and men concerned. However, I dispute that the blundering inefficiency of the terrorists has led to the relief of innocent people in the Province from the effects of terrorism. Both in the Republic and in the Province, the work of the security forces on both sides of the border has resulted in considerable finds of arms, explosives and ammunition and in the inhibition or aborting of a number of potential attacks on the public which but for the efficiency of covert investigatory work by the security forces might have resulted in explosions. The steady downward trend in attacks in the Province in
34
recent years and months is the result of successful work by the security forces involving the police and the Army.
I am unable to give the origin of the explosives. That question is being investigated. I shall try to give the House the information when it is available.
We cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman the good news that the murderer to whom he referred has been apprehended. We have a steady and increasing success rate in the detection and apprehension of terrorists. A large number are in prison. I have every reason to hope that we shall get hold of the murderer.
Mr. McQuade: Is the Minister aware of the continuing attacks on Protestant people by Republican gangs in the Dun-cairn area? Will he list the steps that he is prepared to take to provide proper security for the area, where in the past week there has been no security at all?
Mr. Alison: This attack bore no relation to the community background, religion or faith or the views or sympathies of any of the people who were injured. It was an indiscriminate attack and, like all or most terrorist attacks in the Province, no regard was paid to the character, age, sex or background of the individuals who were attacked and injured. I cannot give a full catalogue of the very large number of techniques, methods and successful operations carried out in order to inhibit attacks, but very large numbers of successful operations in this direction are carried out. But, as I told the House in answer to an earlier question, we cannot guarantee total immunity from terrorist attacks to every individual in the Province, given the nature of an open and democratic society and the necessity to allow a good deal of personal freedom.

SUPPLY
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

NORTH-WEST ENGLAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Cope.]
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the two important debates on which we are about to embark are both abbreviated. I hope that hon. Members who are called will bear that in mind.
3.52 pm
Mr. Frank R. White: It is a privilege to open this debate on the problems of the North-West region. But I can assure the House that there will be very little pleasure gained by cataloguing our needs and the Government's apparent inability to respond to them.
The North-West region consists of the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. It has a population of about 6·5 million, giving a population density of 889 people per square kilometre, the highest regional density in Great Britain, and Merseyside county's population density of 2,385 persons per square kilometre is exceeded only by that of London.
To many people, the North-West is epitomised by clogs, cobbled streets and factory chimneys—the land of Ena Sharpies and endless Coronation Streets. They are there all right, as well as the warmth of community character and the homeliness and friendliness that they represent. We have industrial dereliction, but we also have some of the finest natural resources in the country, and our region can match most others in scenic beauty, from Pennine hillside to coastal plain, and we can boast a range of sporting and cultural activities that cannot be exceeded in their quality.
But, of course, we are rightly viewed as one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to address the annual conference of the Amalgamated Textile Workers' Union at Blackpool. It is a union that in its 1925 heyday represented nearly 300,000 textile operatives in Lancashire but whose
36
membership is now, regrettably, reduced to a mere 48,000. We have had a loss of jobs in this industry of more than 10,000 per year for each of the past 15 years, and the uncontrolled and seemingly unconcerned contraction of this industry is a concern to the North-West extending far wider than textiles.
Other hon. Members will wish to expand on these problems. But it must be said that industry in the North-West looks to the Government for a more positive policy than the one extended at present to the textile industry.
As a forerunner of the Industrial Revolution, our region's plant and equipment is older than most. Therefore, the regeneration of the industrial base of the region is our highest priority. Textiles, footwear and leather, paper, engineering and the unplanned fabric of society that emerged as these industries grew all require a degree of investment that will not be forthcoming from the private sector. I say that with confidence for, in the past, the Manchester Free Traders failed, the Governments of the 1950s controlled by the Conservative Party failed, and the Conservative Government of 1970–74 failed. All failed to obtain for the North-West the transfusion needed so desperately for us to build anew.
Our present needs cannot be fobbed off with some Conservative Central Office clichés such as "restoring incentives" or "re-establishing self-help" or by letting so-called dying industries go down the plug hole on the basis that new ones somehow will take their place—from where and by whom we know not. The Conservative Party really ought to talk to the sharp end of industry—to the plant managers, the sales managers and the marketing men. The Government should ask them which other country in the Western world is embarking on this lunacy of free market forces and non-Government involvement. Our international competitors are laughing at us all the way to our own dole queues and bankruptcy courts.
Every other trading nation gives its industries support. The Government ought to ask the salesmen who go out selling exports and the marketing men who explore new export markets what tricks French, German and American

37
companies get up to with their own Governments. It seems that we alone are intent on this lemming-like attitude of self-inflicted industrial suicide, and the fall guys for this policy are to be our industrial regions, including the North-West.
The region deserves better treatment than this, especially from this Government. It deserves it if for no other reason than the past wealth generated in the North-West, which has never been fairly reinvested back into the region but has gone outside to create standards of life for people in other regions that we in the North-West are now denied.
The North-West region accounts for 11·3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross national product. Our industries contribute on a massive scale to the nation's exports. Last year, textiles alone contributed £1,700 million to exports, and the Government's treatment of the region's greater potential is to launch an attack on the region that can only be described as an economic blitzkreig. Slashing to the left and slashing to the right like some latter-day Lord Cardigan—and he had the wrong policy at Balaclava—the Secretary of State for Industry has removed intermediate area assistance from 21 travel-to-work areas in the region. The working population in assisted areas will drop from 70·1 per cent., which was Labour's recognition of the problem, to 6·6 per cent. under the present Government.
Still reeling from this type of attack, the region suffers further from the attentions of the twin-headed dragon—the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Employment. One is wet and the other is hot. It is easy to tell the difference. The one takes away opportunities for the training and retraining of our work force. The other ensures by his public expenditure cuts that life in the region will be as unbearable as possible, with local authority services cut to the bone and those in need suffering the utmost deprivation.
Right hon. and hon. Members may feel that these words are over-emotional. But they do little to emphasise our problems. We in the North-West have the third highest infant mortality rate and the second highest death rate, and our female life expectancy is the lowest in the country. The number of general practitioners working in the region is below
38
the national average, as are the numbers of dentists and available hospital beds. Health Service expenditure in the North-West averages about £115 per head. In the Thames region it is £139. That means that annually the North-West falls behind the Thames region to the tune of £120 million.
I do not suggest that the Thames region should take a cut. I have no doubt that it has its problems. But under the Labour Government's policy of implementing the resource allocation working party's report, we were led to believe and were assured by Ministers that within a 10-year period the North-West would achieve comparability with the Thames region. The recent public expenditure cutbacks in the Health Service have put the North-West back 30 years. That is unacceptable.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose——
Mr. White: The hon. Lady can make her own comment if she catches Mr. Speaker's eye. My hon. Friends are also waiting to speak.
The Health Service situation is unaceptable. Some of our people will die before they receive the basic service now extended to people in many other parts of the country. In education, the region has the third highest pupil-teacher ratio and the third lowest expenditure per pupil.
In many other instances—I am sure that my hon. Friends will elucidate them to the House—the material quality of life experienced in the North-West falls behind the services enjoyed by other regions. It is a wonder that the tolerance and the good humour of the region's people have not been broken before now. I feel bound to warn the Government that their actions over the past 11 months have stretched the tolerance of the most moderate.
What can a person do when he is denied a job? There are 212,000 unemployed at present and the region has one of the highest unemployment vacancy ratios in the country, at 12·7 per cent. The industries in which people have given a lifetime of service are being decimated by this Government's action, or lack of it. Their representatives in the trade union movement are denied any dialogue to represent their views with the Government, or are permitted a dialogue only under the most grovelling of terms. All

39
this would be bad enough. But, on top, their rent and rates are forced up. They are paying prescription charges that have increased 500 per cent. in 11 months. Their children suffer school meal price increases, and their elderly parents are denied the human dignity in their old age for which all have fought.
Almost everything for which the typical moderate, industrious North-West person has worked all his life is now being attacked and eroded. For what purpose? It is so that the Government can indulge themselves in free marketeerism and a transfer of wealth to pay off the affluent.
I have to tell the Prime Minister that she and her Government are playing a dangerous game. They are pushing people too far and, in so doing, nurturing the seeds of disruption.
This debate takes place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Out of consideration to my hon. Friends and to Conservative Members who wish to contribute, I shall leave my hon. Friends to expand and develop the arguments that have been raised. I am sure that the Opposition would have preferred a more substantial motion. In asking my hon. Friends not to divide the House, out of consideration for our Yorkshire colleagues, whose debate follows ours, I assure them that the Government will receive the censure motion they richly deserve. That will take place on Thursday 1 May, when the industrial regions of this country, prominently led by the North-West, will vote against the reckless folly that is being perpetrated against them.
The Prime Minister said recently, in an analogy, that it was foolish to change a course of treatment because everyone felt ill after a major operation. On 1 May, the message is clear. The North-West is receiving the wrong treatment, in the wrong hospital and, above all, from the wrong doctor.
4.3 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: It is a pleasure for me to welcome to the Opposition Dispatch Box the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), whom I find very agreeable. However, I did not find his speech today agreeable. His remarks were a gross exaggeration of the problems faced in the North-West. I do not believe that this debate has done the North-West any good.
40
The hon. Member seemed to imply that the problems of the North-West suddenly arose when a Conservative Government were elected to power last May. He also implied that the North-West suffered only under a Tory Government. It is about time that he and other Opposition Members began to realise that they have a great responsibility. Many Labour councils in the North-West have a responsibility. It is true that there are problems in the North-West. We get nowhere by complaining in the manner of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman complains that under a Tory Government unemployment has risen. But it increased under his own Government. Where was his voice then? Where were the censure motions? Under the Labour Government, unemployment in the North-West doubled. I took the hon. Gentleman's speech to be a plea for more Government aid for the region. We should realise that Government financial help is not in itself the solution.
Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that his constituency, unlike mine and many of those of my hon. Friends, did not lose its assisted area status during the review? Was that not a question of political rather than economic consideration?
Sir W. Clegg: It was most certainly not that. The hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the statistics, that there is a high and continuing rate of unemployment in the Fylde area. The hon. Gentleman should also study the situation in the adjoining area of Wigan, which was given development area status under the Conservative Government—a status denied by the Labour Government when they were in office. If hon. Members believe that pouring in Government money can solve the problems of the North-West, they will believe anything. The facts show it is not true.
Hon. Members should consider the help that has been made available, both in the past and now, to Merseyside. That has not solved Merseyside's problems. It cannot do so. The policy of the Conservative Government in setting industry free through new enterprise zones in the North-West will have far greater effect than pouring in Government money in subsidy after subsidy. Those who pay the subsidies are the business men who

41
are themselves in difficulties in the North-West.
Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman condemns Government assistance for the North-West. Is he proposing that such aid should be ended for the Fylde area?
Sir W. Clegg: Not in the least. I will give the hon. Gentleman my explanation. There is a case for Government help. But there is no case for saying that Government help is the only answer to our problems. The ability of the Northwest to compete and the ability of its small industries to expand is the key to the situation. This has been seen. There are some forms of Government aid that I welcome. Those of us who live and work in the North-West know that the advance factories introduced under the previous Government have been a major success. That is especially true of the small factories. They are taken up, in my constituency, almost as soon as they are off the planning board. This process helps. It does no good, however, to portray the North-West as a downtrodden area. How can people be persuaded to come to the area if we are constantly decrying ourselves?
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)rose——
Sir W. Clegg: I do not think I shall give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I promised Mr. Speaker that if I caught his eye I would be brief.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe attacked the actions of the Conservative Government in the North-West. I suggest that Opposition Members should ensure that Labour local authorities in the North-West look after their expenditure and avoid rate rises. One factor stopping people from coming to the North-West is high rates. The higher rates rise, the worse the situation becomes. I also dispute what the hon. Gentleman said about talent in the area. If, with the help of the Government, that talent can be liberated, we shall succeed, but not if we continue to rely entirely on Government handouts.
4.10 pm
Mr. James A. Dunn: In following the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—[Hon. Members: "North Fylde".] Well, the names change
42
so rapidly. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg). Indeed, I take a different view. I believe that what is happening in the North-West ought to be highlighted in order to give the Government some opportunity to rethink their programme and to re-evaluate what is happening there because of the effect and immediate impact of their policy.
Merseyside is an area in the North-West conurbation which is suffering gravely from rising unemployment. The rate of increase is alarming. In particular, youth employment is suffering greatly. Every day, each of the constituencies on Merseyside is reporting not only redundancy but a loss of jobs, which may not return for years to come. The Government's present policies, coupled with high inflation and high interest rates, are not assisting small businesses to relocate and to take up the slack which has been caused by large-scale industry diversifying its production and manufacturing standards. There is no way in which that can be done without a reappraisal and a change of Government policy.
One of the major difficulties affecting Merseyside at present is that employment programmes, especially youth employment programmes, are severely restricted and curtailed and in some instances reduced. The impact and effect will be long felt. Indeed, some young people have been on the unemployment register for more than 18 months. It looks as though the future will be very bleak. Vocational and educational courses have been restricted, and the colleges of further education are feeling the impact almost immediately. The special temporary employment programmes have not eased the situation. There must be some review and reversal of that policy if the trend of youth unemployment in the area is to be reversed.
I welcomed the announcement of the establishment of the Liverpool inner city partnership scheme. I have carefully followed some of the announcements that have been made by the partnership committee. I note that it talked in terms of resources being made available, that the programme would be far-reaching and that it would cover every aspect of family life in the area, ranging from the environment, housing, domestic and social services to employment. But I have yet to

43
see any tangible evidence that the Government intend to make the inner city partnership programme a realistic activity.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the curious thing about the partnership scheme is that it excludes private industry, members of the community and private enterprise? It is solely a Government machine, comprising central Government, local government and the health authority. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the public sector alone will not revive the inner areas?
Mr. Dunn: No, I do not agree. There is ample opportunity for a further extention of the partnership schemes to include the very categories which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. However, until one is successful, it would be foolish to transfer and revamp that system. I want to see something tangible, but, unfortunately, I have not seen that yet. It has been my experience that private industry has failed Merseyside. Opportunities were made available long before the introduction of the partnership scheme. That failure is marked on the memories and minds of my constituents, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must receive similar reports from his own constituency.
The urban development corporation is also a Government-inspired body, but as yet nothing tangible has resulted. No resources of any substance have been made available to the corporation. Reference has been made to free enterprise zones. What is free about them? All that will happen is that there will be less restriction on customs and on local authority legislation, development and planning. Those are the only benefits which will be enjoyed by the free enterprise zones, but at what cost? What will probably happen is that many existing industries which are now located outside the zones will be clamouring to book a place to get inside them, with no consequential benefits to anyone in the area.
I do not say that we should not try free enterprise zones, but if they are brought into being they should be carefully monitored. There should be no exploitation. Existing legislation should be applied. Protection for those who will
44
be employed within the zones should be assured, and the zones should not result in the creation of mini-Hong Kongs or Taiwans, which is what the entrepreneurs think will happen when they are eventually declared. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) will join me in objecting if that happens.
Anxiety and concern are now being expressed about the free enterprise zones, not least by those whom the hon. Gentleman claims have been overlooked in the inner city partnership scheme—small industries and private individuals who want to invest on Merseyside. At present, aid is urgently and badly needed in respect of the port and docks. Last week, private legislation went through the House which, in effect, gives financial support to other ports, particularly the port of London. Yet when Merseyside, Liverpool and Manchester are involved—Merseyside is the gateway to the Manchester docks—no immediate response comes from the Government to give financial support in those difficult circumstances. There is no promise that that will be considered with any sympathy or favour. Yet when the same problem occurs elsewhere there is an immediate clamour for support.
I believe that Merseyside has suffered grievously from the recent public expenditure cutbacks. The employment programmes have been seriously jeopardised. The construction and building industry has been seriously affected. The total programme for the inner city partnership scheme needs complete revision if Merseyside is to receive any benefit. Merseyside does not require sympathy. It requires action. Private industry has never been able to fulfil the needs and requirements of the area. Unless the Government reverse the present trend as well as their policy, the impact on Merseyside will be grievous and job losses and unemployment will rise even higher than they are in the alarming situation that I have presented to the House.
4.18 pm
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While congratulating the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench, I am bound to say that I wish that he had made a better fist of it in his first speech. If we want industry

45
to come to the North-West, the very last thing we want to do is to perpetuate the Ena Sharpies image, as the hon. Gentleman did, for which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) rightly chastised him.
We all agree that there is no disputing the fact that for many years the Northwest has been starved of resources compared with both the more prosperous South-East and, latterly, under the Labour Government—the hon. Gentleman cannot dispute these facts—the more politically sensitive areas of Scotland and Wales, without whose votes there would never be another Labour Government in this country. Unemployment in the area has consistently been above the national average, and it got steadily worse during the period of Socialist rule. As my hon. Friend said, it more than doubled and in my constituency it trebled. What was even worse was that the ratio of unemployment to job vacancies was higher in the North-West than anywhere else.
In my constituency the figure was not 12·7 per cent. It was 32·7 per cent. under the Labour Government. So concerned were the Conservative MPs in the North-West in the middle of 1976 that we undertook a study of the problems of the area. We concentrated our attention on small firms. We did that, first, because such firms were of overriding importance to the region. In the early part of the decade an average of 85 per cent. of all manufacturing firms in the North-West were small by the Bolton committee definition of firms employing fewer than 200 people. In the North-West, on average, 30 per cent. of all employment is in small firms. In constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde it is more substantial than that.
We concentrated on small firms, secondly, because they have a relatively greater impact on lowering unemployment when there is an upturn in the economy. Small firms cannot afford to hoard labour in the bad times and they are more flexible and quicker off the mark to take advantage of new opportunities when they crop up.
Firms whose views we sought complained of unnecessary and time-consuming form filling, the paralysing effect of
46
the so-called Employment Protection Act 1975—the firms always referred to that Act as the "Employment Destruction Act"—the disincentive effect of the highest starting rate for income tax in the whole world, the break-up of family businesses caused by capital transfer tax biting at a low level, the lower starting point of VAT and the crippling burden of public expenditure. Those were the reactions we experienced from both sides of industry—from trade unions and employers.
All these deterrents to small industries have to be tackled. Most of them have been tackled in our two Budgets and other measures that have been brought forward in parallel. It is no mean achievement for the Under-Secretary of State—who I am happy to see is with us today—to have lightened the inherited bureaucratic burden on small industries by abolishing approximately half a ton of the forms that those industries previously had to fill in.
It was a bold and absolutely necessary move on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to slash the standard rate to 30p and the top rate of tax to the level that obtains in the rest of the Western world. Had my right hon. and learned Friend not done that we would have been unable to prevent the drift of skilled workers and managers abroad.
The provisions in the Budget to help the establishment and expansion and handing on of small firms by raising the limit of capital transfer tax—attracting money to those firms and encouraging the building of small workshop-type factories—are the best tonic we could have had.
On the face of it, in Lancaster we should be on our uppers. In the past 10 years we had had no fewer than 2,604 redundancies and when the new regional boundaries were being drawn our unemployment rate was well over 6 per cent. That is why we retained our intermediate area status. Over the past several months one of our most important employers, Storley Bros., declared, first, 160 workers and then 52 workers redundant.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is merely pointing out that my constituency has an effective Member and his has not. Despite those redundancies, our unemployment rate will still be below what it was a year ago. I

47
am convinced that this is because we have bent over backwards to attract small firms by providing tiny, seed-bed factories—the council provided them—at rents which a man and wife starting up an industry could afford.
Many of those small firms are now at the point of take-off and the Budget measures will help them to expand. However, I am bound to admit that a substantial and widespread take-off is unlikely until interest rates come down. But many firms are still adversely affected—on this point I agree with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe—by unfair imports from the United States. A close monitoring of these imports is essential, particularly in relation to the footwear and textile industries which are also hit by dumped imports from Eastern European countries which will send goods over here at any price in order to obtain hard currency.
The European regional fund and the European Investment Bank have greatly assisted the North-West over the past few years and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newton has left his place. The European regional fund has given huge grants to local authorities for infrastructure projects and we in Lancaster and Morecambe have been lucky in receiving large grants for tourist infrastructure projects. Those grants have helped to keep down the rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde pointed out, high rates are a deterrent to industrial expansion.
The European Investment Bank has been of great assistance in lending money at cheap fixed interest rates, thus enabling industry to plan investment programmes with greater certainty. We in Lancaster and Morecambe are grateful along with my hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde, for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) in that we are to retain our assisted area status. However, the loss of that status to large areas of the North-West will adversely affect us all by cutting down our access to the European regional fund and to the European Investment Bank. We will be affected overall as a county.
I hope that when the regional fund regulations are revised a way will be
48
found to enable particular black spots in the North-West to continue to receive help through schemes which are vitally important to the whole region. This applies particularly to infrastructure projects, the need for which goes across boundaries.
However, all too often people think of deprivation purely in urban terms. Over the past few years a sustained attack has been made under the Labour Government on the viability of our rural areas. Village schools have been closed, transport has been restricted, the rate support grant has been unfairly distributed—nobody can deny that because it is a statistical fact—and agriculture, which is still the mainstay of our villages, has been put at a serious disadvantage compared with our Continental neighbours. Under my right hon. Friend that has now been almost remedied.
National and local government, voluntary bodies and individuals who really care about the maintenance of the rural way of life must work closer together if that way of life is to survive as a coherent reality. The East Fellside project in Cumbria—which seeks to harness the experience and enthusiasm of all those who care about our rural areas—should make a valuable contribution, and act as a prototype for other areas.
Mr. Frank R. White Mr. Frank R. White rose——
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I will not give way, for the simple reason that the hon. Member did not give way to me. Fan-is fair. One thing that is of enormous importance to country areas is their determination not to become dormitory areas for urban workers. In their battle to establish and preserve small industries in rural areas those areas have been greatly helped by COSIRA. We were delighted when COSIRA decided to build factories in the valliages of Halton and Glagate and we were flabbergasted when planning permission for those factories was refused by the Department of the Environment on the remarkable grounds that the workers in those villages could obtain work in Lancaster. Surely, that is exactly what COSIRA was set up to prevent. I would, therefore, be grateful if my hon. Friend would persuade his hon. Friend to reverse that most unfortunate decision.

49
All is not well in the North-West and I am the last person to pretend that it is. Neither is all ill in the region. We have some of the loveliest countryside, we have the most industrious and adaptable work force, we have the best communications and the sturdiest independence—particularly among Conservative-minded thinkers—of any region in the United Kingdom. We should be producing documents such as the spring edition of "North-West Success", which proclaims that the North-West is setting the pace in the chip revolution. That and another booklet "The success of overseas industry in the North-West" and yet another "North-West England—Centre for International Industry" are what we should be publicising. We should blow our own trumpet. If we capitalise on our undoubted advantages I believe that the North-West will once more be a pacesetter and will help to lead the country back to prosperity.
4.29 pm
Mr. Kenneth Marks: I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). She must have missed our debates on rural post offices and school transport if she thinks that the Government will do any good for rural areas.
The hon. Lady's sole tribute to the Under-Secretary was that firms are filling in fewer forms since he was appointed, but some of those forms were applications for Government assistance which had been most valuable to many firms in the North-West, but which they have now lost.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on his opening speech. We were delighted that he combined a comprehensive speech with a brief one and gave more of us the opportunity to speak. My hon. Friend is not a newcomer to the Front Bench. He spent some time in government as a silent member of the Front Bench when he was Whip. It was a great loss to us that he was prevented from speaking during that period, but his success in the general election showed that he had done a tremendous amount of work for his constituency.
My hon. Friend mentioned industry, which is the main issue with which we are concerned, but he also referred to
50
health matters and the way in which the North-West is being neglected and will be neglected if the Government stay in office.
My hon. Friend also referred to young families and the difficulties that they face, not only in the North-West but in the rest of the country. On Thursday, the Prime Minister said that we had had an increase in our standard of living of 6 per cent. in the past 12 months. I am sure that the nation was delighted to hear that, but her claim does not apply to families with young children in the North-West or even in the prosperous South-East. They have had to bear more than their fair share of the sacrifices that the Government have demanded.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) talked about pouring in Government money. It is not simply a question of money, though some of the bodies that the hon. Member for Lancaster was talking about—for example, the development commission and CoSIRA—which have helped so much, involve Government money. The previous Labour Government increased the amount of money that was available and I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to see it increased further.
We also have to consider whether the Civil Service should be dispersed. Fylde and Blackpool have done well out of Civil Service dispersal, but the Government are stopping the process. It is not good enough to have administrative jobs and technical jobs and industry concentrated in the South-East.
The improvement of derelict land is in danger because of the loss of assisted area status. No decision has yet been made, but that danger is one of the problems facing the North-West.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe referred to textiles. The carpet industry is suffering particularly badly, not only because of the oil policies of the Canadian and American Governments, but partly because of an import quota on fibres, so that our industry cannot get fibres at a relatively low cost, and partly because there is no quota on the American fibres.
I hope that the Under-Secretary who is to reply will ensure, with the assistance of the Department of Trade, that when

51
firms such as Lancaster Carpets are suffering from American competition they should at least have the opportunity to get the fibres to enable them to compete.
I want to mention some educational matters, because education is the basis of many of our problems in the Northwest. The Government's policy of reducing grants to overseas students and making them pay the full rate will hit not only overseas students but British students at such institutions as the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, which will have to cut the number of its courses, thereby reducing the number of British students.
In our debate on Greater Manchester on 18 January at which we suggested that an education Minister should have been present, we raised the question of the Centre for Educational Disadvantaged. I will not go into the tremendous work that the centre has done, but we were assured that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would be reviewing its future. The centre is due to close on 31 August and it is time that something was done about it.
The city authorities that have child populations that are rapidly reducing will be in the most difficulty because of the Government's education cuts. When there is a declining school population, it is not enough merely to maintain the teacher-pupil ratio, because that can lead to a loss of subjects taught and the loss of the complete timetable of some schools.
The conscientious councillors in some authorities have been put in a great dilemma. They are harassed by the Secretary of State for the Environment who has threatened that if they spend too much they will have their Government grant cut even further. The Secretary of State's attitude—a combination of bull at a gate and dog in the manger—makes the job of local authorities difficult, and I am not talking only about Labour authorities.
The future of education in Tameside was mentioned during the Greater Manchester debate. Two years ago, Tameside had a Conservative council. Since then, the electors of that borough have elected 30 Labour councillors and seven Conservative councillors, I make no forecasts
52
about what will happen on 1 May, but the result is likely to be along those lines. The new council has been extremely patient. It believed that it had the right to go ahead immediately with a comprehensive scheme, because such a scheme had been accepted by the DES on a previous occasion.
The Council has waited a long time for the decision of the Secretary of State to permit the scheme to go ahead in September. I will not argue the merits of a comprehensive system against a selective system, but it is in the interests of parents, children and the administrators who will have to organise any scheme that is operated this year that a decision should be made soon.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the DES is bordering on the discourteous? On 17 March and 25 March the chairman of the Tameside education authority sent telegrams to the Secretary of State urging him to make a decision. The telegrams were not acknowledged, let alone answered. I sent a letter to the Secretary of State on 19 March and that has not been acknowledged or answered. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not square with the Secretary of State's assurance to the deputation led by Councillor Roy Oldham in August that there would be a speedy settlement?
Mr. Marks: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. We ought to have a decision. There has been too much delay already. Parents are asking what is to happen and the council cannot say either way what route Tameside education will take.
The Government's attacks on local government will stop the industrial reorganisation that is needed. Local government has a tremendous part to play. As the hon. Member for Lancaster said, what local government can do in getting industry into its areas can mean so much. The Government are stopping that.
4.38 pm
Mr. Tom Arnold: In some ways, our debate is a re-run of that which we had in January on the motion of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on the problems of Greater Manchester. Of course,

53
many of the problems of Greater Manchester are reflected in the problems of the North-West as a whole.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said about the paper that Conservative Members in the previous Parliament published about the role of small businesses in the North-West. Most people in the North-West are employed by small to medium sized businesses. When they do well, the economy of the region as a whole does well. The Government are trying to produce a situation in which we increase the profits of those businesses so that we can have fresh investment and new jobs. The North-West needs new jobs more than anything else.
That policy cannot be easily achieved. It is a question of trying to reverse many years of industrial decline. I recognise that the North-West has many great problems in terms of industrial dereliction and obsolescence.
It is a pleasure to have followed the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who is a parliamentary neighbour of mine. Indeed, as I look round the Chamber I see that all my parliamentary neighbours who are here today are Labour Members. I hope that in the next general election we shall be more successful in Greater Manchester and that we shall return more Conservative Members. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gorton, and I should like to take up a point that he made about derelict land grants.
It is precisely because my local authority is very keen on pursuing a policy of economic enterprise areas that we need to maintain the 100 per cent. derelict land grants. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are in agreement on this, and we urge the Government to look at it very carefully. I understand that the Department of Industry and the Department of the Environment are looking at the question. It is one that assumes great importance in terms of the decisions relating to regional policy as a whole.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) will forgive me for trespassing on the affairs of the area of the old county borough, but Conservative councillors, and officers of the council, have approached me on this question, because we are anxious to develop areas
54
in the town centre for industrial enterprises, precisely because we want to create new jobs. Some of these areas are under multiple ownership at the moment and will require a compulsory purchase order to make them viable units. This is something to which we attach considerable importance.
Moving a little wider than an interest of immediate local concern, I should like to emphasise again what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster said about the importance and significance of future developments in regard to the European regional development fund. I would welcome an enlargement of the non-quota section beyond the present 5 per cent. limit referred to. I perfectly understand that such an enlargement would not of itself lead automatically to further benefits to the North-West because we would have to compete with many other areas of the United Kingdom as well as with the other members of the Western European Community. But it needs to be looked at, and I think that it would produce beneficial results, because the loss of the assisted area status in terms of most of Greater Manchester is leading to a situation in which we shall lose not only the derelict land grant—unless the Government have a change of mind on this—but also the benefits that we are entitled to expect at present from the ERDF.
I hope that the accession of other countries to the Community, and the review of the ERDF which the Government, the Commission and the European Council are committed to undertaking between now and 1 January next year, will produce a recognition in the Community that something needs to be done to improve the position of the United Kingdom in relation to the fund.
I should like, as I have indicated already, to see the non-quota section enlarged so that we can try to compete for a greater level of funds than is available to us at present.
In trying to establish the framework necessary for the expansion of private enterprise, there are a number of areas in which the Government can be of assistance. In this connection, I should like for a moment to return to a concern that is purely local to those hon. Members who sit for north-east Cheshire but which has a bearing on Greater Manchester as a whole. It would be very helpful if the

55
Government could now confirm that in 1982–83 a start will be made on the improved roadwork system in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Stockport, South. We urgently need a clear signal from the Government that they understand the problems that we face with regard to communications and transport in the area if we are to attract new industry on to the premises which the local Conservative council is seeking to make available.
If a start can be made on the A6 redevelopment and bypass in the time scale that has been suggested, that will be extremely helpful. It will be helpful because the local authority and the local Members of Parliament are at one in trying to do everything we can to ensure that we have the proper climate for industrial expansion so that enterprise can fully have its head.
What we need more than anything else, as I said earlier, is the creation of opportunities for new employment. This will come about only if local firms can see the day when they have not only immediate profits but the possibility of investing later large sums of money for the future.
4.44 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne: I do not want to get involved in a parochial type of political argument, which is always the danger when we are speaking about particular regions of the country, but Preston happens to have had a particularly difficult time over recent months, with closures at Courtaulds, Orr's Mill and Bright's, the contraction of small engineering firms, and various other indicators of a worsening economic/industrial position.
Discrimination in the allocation of resources must be opposed by those in the regions. The question I would pose—no doubt it has been referred to already by other speakers, and will be referred to later—is whether there is any evidence to support the "two nations" view of our society.
Many people, when referring to the two nations, have an imaginary line in mind, running from the Wash, through the Midlands, and ending in the South-West. It can be argued that below that line certain things apply, and that above it
56
certain other things apply—and they worsen as we get further north. Northern Ireland must be included in that consideration.
But my concern—and that of all those who are in the Chamber at present—is with the North-West. It is interesting to note that the three to one representation that roughly exists as between Labour and Tory Members in the area is reflected in the present attendance in the Chamber.
What aspects do we need to examine in order either to reinforce the notion of a two nations economy or to destroy it? What research do we have to engage in? The figures are available. What percentages of children reach university in each area? What percentage of active patients are there on general practitioners" lists in each area? We are already familiar with the percentages of unemployed. What are the percentages of families in receipt of social security benefits, particularly those in receipt of invalidity benefit? The figures show a marked contrast between the two areas.
There is an indication that crime and violence are growing among young people in certain parts of the North-West. That is not, in my view, unconnected with the low level of expectation that they have when they leave school.
The transport system was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold). There again, we can contrast the provisions made for transport in the South-East with those made in certain parts of the North-West. I represent Preston, but I live in Liverpool. Therefore, I have reasonable knowledge of the area from Merseyside up to the North Fylde coast. When we consider communities such as Kirkby, Skelmersdale and Netherley, and ask where their equivalents exist in the South-East, we are forced to ask why the same characteristics are not present.
I recall that Netherley, in the North-West, was planned as a housing estate. Clearly, the criterion was to assemble as many units of accommodation as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, for immediate occupation, in order to reduce the housing list. Any attempt to build outside was resisted by central Government.
Has our membership of the EEC—the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) should be familiar with this, if

57
with nothing else—further exacerbated the differences in terms of expectations for the future? Many people in the North-West already see that certain planning activities are related to the fact that the South-East of England is far nearer to France, to Germany, and to other parts of Europe, than is the North-West. That may be not unconnected with the fate of the ports of Liverpool and Preston. Are they to grow or to pass away? We have evidence that Preston will close. In the meantime, the port of Liverpool faces urgent problems.
As regards industry, in the Preston and Lancashire area—hon. Members on both sides of the House are conscious of this problem—the textile industry is virtually dead. With what have we replaced it? In Preston and its surrounds we have British Aerospace and British Leyland. Without them, we would certainly be in considerable difficulties in terms of the economic structure of that area. What are the consequences for the future of relying upon those two enterprises for the well-being of that area?
Here one necessarily turns to the question of planning for development in the North-West. Obviously any planning exercise is useless without the appropriate provision of resources. Private investment has been the accepted way of improving the economic situation in the regions. The previous Labour Government and the present Conservative Government refer to private investors. Clearly there is little incentive for private investors to move to the North-West. But I am far more concerned with public investment. For example, are we prepared to extend, with the help of public money, the role of the Central Lancashire Development Corporation? Clearly the Government consider public investment of that kind anathema. Yet, without it, the prospects for the North-West are grim indeed. Why cannot the Central Lancashire Development Corporation get involved in building for public enterprise—public enterprise of new types, public enterprise in which local authorities can get involved and in which local community co-operatives can be established so that, within the community, they have a vested interest in making a particular enterprise a viable, economic unit?
Of course, that smacks of Socialism, and that is the last thing that we can expect from the Government. In my
58
view, we did not get a great deal of incentive or initiative in that direction from the previous Labour Government, but I am optimistic about the changes that we shall be able to impose when, as undoubtedly we shall, we elect a Labour Government in, say, October 1983.
In the North-West, housing still remains an important issue at a time when local authority cuts are being made at the behest of the Government. Because of time constraints, I cannot go in great detail into the effects of cuts in housing in my area. There are 25,000 urgent priority cases on the housing list—some of them living in multi-storey blocks of flats—and their expectancy of early rehousing while their children are young is now even worse under this Government—and it was not particularly good under the previous Labour Government—following the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment backed by his bosses in the Cabinet.
The Lancashire county council has announced and gone into some detail regarding its £10 million cuts in education. It is difficult in a short space of time to spell out what that means. Undoubtedly it will have a severe effect on any unemployed person seeking retraining or possibly seeking to go into an entirely different employment and needing to start with an OND or something of that description because grants are not available following the Government's cuts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said that the May elections will have a relevant part to play because some interesting politics emerge in regard to the rates in some of our major towns. I live in an area represented by three Conservative members of the Liverpool city council. In consequence, I had a leaflet from the council delivered to me. It contains probably the most blatant lie that I have seen in a piece of political propaganda for some time. It reads:
"In November, Conservatives resolved that the Council Housing deficit of £3·6 million be paid by tenants. Labour and Liberal voted that it be paid by the Ratepayer. So you pay!"
The implication is clear: that tenants do not pay rates. That is a major lie. If the Conservatives were honest, they would have to admit that people who get

59
tax relief on mortgages are better off under our system than the rentpayer who pays rates.
Certain other leaflets have also been issued. One has been issued by the Liberal Party with its particular sort of mischief. It talks of rates being held constant in 1975–76 without mentioning that the Labour Government increased the rate support grant to make possible the holding down of those rates.
One can say that the Tories nationally and locally are consistent and radical. Their aim is clear. It is to destroy the Welfare State both nationally and locally.
The Liberals are inconsistent, gimmicky, immoral and, in certain circumstances, downright dishonest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?"] The fact that they are not here merely illustrates their irrelevance in this type of debate.
There can be little question but that the Labour Party will take control in many towns and cities following the May elections. It does not mean that we can be complacent. It means that the Labour Party at local level will face tremendous problems. How are Labour-controlled councils to provide services that the people in their localities are entitled to expect in view of the cuts that have been imposed by the Government? In the seventeenth century John Locke gave the British people the right to eject, to throw out, a bad Government pursuing bad policies. The sooner the British people do that, the better.
4.59 pm
Mr. John Lee: I think that all North-West Members in the House will agree on the problems facing the traditional industries in that region. We have had a series of unhappy closures in the textile and footwear industries on an almost weekly, if not daily, basis through a combination of high interest rates, imports and the recession generally. I believe that there is a strong case for more effective action to be taken against the dumping of foreign textiles. I suggest that our Department of Trade Ministers should be prepared to consider allowing the private textile sector to second one, two or three of its employees, paid for by private
60
enterprise, to the Department's antidumping unit with a view to beefing it up.
I also believe that we should take advantage of our present massive public sector purchasing power and use that power much more positively to buy British, certainly in so far as textiles are concerned.
But, above all—and I think that this applies to industry in the North-West and in the country generally—what we need more than anything else is a lowering of interest rates.
However, I believe that Opposition Members are doing a disservice to the North-West by exaggerating the region's problems. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), when speaking in my constituency some weeks ago, talked about an industrial holocaust coming in the not-too-distant future. Such emotive words and exaggerated phrases are total nonsenses. They bear no relation to north-east Lancashire, and particularly to the constituency that I know and represent.
In my seat of Nelson and Colne, we have very well diversified industry. Apart from the traditional areas of textiles, we have a thriving furniture industry. It is the second or third largest funiture manufacturing area in Britain. We have substantial aerospace, engineering and packaging interests, and we have medical products and wall coverings industries. They are very successful companies.
I was very proud last Friday to be able to take my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury around one of our newer engineering companies in Pendle. It was started in 1967. Today it has a turnover of £2· million. It exports 60 per cent. of its production. It uses the most modern machinery, including some from Japan, and it has recently won a major export order to Japan of nearly £500,000. There are many more firms such as that in northeast Lancashire.
Today I was pleased to read that a firm in Clitheroe has just been awarded the Queen's Award for Export. That is another example of the first-class firms and first-class management that exist in north-east Lancashire.
By continuing to look at only one group of companies and one group of industries, Opposition Members do the disservice

61
that I have mentioned. They create a totally false impression. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) drew attention to the fact that these persistent exaggerated comments lower the morale of the people in north-western England. They are potentially damaging to potential investors and to the attraction of institutions which we want very much to come and develop new industrial estates in northern England.
What we need in north-east Lancashire particularly is a much better infrastructure—particularly the M65. I know that a number of Opposition Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), have been pushing for this, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). We need the M65 to link us with the national motorway network as soon as possible. But, more particularly, we need new small factory units. The newer industries that have developed in north-east Lancashire have taken advantage of the old mill premises. These are now almost totally occupied and taken. I was delighted to see in the recent Budget the new measures to encourage new small factory development—the 100 per cent. allowances and the £5 million, to be supported by private capital, to build new workshops.
I should like to make a final point on something that does not affect north-east Lancashire particularly but affects the North-West generally. It seems as though we in the North-West shall have two or possibly three of the new enterprise zones announced in the Budget speech. This is a very bold initiative. I believe that it will do much to improve, to build up and to rejuvenate the inner city areas.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Rubbish.
Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish." A number of Socialist local authority leaders who will be benefiting from these enterprise zones have ex-pressed similar comments. We accept that enterprise zones are anathema to many Labour politicians.
My plea today, however, is to the joint stock banks. They have had a very good run during the last two years, and they will probably have another very prosperous year ahead. I hope that they back up the boldness and initiative that
62
the Government have shown and put together for these enterprise zones financial packages that are equally as bold as the measures themselves—financial packages in the terms of low interest rates, longer repayment periods and possibly the use of their mobile information centres in these potential enterprise zones to back up and to demonstrate the services which they provide. I believe that the joint stock banks have a lot to offer. They have the money and resources. Let them back up the boldness of the Chancellor's initiative.
5.4 pm
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Life has never been particularly easy for large sections of the people in the North-West over many periods of time. However, I think that it is true to say that the North-West has been particularly hard hit in the last few months. I am not for a moment suggesting that that is all the fault of the Conservative Government. But equally, it would be erroneous to say that the Conservative Government's policy has had nothing to do with the bad times that many people in north-east Lancashire and other areas of the North-West are going through.
I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee). In north-east Lancashire in particular, small industries have played and are playing a very important part in our economic life. We need to encourage small industries to come and open up in north-east Lancashire. But the reality is that the thing about which most employers complain is high interest rates. It is very difficult for them to invest. Again and again, they ask me, as I am sure they have asked the hon. Gentleman, "When will interest rates come down?" The Government cannot pretend that they are not responsible for high interest rates.
The textile industry—and again, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—has been particularly badly savaged in recent months. The irony is that Conservative Members repeatedly say "The reason for unemployment is the high and excessive wage claims put in by the trade unions. The workers have refused to adapt to new conditions, to new manning levels and to new technology." Nothing of that can be said about the textile industry. The workers in that industry have done

63
everything that has been asked of them. On balance, they are poorly paid—or not well paid. They do not make excessive wage demands. They are anything but militant. They have adapted to all manning levels that have been asked of them. Yet thousands and thousands of them, in constituency after constituency, are being put out of work.
Something is wrong somewhere.
Mr. D. A. Trippier: Exercising his customary fairness, will not the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the greatest problem that the textile industry faces is the high level of imports? Will he also concede that the multi-fibre arrangement, with which I know he is very familiar, was negotiated by the previous Government and not by the present Government, and that that will not come up for renewal until 1981?
Mr. Davidson: Even without being my usual agreeable and reasonable self, I could not fail to agree with that. Clearly, the MFA was negotiated by the previous Government, and it was very effective. That does not mean that it will be effective for all time. It clearly needs renegotiating.
Mr. Straw: On exactly that point, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem of imports facing the textile industry today is not so much a problem of imports from low-cost countries, which are covered by the MFA, but of imports from the United States and Canada, in respect of which the Conservative Government have lamentably failed to introduce controls?
Mr. Davidson: Once again, being my usual agreeable and reasonable self, I cannot fail to do anything but agree with my hon. Friend.
I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be brief—and I shall be my usual agreeable self. I do not wish to indulge in a chorus running down northeast Lancashire. There is a danger that one can do so. Nevertheless, we cannot escape certain facts. In addition to the other things that I have mentioned, the quality of life is being eroded. Here and there a library, a sports centre's facilities and a few home helps are cut. Those who are, on balance, low-paid need and
64
value such facilities. They enrich the life of the area.
Although private industry has done a great deal to help the economic vitality of the region, public investment has also played an important part. Harm has been done as a result of taking away intermediate area status and as a result of the loss of what little EEC aid there had been. I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider the points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, even if he does not wish to consider mine.
5.10 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: The attitude of the North-West, as evinced by the area that I represent and in which I live, is one that should be cultivated and presented more widely to the country. People are not prepared to spend what they do not have. That is something that dictated the course of the election campaign, in which I and many of my colleagues were involved. I make no apology for using Preston as an example. It is the administrative centre of Lancashire and has a reputation that stretches back for hundreds of years.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I do not share in their gloom and doom about the North-West, particularly when I consider Preston borough council. Four years ago Preston borough council was controlled by the Labour Party. It managed to achieve an all-time record rate increase of 31·2p in the pound, which put it at the top of the rate table in Lancashire. As a result, industry and those ratepayers who had enough money left to pay for their train fares fled the town. When the council was taken over by the Tory Party, it had to do something about that. To cut a long and difficult story short, the rates are now 8p in the pound. Consequently, there has been an increased demand from industry and local businesses to participate in the good sense, good fortune and good management of the Preston area.
That has not been achieved by throwing people out of work or by cutting back services. The record of Preston shows an extension of services, not a reduction. It has been done by simple good management and by the natural attrition of staff, who were not replaced when replacements were not required. They have capitalised on the good sense

65
and mangement of the controlling Conservative Party. That makes Preston the lowest rated borough in Lancashire and, indeed, in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is an achievement for the North-West, and should be shouted from the roof tops.
As housing has been mentioned, I shall refer to an imaginative scheme being used in Preston. Houses have been built in conjunction with a building contractor, and those houses will be offered for sale. Depending on one's political beliefs, it might prove extraordinary to learn—it surprised even me—that two Labour councillors were at the front of that queue to buy houses. One must draw one's own conclusions.
Alongside the achievements of Preston borough council are those of the county of Lancashire. It is the second lowest rated county in the country as a result of good management, prudence and good sense. That realism has begun to pay off and local businesses have begun to return.
I wish that I could speak in the same glowing terms about the North-West water authority. Many hon. Members have doubtless received complaints about the activities of that authority over the years. However, one particular cause of concern is the charge for sprinklers and fire-fighting mains. That concern can best be summed up if I quote from a local company, Cartmell & Barlow Limited, which manufactures coffins. With some common sense, it wrote:
"Water is an essential commodity, but so too are coffins; and according to this hair-brained thinking, we should be justified in charging a quarterly levy to Funeral Directors to cover them for availability of supply during an emergency, e.g. a ' flu epidemic'."
There is some sense in that slightly facetious remark.
As the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said, problems have arisen as a result of the closure of the Courtaulds mill, which threw 2,600 people out of work. It is also proposed to close Preston docks. However, we are using those examples to provoke more development, industry and housing. I know that the Central Lancashire Development Corporation is keeping a close watch on Courtaulds and on that site. I also know that the board reviewed the matter last Friday. It is anxious to see proposals
66
for comprehensive redevelopment implemented quickly. It is conscious of the need to ensure maximum involvement of the private sector.
The Central Lancashire Development Corporation believes that the problem of demolishing the existing large structure of the Courtaulds mill is enormous and that it will be expensive. It is determined—it is hoped in co-operation with Courtaulds—to prevent the development of virgin land in the area of the site, while existing structures are left to rot. In the view of the CLDC, the agency controlling redevelopment—which will of course benefit from the development of a green field site—should bear a proper share of the cost of clearing up potential dereliction. The CLDC has told Courtaulds that it will consider sympathetically the possibility of being involved in such a role. At the time that was a savage blow, and I raised the matter on the Floor of the House. It is gradually being lessened through the intelligence and foresight of Preston borough council, in co-ordination with the Central Lancashire New Town.
The Central Lancashire New Town is sometimes the subject of criticism. I am sure that similar authorities may be open to criticism. It was set up to counteract the money devoted to Merseyside and Greater Manchester. For too long those areas have received a lot of money from the Government, but have not utilised it to any great benefit. The Central Lancashire New Town has been able to act as a catalyst and has directed money to needy areas, such as Courtaulds.
Preston docks may close, and the potential of that site is enormous. One does not have to be a dreamer or fantasist to imagine the potential of that site and how it might be developed. A marina, private housing and advance factories could be developed. An enormous development would provide more jobs than are presently available in the docks. Leisure, business, industrial and housing amenities could be added to the ancient town of Preston. Central Lancashire New Town has put in a lot of work in terms of the redevelopment of the older parts of Preston.
It is instructive to use Preston as an example. Hon. Members have expressed rightful concern about declining industries, such as the textile industry. There is great

67
potential in new industries, and Preston's intelligent foresight of years ago—of moving into industries such as aerospace-has proved a boon. The Central Lancashire New Town has been able to help in a variety of ways, and continues to do so.
One aspect of great concern—I regret to say in so august an assembly—is the problem of sewerage. Many hon. Members, particularly those who represent Manchester constituencies, will know that sewers have collapsed in parts of Manchester. The situation in the North-West, including Preston, is worrying. The sewers are old and, by the very nature of things, require an enormous amount of capital investment. There should be a considerable effort to find the money needed. I expect that those Labour Members who oppose the Common Market will be the last to cry when the EEC provides the money for some of this restoration.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the hon. Member expect that private industry will also make its contribution, following what he said about the North-West water authority?
Mr. Atkins: I am sure that private industry will, through the high rates that it pays, contribute a great deal of money to the sewers.
I turn now to some of the industries that are achieving success in and around Preston and central Lancashire. I was delighted to see in the papers this morning that a Preston company, Gemmill and Dunsmore, has just received the Queen's award for export achievement—and its industry is textile machinery. Even in textiles, all is not lost.
The two biggest companies in the area are British Aerospace and British Leyland. British Aerospace has just announced its results for a period of years, and for the first time reports sales of over £1,000 million. That is a tremendous achievement. In case any Labour Member should say that that is a result of nationalisation, I would say that such a claim is tommy rot. These developments have been built up over many years and relate to projects that were funded and organised when the company was private.
The company has also announced a planned campaign of expansion. Whether in building more and faster ADV versions
68
of the Tornado—the F2, as it is known in the RAF—more 125s in Chester or more Airbus wings, British Aerospace is a success story, and I am convinced that British Aerospace Limited will be an even greater success story.
There is a lot of knocking of British Leyland, but I am proud that the area of the company that is most successful is adjacent to my constituency, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). The new vehicle that the company has announced, the T45, is already successful and I hope that there is more success to come. Perhaps the Minister will give more consideration to the problems of type approval regulations, which exist for private vehicles, but not for commercial vehicles.
There are problems in the North-West and no one would seek to deny them, but there are great success stories as well and the potential exists for more. The attitude in the area, that we cannot afford to spend what we do not have, shows how this area will develop. The potential, the infrastructure and the hard work are there; above all, the people are there to do the work. All that we need is that extra spark of encouragement, and then the problems of the North-West will diminish.
5.23 pm
Mr. Tom McNally: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), who, unfortunately, is not present now, apologised to me earlier for interfering in the internal affairs of the old metropolitan borough of Stockport. I do not mind his support for new jobs for the town or his call for the completion of the M63. In that respect we welcome the interest of Hazel Grove. Unfortunately, the Tory councillors that Hazel Grove and Cheadle send to rule Stockport also give us the cuts in money for bus passes for the disabled, the axing of nursery schools and the cutting of property repairs, which will give future generations council slums. That is the other aspect of Hazel Grove's interest in Stockport.
As several hon. Members have said, the North-West is the heart of industrial England. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) in saying that we are exaggerating the problems and thus causing damage. This is always a problem, but, as someone who was born in North Fylde and whose

69
family still lives there, I do not think that its people believe that their economic problems are exaggerated.
The Government cannot be absolved of responsibility. Less than a year ago I saw in Stockport expensive Saatchi and Saatchi advertisements saying "the Conservatives are coming". They came; but many small business men who voted for them did not imagine that with them would come more than a doubling of the inflation rate, a record level of MLR for a uniquely long period or the doubling of VAT. Those are the realities facing small and medium firms in the North-West.
Rarely can a Government have so effectively destroyed business confidence, as many reviews by business itself in the North-West have revealed. Therefore, we cannot allow the Tories to say "Do not mention this. Do not disturb confidence. People will think it is too terrible."The skills and the capability of the working people of the North-West have never been in doubt. What is now in doubt is how those disastrous policies will hit the economy of the region.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) praise British Aerospace. How a little constituency interest overrides prejudice! The workers of British Aerospace rightly resent the meddling of the Secretary of State for Industry in their firm. As the hon. Member said, it is a success story. There is no justification for the sheer ideological prejudice, interference and casting of doubt on the future of that firm by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Robert Atkins Mr. Robert Atkins rose——
Mr. McNally: No, I will not give way. Many hon. Members still wish to speak.
Nor can people in my constituency understand the Secretary of State's ideological interference in the future of Fairey Engineering. Two years ago, the workers had a bankrupt firm on their hands. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in his place. He is known and respected in Stockport for the great work he did with the NEB in the rescue of Fairey. Now—again, not because it has failed but because it is successful—the future of that company is put in doubt by the meddling of the Secretary of State.
70
These successful companies have offended on one count only in the Secretary of State's eyes: they are examples of public enterprise that has worked. When it comes to the real problems facing industry, the right hon. Gentleman says that he will not interfere, that his ideological purity makes him leave these things to the market place.
A North-West industrialist recently told me that since 1978–79 the competitiveness of his goods had been eroded, compared with those of his main competitors, by 35 per cent. in West Germany, 24 per cent. in France and 21 per cent. in Sweden. That was due to two factors—the strength of the pound and the rate of United Kingdom inflation, both directly caused by present Government policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) warned of a disaster facing industry. He was right to do so, because of these factors which are presently at work. Talking privately to industrialists one finds a deep gloom about the future under this Government's economic strategy. An example is the hasty and ill-considered withdrawal of assisted area status for the North-West. The North-West Industrial Development Association has said:
"The withdrawal of assisted area status from large areas of North-West England will seriously inhibit the future economic development of the region"
That again is Government policy at work.
The neglect of regional policy goes hand in hand with another piece of "noninterference "—namely, the refusal to guide Inmos into a development area. We are told that the Government cannot interfere in these matters of the market place, yet they have willingly interfered in success stories such as Fairey and British Aerospace. We have double standards from the Secretary of State for Industry. When we scratch away the ideological pretensions, we find a lamentable lack of industrial strategy.
One further industrial fact must be laced and added to any assessment of industry in the North-West—namely, that many informed and reasonable men on both sides of industry, and on both sides of this House, fear for the future of the textile industry. The Secretary of State for Trade has continually taken a "too-little, too-late" approach which has

71
already cost thousands of jobs. In the Secretary of State for Trade and his Department we have a dangerous combination for free trade. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) may put forward ideas about a procurement policy and faster action on antidumping. But let me tell him that he will find in the Department of Trade and in the person of the Secretary of State, people who do not want to listen to that kind of argument. Because of that, the textile industry is in real danger. It is time that the Secretary of State stopped pussyfooting about over the future of the multi-fibre arrangement and gave the industry some long-term hope for the future.
A number of hon. Members have said that we should not paint too gloomy a picture of the region. I have sketched some of the positive harmful actions that the Government have done to the region. However, they cannot take away from the region its multifarious skills, its advanced industry and its good communications. These should be emphasised. A Government with some concept of regional policy and a commitment to making industry work could make a success story of the North-West. Perhaps the North-West voters knew in their hearts that the Conservative manifesto was not to be believed. Perhaps that is why they returned so many Labour Members at the last election. Perhaps they did not trust the aspirations of the Secretary of State for Industry, or think that the Conservatives really gave hope and opportunity to a region of high skills, high technology and industry.
I do not know how long the present Government will survive or how long the present economic and industrial strategy will last. As long as it lasts, it will harm the North-West and its industry. Perhaps I should remind the Minister of something that was said more than 50 years ago by a then Member of Parliament who sat for a constituency in the North-West. Perhaps the Minister will listen to him rather than me. Sir Winston Churchill once said:
"I would rather see finance less proud and industry more content."
As industry in the North-West sees the windfall profits of the private banks untouched by this Government, at the
72
same time as industrial and regional aid is withdrawn, it will become more and more discontented, and it is right that it should be so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): This is a very important debate and I am anxious that everyone who wishes to take part should be called. If every hon. Member speaks for an average of six minutes, I shall be able to call everyone who wishes to speak.
5.35 pm
Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for indicating that we have about six minutes each. I shall try to confine myself to that limit.
Anyone listening to the speeches from the Opposition Benches today could not fail to be amazed at the hypocrisy of a party which has failed abysmally in governing this country for two-thirds of the past 20 years. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this debate is that the vast majority of Labour Members have been so destructive. Not one has put forward any new constructive proposal. Opposition Members have trotted out precisely the same proposals which led to the region's decline and resulted in the legacy that they left us last May. For that reason, if for no other, at a time when the full consequences of Labour's mishandling of the economy are taking full effect, the debate this afternoon should be turned round and we should be censuring the Opposition.
After only 11 months in office the Conservative Government have dramatically changed the course of this country's economic policy and are determined to reverse the decline.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: At a cost of 1·4 million unemployed.
Mr. Trippier: I do not know why the hon. Lady should make such a remark when her Government doubled unemployment in the North-West.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Wait until we see what happens under the Conservatives.
Mr. Trippier: After such a short period it would be impossible to expect the effects of the changes we are making in policy to have worked their way through the system but major steps have been

73
taken, all of which have a direct effect on the North-West. We have increased incentives by cutting taxes. We have increased incentives for small businesses in the recent Budget. We have removed constraints and distortions and we have reduced bureaucracy by abolishing controls on prices, dividends, pay and foreign exchange. We have also eliminated a lot of waste and that has represented a £90 million saving. Increased exploration in the North Sea will benefit the Northwest, as any other region. We have secured a better use of energy resources by realistic pricing policies. We have restored realism to the nationalised industries' finances and pay bargaining. We accept entirely that success will take some time to materialise. No one could accuse us of not warning the electorate on this score. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made that abundantly clear before, during and since the last election.
There are encouraging signs. North Sea oil outputs are booming. We shall be self-sufficient in oil this year. The balance of payments is in deficit because imports are too high but the fact remains that exports are at record levels and invisible trade is doing well. Last year the United Kingdom overtook West Germany to become second only to the United States in gross as well as net invisible earnings.
In the textile and footwear industries, which are predominant in my constituency, the Opposition cannot shake off their responsibility. This is manifestly the case with textiles where, in the North-West region, and particularly in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, we have had mills closing at the rate of one a week since 1 January this year. The Opposition should not be so smug about the fact that that has happened during our tenure of office. The negotiation for the MFA took place under the last Administration, and everyone knows that it cannot be renegotiated until 1981. Because we have to wait until then—and the Opposition negotiated the length of the agreement, as well as the terms of the quota levels—there may well be no spinning or weaving mills left to renegotiate for.
Mr. Straw: Of course the multi-fibre arrangement was not perfect but it was negotiated with all-party support. Will not
74
the hon. Member accept that the major problems of the textile industry at present are very high interest and exchange rates and imports of dumped goods from the United States and Canada?
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member has raised two points. First, he says that the MFA had all-party support, but he must realise that the people who negotiated it through the EEC were not shadow spokesmen on our side, but Ministers in the then Government. They actually sat around the table and negotiated it and then brought it back to the House of Commons for ratfication or otherwise.
Secondly, the hon. Member should listen more carefully to the textile trade unions, as well as the employers, who would tell him that the major reason why the textile industry is under such pressure at present is largely because of imports. The closures in east Lancashire, certainly by Tootal, were largely because of increased import penetration. Let there be no mistake that this Government inherited the agreement from the previous Administration and there is still too high a level of imports. I have attempted to put the record straight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for his intervention. Many Conservative Members will continue to fight for a strengthened multi-fibre arrangement to be renegotiated next year and for the bilateral arrangement to be renegotiated the year after.
It is essential that the Secretary of State for Trade makes his position crystal clear, as a Community view will be sought before the GATT textile committee meetings in August. As Britain is under the most pressure, we should take the initiative and lead the Community. Only in that way can we avoid a recurrence of the disaster that has hit east Lancashire. Tootal has closed many mills in the area, culminating in a closure in my constituency last week.
Footwear has also faced increased competition from imports, which has already led to many closures and which will lead to more. The Government must take action—in the form of an increase in selective import controls, and more effective anti-dumping procedures of the sort that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee). The footwear industry also faces a problem from within, which the Government

75
must examine carefully. A retail commitment was introduced to ensure that the footwear retailers supported the footwear manufacturers by buying British where-ever possible. To say that the retail commitment has not worked is a gross understatement. To say that it has been effectively monitored by the footwear EDC is a sham. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in detail in his reply.
The Government are determined to create a climate of enterprise in which entrepreneurship, innovation and success are rewarded in industry, in the North-West. Nothing should deviate them from that course. The public have already experienced the alternative strategy which manifested itself between 1974 and 1979. That strategy, under the previous Labour Government, did nothing to arrest the decline in the North-West. It compounded it. That is why the vast majority of British industrialists in the North-West are solidly behind the Government's policies. If they have any fear, it is not that the policies will not work, but that the Government will deviate from their original course. The first objective for the Government is to reduce inflation. Only when that has been achieved can a sustained improvement in the economy begin—with the promotion of initiative and enterprise and the provision of new jobs, especially in small firms in the North-West. The Government's policies must succeed if we are to lift ourselves out of the malaise which results from being a second-rate nation.
5.43 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: It would have been one thing if the Government had withdrawn intermediate status from the North-West if the last decade and forecasts had shown that its condition was improving, but they show that the situation in the North-West has become steadily worse over the last 10 years. The reason is not, as the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) said, the previous Government's considerable level of aid, but, in spite of that, in relative as well as absolute terms. That applies whatever yardstick one takes. If the unemployment vacancy ratio is taken as a better yardstick of the firmness of the labour market than unemployment levels per se, the position of the North-
76
West is vastly worse than the national average. Without exception, in recent months the North-West has had the highest unemployment vacancy ratio. How can the Government justify removing intermediate area status from the North-West when it contains no less than 18 travel-to-work areas where the unemployment vacancy ratio is greater than the national average?
The North-West has been losing not only its share of employment but its share of capital investment. In seeking to justify his policy, the Secretary of State said in a debate on regional policy last year:
"To a limited extent there has been some apparent success in regional policy, judging by the disproportionate amount of the total investment—disproportionate in terms of the population concerned—that has taken place over recent years in the regions."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, col. 365.]
The North-West has been considerably more disadvantaged than other regions in general. While fixed capital formation by industry and Government has been about 9 per cent. of the national total, the population of the North-West accounts for about 12 per cent. of the national total. Again, I ask how can the Government justify cutting regional development grant aid when investment levels are already so far behind the rest of the country?
The North-West also has particular environmental difficulties—many in my constituency—in terms of large areas of undeveloped and derelict land, the derelict and potentially dangerous state of the underground water supply and sewerage installations, and an excessive amount of obsolete industrial property—perhaps no less than a third predating the First World War. Much such land is in my constituency. On what grounds can the Government justify de-designating the North-West outside Merseyside, when these problems are virtually as severe now as when the area was originally designated as an assisted area? The Government's wish is to achieve a large public expenditure cutback, rather than to pursue a rational policy that is designed to assist the regions. Because of that, they are unlikely to backtrack wholly, however damaging their proposals. But will they not demonstrate at least a measure of flexibility in order to minimise the damage?

77
Because assisted area status is at present combined with other specific aids, the North-West stands to lose those also when it is deprived of its intermediate area status. Therefore will not the Government think again about the specific aids, and ensure that they remain available where the conditions of eligibility are met? That would at least avoid the aggravating, cumulative effect of de-designation, and it would ensure that abrupt deprivation is not compounded by loss of such valuable aids, in their own rights, as tourism grants, 100 per cent. land dereliction grants, and rent-free periods for small firms.
Under the present rules withdrawal of assisted area status will deprive the North-West of future grants from the European regional development fund. Yet the whole of the North-West—not simply Merseyside—as well as Scotland, Wales and the Northern region falls within a band of regional unemployment greater than 100 per cent. of the EEC average. Surely, on those grounds it is a justified candidate for ERDF aid. The Government prefer to reserve a more selective and discriminatory approach, but will they consider pressing for an industry-based, rather than a purely area-based, criterion for assistance, since that would have the considerable merit of concentrating aid on the textile industry, thus giving aid to the North-West?
Regional aid has been axed purely because of the dogmatic economics of the money supply. The Minister should recognise that the North-West, outside, Merseyside, should not be made the pawn of a dogmatic and increasingly discredited economic policy. Since the cutbacks are being imposed on an area where the position is already deteriorating, a major U-turn by the Government is the only way of avoiding a serious, dangerous and prolonged slump for the North-West.
5.50 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I shall concentrate on one aspect of the North-West. The region will not change much, and we must have a clearer statement about the part that central Government will play in the local situation. How far will central Government dis-
78
criminate in favour of one area against another? The uncertainty of whether the Government intend to intervene makes it more difficult for small firms to make informed decisions. The absence of dependable information about how local government and central Government will move prevents small firms from investing and the major financial institutions from finding customers prepared to take risk capital. The uncertainty is aggravating an already unstable situation.
The previous Government did not help. They talked about inner city rejuvenation, but they did nothing about it. They produced a White Paper and called together partnership committees. They believed that by bringing together central Government, local government and the health authorities they would arrest the downward spiral in inner cities. They left out private enterprise representation, the CBI, the trade unions and the community. It was crazy for the last Government to talk about partnership, when they ignored half the community that creates the wealth.
The Conservative Government had a clear mandate to reduce bureaucracy and reduce public intervention. Their mandate was to allow market forces to operate without constraint or distortion. That is the right approach. We have already made some moves in that direction. The Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and enterprise zones are designed to release controls and to encourage the recycling of money. The abandonment of a tier of regional aid is part of the some process.
There is no point in central Government reducing public intervention at national level if it is stepped up at local level. For example, the Liverpool council seems to be hell bent on destroying the small firm. It has announced a 50 per cent. increase in rates. What commercial enterprise can sustain such an increase and continue to trade in the inner area?
Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that Liverpool council increased its rates because if it does not, on the basis of Government policy, further unemployment will be created in Liverpool where it is already too high? The council was forced into adopting Government policy, and it has the choice of increasing the rates or causing massive unemployment.
Mr. Steen: I hope that that intervention will not be counted against the six minutes that I am allowed, and that I shall be allowed to answer it. The city council has persistently refused to increase council rents. Instead, it has clobbered the commercial and private ratepayers. As a result, small firms are being driven outside the city to sites in the green field areas, and that reduces the amount earned in rates. I shall not be distracted further by that red herring.
The city council is also demolishing small firms. Recently it demolished a small firm in my constituency and replaced it with public housing. The turnover of that firm was £250,000 a year. It had an export trade worth £100,000 and a staff of 12. That firm is lost and will not operate again. For 18 months the well-known firm of Panda Alarms was prevented from building a new office block because the council's planning department did not like the shape and size of the aerial on top of the premises, although it was exactly the same shape and size as the old aerial 50 yards down the road.
Conflict between central Government and local government can breed distrust, which prevents banks, insurance companies and pension funds from investing in inner urban areas. The level of public intervention in inner city Liverpool is driving out the people and industries that could revive the inner area. What other city refuses to sell some of its spare land to willing purchasers? About 1,800 acres of derelict, dormant land are available within the city boundaries of Liverpool, but the city council is not prepared to sell any of that land so that office blocks can be rehabilitated. That means that buildings are condemned to compulsory purchase orders, and that leads to more derelict land. The Government must make plain whether they are prepared to intervene or whether they are prepared to allow the city council to continue to destroy the vestiges of wealth in the ailing inner area.
The Government must come clean about the extent to which they are prepared to distort the market by such intervention as the £70 million made available to the London docks under the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill. They must make clear how far they will distort the market economy by giving
80
money to the urban development corporation. We talk about a Government who are committed to non-interventionism, but they may do that which they say they do not wish to do. If they confine themselves to giving infrastructure grants and enabling private enterprise to flourish in the enterprise zones and the urban development corporation areas, that will be a step in the right direction. However, if they believe in a non-interventionist policy, they must recognise that designating Liverpool airport as a C-category airport must be discriminatory, when they give Manchester airport an A category. That represents a move towards Manchester and away from Liverpool.
The same comment applies to European Community bids. We must ensure that favourable treatment is not given to some areas and not to others. We must ensure that city councils do not intervene where the Government do not. The Government's intervention programme must be limited to offering incentives, not in the shape of grant-aid, but in freeing controls so that small firms and private builders can once again create wealth.
5.57 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I shall be as brief as possible. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) said. Those of us who were born and have lived in Lancashire know well the textile industry's problems. They are not recent problems. Over the years, we have endeavoured to introduce legislation and to negotiate the GATT treaties in order to protect the indigenous industries of Lancashire.
The hon. Gentleman tends to forget that during the period of the Labour Government his constituency's footwear and textile industries were kept afloat by temporary employment subsidies which were fought for by his predecessor, Mike Noble, who battled manfully to ensure that those industries were protected. Although they were not the whole answer to the problem, they were a very good palliative during that period.
We now face a very difficult situation in the North West.
Mr. Trippier: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last period of Labour government, more jobs were lost in the textile industry than under the previous Conservative Administration, even

81
with temporary employment subsidy which many Government supporters believed created more problems than it solved?
Mr. Stott: I am aware of that, but time does not allow me to debate it with the hon. Member for Rossendale. However, we both know that without temporary employment subsidy, which was paid to the textile industry in Lancashire, a great many more jobs would have been lost. That happens to be a fact of life even though, apparently, the hon. Gentleman does not agree with it.
We have a Government who are hellbent on subjecting the whole nation to the Thatcher experiment. As a consequence, they are bound to create more and more unemployment. But we cannot continue to pursue a policy of tight money control, a slavish adherence to the prophesies of Milton Friedman and high levels of interest rates without having very high and sustained levels of unemployment.
During the period of Labour government, unemployment rose. We must acknowledge that it did. But during that same period, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and his team in the Department of Employment introduced various measures, including the job release scheme, the work experience scheme and the temporary employment subsidy, to mitigate the worst consequences of structural unemployment—unemployment which was created because of the decline of older industries and the emergence of newer ones.
All those palliatives and measures which cushioned the problems of unemployment have been swept aside in the cause of the Thatcher experiment, and even in my constituency we see unemployment going up to a level of 10 or 11 per cent.
The Government have to think seriously about reintroducing some form of assistance in the North-West to mitigate the consequences to which they are subjecting our people. They ought to look again at some of the schemes which were used so successfully by my right hon. Friends in the Department of Industry.
The second topic which I wish to discuss has been referred to by a number
82
of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I represent a constituency which is split between Bolton and Wigan. I pay tribute to the recognition which this Government have shown of the problems of Wigan. However, before we get too euphoric about the creation of a special development area for Wigan, for which I am grateful and for which I pressed my right hon. and hon. Friends in the last Labour Administration, we have to remember that within the Wigan conurbation and the Bolton area those other areas were intermediate areas. That intermediate area status has disappeared, or is about to disappear. As a consequence, we face a real problem. I am sorry that we do not have a Minister from the Department of the Environment present for this debate, because in the Wigan area there is a great deal of land reclamation to be done.
In the centre of the Lancashire coalfield, many attempts have been made by local authorities to eradicate the slag heaps and the pollution of late nineteenth century coal mining. We cannot do that if the Government do not acknowledge that we have a problem. Therefore, all of us who represent such areas are very sorry that the 100 per cent. reclamation grant goes when the intermediate status of the area goes. I hope that the Government will heed what was said by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who drew attention to this problem.
I end on a parochial note, although make no excuse for doing so. Again I wish that there were a Minister here from the Department of the Environment, because we are becoming a little fed up in my constituency with the Secretary of State for the Environment granting planning applications to the National Coal Board for opencast mining. We have had enough of opencast mining in Wigan, and I do not want to see any more environmental pollution in my area.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for the Environment, who represents the constituency of Henley-on-Thames, would like 24 coal lorries an hour rumbling along the main highway of Henley. Thanks to his decision, that is what I have in my constituency, and it will not do. It is time that the Department of the Environment took notice of

83
what the local authority is saying and stopped approving these planning applications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) said that the people of the North-West would pass judgment. They most certainly will. I suspect that support for the Conservative Party in the North-West is now concentrated into an esoteric group of people such as collectors of Czarist bonds or admirers of English middle order batting.
On 1 May, the people of the North-West will make their judgment on the performance of this Government. That will be the return of Labour-controlled councils throughout the North-West.
6.5 pm
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am pleased to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), who apologised for being somewhat parochial in his closing remarks. I, too, intend to be parochial because I feel that the area which I represent—the Morecambe and the Lancaster area—has factors to which I should draw attention because it knows how to overcome the problems facing the North-West.
This debate has been characterised by two general factors. The first is that Government help has an important place in the matter of assisting Britain's regions but that it is not the solution to the problem. The second general characteristic to which I draw attention is that the problems of the North-West are not bad all over. They are not bad, for example, in the area which I represent. They could be better, of course, but in a national context they are not so bad. I appreciate that they are very bad in the traditional industries, but they are not bad in many of the emerging industries, and I feel that our example may be a pointer.
I shall, of course, confine my remarks to Lancashire. Any constituent of mine who reads this speech and notes that I said nothing about Cumbria may rest assured that I shall remedy that deficiency on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) drew attention to a most important fact in the Morecambe and Lancaster area. It is that during the past year, notwithstanding the
84
period of recession that Great Britain and the rest of the world are going through, unemployment in our area has not increased. I do not seek to suggest that there is an overall trend which will be continued in a downward spiral. However, very marginally in the Morecambe and Lancaster area unemployment has actually decreased. Therefore, it is even more important to look at the Morecambe and Lancaster area to see whether it can give some general pointers to the North-West region in answering these difficult questions.
Morecambe and Heysham have established two records in the last few months, I am happy to report. First, it has been announced that we are to have the largest nuclear complex in the whole of Europe, which is very good for local employment. Secondly, it has been announced in the last few weeks that some entrepreneurs are making the necessary investment to build the largest big wheel in Europe. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members have listened to that observation with some apparent amusement, and I am delighted that that is so. However, it is also important to look at the serious aspect of it, because such an investment is one of more than £100,000 in the entertainment industry of Morecambe, and we have to ask why people are prepared to invest money of that kind at a time when interest rates are so high.
I wish to draw attention to one or two small factors affecting the Morecambe and Lancaster area. All too often in debates of this kind, hon. Members on both sides of the House call for large sums of money which somehow will solve the problems of unemployment in their areas in a swift and dramatic way. Such is not the case of course. Unemployment is coped with by sustained planning and opportunities to create conditions in which small industries can build and grow. Therefore, I have to report one or two matters in my area in order to demonstrate how this has been happening.
In the last few weeks, the building of two small advance factories has been announced in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and two in the area I represent. It has also been announced that the Granada company—I have had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), a director of the company—is

85
to make a substantial investment in the Morecambe area. It is an investment, according to published information, of some £300,000. This demonstrates the confidence that Granada places in the North-West.
Two years ago the company made an investment in the Morecambe bowl, a bingo hall, that developed successfully. The company tested the water and found a tremendous market that was not merely seasonal but continued throughout the year. It has decided to follow initial, tentative feelers with a substantial investment in Morecambe that will do much for the prosperity of the area. I am informed, on the impeccable authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden, that Granada was pleased, beyond its wildest dreams, at the success of its venture and delighted with the staff who have been proved to be hard-working and co-opara-tive.
It is a measure of confidence in the Morecambe and Lancaster area that there have been announcements over the last few weeks of investments of an amount of between £500,000 and £1 million. That is a substantial amount for an area that does not have pretensions bigger than itself. If repeated over coming months, it would mean a substantial difference to the local economy. Why are business men prepared, in the face of high interest rates, to invest substantial sums in any area of Great Britain and, particularly, in an area such as Morecamble? The reason, I suggest, is that business men have confidence, not particularly in the present situation, but in the future of this country. They have confidence in the way the economy will develop and are, therefore, prepared to invest now to sow the seeds for reaping large dividends in coming years.
Hon. Members need to examine several simple factors for attracting industry that the North-West desperately needs. They must look to advance factories. These have been a far greater success than any other facility provided by the Government. They have to look to facilities for premises of industries that wish to set up in the area. This means looking carefully at the rates charged by local authorities.
Hon. Members must also be sure that their areas can provide, as the Morecambe and Lancaster area provides, a co-operative and helpful work force in an area favoured by good communications, as exist in most parts of the North-West. If
86
that is done, the prosperity that hon. Members desire will come to their areas.
6.13 pm
Mrs. Gwyneih Dunwoody: I do not wish to detain the House for long, and I certainly do not wish to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that if the fun-fairs of this country are expanded, people will have some way of passing the time, even if they have no jobs. The ferris wheel may be the answer for some Conservative Members who have performed some extraordinary about turns in this debate. It is not the answer to the problems of the North-West.
The difficulty is that the country has a Prime Minister and a Secretary of State for Industry who believe in the total division of Great Britain. They believe that the South-East, and only the most affluent parts of the South-East, should be supported. This attitude is shown by the Government's attacks on industrial support and regional aid in the last 12 months. I have been fortunate in that I have represented a part of the North-West that contains a high percentage of skilled engineers and a wide range of industries to provide jobs for those engineers.
It is terrifying now to see the rate of unemployment rising even in what was regarded as a favoured area of the region. We are being subjected to the results of the first 12 months of Conservative government. Small businesses, in particular, are going bankrupt. The areas that will be hit by the Government's action are those that do not possess Government advance factories and rely heavily on assistance from Labour-controlled local authorities to build more industrial estates.
A great deal of play has been made since the Budget about the extension of what are called enterprise zones. I learned the hard way, as the Minister responsible for regional development in a previous Labour Government, that there is no easy way to bring jobs into an area that is losing many of its traditional industries. One needs a wide range of measures, across the board, not only to attract new factories but to encourage existing factories to expand. I fear that, in the North-West, the new so-called enterprise zones, that will be pirate zones, free of many of the restrictions on surrounding

87
areas, will attract precisely that class of people—industrial pirates.
If there is one person worse than the man who takes advantage of every kind of Government aid and then spends all his time complaining about Government interference, it is the man who uses the idea of a pirate zone to boost the economy of his own company only to remove his firm as fast as possible when that support is removed, leaving behind him the wreck of what could have been a proper business if it had been soundly based. The Minister should say that it is not his intention to abandon the North-West to the simple idea that one can attract entrepeneurs, who do not seem to have taken advantage of the great benefits given to them in the last two Budgets, into an area such as the North-West and create jobs.
We are not interested in the extension of bingo halls and ferris wheels. We are interested in the creation of proper jobs and opportunities for employing our young people and renewing a dying industrial situation. Unless the Government change their attitude and their economic policy, there will be a rapid decline into an even greater recession. We shall be back to the 1930s with a vengeance.
6.17 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on the robust manner in which he kicked off the debate after years of enforced silence as "a usual channel". The hon. Gentleman did extremely well, considering the record of the previous Government in the North-West, not to shoot the ball more often into his own goal than he did. I deplore the absence from the debate of representatives of the Liberal Party. Not only has there been no speech from the Liberal Benches but there has not been a single Liberal Member in the Chamber. That is an indication of the importance with which the Liberals regard the North-West.
The case deployed by the Opposition against the Government has been feeble. The Government's realistic approach to the problems of the North-West has been exemplified by Merseyside's retention of its special assisted area status, the short listing of sites in Liverpool and
88
Manchester as possible enterprise zones, and the setting up of an urban development corporation to deal with the development of the Liverpool dockside area.
I have been unconvinced by the attempted correlation by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who, I am sorry to say, has now left the Chamber, of unemployment with the withdrawal of assisted area status. In the Northwich travel-to-work area, in the last quarter, unemployment went down and the number of vacancies at employment offices rose by over 11 per cent. On a year-on-year basis, from the end of 1978, vacancies rose by over 38 per cent.
I want to dwell briefly on three points which have not been discussed at great length, and which I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to when winding up. They are infrastructure, energy and assistance to small businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) said in his excellent speech, communications are vital to the North-West, and they can be provided only by the Government. At present, we are well served by, and desperately dependent upon, our infrastructure, and it is vital that it is kept up to date. We have seen positive developments in air traffic at Speke and at Manchester Ringway, and I hope that those trends continue, particularly at Ringway, I hope that the Government will will the means of their continuance. We have seen positive developments in dock investment in Liverpool and elsewhere, and there have been positive signs of investment in the area by British Rail.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has said that a number of trunk schemes will not be affected by the Government's review of the trunk road programme, including the M63 Stockport east-west bypass and the A590 Ulverston bypass. He has also agreed to a 100 per cent. grant for the M531 Ellesmere Port-Chester scheme, and reaffirmed the grant awarded to the M602 Salford docks road.
Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has also approved statutory proposals for the Hyndburn to Burnley section of the M65 Calder Valley motorway and for the northern section of the A56 Accrington eastern bypass.

89
There are positive signs that there are many plans in the course of execution, and for the North-West it is vital that they should continue. From my own experience, I can tell my hon. Friend that Cheshire's road programme should be subject to as little delay as is humanly possible. Alleviation of the traffic problems of Tarporley and Eaton, to which I have referred previously, and Northwich, Kelsall and Tarvin are vital, not only to through traffic but as a means of halting the congestion in the area. Any delay will result only in greater expenditure in the future and unacceptable congestion in the meantime.
I turn to energy. We have heard about the difficulty of people obtaining gas supplies in rural areas. The same applies to industrial sites. There is no doubt that the current difficulties in supplying extra gas to companies and industrial estates are endangering industrial expansion in the North-West region. The problem has been caused not by a shortage of gas but by the high world price and relative shortage of oil, which has created an unbalanced market and given rise to an unprecedented level of demand for gas.
I understand that the present policy of North-West Gas is to fulfil its statutory obligation to connect new customers, to maintain supplies and to honour commitments already entered into, subject to some restrictions on quantity of supply to new industrial customers. I understand that plans to expand the national transmission network are being brought forward, and that the Morecambe Bay gas-field will be developed as quickly as possible.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Secretary of State for Energy to ensure that British Gas, and especially North-West Gas, redouble their efforts, as it will have serious consequences for employment and output in the North-West if they do not.
I turn finally to small firms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) pointed out, the North-West is particularly dependent for employment upon small businesses. Last November, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry announced a package to help small firms, including a new pilot finance scheme in the Eastern region, linking the Department's small firms service, and the Post Office staff
90
superannuation fund. I hope that he will be able to tell us that steps towards a nationwide facility may not be too far off and that it will be extended to the North-West. I hope he will be able to tell us about the success of that scheme.
The package also included new workshops for small firms in shipbuilding areas, including one at Wallasey, and I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about the progress of those schemes. The package also included an extension of the small firms service by way of peripatetic visits to towns in order to see clients, and I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about the progress of that aspect of the scheme.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement a range of measures to improve the climate for small firms. The greatest service which the Government can do to the North-West is precisely that. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe said that the North-West had as good resources as anywhere in the country. Of course, the greatest of our resources is our people. We have heard success stories but the fact is that the solution to the problems of the North-West lies in our hands and in the hands of the people of the North-West. The commercial opportunities are there to be grasped, if we will grasp them. That we must do together.
6.26 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: In the two minutes available to me I should like to urge the Minister to reconsider the Government's decision to cut off industrial aid to a large part of the North-West, and north-east Lancashire in particular. I do so for two reasons, which have occurred since the decisions were announced last year. First, exceedingly high interest rates are now penalising manufacturing industry. What is not realised is that high interest rates of the sort that obtain at present operate as a perverse regional policy. They are transferring millions of pounds from the manufacturing areas of the country, from the North-West and the North, to the City of London and the South-East. That is the effect of the Government's industrial policy. It transfers money from manufacturing firms to the banks, and I ask the Government to transfer some of those profits back the other way.

91
Secondly, officials of the Treasury have given evidence before a Committee of this House that employmeit in manufacturing industry will decline by 5 per cent. over the next year. On my estimate, that will mean a reduction in the number of jobs in the North-West of at least 30,000. Those jobs will go during the next year if the Government's own prediction about the effect of their Budget comes true. Does the Minister agree that if that happens there will be an overwhelming case for the Government reintervening and changing their industrial policy? All of us want industry in the North-West to succeed. It is the belief of Labour Members that Government policies are seriously damaging industry's ability to succeed.
6.28 pm
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I preface my contribution to this debate by joining hon. Members on both sides of the House who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on what was a thoughtful and perceptive speech. It reflected on his ability and on the wisdom of the electors of Bury and Radcliffe, who returned him to this House so convincingly at the general election.
This has been a good and hard-hitting debate on the problems facing the North-West. I believe that my parliamentary colleagues have mounted a formidable—indeed, unanswerable—case for a more positive response from the Government to the major problems which currently exist in the North-West region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe reminded us that Lancashire and the North-West were the cradle of the world's first industrial revolution. One can perhaps describe Lancashire and the North-West as the world's first enterprise zone, but the sad reality is that in so many areas of the region we are still living with the industrial obsolescence and urban dereliction which flowed from Britain's Industrial Revolution.
I have noted the concern from both sides of the House which has been expressed during the debate, a concern which in no way wishes to make comments which reflect to the detriment of Lancashire and the North-West. I understand and share those feelings. I accept that Lancastrians, Merseysiders and other communities in the North-West are a
92
proud industrious people, but I tell all hon. Members that we cannot close our minds to the problems of the North-West; we cannot ignore the realities of life for the people whom we represent in this House.
Understandably, my hon. Friends have expressed anger, anxiety and concern about industrial contraction and the growing unemployment now manifesting itself in the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, who opened the debate, rightly drew attention to the problems of the textile industry. We have witnessed the virtual decimation of the Lancashire textile industry as 260,000 jobs have been lost in recent years. Only 65,500 jobs now remain of the 326,000 jobs that once existed in the industry.
I am bound to warn the Government that the plight of the Lancashire textile industry has never been more critical. I do not need to remind the House of the Government-sponsored streamlined planning of over 20 years ago which closed 400 mills and threw thousands of mill workers out of their jobs in a bid to create a modern and viable textile industry.
Mill workers recognised and accepted the need for industrial change, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) pointed out. Those workers accepted the need for change. They accepted shift-working. They have worked in co-operation with management, with the result that industrial relations in the Lancashire textile industry have been, and are, an example to many other industries. Yet mill workers find that mills are still closing at the rate of one a week. Is it any wonder that they believe that they have had a raw deal and that they feel that they have been let down? That is the background to the ominous warning given by Joe Quinn, the distinguished president of the Amalgamated Union of Textile Workers, at Blackpool the other day. He said that unless drastic action was taken to curb imports the industry could face extinction.
Along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington, I do not suggest that the Government are responsible for all the difficulties confronting the British textile industry. However, I say that the Secretary of State for Trade seems, as I listen to him in this House, to reflect an attitude almost of complacency about the problems of the industry. We

93
all know that those problems do not all flow from low-cost imports from underdeveloped countries.
I quote from an article by Sydney Rothwell, the commercial director of the British Textile Employers Association, in which he referred to problems arising from the fact that a number of Mediterranean companies enjoy associated status within the Common Market, which allows them to participate in the free circulation of imports within the Community. The articles states, that those associates have
"proved to be the least satisfactory area of control. Breaches of agreed or notified limits have been frequent. A particularly flagrant example of breaching an agreed ceiling is that of Turkish cotton yarn."
Mr. Rothwell went on to deal with the problems associated with outward processing.
The practices to which I have referred cause major concern in Lancashire. They rank alongside the difficulties posed by those countries currently negotiating for, or taking up, full membership of the Common Market. I refer to Greece, Spain and Portugal. Some transitional arrangements must be made during the course of those negotiations for the entry of those countries into the Community.
Additionally, there are the difficulties which flow from the dual pricing policy of the United States on fuel, which enables its man-made fibre industry to undercut British manufacturers. These problems, added to the prospect of textile imports from China, are, to say the least, worrying. I agree with those in Lancashire who believe that it is the very survival of the British textile industry which is now at stake.
However, if there are major problems facing the textile industry, equally serious difficulties confront other areas of manufacturing industry in the North-West. There have been appreciable contractions in the steel, engineering and coal mining industries. The number of jobs has fallen dramatically in the ports of Liverpool and Manchester, and even in the fishing industry at Fleetwood. The problems of that industry have been on occasions movingly described by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg).
A report prepared by the economic group of the Greater Manchester council planning department last December said that
94
"throughout the seventies the North-West has consistently been one of the four most severely affected regions in terms of unemployment. In the past two years the North-West has suffered over 20 per cent. of national redundancies, the highest of any region in spite of having only 12 per cent. of national employment."
The report went on:
"It is significant that it is the only one of those four regions not to have had virtually complete Development Area status."
I believe that the deteriorating nature of the regional economy is perhaps best illustrated—as some of my hon. Friends have recognised—by the number of unemployed people per unfilled vacancy. In February 1980 a news-letter from the North-West Industrial Development Association records that the ratio of people unemployed per notified vacancy in the North-West now stands at 15·5 compared with 8·3 for the United Kingdom as a whole. In the travel-to-work areas of Wigan and Rochdale there are over 20 people for every registered vacancy. In St. Helens there are a 42·2 people for every vacancy.
Mr. David Young: Does my right hon. Friend feel—as I do—that the present Government have written off the North-West and regard the people of the region as expendable?
Mr. Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that forceful contribution. However, I shall judge this Government on their record. I shall be content to judge them on how they face the problems that confront the North-West.
I was referring to the number of unemployed persons to every registered vacancy in some areas of the North-West. I felt for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) as he spoke of the frustrations of young people faced with the current situation as they seek employment. Significantly, the figures that I have quoted are substantially worse than those for either Scotland or Wales.
It is against that background that I say to the Secretary of State for Industry that his decision to withdraw assisted area status from Manchester and many areas of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and the North-West and to abolish the North-West Economic Planning Council was short-sighted and insensitive. That decision was a political kick in the teeth for the region and for those communities

95
there which already have to face enough problems. That decision was justified—as hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise—by statistics based on geographical areas within the context of travel-to-work areas which I believe are wholly unrealistic.
It was argued at the time by Tory Members that public expenditure must be cut back to reduce taxation. The priority under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer afforded tax handouts to the rich is, I believe, typical of the Tory philosophy which permeates current Government thinking—that is, the philosophy of "placate the greedy and ignore the needy".
I sometimes wonder whether the Government either know or care what effect their policies will have on the lives and futures of men, women and children in the North-West. We need in the region industrial regeneration, not industrial stagnation. I suggest that the Government ought to examine the possibility of a development agency for the North-West. It would at least act as a focal point for inward investment and would thereby generate the capital that is essential for industrial expansion.
I turn to the anxieties in the Northwest about the quality of life in the region. It staggers me that the Government can be proposing and implementing cuts in education, housing, health and hospital building in the North-West, because I am always mindful of the point made in the "Strategic Plan for the North-West", published in 1975:
"The North West is clearly in need of considerably more effort and resources before a state of balance can be claimed; until this need is met, the region will continue to be left behind the more favoured regions and its economy and quality of life will continue to suffer... at least a decade of special effort is necessary to establish a reasonable balance between the North West and other regions."
We are halfway through that envisaged decade of special effort.
I would like to quote from a briefing prepared by the North-West regional health authority:
"If you live in the North Western Region, your expected life span will probably be shorter than the average for England and Wales by at least two years and you will be more at risk for certain diseases throughout that life. There is statistical data which indicates that the North Western Region experiences more deaths from
96
all causes than any other Region in the country and certainly the highest ratio of deaths from diseases of the circulatory and digestive systems … In regard to perinatal mortality rates the North Western Region has been consistently worse than the average for England each year from 1973".
What I want for the North-West is tougher action to curb textile imports, an examination of the statistical bases for granting assisted area status in the context of the communities in the North-West, consideration of the establishment of a development agency for the North-West and consideration of a new plan for redressing the imbalance in education, housing, health and hospital provision in the North-West, compared with other areas.
I remind the House that the debate concerns a region which, historically, has made a major contribution to the industrial and economic well-being of the nation. Time was when Lancashire and the North-West were regarded as the workshop of the world, but many Lancastrians and many others in the North-West tend to become cynical when they hear the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer prattling on about creating a State in which opportunity will flourish.
The people of the North-West understandably pose the following questions: when are they to have the opportunity to work in jobs with a secure future? When are they to have the opportunity to see their children being educated in modern school buildings? When are they to have the opportunity to see the sick and infirm in the North-West treated in modern hospital buildings?
Nothing is more destructive of the established political order than the frustration and cynicism engendered by politicians, who, obsessed by their own polical objectives, ignore the serious problems with which those in the regions are obliged to live.
Political theorists explain that the "two nations" syndrome arises when two standards exist within one country. The fear of many in the North-West is that, for their region, two nations is fast becoming a reality.
6.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): I am glad to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on the problems of

97
the North-West and making a Government comment on it. A number of hon. Members have congratulated the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) on the happy style of the delivery of his opening speech and on at least some of the content. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the warmth of character and fine natural resources that are found in the Northwest. In opposition I visited the area to meet groups of small business men and I was touched by the warmth of the welcome that I received. I have also visited the area as a Minister.
I find it difficult to agree with the hon. Gentleman's fairly exaggerated attack on the Government and his suggestion that it has been previous Conservative Governments who have failed to restore the area. He overlooked the fact that the problems, particularly the entrenched problems of Merseyside, have survived many Governments and have existed for a long time. We need changes of policy and of emphasis, to which I shall be referring.
I was fascinated when the hon. Gentleman complained about local authority services being cut and, in the same breath, complained about the level of rates. He seemed to do that without noticing any inconsistency, but he did it charmingly. The hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), who is, perhaps, older and wiser, warned of the dangers inherent in running down an area. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) appealed for restrictions on textile imports. I shall return to that subject, because it was one of the themes of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) and I wish to comment on what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), in a penetrating speech, made clear that pouring Government money into an area did not provide an instant solution to its problems. He is correct. The previous Government followed that policy and doubled unemployment, paying for it with printed money, leaving us with the legacy of inflation that we have to tackle. My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of small businesses, a recurring theme in the debate to which I shall return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) drew
98
attention to the importance and value of the European Investment Bank. As so many hon. Members in the Chamber represent assisted areas, it may be helpful if I say that I recently signed an agreement in Luxembourg with the European Investment Bank for £20 million at 11 per cent. interest, fixed for seven years. Many hon. Members may find it useful to draw the availability of that money to the attention of large and small businesses in their constituencies.
I mentioned small businesses, because we have broken down that sum into parcels of investment of £17,000. The totality of the investment has to be £34,000, but half can come from the European Investment Bank, at 11 per cent. interest, plus 1 to 2 per cent. insurance cover against changes in the exchange rate—a risk that most businesses would wish to cover against. Against the background of current interest rates, that is a valuable provision.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is this restricted to assisted areas?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is restricted to assisted areas. There is, therefore, a large area of opportunity. Existing assisted areas can come forward now with their requests. I shall be happy to help the hon. and learned Gentleman if he has any constituency problems.
The hon. Member for Lancaster also drew attention to some units of CoSIRA which were to be built just outside Lancaster, and was distressed that the Department of the Environment was not enthusiastic about that project. The whole purpose of CoSIRA is to help in the rural areas, and particularly in the matter of rural depopulation. It is difficult to see an area that is only three miles outside a major town as being genuinely representative of the problems of the rural area and rural depopulation.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) expressed his concern about education, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) talked about the importance of small businesses, and I shall return to that subject. He also referred to the very important question of the derelict land clearance areas. There

99
is automatically a 100 per cent. grant in the assisted areas, and in relation to the ex-assisted areas the 100 per cent. grant becomes available if they are declared as derelict land clearance areas. The Department of Industry does the designation and the Department of the Environment pays the money. We are at the moment considering the matter in depth and a statement will be made as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thome) made an interesting contribution but it was a somewhat difficult theme to follow. His suggestion that the Tories seek to destroy the Welfare State is a total misrepresentation of what we are about. I have sat in this House for 16 years, and nothing has disturbed me more than the way in which standards of welfare in pensions and hospitals on the Continent have gone ahead so much faster than our standards in this country.
I ask myself why that is so, and the answer is very simple. It is because people on the Continent have been concerned about how to create wealth and about encouraging industry and commerce, whereas in this country we have been concerned only about how much we can get out. I must say to the hon. Member—unfortunately he is out of the Chamber at the moment—that one has to bake one's cake before one can eat it. That is an essential part of the common-sense approach to the problems that we face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) proposed that the Department of Trade should have the loan of some textile executives to help in dealing with the problem of investigating dumping. That is a very interesting and useful suggestion. I should like him to come to see me and discuss this with me in some detail very shortly. My hon. Friend also called for an initiative by the banks in enterprise zones. That was a thoughtful and thought-provoking suggestion, demonstrating the value of debates of this sort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) drew attention to the need for lower rates in order to attract business into a particular area. He revealed that the Preston borough, which has a Conservative-controlled council, is
100
the lowest rated authority in the United Kingdom, and has achieved this at the same time as improving its services. As a result, many businesses now want to go to Preston. I can well understand not only his "commercial" for Preston but the success that Preston is achieving in attracting businesses.
The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) complained about inflation and minimum lending rate. It was like complaining about a disease and about the treatment prescribed by the doctor for dealing with it—a somewhat irrational attitude to take.
Mr. McNally: It is killing the patient.
Mr. Mitchell: I suggest to the hon. Member that the full extent and the full seriousness of the disease were not apparent at the time of the last general election. I put no blame on Labour Members for not recognising it. The reality is that it takes from 18 months to two years for the increase in the money supply to come through in rip-roaring inflation. We are now coming up to the high tide of the inflation that was peddled by Labour Members when their party was in office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale—who is assiduous in his attention to the problems of the valley that he represents—talked about the MFA and drew attention to the fact that it does not solve all the problems of the textile industry. We recognise that textiles are under great pressure at the moment. The longer I have been a Minister, the more I have come to believe that the MFA was oversold to the industry as being a panacea for all its problems, whereas it presents many very serious difficulties for the textile industry in its operation at the present time.
My hon. Friend referred to the footwear industry and to his concern about the working of the retail commitment and the problems of imports. I have recently met the footwear EDC and I have been to see the Footwear Trade Association. I plan to visit the trade union at its headquarters. I have held a number of constructive discussions and I understand that it is coming forward with certain proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morcambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) talked about the way in which his constituency has seen an increase in employment at a time of world recession. He

101
is to be congratulated, and so is the prudent local authority that has succeeded in keeping the rate down in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) referred to infrastructure and to the need for an end to road congestion. I shall write to the Minister of Transport to draw his attention to my hon. Friend's points. My hon. Friend will recognise that his point about gas supplies is a matter for the Department of Energy. I shall draw its attention to his point.
Throughout the debate there have been recurring themes related to the need for assisted area status—as if it were some sort of virility symbol—the importance of small businesses in job creation, and the role of local authorities.
The whole concept of the changes that my right hon. Friend has made in the assisted areas has been attacked but one after another Members have admitted that after so many years the problems of the assisted areas remain the same. One hon. Member referred to the 1930s. The real worry and concern is that, in looking at the areas which in the 1930s were at the heart of the problems of the depressed areas, we find that far too many of them today are the special development areas. Clearly, we have not yet succeeded in resolving these problems.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirk-dale (Mr. Dunn) called for a reappraisal of Government policy. We have reappraised Government policy. That is why we brought in the changes which concentrate the assistance on the special development areas in a way that has not been done before. The hon. Member should realise that when we came to office we found that 40 per cent. of the country had assisted area status. On the criteria being employed, well over 50 per cent. of the country would have had it by now, so one would simply be taking money out of one's pocket in order to put it back in again, and that solves nobody's problems. Spread too thinly, it is of little value to the special development areas. We are concentrating the help on those areas and increasing from 2 to 7 per cent. their special differential advantage. In this way we are at least moving towards a policy that will help those in greatest need.
102
The constant theme was "What about the other parts of the North-West that are not special development areas, those that are to be downgraded? " If one takes the whole of the North-West, without Merseyside, one finds that the average level of unemployment is only 6·2 per cent., compared with a national average of 6 per cent. I believe that on that basis hon. Members would think it right that we should concentrate help in the way that we have in the areas of greatest need.
Mr. Straw Mr. Straw rose——
Mr. Mitchell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way. I started late, and I have a great deal of ground to cover. Many hon. Members have made points, and I do not want to leave them out.
In a very interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster spoke of the large number of jobs that had been lost in her constituency over the past decade, and the number of new jobs that had come from the development of new businesses and small firms. She was right to draw attention to that.
My hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members mentioned the importance of premises for small businesses. We have now received, and we recently published the report of an inquiry that the Department of Industry commissioned into the problem of premises for small businesses. As a result of that inquiry, carried out by Coopers and Lybrand and Drivers Jonas, it is clear that across the country as a whole there is a substantial shortage of premises suitable for small businesses, and that there are significant opportunities for investment in them by the private sector.
The Department has £5 million allocated for building premises for small firms' workshops, which it will use in partnership with the private sector. Geared up, it will produce a thousand units.
Mr. John Evans: Chicken feed.
Mr. Mitchell: Compared with what happened under the hon. Gentleman's Government, a thousand units in the assisted areas represent a major advance.
We recognise that that is not sufficient. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

103
introduced in his Budget the 100 per cent. allowance for small firm's workshops for three years. Therefore, all the way down the line there is a series of measures designed to help ensure that small firms' premises are available.
The lack of premises may stop small firms from starting. When the premises exist many more people will take the opportunity to start a business. I am glad to be able to report to my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, who asked for a report on this matter, the progress that we are making.
I turn to the question of local rates. An extraordinary position has been repeatedly revealed during the debate by my hon. Friends who represent some of the constituencies in the area. I made a note of the significant effect, shown by hon. Member after hon. Member, of the level of rates on the attractiveness of an area for the birth of new businesses, the growth of existing businesses and the creation of jobs. It is fascinating to compare Preston, with a 14 per cent. increase in its rates under a Conservative council, with Gorton, with a 28·8 per cent. increase under a Labour council, and Oldham, a Conservative majority and an increase of 15·9 per cent., with Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour, 33 per cent. North Fylde, 16 per cent., Rossendale, 14·5 per cent. and Lancaster, 16·7 per cent., all Conservative controlled—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), might give a little assistance to the Chair by seeing that there are not constant interjections from a sedentary position.
Mr. Mitchell: All the Conservative-controlled authorities that I have mentioned have very low rate increases and are therefore very attractive in terms of job creation in their area. We tend to think about rates in terms of the householder, without recognising that jobs are also at stake if a council increases its rates too much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) drew attention to the proposed rate increase of no less than 49·9 per cent in Liverpool. How on earth can one expect to attract small firms and job creators into such areas?
Because time is running out, I turn to the revealing remark made by the hon. Member for Stockport, South which was acclaimed by Labour hon. Members, that it was up to the Government to make industry successful. This is the fundamental divide between the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition pretend that Government-printed money can make industry successful. We know that it is not in the gift of the Government to do it. It is for the Government to create the circumstances; the decision whether industry will be succesful will be made by men and management together—a partnership of skilled men, motivated management and capital, for he also serves who only puts up the money.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw spoke of the time when jobs would be secure. I can give him one answer. They will be secure when both men and management can supply the customer with the goods he wants at the price he is prepared to pay. That is the future, not only for the North-West but, upon that criterion, of our whole national economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now proceed to the debate on Yorkshire.

YORKSHIRE
7.6 pm
Mr. Stan Crowther: I am very grateful, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends from Yorkshire, for this opportunity to talk about the problems of our region.
This is an historic occasion—my first, and no doubt my last, appearance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that the House will soon recover from the experience.
What I think this debate will bring out is that the problems of Yorkshire today are essentially similar to those that have beset the region for many years. What has changed is the fact that for the first time, for a few years anyway, we have a Government that have not only abdicated from the responsibility of solving those problems but who are actively pursuing policies calculated to make them worse.
I refer first to the extremely damaging effects of the public expenditure cuts on a region that still has, despite the efforts of the local authorities, a substantial amount of substandard housing, long waiting lists for houses, many thousands of elderly people waiting for residential accommodaton, and a good deal of industrial dereliction. It has many thousands of sick people waiting for medical attention, because of the inadequacy of the Health Service. The fact that the Government axe is falling on the social fabric in all parts of the country is no consolation to those areas which have particular needs.
If it is permissible for me to refer to my own constituency, I should tell the House that the Rotherham area has almost always been near the bottom of the league for the allocation of Health Service resources, if not at the bottom. Under the Labour Government there was a levelling up process. We were making some progress. That has now all gone by the board, and the area health authority faces an impossible task. Many vitally needed schemes are having to be shelved.
An area of heavy industry, where many people work in hard and dangerous jobs and therefore where the incidence of industrial injury and industry-related diseases, such as bronchitis and emphysema, is necessarily higher than the
106
national average, should receive more than the national average of resources. It should receive more resources than those areas that do not suffer from those problems, but that is not what is happening.
Turning to the industrial scene, I am sure that we all agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Industry that in the end everything depends upon the creation of wealth by industry. That is absolutely true.
Yorkshire faces many difficulties in the industrial sphere, not the least of which is highly subsidised competition from abroad. In common with other areas, we face one apparently insurmountable problem—the total intransigence, the hard-faced obduracy, of the Secretary of State for Industry which leads him to believe that any kind of Government support for industry is some form of original sin, even when giving support is manifestly in the national interest and when failing to give support will mean that companies go out of business, that jobs are lost and that the balance of payments is further damaged.
I am pleased to note recently that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not agree with that view. According to The Guardian on Friday he told a conference of the Food Manufacturers Federation:
"If you are in competition with an industry from overseas which has the support and collaboration of its Government, and you do not, you will normally lose."
That is absolutely true. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that in France, Germany and Japan industry and Government work together against foreign competition. That is also true. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can persuade his Cabinet colleagues that British industry also needs and deserves some support from the Government.
It is not a matter of asking that British companies and workers should have unfair advantages over foreign competitors. We are saying only that they should be able to compete on equal terms. If we once arrived at that position, the industrial picture in Yorkshire would be very different from what it is today.
I could quote many examples, as could my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I shall mention only one—the process plant industry, which includes an important

107
company in my constituency. That industry has been suffering heavily from competition from foreign firms which are able to submit tenders for the supply of capital equipment for projects in our assisted areas, where taxpayers are contributing to the costs, which can be shown to be little, if any, more than the actual cost of the materials.
The Secretary of State refuses to intervene on the industry's behalf. He applies this same philosophy to every area for which he is responsible, including the steel industry, where his inflexibility caused a dispute which has done immense damage to the industry—damage from which it will take the industry a very long time to recover, if it ever does.
The right hon. Gentleman knew what he was doing. He did it deliberately. I believe that one of his ambitions is to preside over the dismemberment of the publicly owned steel industry. I want him to know—and I hope that his hon. Friends will tell him—that he will not be forgiven for the social distress that he callously inflicted upon the steel areas in the relentless pursuit of his own ideology. Time will tell what further horrors the Government have in store for the steel industry. But it is time for Ministers to understand that they must stop insulting my constituents, for example, with lectures about productivity when these men have smashed world production records time and again.
The community has paid a heavy price for that high level of productivity in my area. The price has included the loss of 11,000 jobs.
That sort of thing highlights the need for an effective regional policy. I am not pretending that the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole has an unemployment level substantially higher than the national average. It has not. It is marginally higher. There are a number of reasons for that. One is the efforts made by industry, trade unions, local authorities and the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, of which I was the chairman for a number of years, to generate new economic activity in the region.
Another less joyful reason is outward migration. For decades now we have
108
lost thousands of people moving out of Yorkshire to look for employment elsewhere. If they had not moved out, unemployment in Yorkshire today would be much higher than it is. The figure for the region is 6·2 per cent., but that hides some serious variations. In my area it is now 8·8 per cent., which is almost half as much again as the national average. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who unfortunately is unable to be here tonight, has told me that it is now 9·3 per cent. in Maltby and that he estimates that it is 11·5 per cent. in Dinnington.
Yet, in Sheffield, where I remind my hon. Friends from that area that the unemployment level is traditionally well below the national average, the Government have decided to establish one of their so-called enterprise zones—a sort of Dodge City without Wyatt Earp, a free-for-all area where industrialists and developers will be relieved of what some call bureacratic interference and what others call the necessary protection for the public and workers. I do not think that this kind of thing will work anyway. But, if it does work in Sheffield, it must detract from the creation of jobs in other parts of South Yorkshire where unemployment levels are much higher.
It is nonsense to argue, as the Secretary of State does, that the problems of regional economic decline can in some miraculous way be solved by the operation of market forces. It was the operation of market forces that caused the problems in the first place.
It could be said that I am guilty of base ingratitude because the Secretary of State has made my area a development area. But a development area under the new regime has little, if any, net benefit over the intermediate areas of the old one. Although the old regional policy operated by the previous Labour Government and by the previous Conservative Government—since 1972 anyway-helped, it certainly failed to come anywhere near to solving the problem.
I do not know whether it is permissible for Members to quote from their maiden speeches. If it is permissible, I propose to remind the House of one sentence in my maiden speech, nearly four years ago, when I said:
"It is now manifestly obvious that only public intervention on a vast scale can get rid of

109
this problem of regional unemployment"—[Official Report, 7 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1430.]
Nothing that has happened since then has convinced me that I was wrong.
I had great hopes at one time that the National Enterprise Board would be used as an instrument of regional policy to pump public investment into new growth industries in the regions. But, now that has been emasculated, those hopes are dashed. Until some Government are prepared to take control of what the late Aneurin Bevan called the commanding heights of the economy and to use that control in the public interest, the problems of Yorkshire—indeed, the problems of the country—will not be solved.
Our region is not a begging bowl region. We are not asking for handouts. We say that there is a vast potential that is not being used, that is not being properly exploited, because of lack of imagination, initiative and investment in growth industries on the part of people who sit in cosy offices in Whitehall and in the City of London and think that Scotland starts at Potters Bar.
Yorkshire has made an incalculable contribution to the nation's economic welfare in the past. It is difficult to imagine how Britain could have become a great manufacturing nation without Yorkshire coal and steel, how the nation could have been clothed without Yorkshire wool or fed without the products of Yorkshire agriculture or the fishing fleets of the Humber ports. Yorkshire is still the nation's powerhouse. I have no doubt that the traditional grit and resilience of Yorkshire men and women will get us through these present difficulties.
However, there is no doubt that the combination of the Government's industrial, social and financial policies—their refusal to accept any real responsibility for the future of our industries or the creation of new employment, the record interest rates, which inhibit private investment and which are driving small firms into bankruptcy, no matter how the Government may protest about their support for small firms, the slaughter of the housing investment programme and the vicious attacks on the health, education and social services—must necessarily mean that the prospects for those areas of Yorkshire where the needs are exceptionally heavy and where the demand for services is par-
110
ticularly high will remain very bleak as long as this Government remain in power.
7.19 pm
Sir Donald Kaberry: On behalf of all of my hon. Friends, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box on the Opposition side of the House. Lest he has any fears that it might be a once only occasion, perhaps I may say on behalf of all of my colleagues how very much we look forward to him making many more speeches from that Box for many more years to come.
There is a point in time when all of us who have the fortune to be born Yorkshire folk or to represent Yorkshire constituencies join hands across the Chamber in many ways to see that our county, our champion county, still maintains its place among the trading parts of this country, of Europe and of the world.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The top of every league.
Sir D. Kaberry: We shall go on improving as the years advance.
I shall speak reasonably briefly, I hope, because many of my colleagues wish to intervene in this very short debate, and, necessarily, I must refer to that part of the county which best I know—around my own city of Leeds. But this part demonstrates very much the overall trading and manufacturing capacity of our county because we certainly had what I might call all yesterday's industries. We had our steelworks in Leeds. We had glass, pottery and leather, and railway foundries. We made some of the best railway engines the world has ever known. What a joy it was to see them running on many railway lines in many parts of the world. We had engineering of all descriptions. We had woollen and wholesale clothing manufacturing.
But they have changed with the times. Other countries now make what we alone used to make. We find now that we have fewer engineering firms. Our woollen manufacturing is on a different scale. Our ready-made clothing manufacturing peaked a few years back. We have some modest footwear processes, some printing, and now, on a larger scale, some warehousing.

111
We have mentioned today some of our industries which need all the administrative help which any Government, of any colour, can give to keep them prosperous and in good employment. We are suffering from intense competition throughout the world and in many cases we are suffering quite unfairly from dumping and unfair trade practices.
But what we do not want is only today's industries. We want to develop tomorrow's industries. There is a changing pattern evolving the whole of the time. We are getting industries with newer techniques, the newer electronic processes of manufacturing and manufacturing for electronic processes. We have computer assembly firms. We have firms which are computerised in themselves. In fact, one may say that we are advancing rapidly to the stage—although we may not wish to admit it—when we shall have, as the saying goes, chips with everything.
Therefore, I take advantage of this debate to look at the position today and to ask what more a Government can do and what we can do to build up for the future. As the hon. Member for Rotherham so rightly said, none of us in Yorkshire seeks to go out on the streets and stand outside Government offices with the begging bowl. The characteristic of every Yorkshireman is his ability, from his determination and character, to stand upon his own wit and innovation and his capacity to make and to sell. That brings a smile to some people's faces, but none the less it is the true position. We want to have an opportunity, increasingly getting better, to make goods and, having made them, to be able to sell them.
One of the fallacies in industry today is that some people seem to think that one makes and that the process of selling comes at some much later time. We have the example today of British Leyland offering slashed prices in order to sell off the mass of motor cars which it has made but which so far it has not sold.
Therefore, we are against dumping and unfair competition. The hon. Member for Rotherham and I are fortunate enough to be members of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. One of the peculiar things which has arisen from the evidence that we have taken in public—and upon which the Committee has
112
expressed no opinion—is that, through our membership of the EEC this country is better able to present a case against dumping and against unfair competition than when we were going it alone. It is a fact of life which came as something of a surprise to me, having originally been so strongly against any activities of the EEC.
On that Select Committee, we are examining the question—it has been publicised—why this country does not sell more abroad and why we import so much. It is in relation to that matter that I should like to direct my attention to two industries alone. The question why we do not sell more abroad calls immediately into consideration the question of leadership at every section and every stage of our manufacturing processes. Leadership is not confined to the managerial staff. It goes way down to the very newest member on the shop floor. I should like to develop that point a little further in relation to the engineering industry.
Leeds has many fewer engineering firms than ever it had, but those of us who know something about the engineering industry in Leeds know that there is a constant call for better techniques and for better apprenticeships, for a better type of man who will come forward and take up engineering as a career. I immediately welcome the activities of the Council of the Engineering Institutions, which is starting a scheme called "Opening Windows on Engineering", and which is asking the brighter boys on the shop floor to be nominated to go round to the schools and to interest the school children of today in the career which engineering can provide for them. It is a move in the right direction for better production and the production of better skills.
Engineering as such in Yorkshire, certainly around Leeds, still suffers from the effects of the transport strike of last year. It still suffers from the three-day working week which the engineering union called last August and September. The many reports now being issued by many engineering companies bear witness to the losses which were sustained through that disastrous strike, which gave no benefit to anyone. If that gave no benefit to anyone, it makes one ask: what on earth will be the good of the day

113
of non-action on 14 May next? I have yet to find a wage earner who is in agreement with the proposition that England should come to a full stop on 14 May. It certainly will not add to our productive capacity.
There are two other matters to which I should like to refer in relation to unfair competition. In a letter to the Secretary of the all-party textile group in this House, the Secretary of State referred to the question of origin marking. I merely mention this in passing. He said:
"As you know the Minister for Consumer Affairs is looking into the possibility of making origin marking compulsory for certain types of consumer goods."
I am not concerned only about marking, but about the nature of the claims that are made. Yesterday, I had in my hands a set of cutlery marked with a name that is well known in Sheffield. The name is not unknown to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It was marked with the name of the firm, followed by the word "Korea". I do not know how such cutlery could have been made in Korea when it bears that firm's name. It is an example of grossly unfair trading.
No one in the clothing industry believes that nothing more can be done about the dumping of ready-made clothes in Britain. The Government should show strongly that they are doing something. I urge them to take every possible action to prevent the dumping of cheap, ready-made suits. One could give many examples of dumping. Ministers may explain what they have done, or intend to do about it. However, whatever they have done, it is not enough. They should not relax. They must continue to pressurise those agencies that permit it.
There is another way of looking at the problem. Those who have had the good fortune, by one means or another—fair or foul—to go to Hong Kong, will have seen products made in the woollen mills of West Yorkshire on the shelves of shops. It is a two-way trade. One should not be too ready to complain about events in the textile industry.
If the Government still have public relations officers—I do not know whether they are employed on the massive scale of the previous Labour Government—they should show textile workers what
114
the Government are doing. The textile industry asks only for free trade in Europe, and fair trade throughout the rest of the world. Perhaps that could be explained in simple, short sentences. The Government may then achieve something that is worth while. Meanwhile, those hon. Members who represent constituencies in Yorkshire should press the Government to pay more attention to our industries.
Mr. Albert Roberts: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, a senior member of the Conservative Party, has not made reference to the cleaning up of inner city areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotheram (Mr. Crowther) and the right hon. Gentleman have referred to the "begging bowl". How much taxpayers' money is paid per capita into Lancashire, compared with Yorkshire?
Sir D. Kaberry: I cannot answer that question. I am not a right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame"]—and if I were, I would take more advantages than I do. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and they will explain about inner cities. I wish to concentrate on the engineering, textile and ready-made clothing industries. I hope that I have done that. I want to go on living in a champion county and I hope that my sons and grandchildren will live there in prosperity.
7.33 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: This is a sad debate for me and for those of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Hull. Today we learned of the death of the lord mayor of our city, Councillor Maurice Rawling. He was well known in Yorkshire for his public spirited work. He was particularly well known in the trade union and labour movement for the work that he did in trying to advance the interests of the party to which he belonged and those of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, of which he was proud to be a member. On Thursday he would, had he been fit, have been part of the delegation that will see the Prime Minister to discuss the immediate problems facing the city of Hull and, in particular, the fishing industry. His advice and counsel will be sorely missed, not only in the city, but in

115
Yorkshire. All those who knew and admired him will join in sending their sympathy to his family and to the city.
When the delegation visits the Prime Minister on Thursday it will give her some stark and telling facts about the fishing industry. It will tell her that we now have 25 trawlers, compared with 75 trawlers in 1976. It will tell her also that over 4,000 jobs were lost in the fishing industry and its ancilliary trades between 1976 and 1980. It will state that the problem will not be solved but will be made far worse in the long term if our fishing interests are sold out to the Common Market as part of the right hon. Lady's bargain for the missing £1,000 million.
As a deepsea port, Hull is hampered not only by problems of conservation limits on vessels and the enforcement of regulations but by a complete inability to make third party arrangements without the agreement of the Common Market countries. Third party arrangements will have to be the salvation of our deepsea fleet. However, we suspect that we shall not get the support that we need from our Common Market "partners" or from the Government. When the delegation meets the Prime Minister on Thursday, I hope that she will deny that that is so. However, our fear remains.
The problems of Hull are mirrored in the fishing industry. Yet it shares the problems of many of Yorkshire's northern cities. They are old industrialised cities that have seen their industrial bases transformed by changes in their transport systems, as happened in Hull, or by the appearance of new and different industries, together with the disappearance of the old. Although we have a wide and varied industrial base in Hull, the present situation is exacerbated by a number of factors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. Crowther) referred in his eloquent speech to the change in regional policy. I congratulate him on a fine and forceful maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. His speech reflects great credit on him, his constituency and the trade union of which he is a member. His points were of considerable importance. Development aid to Hull has been restricted, and other
116
Government policies have cast doubt on the ability of many of our industries to survive.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the pharmaceutical division of Reckitt and Colman pays about £2 million a year in interest rates. That does not produce any jobs. It causes them to be lost. That money cannot produce anything or pay for research. Any firm on the frontier of technology must have money for high-risk research and development. A firm cannot carry out such research and development if it has to pay high interest rates.
When that is coupled with the high inflated value of the pound, partly because of North Sea oil, but more because of the monetarist policies of the Government, it becomes increasingly difficult to sell our exports. We once led Europe in caravan exports. Now, major caravan firms have been closing in the area—one, in a neighbouring constituency, which only a few short years ago won the Queen's award for exports. That cannot help either Hull or the other cities of Yorkshire. That policy needs to be changed.
We are witnessing the complete disappearance of our industrial base. It is being chopped away by policies of high interest rates and the expensive pound. It is preventing companies from making the effort needed for further investment. Bank interest is taking up all the risk capital that might have been available for further innovation. Whatever the Government do by means of income tax concessions or any other small incentives, they will not replace the need for real capital growth to provide investment. That will not come under present policies.
More than 10,000 jobs have disappeared in Hull, and long-term unemployment is 12 per cent. above the national average—37·3 per cent. of total unemployment as compared with 25·4 per cent. It is difficult for young people to find skilled jobs. It is the same picture nationally, but things are worse in Hull. Our problem until recently was our relative isolation. Special regional policies must be created to encourage local authorities, firms and nationalised industries to put their investment and work opportunities into such places.

117
Despite our relative geographical isolation, in many ways we offer great advantages for investment, but, because of the failure of Government policies, it is not happening. We have good communications and a good social infrastructure, as well as a local authority which, by such methods as its new innovation centre—launched at the House earlier this year—is designed to encourage firms to come to the town. All our industrial estates have been completely let and there is almost a shortage of further land for industrial development.
But new firms are not arriving in any great numbers. Some new firms are coming in from out of town, but basically what is happening is a relocation of existing firms to new and better premises—which of course is good for them and for their workers. Although we must look for development and expansion from within an area, the Government should take on the responsibility when faced with such tragedies as that of the Hull fishing industry. They should put real money and jobs into such areas and direct work, employment and factories there. It is no good leaving this to the chances of the market.
The scene in Hull at the moment is grim. Unemployment, at 15,000, is well above the national average in percentage terms. This is compensated for, in some measure, only by the growth of jobs for women in the service industries. But we believe that, with Government encouragement, we can go a long way.
Hull is perhaps unique in Yorkshire and in the North because we know that, whatever else happens on 3 May, the rugby league cup will come to Hull. That is a particular pleasure to me, and might be the reason why I was called to speak, because one of the teams involved is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and the other in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I can therefore happily say "Let the best team win", and I will be on the winning side.
Although that is a tremendous fillip to us and we look forward confidently to the promise of the opening of the Humber bridge—these are signs of our resilience and hope for the future—nevertheless, the effort must come from Government. It
118
is no good the Government saying that it is not their responsibility.
The conditions in the fishing industry, for example, were created by the Government. They voted to take us into the Common Market and we are at the rough end of that decision. We have the right to expect not only our fishing industry——
Mr. John Townend: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the problem of the fishing industry has not been caused by our entering the EEC. It stems from the extension of territorial limits from 6 miles to 200 miles—and the greatest loss has been that of the Icelandic fishing grounds.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and I remember the EEC referendum, because we challenged people then to say what would happen to our fishing industry. There was a deafening silence from both Labour and Conservative Front Benches. I do not absolve either party. The fishing industry thought that the North Sea would be its little English lake. My hon. Friend and I tried to disabuse it of that idea, but it did not take it on board at the time. It has now, but it is too late.
It is wrong to say that the problem was simply the raising of the limit around Iceland to 200 miles. The important thing is the ability to make third party agreements, whether with the Canadians, with the Norwegians or with the Icelanders. Our Community partners, if such they are, are preventing us from doing so. That is why I say that it was a Government decision that affected the industry, and that we have a right to expect Government to get us out of the mess into which they put us.
7.45 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has tempted me to talk about the West Riding, where I spent much of my industrial life, but as I represent part of the East Riding, and as the West Riding will be more than covered tonight, perhaps I had better confine my speech to my own constituency.
There, we do not suffer to the extent of the West Riding from unemployment and the troubles of industry.

119
Although the East Riding is not going through a particularly buoyant or booming time, it can be regarded as a land of promise. For that, one can thank first the people, who are robust and skilful in their various trades. One can thank nature, which has given us the Selby coalfield and a fertile countryside which supports some fine agriculture. We can even thank Governments, who have given us the M62, which is making a great difference to the development of the area.
The Selby coalfield will bring social problems. When a work force of 4,000, plus their families, move to an area which has been entirely agricultural for many decades, that obviously causes problems; but the National Coal Board, the local councils and local communities are working well together in preparation for this change and I see no great difficulties ahead.
There will also be practical problems. The area includes land liable to flooding and we are told that subsidence will be about 3 ft or so. Naturally, the local people, especially farmers, who know little about coal mining, are worried that subsidence and the high water table will lead to flooding trouble.
Also, the Selby coalfield may bring the increased traffic which will finally clog up the old Selby toll bridge. Perhaps that will persuade the Government of the day to give us a bypass.
At Selby we do not have the difficulties of the Belvoir coalfield. The countryside will not be disfigured with huge slag heaps, because the coal is extraordinarily clean; we will therefore have a fairly unobtrusive coalfield, and in the long run it will bring the area great benefit.
The M62 motorway has already brought development. Towns and villages such as Howden, Holme upon Spalding Moor and Gilberdyke, are increasing greatly in population. A number of firms which have come to the area would not have done so without the advantage of direct access to the M62 and the national motorway network.
Having said that, I must point out that the East Riding is not insulated from the present recession. You are a farmer yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, if you motored through the Vale of York, you
120
would appreciate the quality of the farming there. However, that conceals the rising costs that the farmers suffer, their lower profits over the past few years and their consequent difficulties in investment. The long-term worry of the farmers in the area, many of them owner occupiers, is the question of transferring their farms to their sons with capital transfer tax at its present rate. It was a great disappointment to many people that nothing was done about that in the Budget.
A great concern at present is the plight of the growers. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), we have the biggest area of glass in the country. The growers are being priced out of the market by the Dutch, who have cheap North Sea gas. There appeared to be nothing that one could do about that. However, I read today in the National Farmers' Union magazine that the German Government are providing a subsidy of £12·5 million to help their glasshouse growers to compete. The French intend to do much the same at a lower figure. I hope that our Minister of Agriculture, who has been a great champion of the farmers, will bear this in mind and see what he can do.
Nor are we in Yorkshire insulated from Government cuts. Last night I spent the whole evening with the Vice-Chancellor of York university. We examined in some detail the effect of cuts on that very fine university. The Vice-Chancellor did not adopt a defeatist attitude. I cannot imagine the standard of education at that university dropping at his hands, whatever cuts are made. Nevertheless, as we went through the figures, it occurred to me to question whether some of the comparatively small savings to be made were justified by the severe effect on the department concerned. I urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science to take a personal interest in the details of what is happening in the universities. I should be delighted if he would come to see us at York university.
Lastly, I wish to spend a few moments on textiles. For 25 years I was a clothing manufacturer in the West Riding. In my constituency, although rural, there is the headquarters factory of Dewhursts, one of the biggest manufacturers in England, and probably the best. The situation in the textile industry now is not just a

121
shake-out of the least efficient firms. Some very fine firms have gone out of business. There are firms, such as Homfrays of Halifax, which has a long record of good management and heavy investment. It has not gone out of business, but it has been grievously hit and has had to lay off a lot of people. Although Dewhurst is prospering at present, its level-headed management views the future with a good deal of apprehension, especially with the prospect of low-cost countries such as Portugal, Greece and Spain joining the EEC.
Millions of pounds have been put into textiles recently by the Government in grants and by firms in investment. This has been done to establish well-equipped and labour-intensive plants; it seems wrong that this investment and the jobs that it has bought should go to waste.
7.55 pm
Mr. David Ginsburg: The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) made a point about unfair competition. This is something to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention once again. The wellbeing of the area that a Member of Parliament represents must always be a matter of supreme importance to him. Yorkshire Members have long pleaded in this Chamber for a fairer deal for their constituents. I suppose that our electors should feel slightly gratified that local unemployment rates have never been high enough to merit special development area status. But crude statistical arguments are usually poor consolation for a population who have to put up with an ageing social and industrial infrastructure and with unemployment rates perilously high by the standards of Southern England.
Although I personally accept that, despite our many problems we cannot reasonably lay claim to full development area status, I believe that the Government were quite wrong to withdraw the stimulus which, after years of neglect, intermediate area status was at last providing for the bulk of the former West Riding. One cannot really depend upon local self-reliance alone although that has its part to play. It is worth reminding the House that the period of high employment—the 15 to 20 years immediately after the war—was a time of low industrial rebuilding in the West Riding. The marked improvement in industrial building,
122
certainly in my constituency, which characterised the late 60s and early 70s came with a battery of Government inducements and encouragements. It is sad that all this is now in danger of coming to a full stop, unless the House can prevail upon the Government to have further and urgent second thoughts.
Mr. John Watson Mr. John Watson (Skipton) rose——
Mr. Ginsburg: No, I will not give way. Normally I always give way, but this is a very short debate and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I cannot over-emphasise how dangerous the position will become. The effects of the textile recession are inexorable rather than sensational. It is rare for a mill which closes to re-open. Occasionally a factory building lives on as a provider of labour but always of lower numbers. That is not all. Outside the textile industry, other industries newer to the area face their own troubles today. Demand in the electrical transformer industry is declining. The Yorkshire Electrical Transformer Company, part of the Hawker Siddeley group in my constituency, had to shed labour last year, and it announced only last Friday that it will do so again in substantial numbers before the autumn. The export market is difficult and exports account for 92 per cent. of its output. The home market is even worse. Even at this late hour I suggest to the Government that they should give urgent thought to modernising our domestic electricity transmission network, because arising from a policy of this kind the employment offered to constituencies such as mine would be considerable.
Much has already been said about the dumping of cheap textiles from the Far East, and even from the United States through artificially low energy costs. I have little to add, but unemployment in my area could be adversely affected by dumping of a different kind which has not hit the headlines so much—that of low-cost greeting and Christmas cards which the Soviet Union provides in payment to the Control Data Corporation of America in lieu of payment for computer installations.
I hope that, in the changed international situation, the Government will do more to stop this highly undesirable barter trade, of which our constituents are the victims.

123
With regard to artificially cheap petrochemical derivatives—it is a serious problem—I hope that the Government will prevail upon the United States to accept some sort of compensatory tax. Reference has already been made by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) to the action taken by the French and German Governments on Dutch gas. The sanctions on Iran, which sooner or later will undoubtedly involve oil, will mean that supplies will grow tighter and prices will get higher. The United States, because of the hostages held in Iran, has a right to expect considerable sacrifices from Britain, but in return we have a right to ask something of the United States. That could be vital to the local textile and carpet industry which is seriously affected by cheap imports.
Two other matters claim urgent Government action. In my constituency an industrial trading estate of great importance—it is also of importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer)—is programmed in Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury. Common Market funds have been promised for the sites, but site provision, although important, is not enough. Industrial units are needed, and we need to be satisfied that between the developers and the Government and local authorities there is a sufficient sense of urgency to bring this important project to fruition.
The need for a more generous provision of urban aid remains. Older industrial areas are afflicted with highly localised pockets of dereliction and distress, which must be eradicated. It is complacent to remain satisfied with existing allocations.
I should like to conclude on a broader note. If I had to choose a precondition for industrial regeneration or recovery, I would place less emphasis on grants and incentives, and I would put the highest absolute priority on the need for cheaper money. The West Yorkshire area, with its existing—and we hope improving—transport network is ideally suited to attracting small and medium-scale new industry. But investment will not be made at existing interest rates. How can anyone set a reasonable profit target and pay the bank 20 per cent. first? This Government, who preach the virtues of initiative and enterprise, surely have a
124
duty to make them realisable by withdrawing the penal interest rates. That is within their capacity.
Reference has been made to a strong pound. There are different views about whether a strong pound is good or bad. But we can capitalise on a strong pound, because a strong pound enables us to be more courageous, and to adopt lower interest rates. That is the single most important objective of economic policy today. It makes good sense for Yorkshire, and it makes good sense for Britain.
8.4 pm
Mr. Donald Thompson: I intend to tailor my speech to the small part of Yorkshire that I represent. There are many and varied problems in Sowerby. There is hardly a company or industry without a problem, and yet, fortunately, my constituency is vastly diversified. It is that diversification that has turned my constituency against protectionism and import controls, the subject of which I am sure will be raised during the debate. However selective those controls may be, we believe that the retaliation would fall indiscriminately on other industries in the constituency.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) illustrated graphically, my area calls for a fair crack of the whip and for fair dealings within the rules of the EEC, GATT and the various bilateral trading agreements which could, if more fairly and promptly applied, bring expansion rather than recession to our textile industry. In common with other hon. Members, I feel that a return to less usurous rates of interest would help small firms. In Sowerby very few firms employ more than 600 or 700 people. Those companies are looking towards cheaper money.
A more careful consideration by the Government of various decisions and of how those decisions will affect trade and industry will pay dividends. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) mentioned Iran. If sanctions were imposed on Iran, many of my constituents would lose their jobs. Will the Government compensate them at a full rate, and will they compensate the firms for their loss of profit? We have been the folly of sanctions in Rhodesia. They will not work, they cannot work and they never have worked, and ultimately it is the working people who pay for the sanctions.

125
If a "Buy British" campaign is to be launched—people in my constituency have encouraged me to support such a campaign—it cannot be supported by a Government who rely on 30 per cent. of the gross national product being exported. Instead, such a campaign should be aimed at the buyers in our larger retail firms. They control our transparent market, and they can, at the stroke of a pen, make or break too many firms. We should aim our "Buy British" campaign at them. It is impossible for consumers to buy British if British goods are not available in the stores. Are the problems of British delivery and quality and fashion—in the textile industry—as great as the buyers would have us believe? Of course they are not. A buyer who commits his company to a new foreign supplier solely on the basis of cost makes sure that the deal is firmly tied and explicitly negotiated. If anything goes wrong he is more likely to give ready excuses because he is committed and he has committed his firm to the new supplier.
The companies in my constituency and my constituents try to buy British at an industrial level, and they would welcome any help from the Government in directing trade and industry over which they have control to buy British in the same way, within the rules that I mentioned. There must be many areas where we can support our industries in Yorkshire through British, local government and nationalised purchasing.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) obviously does not want an enterprise zone in his area. My area competed for Inmos. It is to go elsewhere and we wish it well. If the hon. Member for Rotherham does not want an enterprise zone in his area, perhaps the Minister will look favourably at my area. We have sites and enterprise. Perhaps our enterprise should be rewarded with an enterprise zone.
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was complaining that Sheffield had an enterprise zone, whereas Rotherham did not.
8.10 pm
Mr. Richard Wainwright: I hope that the Government will take note that when the House debates Yorkshire it does not debate
126
parochial, peculiar or idiosyncratic matters but deals usefully with the effect of national policies and problems on an important and varied productive area. Apart from lifting the morale of our constituents, it is valuable to debate the specifics of national problems in a varied context—since Yorkshire is a varied county—rather than in the abstract as we often do on greater occasions. This is not a "begging bowl" occasion nor one for a vast amount of special pleading.
I shall concentrate on two aspects which the Government could accept without swallowing their principles and without reversing major policies. First, derelict land causes an enormous problem in many parts of Yorkshire. It is a national curse but it is particularly tiresome in an area which pioneered power-driven industry. I plead with the Under-Secretary of State to recognise that there is no necessary connection between the provision of full Government grant for dealing with derelict land and assisted area status. It was merely a convenient linking with which I had no quarrel at the time. However, it is very unfortunate if the withdrawal of assisted area status—another controversial matter—automatically takes away from most of Yorkshire the valuable and not expensive full grant for dealing with derelict land.
Ministers from Governments of both parties who have inspected the way in which Yorkshire has used relatively small amounts of public money to deal with derelict land have testified that the money has been well spent. Since nature and the good Lord do most of the work, it can be described as pump-priming money. In many parts of Yorkshire the effects have been dramatic and useful. I hope that the Government are not in favour of false economies but that they are prepared to see the virtue of allowing some spending programmes to continue where they have proved their worth.
The other matter is more serious in that it affects more people. I refer to national insurance, a heavy tax which is rarely mentioned in the Budget speech, and certainly was not this year. National insurance contribution has become a tax on jobs of major proportions. An examination of the net income budgets

127
of a number of representative families in the light of what happened to taxes in April reveals that in all too many cases most of the advantage from the raising of the income tax threshold is wiped out by the increase in national insurance contributions which stealthily and silently, after the occasional Government advertisement, is administered through employers' wage offices.
A Government who are anxious to show, especially to their own supporters and potential donors, how much they differ from the previous Administration, should wish to abolish the national insurance surcharge—a gratuitous tax on jobs which contributes to unemployment and bears heavily on labour intensive industries, many of which are in West Yorkshire.
In a positive and constructive way the wool textile industry is trying to obtain all types of Government assistance in order to achieve a fair deal. The Government have the opportunity of providing immediate relief without offending EEC or GATT obligations. They could get rid of this crude tax on jobs which was imposed in different economic conditions and which is now a serious obstacle, especially to the employment of school leavers.
National insurance law was enacted by the House in a totally different employment climate, in times of relative full employment when anyone who forecast today's unemployment rate was derided as a prophet of alarmist doom. The cost of providing the unemployed with a barely reasonable standard of living was then to be borne entirely by industry and those still in work. That is the concept in the national insurance Acts which ordains that contributions shall rise as the cost of unemployment benefit goes up and the number of unemployed increases.
The Government must consider where that will lead in the next two or three years. Businesses which are still struggling and people who are still hanging on to jobs will be singled out to bear the cost of rapidly rising unemployment. Something which seemed harmless at a time of relatively full employment is a time bomb, financially and economically, which is certain to go off in the next two or three years unless the system is changed. The heavy cost of unemploy-
128
ment should be a charge on taxpayers as a whole and not upon those who are managing to keep afloat in industry and who should be spared unnecessary burdens.
The national insurance burden is also an unnecessary tax on exports. It is a burden which is borne by our exporters without justification. It is also a deliberate incentive to imports. Imports do not have to bear the national insurance burden. Because of the astonishing change in our economic fortunes the whole national insurance system is becoming grotesquely out of gear. I hope that in the interests of Yorkshire and of all other manufacturing regions the Government will give the matter urgent consideration.
8.20 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: When he opened this short debate, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred to his maiden speech. Perhaps, therefore, I may also be allowed to do so, because in my own maiden speech only some eight months ago I drew attention to the flexibility and adaptability of companies, especially small companies, based in my Yorkshire constituency and their willingness to make changes to remain viable.
It has to be said that in recent years, especially during the past few months, many firms in my constituency and in Yorkshire in general have had to draw on all their resources of innovation and inventiveness to compete in what has become an increasingly unfriendly world.
I have been listening closely to what Opposition Members have been saying. To hear some of them, one might be forgiven for assuming that the present situation in West Yorkshire is entirely the creation of the present Government. In fact, industry in Yorkshire has done remarkably well over many years to produce the goods which have been demanded in the domestic and world markets. Compared with the position a few years ago, many firms are now exporting a very much higher proportion of their output. They have had to because of the contraction of the home market.
In a sense, however, the clouds of economic recession have had silver linings in that they have forced manufacturers to look elsewhere. When the clouds lift, firms

129
in the West Riding will be well placed to lead Britain's export drive.
Reference has been made already to unemployment. Until quite recently, in my part of the West Riding unemployment was not an enormous problem. This was partly because of the willingness to diversify. It was also because of acceptance of the need to change rapidly in response to developing fashions and new technology. The area is still considerably dependent on traditional industries. Nevertheless, it has a wealth of small firms which are able to employ many of those who have become redundant, especially if they possess the skills which are needed. It has to be said now, however—and this has come about only in the last month or two—that the threat of unemployment has become more real and that for many it is already a fact of life.
The Scottish carpet manufacturer BMK, is in the process of running down its factory which used to employ 300 people at Liversedge, and it is retreating to Kilmarnock, with the loss of those jobs. Other companies, not all of them in textiles, are no longer taking on new employees and employ far fewer than they did a year or so ago. The short-time working compensation scheme, which was rightly retained by this Government, is keeping many men and women in work, especially in the carpet industry in Brighouse.
We have already heard reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) to protection. Listening to some Opposition Members, one might assume that textile industries enjoyed no protection at present. In fact the clothing and textile industries enjoy very considerable protection, with 95 per cent. of low cost imports subject to actual or potential restraints, and many new quotas have been imposed since this Government came into office.
To a considerable extent, the environment in which our manufacturers in Yorkshire operate is determined by the European Economic Community. In February, the EEC Commission agreed to the British request for quotas of imports on polyester filament yarn and nylon carpet yarn. It is unfortunate that carpets are not subject to quota and that the EEC Commission turned down our request for a quota to be imposed on carpets from non-EEC sources, the proportion of which has in-
130
creased greatly during the past few months.
It should be recognised that the situation in the carpet industry is becoming increasingly difficult. Low demand is at the root of the problem, but, in addition, one has what is perhaps the straw which is in danger of breaking the camel's back. I refer, of course, to the imports of tufted carpets from the United States based on their low-cost raw materials. Since the EEC decision was announced, the advertising of carpets imported from the United States has been stepped up greatly. It is becoming clear that the equivalent figures for 1980 will be much higher.
I received a letter today from the managing director of Heckmondwike Carpets. He pointed out that imports from the United States in January and February of this year were about three times higher than for the corresponding period in 1979. With this situation, any delay in taking action could be fatal. I hope that the Department of Trade is watching it carefully and will not waste any time in drawing the Commission's attention to any deterioration.
It must be stressed that Yorkshire industry has no wish to be sheltered from world trade, providing it is fair trade. We look to the Government to take up cases of dumping and inadequate or incorrect marks of origin wherever they occur. But I am encouraged by statements by the Secretary of State for Trade recently and by the assurances which he has given that he will take up cases of this kind wherever they occur.
The Government should also be congratulated on continuing to support the youth opportunities programme. The latest figures provided to me by the Calderdale economic regeneration advisory committee revealed the important role that is played by this scheme. But at the same time we must not underestimate the problems faced by older workers, especially skilled or semiskilled workers. There are those who talk about shirkers. There are many, and I am not afraid to attack them when they show their faces. But no one should allow their existence to obscure the fact that the overwhelming majority of workers do not want to remain unemployed for a day longer than necessary. Many small firms, especially in the engineering sector, have never been busier, and I see

131
that for myself as I go round my constituency. It is true that high interest rates are contributing to severe cash flow difficulties which face them in the short term.
Concentration on our immediate problems should not blind us to medium-term technological developments. Over the past two years, a number of multinational companies have announced firm plans to manufacture microprocessors in Britain. All these plants are in the Home Counties, in Bristol and in the central belt of Scotland. None of them is in Yorkshire. This is regrettable, and I hope that in the next wave of investment in new technology, we in Yorkshire will go all out to attract some of this fresh investment.
In my experience, industry in West Yorkshire has not shed many tears about the special assistance given to some areas in terms of special development area and intermediate area status. Industry does not ask for Government handouts. What is more serious and what has been mentioned to me far more often—and it has implications for job creation as well—is the heavy burden of rates which have been imposed on so many industrial as well as domestic ratepayers. If one scans the list of local authorities one notices with monotonous regularity the high in creases imposed by Labour-controlled authorities. They have been unwilling to——
Mr. John Prescott: Humberside.
Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman refers from a sedentary position to Humberside. One or two members have referred to towns in Humberside during the debate. But the Order Paper refers clearly to Yorkshire. That is the area to which I wish to refer. When one looks at the district domestic rate in Kirklees and asks why the ratepayers will be required to pay an increase of 30 per cent., despite the fact that the Conservatives are governing that district, one has to understand that the Conservative proposal for a much lower increase was rejected by the Liberals combining with the Labour Party to impose an increase of 30 per cent. I hope that this fact will be well publicised before 1 May.
132
I have a great deal of sympathy with councillors endeavouring to keep control of expenditure in the larger authorities imposed on Yorkshire since 1974. Until then, councillors looked after their own town or village. They were responsive to their electors and sought the best possible value for their electors' money. The changes in 1974 not only cost the services of many dedicated servants of the public among local councillors; they demanded that elected members travelled to towns miles away, such as Huddersfield and Halifax, in the case of my constituency, to discuss the affairs of places even further away where some local people have never been. It is hardly surprising that councillors often have to take the word of paid officials that expenditure, perhaps on administration, is a necessity and cannot be cut back. Unless they were to spend all their time on council work, they would be in no position to argue with what the professionals had to say. I do not blame the local authority officers, most of whom give good service to the public. I blame, rather, those who allowed lines to be drawn on maps, often in the face of local loyalties, to create authorities that might have been designed to make local control by the electorate, and answerability to it, more difficult.
Mr. Cryer: Those proposals were from a Tory Government.
Mr. Waller: I do not think that either party has a creditable record in this regard. The proposals by the Labour Party at that time would have produced very much the same results as have been seen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Worse."] My hon. Friends behind me say "Worse". It is possible that is so.
People in Yorkshire have a great loyalty to their own county. The disgraceful decision to alter the administrative boundaries of Yorkshire and to move some communities into Lancashire and others into something called North Humberside is one over which it is best to draw a discreet veil. No one with the slightest understanding of Yorkshire people would have done that. As far as local government reorganisation was concerned, certainly in so far as it affected the metropolitan districts of Yorkshire, no party can draw much credit from that exercise. It is normal practice, as this debate has shown, for Yorkshire people to speak bluntly.

133
Loyalty to the county is strong, as many expatriates living in Lancashire, who have sent their wives over the border to Huddersfield so that their sons can be born in Yorkshire, can attest. But local loyalties should not lead anyone to think that Yorkshiremen are inward looking. Yorkshire has lived by trade for centuries. The world does not owe Yorkshire a living. I am confident that with its excellent transport links, its energy resources and its skills, Yorkshire is better placed than most areas to face the future.
8.32 pm
Mr. Ben Ford: It may be a great disappointment to my colleagues, and perhaps to Conservative Members, that I do not intend to address myself to the subject of textiles, except to support the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) in his contention that the Government could do more, and should be shown to be doing more.
I wish to pursue one or two hobby horses. The first is the Leeds-Bradford airport runway extension. There has been an inquiry. The report is residing somewhere in the depths of the Department of the Environment. We expect the Minister to report to the House at some time.
I hope that the report and the determination will come quickly. The extension of the runway is crucial to the good health of the economy of West Yorkshire in particular, but also to the whole of Yorkshire, as I shall attempt to show.
Most people will agree that one cannot work an industrial economy without good communications, particularly air communications. Business men wish to fly to the scene of their operations. We are also increasing the area of tourism. An extended runway, taking medium-weight equipment, is essential to the increase and growth of the tourist industry.
To some extent, connected with that issue is the extension of the Ml from Pudsey to Dishforth. I note that the inquiry on improvements to the A1 east of Leeds has been discontinued. It became clear that those concerned with the inquiry wanted to discuss the question of the line of route. The Minister took that fact on board and decided to avoid the further expense of continuing with an abortive inquiry. I hope that there will not be too much delay in holding the
134
new inquiry and that it will study the whole line of the route of the Ml extension and settle the matter for once and for all.
I want to put forward a case for the blue route—a case which I have pursued for some years. That is the route that runs to the west of Leeds, along the eastern boundary of my constituency in Bradford. That is not to say that I have any particular parochial interest, but the fact is that the eastern side of Bradford contains a great deal of industrial dereliction. In my view, much of that can be repaired only if good communications are developed. I believe that such communications should consist of the blue route—the Ml extension running between Leeds and Bradford.
Mention was made earlier of the M62. That motorway is now working almost to capacity. I believe that it is the most heavily congested motorway in the country. The M62 was sited in the centre of the conurbation, in a north-west context. My contention is that the Ml extension should also be sited in the centre of the conurbation in an east-west context—that is, running between Leeds and Bradford. It is patently apparent that the Ml cannot just finish at the south of Leeds for ever and a day. It must be continued at some time, and the sooner the better in relation to cost.
I should like to refer also to fire cover in West Yorkshire. The Conservative-controlled West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has proposed a reduction in manning and the number of appliances throughout West Yorkshire. I believe that that was a result of a computer operation which did not appear to take into account the question of traffic flows, town centre congestion and similar hazards. I have met the fire brigade union, as have other hon. Members. My view is that the firemen want to offer a good service and protection to the citizens who employ them.
The fire brigade union has prepared a detailed technical paper on the effect of the reductions, which it has submitted to the county authority and the Home Office. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that the union will receive a detailed and carefully considered reply from the Home Office before the county council is allowed to put any of the cuts into effect.

135
I hope that the Minister will give a helpful reply, and possibly assurances, on the matters that I have raised.
8.38 pm
Mr. John Watson: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I shall be brief. I wish to make only two points. The first concerns regional aid, the withdrawal of which seems to some Labour Members to have been the worst thing to hit Yorkshire since the Ice Age. I do not agree. At worst, I think that the withdrawal of regional aid will have only a marginal effect on employment and industry in Yorkshire. At a time when the unemployment rate throughout Yorkshire is only slightly above the national average, and when—if it were not for the unemployment rates of Rotherham, Bradford and Hull—unemployment throughout Yorkshire would be decidely below the national average, it does not behove us particularly well to demand that yet further national resources be directed towards Yorkshire to subsidise its economy and employment, for whatever reason we may choose to express.
I honestly do not believe that the presence or otherwise of regional aid is the most paramount fact in the mind of any potential employer when he is deciding whether to invest money and create jobs. From my experience in my own constituency, I believe that what is paramount is the availability of suitable premises. What comes second is reasonable geographical access to the markets which a potential employer wishes to serve, and third is the availability of certain skills which he may need. Reference has been made in particular to engineering skills in Yorkshire.
Fourthly a potential employer needs to know whether the area in which he intends to invest cash enjoys good or bad industrial relations. Only then do the handouts that are potentially available from government come into the reckoning. It was significant that the chairman of the regional CBI said, after regional aid was substantially withdrawn from Yorkshire, that he did not mind because "Yorkshire business men were not looking for handouts."
Mr. Allen McKay: In the context of regional aid it should be pointed out that Sheffield received financial assistance amounting to £20
136
million. The estimates of the Department of Industry showed that that assistance provided 7,000 additional jobs and saved 5,000 others. That demonstrates that regional aid did much good work.
Mr. Watson: I do not deny that, nor do I advocate that regional aid should be wiped out entirely. However, I question its effectiveness, for the reasons I have given. In my constituency we have lost intermediate area status. With the exception of Pendle district council—which is not even in Yorkshire—I have not had one letter complaining about the withdrawal of intermediate area status. The issue has never been mentioned to me, even when I have raised it at public meetings.
When those people in my constituency who have thought deeply about it were asked whether they would like the Government to spend an extra £223 million on regional aid—that was the extent of the cut—or whether the Government should borrow £10 less per household than otherwise would have been borrowed they said that they would prefer to see Government borrowing reduced. In cash terms my constituency is better off to the tune of £250,000. That is the amount by which, related to Skipton, the Government have reduced their borrowing as a result of withdrawing regional aid.
I have been slightly dismayed by some Opposition Members who, at the beginning of their speeches, said that it was terrible that regional aid had been withdrawn and who at the conclusion of their speeches said that the next worst thing was that money was so expensive to borrow. The most important single reason why money is so expensive and interest rates so high is that the Government are borrowing too much money. It is economic nonsense to say, on the one hand, that the Government must increase their expenditure and, on the other hand, that interest rates must come down.
My second point concerns civil engineering work—a rarely mentioned subject in this Chamber. Rarely will I stand here and say that Government expenditure must increase overall, but if we are to have Government expenditure at a certain level I am as anxious as anyone else to make sure that Yorkshire gets its share. In the context of civil engineering I do not think that Yorkshire is getting

137
its fair share. According to figures published by the Department of the Environment under the category of "public non-housing"—normally reckoned to be the bellwether of civil engineering work—new projects started in 1978—which is the latest year for which figures are available—in all regions other than Yorkshire have increased in value by 13 per cent. since 1976. In Yorkshire they have fallen by 4 per cent. since 1976.
Under the more specific category of "roads, bridges and harbours", between 1976 and 1978 in all other regions there has been an increase of 49 per cent. In Yorkshire there has been a reduction of 77 per cent. The latter figure represents a fall from £77 million in 1976 to £18 million in 1978.
I hope that the Minister was able to accept my earlier personal assurances regarding regional aid and I hope that he will now accept my view that Yorkshire, which has traditionally been something of a national base for a thriving civil engineering industry, needs continuity and confidence in Government plans if that base is to be maintained. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
8.44 pm
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I shall confine my remarks to manufacturing industries, as they form the traditional basis of the prosperity of Halifax and West Yorkshire. Together with the prosperity that those industries have created, Halifax and West Yorkshire can boast of the traditional skills, expertise, capacity for innovation and good industrial relations which are well known in the area..
The Prime Minister has recently made the dismal and depressing forecast that manufacturing output in this country will decline throughout the lifetime of this Parliament—that is, for the next four years. Added to that, we have in my constituency increasing short-time working, an increasing number of redundancies and, since last summer, a series of closures which, despite what has been said by Conservative Members, are related to Government policies.
The withdrawal of assisted status cannot have helped the situation and there is certainly a lack of alternative employment within the area, which is a new aspect, combined with unemployment.
138
I shall give four examples of how once-thriving industries in Halifax—machine tools, confectionery, tufted carpets and textiles—are being hit by Government policies.
The machine tool industry is the barometer of industrial activity in Halifax and we find in that industry increasing short-time working and redundancies. We have also had the announcement of the proposed closure at the end of June of Stirks machine tool factory, which is one of the oldest and largest in Halifax, employing more than 260 people, who have been given redundancy notices.
Recently, Mr. Harry Smith, the national organiser of TASS and a member of the machine tools economic development council, made a speech in my constituency in which he said:
"The industry is so depressed and so lacking in capital it needs a colossal boost. The British machine tool industry will certainly be in its death throes if its share of world exports continues to fall at the rate it has been doing recently."
As the machine tool industry is the key to engineering work and production, it needs an adequate investment by the Government. Everything possible must be done to gain for the industry a greater part of the home market—almost half of the home sales market is dominated by machine tools from abroad—and we also need to increase the British share of the world market.
One of Rowntree Mackintosh's largest factories is based in Halifax and is the district's largest single industrial employer. It has won several Queen's awards to industry for exports and is normally extremely successful, but there has been recently an uncharacteristically pessimistic statement by the chairman of Rowntree Mackintosh, who said:
"The combination of the current high sterling exchange rate with a high rate of inflation is not a good basis for buoyant and profitable export trade."
Since the Government took office, inflation has nearly doubled and the sharp increase in VAT has hit the confectionery industry extremely hard. A once-thriving industry is now in difficulties, due, in large part, to the economic policies of the Government, who believe in a monetarist philosophy more suited to the 1930s than to the 1980s.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) referred to the

139
carpet industry. Nearly 3,000 jobs have been lost in the carpet industry in Yorkshire and Humberside in the past three months alone, and there is increasing short-time working.
The situation continues to deteriorate. In the first two months of this year, there has been a 180 per cent. increase in imports of American carpets. The refusal of the EEC to support the request for temporary import restrictions on tufted carpets was a bitter disappointment to the industry.
The chairman of the world-famous carpet firm in my constituency which manufactures Crossley and Kosset carpets told me:
"The fact that quotas are to be placed on yarn, but not on carpets, has seriously weakened confidence. We may have to reduce or postpone the increase in output which was planned."
Have the Government now abandoned the tufted carpet industry? Have they no plans to help it through its present difficulties?
With regard to textiles, the third largest employer in the United Kingdom, there is no need to reiterate to the House or to the Minister's Department the serious crisis which exists. I propose to him that there should be an EEC textile plan. Can the Government not press for the adoption of an overall strategic plan within the EEC for the textile industry, in view of the increasing world-wide competition which it is facing?
Other industries, such as shipbuilding and steel, have been subject to a Community policy. What is standing in the way of an agreed Community textile plan which would enable all member States to plan long-term rationalisation of the industry together? If it does not, we shall continue to have repeated closures and a repeated decline in the textile industry. The industry is trying to put its own house in order, as the Government repeatedly tell it to do. Why, at the same time, can it not have much-needed Government support to secure its short-term and long-term future?
The Government's laissez-faire policy, of which they boast, can lead only to the continued decline of the textile industry. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will deal very seriously with these four critical industries which, since the Govern-
140
ment took office—partly due to the doubling of inflation and partly to the fact that business confidence has decreased—have declined as a result of Government economic philosophies. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some hope for those four industries.
8.52 pm
Mr. John Townend: My constituency consists of a large part of the former East Riding of Yorkshire. Although it is now included in Humberside, the people there consider themselves to be Yorkshiremen. I consider that it is right, therefore, that I should put forward their views tonight, despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller).
The main sources of employment are agriculture, fishing, tourism, and other small businesses. We have an unemployment rate well above the national average. Naturally, there was some disappointment when the area was not granted development area status, but I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson), that there was considerable pleasure that the unfair competition from the much more prosperous area of Scarborough was removed and that that area received the same classification as Bridlington, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend would not necessarily support that.
This is an area of enterprise and of entrepeneurs and, because of our dependence on small business, the main worry of business men, farmers and fishermen—as many other hon. Members have mentioned tonight—is the high interest rates. As we all know, they are becoming an impossible burden. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton touched on that subject.
But how depressing it is to hear Labour Members criticising the present high level of interest rates, and insinuating that the Government can bring them down at will, without considering the causes of the high interest rates. They are threefold. High interest rates are caused by high inflation. With an inflation rate of 20 per cent. one can never have interest rates at 10 per cent., because that is a negative interest rate. High interest rates are also caused by the level of public borrowing, because the Government have to borrow, and they have to offer an

141
interest rate which will attract people to buy gilt-edged. The more the Government need to borrow, the more attractive is the rate of interest.
Thirdly, high interest rates are affected by overseas rates of interest. That is why the people in my constituency seem to be far more aware of these matters than the Opposition are. If they have any criticism of Government policy, particularly Government financial policy, the business men in my constituency say that the Government should have cut public expenditure sooner and by more, and then the high interest rates of today might already have been reduced.
One of the items in the Budget that I welcomed was the enterprise package of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. There were no fewer than 13 individual schemes to help small businesses. They have been enthusiastically welcomed by small business people in my constituency.
I was particularly attracted to the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend for enterprise zones. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said that an enterprise zone would only take employment away from other areas. That is nonsense. The logical answer is that an enterprise zone will create more jobs, and will not take jobs from other areas.
My only criticism of the Chancellor's proposals is that North Humberside was not included in the initial list of enterprise zones. It is an area of growing unemployment, particularly in the Hull area, because of the decline—indeed, some would say the collapse—of the fishing industry. In view of this, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the list might be re-examined. Possibly Hull could be included as a site for one of the zones, because of its special problems.
My interest is that my constituency goes right up to the eastern boundary of Hull, and many of my constituents look to Hull for their jobs. They travel there to work. An enterprise zone would offer job opportunities for many people in the southern part of my constituency.
There has been much talk of self-help and the self-reliance of Yorkshire people. I would say to the hon. Member for
142
Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that the local council could play a much bigger part in attracting industry. I have received a letter from a constituent who is in business in the Hull area as a developer. He had a prospective client who would have produced about 70 jobs. A planning application was put in on 27 January. The criticism was not that the application was turned down, because planning authorities must take account of all sorts of things, but that 10 days ago the application was deferred yet again. The managing director of the company concerned told my constituent "We shall not be messed about by the council any longer." That development, with 70–80 jobs, has gone to Lancashire. I have written to the chairman of the development committee in Hull drawing the matter to his attention.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point, but does not what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are saying add up to the fact that almost every town and constituency in Yorkshire needs to be an enterprise zone? Does not that mean that the Conservatives are asking for regional development to be brought back?
Mr. Townend: I am not saying that. Many areas of Yorkshire do not have problems so much greater than those in the rest of the country. But, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central pointed out, Hull has particular problems resulting from the collapse of the fishing industry. My point was that bureaucracy in local government often hindered the creation of new jobs more than anything else. That is why I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to reduce planning delays and planning constraints.
I wish to raise two other points, with regard to the European Economic Community. The first is in connection with inshore fishing. I urge the Government to keep up all the resolution at their command to maintain their present policy of obtaining a fair deal for the British fishing industry. It is desperately important that we secure the 12-mile exclusive limit, a preferential zone for 50 miles and an adequate share of the total EEC catch. We must also have properly policed conservation, and see that the abuses by the

143
other EEC countries and their fishing fleets are stamped out.
We have had talk about dumping. Nowhere is dumping having such an adverse effect as in the dumping of foreign fish on the British market, much of that fish having been illegally caught. That is destroying not only the deep sea fishing industry, but the inshore fishing industry.
The second point that I wish to mention was brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). That concerns unfair competition by Dutch growers who are receiving North Sea gas at a lower price than householders and other industries in Holland. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is unfair competition. Coupled with a strong pound, it is devastating the British growing industry. It seems an incredible situation.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to see whether something can be done about this matter through the EEC. It is incredible that Holland should be selling North Sea gas cheap so that Germany requires to make a subsidy to its growers, which means that France will follow with a subsidy for its growers. Unless we follow with a subsidy, our growers will go out of business. Surely that is a nonsense. If the EEC is to mean anything, the Dutch should pay the proper price for North Sea gas. If they do, no subsidies will be necessary.
One final point, which effects my constituency, is the question of coast erosion. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for coming to my constituency and seeing the danger for himself. We look forward with considerable interest to his findings. We hope that we shall receive some concrete help with this difficult problem.
Apart from those few points, the part of Yorkshire that I represent is still solidly behind the Prime Minister and supports the Government's financial, economic and industrial policies.
9.1 pm
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The House hardly needs reminding that Yorkshire and Humberside are very nearly the size in population of Scotland, almost double that of Wales and treble that of Northern Ireland. It is always worth reminding ourselves of the signifi-
144
cance of our county and of the enormous variety that it represents.
I shall confine my remarks, first, to the industrial situation, as the West Riding, part of which I represent, is primarily an industrial area, and, secondly, to certain social problems to which we should be addressing ourselves not only in Yorkshire, but in the country.
First, on the industrial side, it is overwhelmingly important to our industry that the Government change course from their disastrous policies and do something about the exchange rate, the high rates of interest and inflation which in large measure are now the fault of the Government's policies.
Whether we talk to industrialists or to housewives in the West Riding the story is much the same. Industrialists—the friends of the Conservative Party only a year ago—are disillusioned with the deflation, the loss of profitability, the high value of the pound and the high interest rates which are undoubtedly causing a squeeze, not only on firms which face basic change and are perhaps on the way out, but on modern progressive industries which cannot compete nowadays.
As I am sure everyone is finding as the local elections draw near, housewives who a few months ago so gladly voted the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) into office thinking that she was going to do something about prices, are sadly disillusioned. I confidently forecast that the Labour Party will sweep into power in a great number of local authorities in the West Riding.
Batley and Morley, the costituency that I have the honour to represent, is concerned about all these matters, but in particular the wool, textile and carpet industry. This matter has been fully discussed today. I wish only to emphasise the commitment to a renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement with clauses that ensure that the growth of imports is strictly related to the development and growth of our own market, which is essential to the wool textile industry, and further ensures that wool textiles form a more specific and clear part of the multi-fibre arrangement which, until now, has been concerned more with clothing, cotton and man-made fibres.

145
I turn to some of the social questions. In my part of Yorkshire we still have a considerable housing problem. We still have long housing waiting lists and a considerable amount of old, outdated, inadequate private houses, particularly in the rented sector. The present Government's policy of very substantially reducing the housing programme—by 20 per cent. in real terms in the current year—and policies published in the public expenditure White Paper that imply either completely stopping all public house building or doubling rents, or some variation on those enormities, can have only a very severe effect on people on very long housing waiting lists and those in grossly dilapidated and outmoded housing.
I turn finally to what seems to me to be a matter on which we spend too little time, even on these occasions—the problems facing many of our immigrant communities. In the West Riding, in Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley, we have very substantial numbers of people who came into this country, very often at the request and bidding of our manufacturers, to help out with labour shortages, particularly in the textile industry. We are at the stage—as Bristol has shown us—of becoming increasingly complacent once again about the problems faced by our immigrant community.
Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend accept the recent report on the influence of microprocessors on Tameside, which like Kirklees, we share as our local authority? That report shows that the unskilled ethnic groups, the young blacks, are faced with a future involving a 40 per cent. projected new decline because of microchips and microprocessing in the clothing and textile industries. These kids will not have jobs. The real problem that the country faces, but which the present Government will not face, is that there are no initiatives to provide the necessary jobs.
Mr. Woolmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many of those problems will be faced by all people in our society.
I address my closing remarks to the very specific problems faced by our immigrant communities. We had a wave of immigration some years ago, and now is the time when the young people born
146
of those families, who regard themselves as English, and as Yorkshire men and women, are facing great frustrations in matters such as housing, education and employment, which they are simply not prepared to tolerate in the way in which the first generation of immigrants did. This is certainly true in Batley, Leeds and Bradford. Youngsters simply cannot get jobs. Housing is getting increasingly difficult to obtain. These young people will not be prepared to tolerate the discrimination and the frustrations that they face.
This is a very difficult topic. It is, perhaps, largely confined to the West Riding of Yorkshire and to Humberside but it is nevertheless a very serious matter. I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that we in Yorkshire have a tremendous opportunity, and one that is not given, perhaps, to cities such as London. We have smaller communities, towns and cities, where many waves of immigrant communities have been absorbed and welcomed in the past. We have a tremendous opportunity to show to Britain and the world how to live together and how to discriminate positively for the better good.
Unless we take very seriously the problems faced by these young people in jobs and housing, and unless we are willing to swallow our pride on occasions and to discriminate positively, we shall lose great opportunity. I hope that this House and Yorkshire Members of Parliament will ensure that we add a Yorkshire dimension to this matter and show the country that we are prepared to demonstrate a willingness to work together to bring our communities and our coloured populations together.
9.9 pm
Mr. Michael Shaw: Time marches on, and I shall make three brief points. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), together with several other hon. Members, mentioned high interest rates as a cause of our difficulties. That is true. However, high interest rates are a symptom of other things, particularly inflation. We suffer not only from our inflation, but from world-wide inflation. High rates of interest are not peculiar to this country. In deciding when to reduce interest rates the Government must look at events in other countries, particularly America. The

147
quicker that we can get back—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) is very good at waiting and at interrupting from a sedentary position.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his undoubted courtesy in giving way. What was the picture on or before 3 May 1979? The hon. Gentleman seems to think that all our troubles date from then.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point and one that I was about to make. However, no apologies are necessary. Not only are high interest rates bedevilling the situation, but the amount of borrowing by the public sector has remained a feature for too long. I am glad that the figures seem to be moving in the right direction at long last.
Another factor should be taken into account. We shall take cognisance of that factor, along with others, when interest rates begin to fall. I refer to the way that oil sustains the level of the pound. We shall not have oil for ever. If we learn to live with a pound that has been kept artificially high, we shall be in serious difficulties when oil runs out. We must learn to use the bonanza of North Sea oil to our advantage. I am sure that we shall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly raised the question of fishing. He also mentioned the jealousy that exists between Bridlington and Scarborough. One is in a development area, but the other is not. In 1966 I was a member of the Committee that dealt with development areas, and I put forward amendments to bring Bridlington into a development area alongside Scarborough. Alas, I was unsuccessful.
Scarborough and Bridlington have fleets of about the same size. They depend largely on inshore fishing. No finer fishing can be had by those good boats. There are about 34 keel boats and 20 cobble boats. However, although operating costs have increased by 30 per cent. during the past year, the price of fish has gone down. One difficulty is that when inshore fishermen have put their case and stated the cost of running their boats, they have made far too conservative estimates of their weekly
148
costs. I asked them to ensure that their figures would show the true cost of running their boats. They are doing that, and in the end they will discover that the figures should have been much higher. They should seek a better minimum price for their fish, because present prices are absurdly low.
The other matter I wish to raise was peculiar to the Scarborough area over Easter, namely, the problem of organised visitors to seaside towns at holiday weekends. Of course we welcome visitors to all our coastal resorts. None the less, when visitors come on an organised basis as they did over Easter, driving their scooters around the town, causing considerable damage and frightening away many other visitors, we must look at the matter very seriously.
We must thank our police force for the capable way in which it handled affairs on that occasion. It is not practical to ban all people who arrive on scooters. I received a letter written by the parent of one of the scooter riders after she had heard me on the Jimmy Young show. She thanked me for saying that not all people who rode scooters behaved badly. Of course they do not, and her son was one who did not. If we decided to ban them all we would be banning many good visitors, who have good bookings at hotels. Also, if we banned them, we would cause them to find some other place in which to behave riotously. We would push them off to another place where there might not be an adequate police force to deal with them, and that would only make matters worse. That might mean that the police at Scarborough had to dash off to Filey, Whitby or Pickering and leave Scarborough unpoliced. There must be some hard thinking about this. The police dealt with the problem very well over Easter, but plans should be made for dealing with it better in future.
I am glad to hear—and I hope that this happens in other towns as well—that meetings are being sought between police authorities and local councillors in Scarborough to examine this matter in depth and see whether organised visitors of this sort can be better looked after in future so that there are no further disturbances to frighten away other visitors and spoil everyone else's holiday.

149
In Scarborough we welcome a large number of visitors every year. The town has a rightly-earned reputation for being a place in which one can enjoy a quiet holiday. We are determined to keep it that way in future.
9.17 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be as brief as possible. There is no direct link whatever between a large public sector borrowing requirement and high rates of interest. The Labour Government had a higher proportion of GDP as a public sector borrowing requirement, yet had a level of inflation that was only half the current level.
It is particularly interesting that Conservative Members stand up and say they are against import controls and then plead for them. They say that they are against regional aid and then plead for it. They also say that they do not like local government reorganisation, but they omit to point out that it was a Tory Government that reorganised local government. I say that as a representative of the West Riding who is deeply and bitterly critical of the Tory Government who wiped out the Ridings. That action is still bitterly resented and I hope that at some stage in the future the Ridings will be restored.
I echo some of the points that have been made about the decline in investment in the machine tool industry. In the part of the West Riding that I represent textiles and the metal-working industries are pre-eminently important, and that is so for most of the West Riding. It is a matter of concern that investment in the machine tool industry has been declining over the past years, not simply since 3 May 1979. The measures undertaken by the Government are accelerating decline, high interest rates and the erosion of regional supports.
The textile industry is facing unfair competition, and it is patently absurd for Conservative Members to exhibit such complacency. Not only the Opposition, but the Tory-controlled local authorities believe that the application of import quotas is not tight enough and the antidumping arrangements are pathetic. Early-day motion 546, signed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is critical of the Conservative Government, of their relations with the EEC, and of the lack of action by the Government
150
and the EEC on matters such as the application of the MFA and antidumping arrangements.
In 1979 the textile industry had a deficit of £658 million in textile goods. We are not even talking about vaguely fair competition. In the first two months of this year there has already been a deficit of £131 million, and if the Department of Industry had been efficient, I would have the figures for March today. But it has not yet produced them. Action is needed. If necessary we should gird our loins and take action independently of the EEC. But the Government are so supine towards the EEC—as are their Back Benchers to Government policy—that they will not urge action or take action independently of the EEC.
At the beginning of the year the Yorkshire Post—not a newspaper that spreads light among the Labour Benches—spoke about the growth of fraudulent labelling of imported garments. What has the Department of Trade done about that? How many prosecutions has it vigorously undertaken? Not many, I imagine.
I should like to mention my constituency because to some extent it represents a microcosm of the general points that I have made. The Conservative Government have brought about an increase in male unemployment from 61 per cent. in January to 6·3 per cent. in February. Hardly a month goes by without fresh textile redundancies being announced. Intermediate status is to be brought to an end. In view of the difficulties facing the textile industry that decision should be reviewed for the areas in which there is an important contribution from the textile industry.
The small firms employment subsidy has been terminated. That was a highly successful subsidy, and about 50 firms in the Keighley travel-to-work area benefited from it. The job retirement scheme has been curtailed. That is a sad loss, because under the Labour Government it was a move towards a common retirement age for men and women. I cannot emphasise too much that in altering the job retirement scheme age from 62 to 64, the Tories have robbed many people who, after a lifetime of toil, were looking forward to the opportunity of early retirement. That scheme was taken advantage of by many people in my constituency.

151
Whatever the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) thinks, regional assistance is an important stimulus to industry. The regions, including Yorkshire and Humberside, would have been worse off without it. The 100 per cent. allowance on investment in manufacturing industry is already available, but it is not enough of a stimulus. The investment allowance as a stimulus has been recognised by the free fire zones where the 100 per cent. allowance is simply extended to service industries. Coupled with the regional incentives through intermediate area status that is a valuable contributory factor.
I suggest that the Government restore intermediate area status to all those areas in West Yorkshire from which it has been removed. I am sure that the Government will not do that, because they are set upon their foolish and disastrous industrial policies. The Government might ask "Where is the money to come from?" They can obtain the money by imposing a windfall tax on the massive profits which the banks are making as a direct result of high interest rates. They could recycle the money for the benefit of the people who are on the dole as a result of Government policies. The Government should extend the job creation and job retirement schemes. Public expenditure for that could also be obtained through a windfall tax on the banks.
The Government should impose quota controls and proper anti-dumping measures to secure textile jobs. If we are to stop the erosion of our industrial base and halt de-industrialisation we must examine the possibility of imposing selective import controls while we make up for the lack of investment in many years past.
Before coming here today I spoke to about 200 children at South Craven comprehensive school. Most of those children were in the fifth or sixth forms and about to leave school. When I looked at those young people I felt that Government have a duty to ensure that, when they leave school, they have a job and security. The Government clearly do not care about that. They talk about three years of unparalleled austerity and the dole queues lengthening. If the Tory Government cannot provide a decent future for our
152
young people let us elect another Labour Government as soon as possible.
9.27 pm
Dr. Keith Hampson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for being so brief as to allow me to take part in the debate. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I criticise him. He and the hon. Members for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), and for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) sounded as if they were born yesterday, but of course they were not. They merely have a selective memory. They speak as if the world turned round when the Tory Government were elected. All the problems that they have highlighted have been with us for a long time. The problem of youth unemployment existed under the Labour Government. The problems of imports and dumping in the textile industry were with us when the hon Member for Keighley was a Minister. The problems of nurturing small businesses and helping them to expand were there when he had responsibility for them. The small businesses in my constituency find more attractions in the present Government's package than anything that he produced.
The hon. Gentleman did not produce much for small businesses or for textiles. When we were in opposition we made the same complaints about his Administration as he and his colleagues levied tonight. Who ruled the country for most of the last 15 years? A Conservative Government did not, but a Labour Government did. Why did they not apply the wonderful panaceas which they now propose? The problems have been getting worse and worse. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) called for "massive" injections of Government aid. The Labour Government threw money at the problems, but they got worse. Between March 1974 and May 1979 the rate of unemployment in the Yorkshire region doubled from 2·6 to 5·4 per cent.
We have to turn round the nation's economy. We have a difficult and painful time ahead of us while we grapple with inflation and high interest rates. These are serious problems, and they are hurting business, but how naive it is of Opposition Members, who always describe the Conservatives as the party of business men, if they believe that we are trying to foster high interest rates in order to help our business friends.

153
What the Government can do is act as a catalyst and improve the climate in which industry and business men can thrive. In that connection, I refer to one specific problem. We in Yorkshire, as blunt, down-to-earth people, are engaged not in wallowing in nostalgia but in looking into the future and to the new industries and technologies upon which future jobs and in turn our prosperity depend.
In two senses there is an important development needed here. One aspect is finance. I have just had the pleasure of looking at industry in Japan. Bank money is extremely important to fund industry in order to launch new technologies and to get the necessary investment. The second is the linkage between the new technologies in industry and higher education. This is linked to the Finniston report about which I spoke last week.
The Yorkshire area is almost unrivalled in the entire country in the sheer wealth of intellectual ability at its disposal. There is a tremendous belt of knowledge from the University of Bradford and Bradford college, through Leeds university and Leeds polytechnic and York university to Hull university and Hull college, which ought to be a polytechnic. We have to pull together that sort of talent and link it more intimately with industry, and we have to search for ways of doing that.
Most of the basic problems have existed for a long time. They are still with us. They have nothing much to do with this Government. The ethylene cracker opened by our two biggest and most successful companies, ICI and BP, just a few weeks ago on Teesside, was two years late and cost double what the companies estimated. Those are the basic problems that we have to face and, until we get on top of those difficulties, the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside will not be resolved.
I do not intend to delay the House any longer. I am sure that it is a great pleasure to right hon. and hon. Members to see the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. His presence there is a tribute to his many years of service to his party, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to listen to him.
9.33 pm
Mr. Edwin Wainwright: This has been a very interesting debate. Sometimes hon. Members should be honest with themselves and with the nation. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) spoke about the Japanese and their banking system. He knows that there is a much closer relationship between the banking system and industrialists in Japan than there is in this country and that money can be obtained from Japanese banks much easier and cheaper than it can here, though perhaps in a soft, subtle manner.
The hon. Member also knows a great deal about the education system. About one pupil in four goes to university, and then the majority go into technology, science and engineering. But who has been to blame for any failings in the education system in this country for many years? The answer is Conservative Governments.
In my view, we should debate this subject more frequently, and we should have more time to do so. In this debate practically every industry has been mentioned, especially those undergoing difficulties which are due mainly to the present recession.
Let me say a few words about the recession. It is all very well for Government supporters to talk about what happened when the Labour Government came to office in 1974. As soon as we had taken over, we came face to face with the biggest recession experienced since the 1920s and 1930s. We had to cope with it, and we found it difficult to do so. Government supporters who complain about what the Labour Government did from 1974 to 1979 should bear that in mind.
It has to be said, however, that the Opposition ought to bear in mind the difficulties faced by the present Government because of the international situation.
My hon. Friends have proved to the House that Government policies have failed to stem economic depression and recession. The cuts in public expenditure have produced a situation in which unemployment is still rising and inflation is in the region of 20 per cent. I do not expect that any Conservative Member will blame the Labour Government. This has happened under a Tory Government. The

155
House does not need to be informed that the economic depression is bound to have grave effects on the situation in Yorkshire. Many Yorkshire industries have been noted, over a long period of years, for the exports that have produced wealth for this nation.
I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), who showed a tremendous Yorkshire spirit. He criticised the Government far more than he criticised anything done by the previous Labour Government. He proved to the House that Yorkshiremen have a grit that should help to pull this country out of its present economic position if only the Government would realise what is happening not only in Yorkshire but throughout the whole country.
I fully appreciate the attitude of my hon. Friends in opposing the trend of imported textiles, clothing and footwear. These industries, in spite of criticisms levelled against them about lack of investment, have undergone vast changes in the past few years. They were helped by legislation passed in 1972. What can they do when competing against Taiwan, Korea, eastern Europe and the United States that are supplying this country with textile goods and footwear almost more cheaply than our cost of materials? Are the Government not failing the nation if they allow industries to be ruined due to imports and allow those imports to continue? I am not opposed to free trading, but I believe that, unless the Government take action on imports, we shall lose jobs on a tremendous scale.
As other nations aspire to Western technology, there are bound to be clashes in the textile, clothing and footwear markets, mainly due to their low wages and the high technology given to them. It would be foolish for us to ruin our economy simply to ensure that our markets are free to allow such goods into this country. The textile and footwear industries still require Government aid. Nearly half the workers are employed in the North-West and the Yorkshire regions. Large areas are no longer in assisted districts, receiving financial aid from the Government. To become more competitive, these industries must be greatly improved by the application of new technology.
156
The Government should not avoid the responsibility for ensuring necessary investment in research and development to make certain that new plant and equipment are introduced in these important industries in Yorkshire. It is necessary to regenerate our textile, clothing and footwear industries, so that, not only do we keep and improve our own markets but we increase exports so that jobs are maintained. Many hon. Members have referred to the textile industry. We shall want to hear from the Minister what action the Government intend to take.
I should also like to say a few words about the steel industry, which is experiencing great difficulty. Hon. Members representing the Sheffield area, if they had been called, would no doubt have outlined to the House far better than I can the great difficulties that the industry is undergoing. The steel industry was reorganised in the early 1970s. As a result of the OPEC oil price increase in 1973–74, there was the recession. In 1974–75, everyone thought that the recession would soon be over, but that has not been the case. Therefore, even though there were plans to increase capacity in the steel industry, it was still a backward industry when compared with the technology in steel industries abroad, which hon. Members who served on the Select Committee visited.
I have been to Japan on two occasions and have seen the technology there. Believe me, Britain will have great difficulty in fighting the technology and the increase in productive capacity of Japanese industries, be it steel, radios or motor cars. I do not have time to go through the whole list. It was fascinating, but also frightening, to learn that we were so far behind. However, the steel industry has tried to cope with those difficulties, and the Sheffield and Rotherham parts of the industry have done exceedingly well. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke highly of the steel industry in the Rotherham area, of which we are all proud.
Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he not agree that it is necessary for the Government to consider import controls, especially in relation to special steels?

157
For example, in 1972, the work force in tool steel, high speed steel, forge bars and bright bars numbered 17,400 in the Sheffield area, whereas in 1980 the figure is only 5,400. Imports have virtually ruined and practically demoralised the whole of the special steel industry.
Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplying that information. It is certainly correct. We must look closely at all imports into this country, but we must be careful because we are a trading nation. We are the greatest trading nation in the world proportionate to what we produce, and that must always be borne in mind. Nevertheless, it would be foolish, imprudent and crazy to allow our industries to suffer by allowing subsidised imports into the country.
We do not even take into account the subsidies that are given to overseas coalmining industries, yet such coal is imported into Britain. In many instances, the subsidies that are given to those industries are greater than the subsidies given to our own coal-mining industry. Yet, because we believe in free trade, especially when it is in competition with a nationalised industry, we tend to forget that we are ruining our own economy. That is something at which we should look very carefully.
I would rather that we regenerated industry and made it more productive and competitive. We must look at the system of management in Britain and at the relationship between management, work force and the trade union movement. That must be given closer examination. We should forget about the fight between Government and trade unions. We talk about it too much and too often. We give the impression to the nation's work force that the Government are against the organised trade union movement. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) shakes his head, but that is the impression among trade unionists. We want to improve the nation's wealth, to improve production and to ensure that the work force gets its rights as well. There are some tremendously low wages in Britain today, a lot of them in Yorkshire. We must bear in mind that low wages in the region bear no comparison with those of the South-East and the South-West.
158
Because of lack of time I will forget the rest of my speech but I must refer to the nasty criticisms of the Labour Party made by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson). Some hon. Members have spoken of high interest rates as though the Opposition were to blame for those rates. Let us examine the matter. Have interest rates increased since the Labour Government left office? Of course they have. Has VAT increased? It has almost doubled. Have the banks made greater profits? Of course they have. We must also bear in mind that interest rates are influenced from many quarters. Conservative Members, including the Prime Minister, believe in reducing income tax regardless of the effect on the economy.
That policy has been tried before. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Lord Barber, during his term of office gave away £5,000 million in reduced income tax. He said that that money would be channelled into industry and that, as a result of investment, industry would be regenerated and strengthened. That money did not go into industry. It went abroad; it went on buildings and on land. Can anyone guarantee that the recent reductions in income tax have resulted in more money being channelled into industry to make it more viable? No one can give that guarantee. Those are some of the reasons for increased interest rates and it it is time that the Government examined the matter.
I am proud and honoured to have spoken at this Dispatch Box. It is the first time that I have spoken from this position and I think that it will be the last. I can say that with greater assurance than could my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) because he is somewhat younger than I am.
However, I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said on both sides of the House in this debate. I am certain that, if it gets fair play from the Government, Yorkshire will take the lead and uplift the nation to the position it deserves.
9.48 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): This is a great parliamentary occasion for Yorkshire, if not for the whole House. The

159
hon. Members for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) have staged a great double act, and perhaps this is not the last time that we shall see it.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside—not only those hon. Members who have spoken—are grateful for this debate. As a Yorkshireman I yield to no one in my admiration for the special characteristics of our county, and I trust that nobody will ever accuse me of being insensitive to any of its problems.
I have listened with the greatest interest to all the contributions to the debate. It is no bad thing to pay particular attention to special problems from time to time, and we have heard of many of them in the debate. I regret that it will not be possible in 12 minutes to cover all the points that have been made, but I assure hon. Members that I shall pass on to other Departments those matters that have been drawn to my attention.
I hope that none of us believes that the answers to our regional problems are distinctive to the extent that they are different from the rest of the United Kingdom. We make our contribution as a region to the well-being of the whole nation. We do not seek isolation. The problems of the region are real enough, but they are part of the national and international problems of our day and of our generation.
We are a trading nation—what region emphasises that better than our own?—and we shall succeed or fail to the extent that we are competitive at home and overseas. Artificial restrictions and subsidies are no good. For too long we have sought to put off the evil day by administering temporary palliatives.
My verdict is that Yorkshire is much sounder than some hon. Members have suggested. There is an underlying strength in the economy of the region and we have certain advantages in the medium and long term that will more than offset any disadvantages, which I do not underestimate, that we see at present.
Our central position, our communications set-up and a determined work force, which is largely adaptable, will, I am sure, bring us through. We can only hope that
160
the self-inflicted wounds of the past few years will not be repeated. We shall all have to pay more attention to the need for adaptability in accepting change.
There may be some criticisms of the city of Sheffield—I leave these to others—but Leeds and Sheffield are accepted not just as regional centres for business but as national and even European centres.
I do not wish to minimise the problems, but they are not all that different from those in any other part of the country. The Government are committed to winning the battle against the inflation that is the major deterrent to the sort of progress that hon. Members seek. We are determined to encourage enterprise and to become competitive in world markets. The Government cannot do that on their own, but if we, as a nation, do not become competitive in world markets, everything that we seek in terms of a higher standard of living will be unattainable.
The Government will help by creating the right climate, which means reducing public expenditure and Government intervention. The hon. Member for Rotherham asked for more public expenditure. In the light of the experience of the previous Labour Government, I do not understand how he can make such a request. The burden of public expenditure and the interest charges on the borrowings of the previous Administration are the biggest problems that we have to face.
The hon. Member claimed that Conservatives see Government help to industry as original sin, but his constituency is receiving better treatment than most other parts of Yorkshire, It is still in a development area.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Fox: No. I was surprised to hear the criticisms of the hon. Member for Rotherham of the enterprise zones scheme. I am glad to note that those in other areas are not as reluctant to seek that help. I should have thought that the people of Rotherham could easily travel the short distance to Sheffield to gain employment.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is Yorkshire's self-inflicted wound.
Mr. Fox: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Northwest (Sir D. Kaberry) drew attention to

161
the traditional industries that have been operating in Leeds for a long time. Unlike some Labour Members, my hon. Friend pointed out that we could not depend on those industries for our future. He talked about the leadership that is necessary in business and in politics to bring about the sort of changes that are necessary. I accept what he said about dumping—a subject that was mentioned by many other hon. Members. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who has already made representations on the matter.
With regard to origin marking, the Department is considering this very point, particularly as it affects textiles. I assure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that a statement will be made as soon as possible on whether marking can be made compulsory.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is having a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and will be able to repeat to her the many strong arguments on the question of fishing in particular. He will no doubt bear in mind that the Government have already given some millions of pounds of help to try to overcome the problem. The urgent need is to ensure that a settlement is reached with our partners in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) was quite right to draw attention to the fact that the problem has existed for many years—long before the present Government came into office. The cod war in 1976, of course, had something to do with it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) expressed his concern for the growers, and this was emphasised by other hon. Members from the area. Their remarks will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) has not stayed to hear my comments on what he had to say. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Walker) will listen, he will hear that I am trying to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. When the present Government took office, 40 per cent. of the country was covered by aid of some kind or another. As my
162
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry said in the earlier debate, if we had allowed that position to continue, by now more than 50 per cent. of the country would have been covered.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Fox: What sort of help is it to areas that need help when it is spread as thinly as that? It must be right for us to see to it that our policies, as announced——
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. BernaruWeatherill): Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at one time.
Mr. Fox: The House must know that I have three minutes in which to reply.
Mr. Cryer Mr. Cryer rose——
Mr. Fox: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) on import controls. He is right, when talking about textiles, to make clear that the Government have done far more than the previous Labour Government did to tackle the problem. Ninety-five per cent. of low-cost imports are subject to actual or potential restraint, and 21 new quotas have been imposed since May of last year.
Are Labour Members serious in their call for import restrictions? If they think for one minute, they will realise the damage that that would do to our export trade.
Mr. Cryer Mr. Cryer rose——
Mr. Fox: Immediately these decisions were taken prices on the home market would increase, because there would be a guaranteed market for our goods, whether or not they were produced efficiently. In the long term, the greatest damage would be done to our exports. [Interruption.] I realise that this is unacceptable to Labour Members—
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to go grinding on regardless, when he is misleading the House on a number of points and when a number of hon. Members are prepared to put him right, at no expense?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order. It has been done before.
Mr. Fox: Those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for the past three hours, rather than hon. Members who intervene, are entitled to an answer.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) very fairly asked me about derelict land and help for assisted areas. It is a matter of some concern to us, and in due course I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall refer to
164
my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor the financial matters to which he drew my attention.
The smaller firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brig- house and Spenborough (Mr. Waller)
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision as regards criminal justice in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under or by virtue of—
the Sheriff Courts and Legals Officers (Scotland) Act 1927;
the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933;
the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971;
the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967;
the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or
the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in so far as any such increase is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session which relate to—

(a) the care of drunken persons;

(b) the conduct of judicial examinations;

(c) identification parades and legal aid at such parades;

(d) new procedures in respect of appeals;

(e) compensation by offenders; or

(f) grants in respect of hostel accommodation for persons under supervision.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

10 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth) rose——
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We had a disgracefully inadequate answer to the last debate. I wonder whether Yorkshire hon. Members are entitled to a better and more complete answer at some stage. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment did not even deign to inform the House whether, if he was unable to answer questions, which he failed to do in a singularly pathetic fashion, he would write to hon. Members. It is a convention for Ministers to do that. The hon. Gentleman failed to cover any of the points raised. Therefore, I should like——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): These are debating points which hon. Members could and should have raised in the previous debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "How could we?"] Answers given from the Dispatch Box are not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Ewing: I rise to ask the Minister to give us, in his reply to this short debate, one or two answers on the money resolution.
First, it is very unusual for a money resolution to be moved a whole week after the Second Reading of the Bill. The debate on the Bill took place last Monday, when the Secretary of State for Scotland said that there was some difficulty in preparing the money resolution, but that it would be presented "in good time" before the clauses were discussed. The Bill begins its Committee stage tomorrow morning. If 10 o'clock on the night before the Committee stage is due to start is considered by the Secretary of State to be plenty of time, I can tell the Under-Secretary that in the Opposition's view a period of 12· hours before the Committee stage is due to begin is not considered to be plenty of time before the Committee is to consider very important clauses. We shall have to take this matter into consideration in Committee.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us much more specific information than the resolution contains. For example, what increase in expenditure will there be as a result of any changes that may take place in the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927? What increased expenditure do the Government expect in terms of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933? The money resolution docs not tell us.
If there are to be changes in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, what is the estimated increase in expenditure for which the Government are budgeting? So far we have not been told.
We are aware that under the provisions in the Bill, which is not yet an Act and so is subject to debate and decision by the House at a later date, the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 will have to make provision for legal aid for accused persons who demand identification parades where they have been refused at an earlier stage in the allegations that have been laid against them. As a result of this new innovation in the Scottish legal position whereby an accused person who has been refused an identification parade or where an identification parade has not taken place and one is insisted upon, I should be interested to know exactly what

167
increase in the legal aid scheme is expected.
Turning to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, it is not sufficient to put a motion of this type on the Order Paper without a Minister explaining the exact effect that the new Bill, which is still not an Act, will have on those two measures. What is the expected increase in public expenditure as a result of the changes that might take place in both those Acts?
I turn now to what I consider to be the more important details of the motion—namely, the second part, beginning with
"the care of drunken persons".
I understand that the Government have retained to themselves discretion whether to give grants to local authorities for the establishment of what have become known as detoxification centres or places to which the police will be authorised to take persons who are drunk and incapable rather than to police stations. I understand that the Government have retained discretion whether to give grants to the regional and district authorities concerned for the establishment of these detoxification centres. Again, we are entitled to ask what estimate, if any, the Government have made of the projected increase in public expenditure as a result of the need to set up these detoxification centres.
Perhaps I can utter a word of encouragement to the Under-Secretary. If he comes forward with a figure, we may criticise it as inadequate. However, we shall not accept it if the Minister says "We are making all these arrangements for the establishment of detoxification centres, but we are not going to give you any money for them." It is not good enough to come forward with a money resolution of this kind and, at the end of the day, when the Bill becomes an Act, to say to the regional authorities "But you are not getting any money for them."
I turn now to
"the conduct of judicial examinations".
At the moment this is very much in the experimental stage. The Under-Secretary of State knows that two experiments are about to start: one in Falkirk and the other in the Tayside police region at
168
Dundee. But my understanding is that neither of these two experiments has started because the equipment to conduct them is so far not available. That is not a complaint; it is merely a statement of fact.
We are anxious and entitled to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the Government have made any estimate of the expected overall cost not only of the experiment but, assuming for the moment that the House accepts judicial examination—I certainly do not want to prejudge what the Committee might decide; as Ministers know, I have my doubts, which I expressed on Second Reading—and assuming that the experiment is a success and is extended to every regional police force in Scotland, of the expected expenditure on judicial examination, tape recordings and all that would go with it.
I have already mentioned the question of identification parades and of legal aid at such parades. That is a very important aspect of public expenditure, and again we are entitled to know whether any estimates have been made of the expected increase in public expenditure as a result of these measures.
The measure of the Government's sincerity will not be judged—I say this to the Under-Secretary before the Committee stage starts—by the determination that the Minister and his Back-Bench colleagues show in steamrollering the Bill through the House of Commons. It will be judged by the amount of money that the Government provide to make sure that the various measures that they put on the statute book are adequately financed. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to precisely that point.
There is also the very important question of the new procedures in respect of appeals. I do not think that there is any doubt—there is no difference between the two sides of the House—that the new procedure will be very expensive indeed. We are really talking about the most expensive legal procedure, at High Court and Court of Session level. We are talking not about district courts and sheriff courts, but about the highest level of the legal and judicial process in Scotland. There can be no doubt—anyone who has any illusions about this should shed them immediately—that this new procedure,

169
desirable though it may be, will be very expensive.
I do not wish to go on to the two other points left in the money resolution because some of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak in this very short debate. However, all the evidence that we have seen so far from the present Government is to the effect that they have refused to uprate the rate support grant to meet the claim that has been conceded by Clegg in relation to teachers. They have refused to make more money available to health boards to meet the claim that has been conceded by Clegg in relation to nurses and the medical profession. There is no evidence in the history of the present Government that additional resources will be made available by them to meet the new provisions that will be implemented should the Bill become an Act.
It is dishonest for a Government to come forward with a money resolution pretending to the people of Scotland that the money resolution and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill are somehow linked. They are, in fact, linked; but, unless the Government prove that the link exists by making the additional resources available, their determination to push this Bill through on to the statute book will be seen as a very shallow act indeed, because it is the easiest thing in the world to legislate and not to provide the money. I hope that the Minister will make it abundantly clear that his determination and the determination that will be displayed by his senior colleague the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee will be matched equally by a determination of the Treasury.
I am sorry that no Treasury Minister is present to answer this debate. I do not say that in any derogatory sense to the Ministers present. At the end of the day Treasury Ministers hold the purse-strings. The motion stands in the name of the Minister. Although he was not guilty of misleading the House on a former occasion, he is less than specific in his comments. I therefore welcome the Under-Secretary's presence, because he is usually more specific. Those who hold the purse-strings should be here to answer the debate, and to assure us that the money will be made available. If it is not made available, everyone in Scot-
170
land will see the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill as a very shallow measure.
10.15 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I endorse every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has said. There was a long delay before the money resolution was brought forward. That is mysterious. Presumably, almost every Act that will be affected is listed. Aspects (a) to (f), for which more money will be needed, are listed. If so, why could not the money resolution have been formally and properly debated immediately after debate on the Bill? What is the mystery? We should be given an explanation.
The resolution and the Bill estimate that those subjects listed on today's Order Paper will cost an additional £650,000. Does the Minister still stand by that? If so, those elements in the Bill that were said to be progressive, such as detoxification units for drunken persons and grants for hostel accommodation for those under supervision, will be very shoddy. The truth is that these provisions, including detention centres, would and should cost much more. If they cost that amount they will be shoddy, and if they cost much more—as they should—local authorities will have to pay the cost unless the money resolution is changed.
Local authorities have been given a rate support grant that is based on an inflation rate of 13 per cent. We all know that that is absolute nonsense. Inflation is now running at 19·8 per cent. By next month the rate of inflation will have reached 20 per cent. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has told us that the Government's monetarist policy is unlikely to work, as there is no link between restriction of the money supply and inflation. It is a financial muck-up and demonstrates a muck-up in the Government's understanding of their Bill.
Those things of which no mention is made on the Order Paper are equally important. For example, no mention is made of legal aid in those cases where redress is sought as a result of the iniquitous provisions of detention and search. Perhaps the Government do not intend to give legal aid in such cases. Perhaps they do not intend to allow any such form of redress. No proper safeguards, such as

171
those existing for arrest, have been written into the Bill. Is that why the Government have switched from arrest to detention? Is that why they are using powers of search? Are they seeking a cheap method of clobbering some of our young people? Is that what lies behind the curious figure of £650,000?
If the Government mean "search and detention", errors will be made. If errors are made, cases will arise. If such cases arise, we need to know. There is nothing about that on the Order Paper. We need to know if legal aid will be provided to those seeking redress.
Brief mention is made of judicial examination. The Bill refers to additional staff. I had thought that the Government were in business in order to cut down on manpower levels in the public sector. Do the Government intend to implement a provision that no one in the legal profession has welcomed? I can think of no respectable, responsible legal body that will welcome these provisions. Nevertheless, the cost of extra staff will be incurred.
The extra staff, the extra costs, hostels, detention centres and the redress in relation to search and detention—all this is being done within the limit of £650,000. I do not believe it. These things will be done under the Social Work (Scotland) Act which will involve cost to local authorities. They will also be done under the Local Government (Scotland) Act involving more cost to local authorities. All these things are to be done within that limit. Does the Minister expect us to believe that? He had better have some good explanation, or he had better tell us that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has got it wrong.
10.22 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps during the course of the Committee stage my colleagues and I will make speeches that are unsympathetic and unhelpful, but we can pride ourselves tonight on the fact that we appear in this debate in a role which would be approved by Conservatives in Scotland and anywhere else. We are worried about public expenditure, the control of it and whether the Government have got it right.
172
I notice that the Solicitor-General for Scotland gave tongue last night in Milnathort, when he talked about an orchestrated assault on the integrity of the police and on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. He invented a new collective noun—"a spectrum of Left-wing groups"—and went on to talk sinisterly about that particularly undesirable type—"the intellectual of the Left". I do not know whether I should hang my head in shame as being identified as an intellectual of the Left. I think that many of my hon. Friends would find it a slightly unlikely role for me. However, tonight I am not interested in general orchestrated assaults on the Bill. I am interested in the £650,000 and how it will be spent.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) when he says that it is surprising to find this Government coming forward with provisions which they say quite frankly in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will lead to the need for additional staff. It would help if the Minister could say a little about how much of the £650,000 net figure will go on additional staff costs and how many extra bodies will result.
I am also particularly interested in one of the possible areas of additional expenditure, namely, compensation for the victims. This provision of Dunpark has been very much modified in the Bill. I assume that the initial expenditure cannot come from the scheme, because the compensation is to be met by the convicted offender and paid by him to the victim. However, I assume that the additional expenditure arises under clause 58 of the Bill, which means that the sheriff clerk will have the duty of collecting the money and paying it out. He will have the even more important duty of pursuing payments that are not made under civil diligence.
Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about the serious impact that this will have on the work load of sheriff clerks' departments. For years we have talked about the possibility of matrimonial payments and other periodical allowances being recovered by some sort of official collection agency, presumably

173
working through the civil department of the sheriff clerks' service. Ministers have constantly resisted this—very properly—on the ground that it would mean an enormous increase in the work load and the staff. I accept that the operation in this Bill would be rather more modest, because I do not suppose that there will be a veritable flood of these orders, but, clearly, the Government hope that this provision will be used, and I believe that it will have a considerable impact on the staffing commitment of sheriff clerks. I want to know more about that and what proportion of this extra 650,000 will be spent on this aspect.
I was also interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) about adult offenders' hostels and detoxification centres. That is important. I plead lamentable ignorance on the matter, but perhaps expenditure under these heads will be included in local authority budgets, rather than central Government budgets, and will therefore not be included in the figure of £650,000. We need some reassurance on that matter. If there is any expenditure under these heads, it will make the figure extraordinarily miserable and inadequate. It is no good passing general exhortatory legislation and saying that it is a good cause and that local authorities will be able to do something about it but that no finance will be allocated. That is intolerable. I want to know whether there is any provision in public finance, either under this specific head or under some other Treasury subdivision of mysterious public Estimates, that will allow local authorities to do what they are invited to do under the Bill.
I turn to more controversial matters, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide information on issues that have been raised by my hon. Friends. The Under-Secretary of State knows that many Labour Members have severe reservations about the new provisions in clause 2. We cannot go into that matter tonight, but we are entitled to ask for more details about the financial impact of the clause. It is speculative, but at the end of the day it will make considerable demands on police time. It goes back to the old question that if a power is in the Bill the Government presumably hope that it will be used, and if it is used it
174
will presumably take up police resources and enery and will therefore have an impact on police budgets. The total figure in the money resolution is, therefore, surprisingly small.
I presume that no part of the £650,000 is devoted to the provision of tape recorders. I know that the Minister is in favour of the concept of tape recorders, and I have no doubt that he hopes that the experiments that have started in Dundee, and which are about to start in Falkirk, will be a success. It would be surprising if he did not take that view, because he will remember that during the debate on the previous Criminal Justice Bill the then Opposition Front Bench spokesman on legal matters, now the Solicitor-General, made it clear that he thought that tape recording was a desirable innovation to be used in conjunction with these powers. He made that point on a television programme in Scotland last Friday. I presume that when we discuss that part of the Bill there will be a receptive ear on the Government Front Bench.
Amendments have already been tabled stating that evidence should not be admissible until tape recorders are installed and the relevant tapes are lodged in court. If that is so, I should like to know from the Minister whether provision has been made in the £620,000 for tape recorders and, if not, will the Minister consider consulting the Treasury to find out whether arrangements can be made to allow that development? I know that the Minister has given much attention to the matter, and he will no doubt be able to tell us the potential cost of installing this equipment in police stations so that we can make a judgment on whether it will be possible to include it in the somewhat stricter limits which the Conservative Government have imposed on public spending. If tape recorders are not introduced the position will be intolerable and the provisions of clause 2 will not simply be undesirable; they will become totally unacceptable.
I turn to judicial examination. That will involve shorthand writers and much shrieval time. An increase in the fiscal service and in the number of sheriffs on the bench will be required. It is costly to provide a verbatim report. May we have some costings on the exercise? It is clear that judicial examinations will involve considerable costs.

175
We do not have enough information. The figure provided is paltry. The Bill contains some good measures, but the controversial parts are thoroughly bad. If we are to be lumbered with it as a result of the Conservative majority, we must have an assurance that at least the finance is available to make it workable.
10.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I shall be brief. We are entitled to an explanation of the issues raised. Why has only one Minister put his name to the resolution? That Treasury Minister, who has no responsibility for law and order in Scotland, has not even had the decency to come here to express his support for the resolution in his name. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland's name? Where is the Under-Secretary of State's name? Where is the Solicitor-General for Scotland tonight? He is probably lying in his bed after attacking people at the weekend because they are opposed to this nasty piece of legislation which will make law and order more difficult to maintain and improve in Scotland. It will make the job of the police more difficult.
There can be no serious quibble about an increase in social expenditure in some of the areas covered by the resolution. I have no objection to increases in expenditure on legal aid, on the care of people with alcohol problems and detoxification centres, on legal aid in connection with identification parades and compensation, provided that that expenditure will improve existing services and standards of justice. I wonder whether the Government have thought out the financial repercussions of the legislation.
The Government are always saying that they will decrease the numbers employed in the public sector and cut public expenditure. It is strange that one of the few increases in public expenditure is on law and order. It would not be so bad if expenditure on health, social services and education were increased because they are relevant to the improvement in law and order in addition to employing extra policemen and court officials. I wonder whether only 50 additional staff will be needed and whether the £650,000 per annum will be all that is needed.
Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend referred to the police. Only today the chief constable of the Central region has issued a confidential report—which, as always, has become widely known—in which he says that he requires substantial increases in police manpower to meet the conditions of the Bill and the increasing demand on police time.
Mr. Canavan: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I read that report from the chief constable, who services part of my constituency. In some parts of Scotland, the police may be a bit understaffed even at present.
I predict that this bad Bill will make the job of the police far more difficult. It will make the shortage of policemen more acute. It will sour the relationships between policemen and the community, and it will increase the time spent by policemen on many of the tasks that they are required to perform already, and then they will have these additional tasks of being expected to seize people, detain them and question them in a police station for a certain number of hours.
I wonder sometimes whether the Government have thought out fully the repercussions of this measure in terms of police manpower. They will be making the job of the police much more difficult. Many chief constables throughout Scotland will demand from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary more manpower. They will want their present complements raised.
The House is entitled to an explanation from the Under-Secretary. This is a very bad Bill, and I do not think that we have even had a satisfactory explanation of its financial repercussions, never mind its grave repercussions for the maintenance of law and order.
10.37 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will be aware that, because of the additional help that the Government are giving the police in Scotland, for the first time in their history they are approaching full establishment figures not only in other parts of Scotland but in the region which the hon. Gentleman represents. I am sure that he will welcome that.

177
The hon. Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) asked why the money resolution was tabled for debate today and was not taken with the Second Reading of the Bill. They will be aware that for that to have happened it would have been necessary for the money resolution to be tabled before the House rose for Easter. Because the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place took place only shortly before the House rose, that did not prove possible. For that reason, it could not be taken at the time of Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said on Second Reading that the money resolution would be taken in plenty of time before the clauses that it affected were debated in Committee. The hon. Gentleman implied that that commitment was not being maintained. In a sense I am delighted to hear that, because the first clause affected by the money resolution is clause 5, and, if the Committee can look forward to reaching that tomorrow morning, I shall be happy to apologise to the Committee at that stage.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I ought to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition were anxious to proceed with the Bill, but that the late tabling of the money resolution has caused us to change our minds.
Mr. Rifkind: I am interested to hear that. I suppose, then, that we can assume that we shall at least reach clause 4 tomorrow morning, and that we shall have to wait until Thursday before clause 5 can be considered. We understand the hon. Gentleman's problems in that respect.
Hon. Members have asked for details of the amounts that will be available for each of the categories concerned in the money resolution, and I am able to give some general information, although I must emphasise that these are estimates. However, when the Opposition complained about the resources being made available in the Bill, there was a conspicuous silence about their own Bill and the comparable elements in that Bill, which the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth himself sponsored through this House.
178
I was asked how much was being made available in the Bill to deal with the various categories. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about compensation orders. In a very approximate sense, a sum of about £125,000 is estimated to be appropriate for this category. A rough estimate of the cost of the reform of both the solemn and summary appeal procedure is £200,000. The requirement of additional court staff under the category of judicial examination is also estimated to cost £200,000.
A number of hon. Members asked about detoxification centres. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth made great play of how terrible it would be if the Government brought forward this measure without making cash available for it. He forgot to mention that this was exactly what happened under the Labour Government, when he himself was the responsible Minister. We should perhaps pass by that matter in silence.
Mr. Harry Ewing: That is misrepresentation.
Mr. Rifkind: We shall look forward to hearing why that is misrepresentation. I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to say what amount was committed under his Bill for this purpose.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The difference between the present Government and the previous Government is that the latter estimated that public expenditure in relation to local authorities in Scotland would grow at the rate of 2 per cent. a year. Under the present Government, public expenditure for local authorities is scheduled to decrease substantially in the next five years to a low level. Under the public expenditure provisions of the previous Government, local authorities at least had some chance of financing the programmes that we were introducing. They have no chance under the public expenditure programmes that this Government are introducing.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that under his Criminal Justice Bill no specific provision was made for detoxification centres. It would be inappropriate for this Government not to follow so sensible a

179
precedent set by the Opposition when they had responsibility for these matters.
Hon. Members asked about the tape recording experiment. The experiments that have started in Dundee and Falkirk are estimated to cost about £36,000. If the experiment results in the implementation of tape recording in police stations throughout Scotland, it is estimated that the cost will be about £500,000. This matter is not referred to specifically in the Bill. It would therefore be inappropriate for the money resolution to refer to it.
Mr. Dewar: Can the Minister give an assurance that if the experiment is successful, or if an amendment is approved in Comittee to tie tape recorders into the Bill, the money will be forthcoming and there will be no difficulty in finding it?
Mr. Rifkind: The Government have already made it clear that if the experiment is shown to be successful they will wish to implement the recommendation. We have indicated that, in the Government's view, as in the view of the Opposition when they were responsible for these matters, legislation is not required for this purpose. There is no need for the matter to be specifically included in the Bill. I have already indicated that if the experiment is successful the Government intend that it should be implemented. There would otherwise be little point in conducting the experiment in the first place.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West asked the interesting question why the Bill did not include any sum to allow legal aid for those detained contrary to the law and who would therefore seek reparation or damages from the courts for that abuse. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government do not start from the premise that this is a requirement to be introduced in the Bill. He must be aware that at the moment, when someone is wrongfully arrested and seeks damages or compensation, that is not an issue that has to be included in legislation for the matter to be properly dealt with.
So far as any question of legal aid is concerned the position of anyone wrongfully detained will be the same as that of anyone wrongfully arrested. The two are
180
identical, as I should have thought was obvious to all concerned.
Mr. Buchan: I shall look into this matter as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister say who pays under headings (a) and (f)? Will the local authorities pay?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman refers to drunken persons and hostel accommodation. An estimated £100,000 is provided under clause 77 for hostel accommodation. As under the previous Government's proposals, provision for detoxification centres is a matter for health boards, voluntary organisations or other bodies. This Government, like the previous one, have not allowed a specific amount for this purpose under the Bill. We are following the precedent set by our predecessors, and that is an appropriate way of pursuing the matter.
Unfortunately, the debate has to be terminated within a minute, but I intend to give much fuller details in Committee. I hope that the explanations that I have given—[Interruption.]—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will not be with us in Committee—
It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision as regards criminal justice in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under or by virtue of—
the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927;
the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933;
the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971;
the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967;
the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or
the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in so far as any such increase is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session which relate to—

(a) the care of drunken persons;

(b) the conduct of judicial examinations;

(c) identification parades and legal aid at such parades;

(d) new procedures in respect of appeals;

(e) compensation by offenders; or

(f) grants in respect of hostel accommodation for persons under supervision.

OLYMPIC GAMES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
10.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this Adjournment debate has dragged the Minister of State back from the Foreign Ministers' meeting at Luxembourg, I should like to acknowledge his courtesy in being here for this follow-up debate to that of 27 March. I refer to columns 1793 and 1794 of Hansard, and hope that he will be able to report on the results of his comparing notes with other Governments and on the possible high quality of events in the Olympics.
The purpose of yet another Adjournment debate is to continue the argument of 27 March and to show that some of us are shoulder to shoulder with the British Olympic Committee in its determination to go to Moscow. It is probably a mistake, on balance—certainly with the advantage of hindsight—for the Russian Army ever to have set foot in Afghanistan. I suspect that there are many Russians who know it. Equally, it was a great mistake for a Labour Government, with Conservative backing, to put the British Army into Northern Ireland. I suspect that many Members of Parliament know that also. Albeit that Northern Ireland is part of Britain and Afghanistan is a separate country with which Russia has had the closest historical links, the two cases have this in common: that an army was sent in to sort out messy and cruel factual strife among people living in the middle ages. And once an army is there it is hellishly difficult to create the circumstances whereby it can easily withdraw.
Perhaps the Russians should not have started preparing to send in troops when some of their technical advisers were brutally murdered in April 1979 in Herat. Perhaps they should not have interfered in what looked like a terrible Pol Pot Cambodian situation. Perhaps in backing Karmal, the most popular figure in Afghanistan as short a time ago as 1978, they backed a man who was trying to modernise Afghan society too quickly. But what is preposterous and absurd is to suggest that we are dealing with Russian colonial—I repeat "colonial "—aggression. That is rubbish.
I have too high a regard for the intelligence of the officials of the British Foreign
182
Office to suppose that most of them believe that claptrap. I have too high a regard for the intelligence of the Minister of State to suppose that he believes it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: No.
Mr. Marlow Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Dalyell: Bluntly, what we heard at Question Time on Wednesday last bore the imprint of the present occupant of No. 10 Downing Street. The romantic view of Afghan freedom fighters gallantly resisting a Russian colonialist army bears little relation to the facts.
The fact is that on no fewer than 14 occasions—from March 1979 onwards—the leaders of the Afghan Government, Presidents Taraki and Amin, requested the Soviet Government to send in troops. The Russian view was that to have refused Kabul's request would have condemned Afghanistan to the destiny of Chile, or much worse. It is beyond any reasonable dispute that if Amin was not a CIA agent he was at least playing a double game by wanting the Americans to help him against some of his own colleagues and other factions in Afghanistan. The fact is that Mother Russia was not going to have an anti-Russian stronghold at that point on her borders.
It is against that background that we have to consider the urgent request from President Carter that we should boycott the Olympics in Moscow. Basically, I believe that this request is not about the good of the people of Afghanistan at all. It is about the dire political needs of Jimmy Carter. The brutal truth is that the White House of President Carter drifted into postures over Afghanistan on the winds of the American people's understandable frustration over the hostages in Iran.
I do not complain about their attitude over the hostages—that is a different issue—and their general impatience with the lack of economic success of Mr. Carter's presidency, but should the Olympic Games be sacrificed and the continuance of a great force for good in the world be put in peril basically for the ephemeral political needs of Jimmy Carter as a candidate?
I do not apologise for being irreverent. Ever since the day in 1967 when I

183
emerged from the basement office of the White House after a searing row about Vietnam and British east of Suez policy with Walter Rostow—then Lyndon Johnson's security adviser—I have thought that the White House was a corrupt and corrupting place, geared to personal relationships and ambitions far removed from the good of humankind. In the week that Mr. Gordon Liddy published his horrific memoirs, I do not see any need to revise that opinion.
I listened extremely carefully to the Minister in his debate with Brian War den yesterday and the argument about a spiritual and emotional crisis in the Alliance. I accept that there is a mighty problem here, but at the time that Mike Mansfield put forward his amendment a number of my hon. Friends and I thought that it had a great deal to commend it.
The idea that the Olympics should be a litmus test of loyalty—"if you disagree, you are disloyal" —is a dangerous line of argument. The Minister told Brian Walden that it was important that the United States should not view the world in which its friends live as an unfriendly place, But should we sacrifice the 1984 Games and a great deal else in the world to the passing needs of the presidency of the United States?
The Minister must take on board Brian Walden's argument that President Carter will be worried if the voters think that he cannot get the support of even his friends. That is very near the nub of the issue that we are discussing. As Alastair Cooke pointed out yesterday morning, what is really weighing with Carter is that Reagan is taunting him about whether only the USA athletes will be withdrawn from Moscow. That is the reason for the pressure on the British Government.
Indeed, in our last debate on Thursday 27 March, the Minister rebuked me for being personal about Mr. Lenski and said that it was not my normal style. Nor is it, but I will go further. An American President who has as his security adviser a first-generation Russian Pole with all sorts of hang-ups really needs to think again. Mr. Brzezinski comes on with all this stuff about the build-up in the Trans-caucasian military district. I am told by my friend John Erikson—I make no apology for naming him; he is well
184
known to the Foreign Office—that reports of such a build up were nonsense, and they are denied by other members of the National Security Council. If anything is worrying, it is the chaos in which the central planning and policy-making department of the American Government finds itself. One thing after another from the National Security Council is at variance, and that should give the West grave concern.
In the demands to boycott the Games, we are asked to stand by the United States and a highly questionable set-up in Washington. I say Washington advisedly, because it is interesting that the editor of The Times, Mr. William ReesMogg, writing in his paper on Tuesday last week, suggested that feeling outside Washington might be a bit different. He said:
"I very much suspect that this is the public opinion that is in evidence, and that the genuine and broad American public opinion is more self-confident, more rational and more restrained."
Nor should the British Olympic Committee pay any heed to our own Prime Minister. Normally, I would ask people in this circumstance to pay attention to the Government, regardless of party, but the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Sir Alec Douglas-Home or Harold Macmillan, who was Prime Minister when I first became an hon. Member, would surely have behaved properly. It is inconceivable that all this stuff about boycotting the Olympics should splurge forth during Prime Minister's questions, with imperious demands without consultation with the British Olympic Committee.
The Prime Minister thinks that she has to be tough, partly perhaps because she is a woman and partly for the sake of being tough. She gets caught up in the ridiculous image of the Iron Lady, justifying previous attitudes and increased defence expenditure. The truth of the matter is that during the Vietnam war the Tokyo, Mexico and Montreal Olympics took place. Dare I say that we were reminded by Chris Brasher, talking of his experience with Chris Chataway back in 1956, that the Melbourne Olympics went forward at the same time as a British Army was engaged in Egypt—a fiasco, as some of us would see it—and, indeed, the Russians were engaged in Hungary? I am bound to point out that, like it or not,

185
this time the Soviet athletes went to Lake Placid.
There is still great resentment, as Charles Palmer and others see it, that sport is the only weapon that seems to be used. I shall not go into detail, because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) two or three minutes. Nothing is deterring the Lord Mayor of Sheffield from going off on a twin visit to Donetsk. Nothing is stopping the Russian swimmers over here. There are many other exchanges, not least the training exchanges to which I have referred on five previous occasions.
I hope that the British Olympic Committee will stick beside that special provision in the Olympic charter that urges athletes not to be influenced by political decisions. To me, the heroes of the day are Denis Follows, Dick Palmer, Charles Palmer and other members of the British Olympic Committee who have kept their heads and acted not only for sport but for the future of mankind. For Western athletes not to go to Moscow would simply be another step in drifting back to a cold war. Is that what we want?
11.2 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me the opportunity to intervene in the debate.
The time at which to object to the inclusion of British athletes in the Moscow Olympics was from February to October 1974, when the International Olympic Committee was taking the decision to hold the Games in Moscow. The relevance of that period was that it followed only six years after the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
I searched the records of the House of Commons Library to establish the position of Conservative Members at that time, to find out who objected. I find that there were no Adjournment debates called, no early-day motions signed, no Private Members' motions applied for and no Government statements by cither the outgoing Labour Government or the incoming Conservative Government. Indeed, there were no statements by the right hon. Lady who is now the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Minister of State what he did in 1974 about the decision of the International Olympic
186
Committee to hold those Games in Moscow, following the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968.
The reaction of the Government on Afghanistan grossly underestimates the importance of the invasion not only of Czechoslovakia in 1968 but of Hungary in 1956 and of Lithuania, Latvia and all the countries that were occupied by the advancing Soviet Army at the end of the Second World War. Are they not all as important? If they are, why is it that the Government have sought to object only on this occasion? Could it be, as my hon. Friend said, that they have grossly over-reacted to the domestic problems of President Carter in the United States, whose shabby politics on the international scene have led to what I would call the discrediting of a number of European Governments who are likely to fall into the same trap?
11.4 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) need not apologise in any way for returning to this matter, which is of great public interest and importance. He has been entirely consistent in his approach. Of course, if one does not make much of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as he does not, it is logical to say that it does not matter whether the athletes go.
The hon. Gentleman said today that it was probably a mistake for the Soviet Union to go into Afghanistan, but that is not the view of most hon. Members, and it is certainly not the view of the international community. The hon. Gentleman has gone to great trouble, time and again, with ingenuity, to find various explanations and excuses for the Soviet action; the kind of explanations that could be dredged up to excuse any form of aggression in the world's history.
The parallel with Northern Ireland, which we heard again today, is extraordinarily far-fetched. There is all the difference in the world between the enforcement of order in part of a free country by the forces of that country, in a part of that country that has free elections and free institutions, and the invasion by the Soviet Union of another country, sovereign under international law, and the continuing aggression there by an enormous army; aggression that has been

187
condemned by 104 countries of the international community. The hon. Gentleman does not do the argument good by reverting to that comparison or the other arguments that he has used from time to time.
At least the hon. Gentleman is wholly consistent in his approach. He says that the Russians have made a mistake, but that it is nothing to worry about too much; it is excusable in various ways, and therefore we should not make such a fuss about the Olympics. What I do not understand is the position taken by many people, who fiercely condemn the Soviet Union's aggression in Afghanistan and yet continue to say that the aggressor should benefit from the jamboree in Moscow.
It is natural that athletes—our athletes, all athletes—should be anxious to go to Moscow. The Government have always recognised and understood that, but people now clutch at arguments that have no validity in support of that stance. The whole thrust of the policies of the Western Alliance is undergoing a change. It is not a matter of the election campaign of the President of the United States. The analyses have varied from time to time, but there is no responsible Western leader who does not believe that the policies and stance of the Western alliance along the are of crisis vis-à-vis the Soviet Union should now undergo a change.
A major effort is being made—sometimes in a ragged way, I agree—and several important decisions have not yet been taken. But a major change, a sea change, has taken place, inevitably, it seems to me, as a result of the Soviet in vasion—
Mr. Barry Sheerman: A new cold war.
Mr. Hurd:—with the aim not of punishing the Russians but of making it less likely that when and if the next opportunity presents itself they can take the same decision again. It is essentially a policy of deterrence. If we allow the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan to continue unchecked, it is likely to be repeated. That is the analysis not of President Carter, running for re-election, but of every responsible Western leader. It is a desperately serious judgment.
188
The question that faced not only President Carter but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all other Western leaders was whether, in those circumstances, against that judgment, they could allow the Olympic Games to go untouched, without discouraging the competitors. I do not think that that was easy. They had to take into account that the Olympic Games in Moscow are not, in the eyes of the Soviet Union, a simple sporting competition but a major political event, and that the whole propaganda and briefing put out by the Soviet Union in advance of the Games has made that clear.
In many ways this has been a wretched argument. The feelings that have been aroused, and the sacrifices that have been asked, have been great. It must have occurred to many of us to ask, as this has been going on "Would it have been possible for President Carter, the Prime Minister and all the other leaders"—the President of Kenya, for example; I do not think that he is running for election, but he courageously took this line from the outset—"to forget the Olympics, to say ' We shall do X, Y and Z, but we shall let the Olympics go on'?"
Every time I think about it I am driven back to the conclusion that that would not have been possible. For the Soviet Union this is a major political event which, to the great bad fortune of the athletes, happens to be occurring several months after the beginning of the aggression. I do not think that it is open to those who make the judgment—which the hon. Gentleman does not—that this is a major sinister and potentially disastrous event in the world's history to allow the Olympics to go on, as it were, without bothering about them and doing their best to discourage the athletes from going.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has a point when he talks about the original choice of Moscow. Those who took that decision were taking a great gamble. It may be that we should have attacked them at that time for doing so, but it was their decision. In retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, it was a great gamble—the gamble consisting of deciding a long time in advance that it would be possible to hold the Games in Moscow when the policies of the Soviet Union are essentially expansionist and unpredictable. I think that

189
that decision was a gamble taken several years ago—a gamble that has clearly not come off.
Mr. Sheerman: What about the Americans in Vietnam?
Mr. Hurd: No Games were held in America during the Vietnam war, and I do not think that the Soviet Union would have gone to them if they had been.
The British Olympic Association took its decision on 25 March. I do not think that it is sensible to go about attacking Sir Denis Follows or his colleagues. They were put in a difficult position, and they are doing their duty as they see it. I profoundly and strongly disagree with the decision that they took. It was clearly a foolish decision. It was taken before they needed to take it, and it has increasingly isolated British competitors from the rest of the free world.
The boycott is steadily gathering momentum. Hardly a day goes by without the athletes in some new country, some friend of ours, declaring that they will not go to Mosgow. Norway made such a declaration yesterday. Is it suggested that Norway is part of President's Carter's election campaign? Labour Members are living in a dream world. The boycott is gathering speed, and the Moscow Games are in the process of disintegrating.
We warned the British Olympic Association that that was likely to be the position. We said "Our information is that United States athletes are unlikely to go and that, if that happens, other countries which have so far kept quiet will begin to follow the athletes". The Opposition Front Bench said that we knew nothing about these matters and that the information coming to them from athletes all over the world was different. In fact, the predictions that we made are now coming true. It is increasingly clear that the Moscow Olympics, in the form originally devised, are disintegrating and that in several sports—and we are only at the middle of April—the competition will be thoroughly second-rate.
It was against that background that the hon. Member for West Lothian originally raised the question of alternative Games. He did not dwell on it particularly today, but he did last time, and it is the title of his motion. Alternative Games are not and never have been in our mind an end
190
in themselves. They arise simply from a desire to help competitors who decide not to go to Moscow. Therefore, the extent to which they happen depends on the extent to which, first, competitors decide not to go to Moscow—that is an increasing extent—and, secondly, on the extent to which they want to take part in other Games. Nor has it ever been the aim—and the hon. Member for West Lothian will know this because it has often come out in our exchanges—to provide a rival jamboree at the same time as Moscow. What we have said is that we were ready to discuss with sporting federations any ways in which we could help to fill the gap, as it were, which a decision not to go to Moscow would involve
Mr. Sheerman: And it has been a flop.
Mr. Hurd: We are in close touch with the three British federations which have so far said they will not be going, namely, hockey, yatching and equestrian. We have told them that we are ready to give modest financial help, if they want it, to help those who have followed our advice about where the British interest lies. I think that it would be right to thank those who took that decision, at great personal sacrifice, against, at that time, a tide of opinion. I think that it will become perfectly clear as the weeks go by that they are overwhelmingly supported.
Mr. Sheerman: Pushed and shoved.
Mr. Hurd: As regards our contacts with the yatchsmen—hon Gentlemen pressed me hard last time to give details; I can now begin to do so—they are going ahead next month with what were planned as pre-Olympic trials, since selection is necessary for other international events. Indications are growing that yatchsmen in other countries, including those whose national Olympic committees at present favour going to Moscow, could decide, like ours, to stay away. The quality of the yachting events at Tallinn could be seriously undermined.
It may be—it is too early to say—that an alternative regatta will find favour among the increasing number of yatchsmen who are not going to Moscow. If the Germans decide to boycott Moscow, they have an ideal location for that in Kiel, but our yatchsmen have certainly not ruled out the possibility of such an event

191
being held in this country, and we have promised them every support.
Similarly, the British Equestrian Federation is giving careful consideration to additional major competitions. When I first began to talk about this subject I was told "There is nothing in it; nothing will happen". I was then pressed for information, which I could not give because the discussions were confidential. Now I am beginning to be able to give this information, and hon. Gentlemen will be interested to hear it.
Consultations will take place with the International Equestrian Federation and other national federations about timing and whether the additional events should be in the United Kingdom or overseas. The Government will certainly play their part in making sure that British riders have the opportunity to compete this year at the highest level. Discussions are going on, and obviously they are open to other sports federations to follow as they increasingly see that the competition at Moscow will not be worth the journey.
Mr. Sheerman: Tell that to Geoff Capes.
Mr. Hurd: Increasingly it will be seen. One should consider the gold medals that are won, or the medals that are won, and not just by the United States. Hon. Members are out of date if they think that this is an American boycott. It is increasingly being followed by Governments and athletes in various parts of the world.
I have criticised the decision of the British Olympic Committee because I think that it was premature and now looks remarkably foolish, but the committee was wise enough to put in an escape clause, namely, that if the situation became—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Numeracy and Literacy Courses (Yorkshire and Humberside Region)
  Numeracy and Literacy Courses (Yorkshire and Humberside Region)
  Sheffield
  Sheffield
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Heavy Weights
  Heavy Weights
  Employment Exchanges (Manchester)
  Employment Exchanges (Manchester)
  Tyre Industry
  Tyre Industry
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme (Grimsby)
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme (Grimsby)
  North Sea Oilfields (Safety Committees)
  North Sea Oilfields (Safety Committees)
  Licensed Nuclear Site Employees (Medical and Blood Examinations)
  Licensed Nuclear Site Employees (Medical and Blood Examinations)
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Clegg Commission
  Clegg Commission
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Forces (Ethnic Composition)
  Police Forces (Ethnic Composition)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Sunday Racing
  Sunday Racing
  Metropolitan Police (Beat Duty)
  Metropolitan Police (Beat Duty)
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Personal Privacy
  Personal Privacy
  Immigration
  Immigration
  St. Paul's Area, Bristol
  St. Paul's Area, Bristol
  Scarborough (Civil Disturbance)
  Scarborough (Civil Disturbance)
  Police Forces (Community Relations Officers)
  Police Forces (Community Relations Officers)
  Video Cassette Recorders (Licences)
  Video Cassette Recorders (Licences)
  Television Licence Fee (Commercial Premises)
  Television Licence Fee (Commercial Premises)
  European Community (Right of Residence)
  European Community (Right of Residence)
  Sound Broadcasting (Licence Fee)
  Sound Broadcasting (Licence Fee)
  COURT PROCEDURES
  COURT PROCEDURES
CIVIL SERVICE
  Manpower
  Manpower
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid (Use of Charities)
  Overseas Aid (Use of Charities)
  Zimbabwe and Zambia
  Zimbabwe and Zambia
  Cambodian Refugees
  Cambodian Refugees
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Grass and Legume Breeding
  Grass and Legume Breeding
  NATIONAL HERITAGE MEMORIAL FUND
  NATIONAL HERITAGE MEMORIAL FUND
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petrol Tax
  Petrol Tax
  Payment of Workers
  Payment of Workers
  Privately-Owned Housing
  Privately-Owned Housing
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  European Court Judgment
  European Court Judgment
  Duty Deferment Facilities
  Duty Deferment Facilities
  European Community
  European Community
  North Sea Oil and Gas Revenues
  North Sea Oil and Gas Revenues
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Treasury Long Tap Stock
  Treasury Long Tap Stock
  Indexation
  Indexation
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  HENRY W. WILLIAMSON (LITERARY PAPERS)
  HENRY W. WILLIAMSON (LITERARY PAPERS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  LIBRARY CLOSURES (APPEALS)
  LIBRARY CLOSURES (APPEALS)
  AREA MUSEUM COUNCILS
  AREA MUSEUM COUNCILS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY LIBRARY SERVICES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY LIBRARY SERVICES
TRADE
  Biggin Hill Airport
  Biggin Hill Airport
  Civil Aviation Authority (New Radar System)
  Civil Aviation Authority (New Radar System)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Estate Agents
  Estate Agents
  Postal Telecommunications Equipment Industry
  Postal Telecommunications Equipment Industry
  Car Tyres
  Car Tyres
  Manufactured Goods (Trade Trends)
  Manufactured Goods (Trade Trends)
  Development of Tourism
  Development of Tourism
ENERGY
  Coal and Oil Stocks
  Coal and Oil Stocks
  Use of Waste Heat
  Use of Waste Heat
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Electricity Supplies (Disconnections)
  Electricity Supplies (Disconnections)
  Fossil-fuelled Power Stations
  Fossil-fuelled Power Stations
  Nuclear Accident Risks (Costs)
  Nuclear Accident Risks (Costs)
  Bristol Channel and Western Approaches (Oil and Gas Sites)
  Bristol Channel and Western Approaches (Oil and Gas Sites)
  North Sea (Floating Structures)
  North Sea (Floating Structures)
  " Alexander Kielland " Inquiry (British Representation)
  " Alexander Kielland " Inquiry (British Representation)
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  International Tea Promotion Association
  International Tea Promotion Association
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  Fish (Storage)
  Fish (Storage)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Irish Republican Army (American Arms Supplies)
  Irish Republican Army (American Arms Supplies)
  Paraplegic Games
  Paraplegic Games
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  Central Africa (Meetings with Soviet Leaders)
  Central Africa (Meetings with Soviet Leaders)
  International Legislation (Application to United Kingdom)
  International Legislation (Application to United Kingdom)
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Steel Industry Dispute (Financial Payments)
  Steel Industry Dispute (Financial Payments)
  Regional Industrial Development Boards
  Regional Industrial Development Boards
  NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
  NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Postal Telecommunications Equipment
  Postal Telecommunications Equipment
  Automated Small-batch Production Project
  Automated Small-batch Production Project
  Grimsby
  Grimsby
  Tyre Industry
  Tyre Industry
  Fish Processing Plants
  Fish Processing Plants
  Airbus
  Airbus
TRANSPORT
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Wrexham-Birkenhead Railway Line
  Wrexham-Birkenhead Railway Line
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  M40 (Birmingham-Oxford)
  M40 (Birmingham-Oxford)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Mudflaps)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Mudflaps)
  Ports
  Ports
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Hospital Patients (Travelling Costs)
  Hospital Patients (Travelling Costs)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Communicable Diseases Report
  Communicable Diseases Report
  " Patients First"
  " Patients First"
  Child Benefit Centre
  Child Benefit Centre
  Alcoholics (Hostel Accommodation)
  Alcoholics (Hostel Accommodation)
  Social Security (No. 2) Bill
  Social Security (No. 2) Bill
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
DEFENCE
  Garret Airesearch Turboprop Engines
  Garret Airesearch Turboprop Engines
  Turboprop-powered Aircraft
  Turboprop-powered Aircraft
  Ballistic Missiles (Warheads)
  Ballistic Missiles (Warheads)
  Tornado Aircraft (Crash)
  Tornado Aircraft (Crash)
SCOTLAND
  "Sea Transport to the Scottish Islands "
  "Sea Transport to the Scottish Islands "
  Citizens' Arrests
  Citizens' Arrests
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Local Councillors (Republic of Ireland Citizens)
  Local Councillors (Republic of Ireland Citizens)
  Schoolteachers (Strathclyde Region)
  Schoolteachers (Strathclyde Region)
  Longmore Hospital (Deaths)
  Longmore Hospital (Deaths)
  Hampden Park
  Hampden Park
ENVIRONMENT
  Select Committee Rooms (Renovation and Furnishing)
  Select Committee Rooms (Renovation and Furnishing)
  Building and Construction Industries (West Midlands)
  Building and Construction Industries (West Midlands)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Private House Building (Land Supply)
  Private House Building (Land Supply)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Land Compensation (Home and Farm Loss Payments)
  Land Compensation (Home and Farm Loss Payments)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  New Towns (Sale of Houses)
  New Towns (Sale of Houses)
  Water Consultative Council
  Water Consultative Council
  Rescue Archaeology
  Rescue Archaeology
  Housing Mobility
  Housing Mobility
  Multiple-occupation Dwellings (Fire Escape)
  Multiple-occupation Dwellings (Fire Escape)
WALES
  M4 Motorway
  M4 Motorway
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Newport Borough Council (Rateable Value)
  Newport Borough Council (Rateable Value)
  Dogs (Cyst Disease)
  Dogs (Cyst Disease)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
  Jobs
  Jobs
  Employment
  Employment
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Arrests (Statistics)
  Arrests (Statistics)
  Constitutional Conference
  Constitutional Conference
  Department of the Environment Roads Service (Northern Division)
  Department of the Environment Roads Service (Northern Division)
  Serious Crimes
  Serious Crimes
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution

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

WORK PERMITS
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.ion
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many work permits are held by non-United Kingdom nationals.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the number of non-United Kingdom nationals currently in this country who have been given leave to enter as work permit holders is not known. Records are kept by my department of the numbers of work permits issued, but not of the numbers of permit holders who actually arrive in this country, or of those who return abroad. Not all permit holders remain in this country for the period of validity of the work permit.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, in view of the size of the unemployment at the moment I hope my noble friend will review and perhaps even tighten the regulations on such permits; and is he aware that when one wishes to find a typical English restaurant with typical English food it is becoming increasingly difficult?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, on my noble friend's first supplementary question I can reassure him that we have tightened very considerably the criteria for work permits, which are issued only if the conditions of the scheme are met. Among other requirements my Department must be satisfied that the vacancy in question is highly skilled or specialised and that there is no suitable resident labour available, and that the employer concerned has made attempts to seek to
524
fill the post from resident labour. So there has been a considerable tightening up of the scheme.
I was not quite sure what point my noble friend was making in regard to English restaurants and English food, but it is very welcome news that they are improving.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, as the Home Office has decided to act in the issuing of work permits for catering and hotel staff, was this not the main basis on which the few hundred work permits were being awarded in the last few years; and is it not a fact that the employers in the hotel and catering industry only find it difficult to obtain English labour because their wages are so much less than can be obtained in other occupations?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it was in fact myself who was taking steps on the question of the work permits, rather than the Home Office. The position is, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, that the issue of a work permit is not a contract of employment, so someone could be allowed into the country for the purposes of a work permit, but we do not direct labour in this country and he would be perfectly free to leave, and that is why we have had to tighten the restrictions very considerably. In fact it is possible to come into the country under the work permit scheme for hotel and catering work but only, of course, in the higher reaches of skill and in the higher salary brackets.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in order to keep a proper sense of balance, can the Minister tell us how many British people are working abroad, particularly as with a Tory Government in office so many people are eager to leave the country?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am afraid the pressure on the flow is still very much into our beleaguered country rather than out of it. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord on that score. We do not keep statistics for the outflow but, as I have said, we monitor very carefully the pressures on inflow.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the remarks about wages in the hotel and catering

525
industry leave an entirely wrong impression, and that at this time the various technical schools in the country have done a great deal to raise the status of work in kitchens and in hotel management generally? Does he not agree that there is a hope of an entirely different picture very soon?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am most grateful for that intervention from my noble friend and I am sure that is indeed the case. Judging from your Lordships' House it would appear that it has already started to take effect.

SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES
2.40 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: 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, in view of the proposals to close Stafford House in Sussex, Battle of Britain House of Ruislip and Brant Broughton in Lincolnshire, what proposals they have to maintain the valuable national resource represented by short-term colleges.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, although these short-term residential colleges may draw on an area wider than that of the local education authority which supports them, their maintenance as an educational resource is essentially a matter for local authorities to determine.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, I should like to ask whether it is true that since I tabled this Question with those three colleges named, Wreahead in North Yorkshire and Woodlands Park administered by Haringey are also to close and Pyke House, Battle in East Sussex, Urchfont Manor in Wiltshire, Burton Manor in Cheshire, and Wansfell Hall in Essex are also threatened with closure? Would the Minister not agree that these colleges really are a national asset, as they
526
draw on very much wider areas than their own local authority? Surely it would be wise for the Government to step in during this difficult period to try to keep them going, so that the asset is still there when times get better?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, on the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, the premises of Wreahead College near Scarborough, which is administered by the North Yorkshire authority, are to be sold, although the local education authority also own Grantley Hall Adult College. Also, Woodlands Park, Cobham in Surrey, administered by Haringey, is to be closed. On the second point, with regard to DES support, the DES does in fact grant-aid five long-term adult residential colleges which fulfil a national need and the courses carried out there are not similar to those of the short-term residential colleges. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed in principle to resume grant to a further long-term college from autumn 1980, but we could not undertake to do more than that at this juncture.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, does the Minister's reply mean that such institutions as Hillcroft College or Fircroft, not to mention Ruskin College, are safe from closure? Is there any real distinction between colleges, as my noble friend has suggested, which are under local authority control and those which are national institutions, in that they all draw in a very wide population and they all produce people who have missed out on earlier opportunities for education and who afterwards give extremely valuable service to the community?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, so far as the five colleges are concerned, three of which the noble Baroness referred to, which are long-term residential colleges, it is the Government's policy to continue to grant-aid these on a deficiency basis and at the moment the cost is £824,000 per year. As I indicated, we are adding a further college to these. There is a difference between these colleges and the others, about 40, short-term residential colleges, in that the long-term college courses last a year, sometimes two years, whereas in talking about the short-term colleges we are normally talking about a weekend course.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, is Coleg Harlech safe?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords. I find it very difficult to believe it is not.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the short-term colleges the courses are at least a month in some cases? Would she agree that there is an obligation under Section 41 of the 1944 Act, where it says it shall be the duty to provide
"leisure-time occupation in such organised cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose"?
Would the noble Baroness not agree that these short-term colleges are particularly suitable for that? The Russell Report in 1973 said that there were not nearly enough of them.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I recognise the importance of the short-term colleges. What I hope will happen is that local authorities in looking at the provision will seek to rationalise the provision in their areas. It is, of course, still open to the colleges to increase their fees; it is a question of cost in many cases. There are institutions, private institutions, which run courses fully costed, which do manage to pay. So one needs to look at the financing of these colleges.
Baroness WOOTTON: My Lords, do not the short-term colleges running weekend courses sometimes use their premises for evening classes as well? So they do not stand idle all the week.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I have not the particular details of every college, but I imagine this could well be the case. It must be remembered that on the figures we have for last year the average fee charged for the average adult education class was 30p. It will of course be increased this year. But it has to be compared with the price of a pint of beer at 45p or a packet of cigarettes at 70p. Adults taking these classes have to decide where their priorities lie.

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS
2.47 p.m.
Lord PLANT: 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 what percentage of the cumulative cost of index-linked pension enjoyed by retired civil servants is met by serving civil servants; whether they will state for every £1 contributed by civil servants what is the amount contributed by the Government as employer; and whether they will provide the same information in respect of occupational pension schemes generally.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the annual rate of pension contribution by civil servants, at 1st January 1980 pay rates, amounted to about 46 per cent. of the expenditure on Civil Service pensions in 1979–80. The scheme is unfunded, so that no employer contribution as such is paid. On the actuarial assumptions which were used in the 1979 pay research exercise the notional employer contribution to a funded scheme would have been of the order of £1.50 for every £1 of employee contribution. The latest survey by the National Association of Pension Funds shows that in contributory staff pension schemes the employer contribution is on average about £2.45 for every £1 of employee contribution.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for that very informative reply, but may I point out that it seems that in the occupational schemes generally the employer pays a bigger contribution than does the Treasury in relation to civil servants? Is the noble Lord aware that the National Whitley Council Staff Side have issued a paper, agreed incidentally by the Civil Service Department, which demonstrates that 80 per cent. of the index-linked pensions are paid for by serving civil servants?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think the latter figure, to which the noble Lord referred, is somewhat high. My under-

529
standing is that less than 50 per cent. of the contribution which civil servants pay at the moment goes towards the funding of the retirement pensions. With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, it is perfectly true that in private schemes the employer pays a larger amount than is done under public service pension schemes, but then the rates of benefit are better.

PORTUGAL: EEC AND TRADE CONCESSIONS
2.49 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recently agreed Supplementary Protocol to the EEC/Portugal Trade Agreement, granting Portugal certain concessions from that Agreement, will adversely affect British interests, in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the European Communities on reciprocity between existing Members of the Community and applicants in industry and trade (17th Report, 1977–78, paragraphs 152(d), (t) and (u)).
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Supplementary Protocol is intended to help Portugal strengthen her economy in preparation for accession. The Select Committee, in paragraph 152(x) of its Report, recommended that the Community should accept
"its responsibility in providing adequate support for the development of a sound industrial base in the applicant countries".
The concessions in the Supplementary Protocol will not have a significant effect on the United Kingdom's interests in those sectors directly affected, and in the long term our exporters will tend to gain from the strengthening of the Portuguese economy.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he accept that certain British industries will in any case suffer dis-
530
advantages as a price for the overriding political aim of Portuguese membership of the EEC? Granted that Portugal is experiencing serious economic difficulties, can the Government none the less be sure that this continued protection for Portuguese industries will not distort the basis for Portugal's accession?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I would not accept that the advantages of Portuguese accession to the European Community are solely political. In the long-term there will he considerable advantages to British industry. As for the short-term, certainly there is a small price to pay, but we are satisfied that this is in our medium and long-term interests.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, having welcomed in general the application of Portugal and the other two applicant countries to join the Community, the time has come when we must, in particular, face the implications of that action? Would he confirm that the preoccupation that we all very properly have at present with our own budgetary problems in connection with our membership of the Community, will not be used as a complete bar to any proposals from the Commission to consider pre-accession aid to Portugal?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords, there is certainly no bar upon pre-accession aid to Portugal. We are at the moment considering a Commission proposal for this, but no decision has yet been reached.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, will my noble friend remember that when the accession is complete extreme pressure is likely to come from the Portuguese textile industries, which should receive the same kind of careful administrative supervision that it is intended to apply to other EEC countries?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, the Government are pressing for specific quantitative arrangements for Portuguese textiles after accession. There will also be a safeguard clause in the accession treaty which will allow the Commission to take action if increased Portuguese exports of any products threaten to obstruct the markets of the existing Member States during the transitional period after accession.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on enlargement has been widely acclaimed as a concise and realistic assessment? Indeed, that is, in particular, a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who was chairman of the sub-committee, and whom I am sure all of your Lordships were glad to see return to the House recently after his illness. Does my noble friend recognise that the benefits of that report have not come to an end, because its recommendations apply to the periods of negotiation and of transition?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. It was a most valuable report and I agree with everything that my noble friend has said about it.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, can my noble friend give us some assurance that, when Portugal gets tax free entry into our markets, simultaneously we shall have more access to her markets against which we have had to suffer very high tariffs?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Barnby a moment ago, we are hoping that we shall be able to achieve an arrangement after accession where there is some specific quantitative restriction upon Portuguese textile imports into the United Kingdom.

DINNER
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available tonight at the usual time. It is also proposed that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill should be adjourned at approximately 7.15 p.m. for about three-quarters of an hour.
CONSULAR FEES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
2.55 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Supplementary Benefits Act 1976]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 32, line 35, after ("cases") insert ("and in any other case in which, in the opinion of a benefits officer, it is necessary for the avoidance or relief of hardship").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26 which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. It will be for the convenience of the Committee if, while moving Amendment No. 26, I speak also to Amendment No. 28. Your Lordships will remember that last week we had a long discussion about the scope, function and activities of the supplementary benefit officers in the future, in the event of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Amendment No. 26 would enable benefit officers to make exceptional need and urgent need payments in circumstances not specified in the supplementary benefits regulations.
As I see it, a central aim of the Bill is to enable nearly all the payments now made under the Supplementary Benefits Commission's discretionary powers to be prescribed in regulations. In certain respects it is already clear that the regulations will be far more restrictive than existing practice, especially in regard to exceptional need payments for clothing and other matters. But in general the intention seems to be that existing policies will be written into the regulations.
On Second Reading I tried to point out how extremely difficult it is for regulations to incorporate everything that is likely to come before a supplementary benefits officer. The White Paper presented this

533
change in positive terms. It said:
"All claimants will reap the benefits of the emphasis on legal entitlement and published rules".
Replacing discretion with legal rights is, in principle, desirable; but it is important that where legal rights end there should still be discretionary powers to give help where a particular help is needed. Therefore, the amendment would give benefits officers the power to make lump sum exceptional need payments in cases not covered by the regulations, in order to prevent hardship.
At present Section 4 of the Supplementary Benefits Act has the effect of waiving the normal assessment rules in cases of urgent need. That means, for example, that urgent need payments can be paid to a person in full-time work or, in any kind of emergency, to a person who might not qualify under the normal rules. Perhaps I may give a case in point. I remember—I think that my recollection is right—a man who was in full-time work who had his tools stolen and who could not carry on with his work until such time as they were replaced. It was possible, if my memory is correct, that that situation could be met and it was, I believe, in fact met. This is a safety net provision and Section 4 quite rightly does not attempt to define "urgent need" or to limit in any way the type of case in which this power can be used.
As I understand the situation, the Government now propose to limit urgent need payments to the type of case prescribed in regulations, and I am not against that. I think that it is a good thing that we set it out clearly. I am saying that it cannot be set out so clearly as to incorporate emergencies which it is not possible to put down by way of prescription. Paragraph 14 of the Annex to Notes on Clauses lists some of these. It gives local disasters, loss of money, loss of travel tickets, and so on. The passion, if I may say so, for putting everything in regulations has, I think, been taken too far in this instance. The difficulties of drafting regulations to cover every predictable kind of emergency will be absolutely immense. I should like to take just two examples. I wonder how one defines a "local disaster". I am not being facetious about this; but how does one define it? For example, how does one define "loss of money"? It is more than just losing money; very often it is how the loss came about.
However widely the regulations are drawn, they are bound to exclude some of the unpredictable emergencies that occur, and the whole point of Section 4 is, or ought to be, to cover the unpredictable. Moreover, the need to consult complex regulations will obviously impair the ability of benefits officers to respond promptly to cases of urgent need. The whole purpose of urgent need is that it is urgent, and they ought to be in a position to deal with such cases urgently. This is why we believe the two amendments—Amendment No. 26, which I am now moving, and Amendment No. 28, to which I am speaking—are essential in the interests of everyone concerned, including the supplementary benefits officers. I beg to move.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I should like very warmly to support my noble friend in this amendment. The experience of most of us is that the one outstanding characteristic of emergencies is that they are not predictable, and it is on that ground that I should like warmly to support my noble friend.
Lord BANKS: I, too, am sympathetic to this amendment. I see the dilemma we are in. The object of the Bill is to reduce discretion. One can see why that must be done. If we are to continue to have on supplementary benefit the large numbers that we have on it at present, in the absence of any measures which will take a large number of those people off supplementary benefit, some restriction of discretion would appear, unfortunately, to he inevitable. But even so, it seems that there should be some final opportunity to deal with a case which it may not be possible to categorise in any of the prescribed categories.
Therefore, I can see the argument for the possibility of making a lump sum exceptional-need payment in particular circumstances beyond those prescribed. I know that the answer to that is, "You are opening the door and allowing discretion back in", and "How far will that discretion then go?". But I would rather risk that than think that there was a particular hardship, or series of hardships, which could not be helped because no provision had been made in the Bill.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: One of the major areas of concern identi-

535
fied by the Supplementary Benefits Commission before the supplementary benefits review was set up by the previous Government was the growth in the number of discretionary payments. The commission pointed out that reliance on discretion led to very wide variations in awards in different areas, and also made it more difficult for claimants to know what payments were available to them. As a result the system operated unfairly as between different claimants. It led to conflict between claimants and officials, and to increasing pressures on the system. These matters have been discussed by the commission and fully documented in their annual reports. The supplementary benefits review confirmed this picture and pointed to the dislike of claimants and staff of a system which depended to such an extent on discretionary payments.
One of the major changes proposed in the new legal structure for the supplementary benefits scheme is the shift from discretion to entitlement; from generalised terminology to established rules and published rights. The changes proposed in Section 3 of the Supplementary Benefits Act and the regulations to be made under it are of the very essence of these changes. We intend that claimants should know exactly where they stand with regard to additional payments, as with other aspects of the scheme. What we have in mind is to identify, and to specify in regulations, all the expenses for which additional payments can be claimed. We recognise that in an area such as this it is probably impossible to dispense with discretion altogether. That is why regulations will provide that single payments may also be made in very exceptional circumstances where, in the opinion of the benefits officer, an expense has been, or has to be, incurred in order to avoid severe hardship. Thus, the object is to provide for payments for specified expenses to be available as of right, while retaining some discretion to deal with the truly exceptional situation that cannot be anticipated.
This power will be spelled out in regulations and to that extent, therefore, the amendments are unnecessary. I cannot today quote all the circumstances in which it might operate—by its nature this would be an impossible task and the Committee will have an opportunity to debate the regulations when they are made,
536
if it so wishes—but I should like to make it clear that we are confident that it can be limited to very exceptional circumstances, because the great majority of cases for which additional help may be needed can be clearly spelled out in the regulations. We are sure that this approach is the best way of ensuring consistency of practice throughout the country, and of achieving the spirit of openness about entitlement which, I hope, we all desire. These amendments cut right across that spirit and would represent a return to the days of doubt and uncertainty. I therefore call on the Committee to reject them.
3.7 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Lord has said that this would be spelled out in regulations. But I should like to put it to the Minister that if it is to he spelled out in regulations, why cannot he accept the amendment? It seems logical to me that the amendment covers the very point which he made. However, if the regulations are to attempt to spell out every single urgent case, there will be some cases that will not be covered. Either we must have an escape clause, leaving discretion to the officers concerned, or we shall find that certain hardship cases will arise because we have tried to spell it all out in some detail.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I thought that I had made it quite clear that we shall spell out in regulations all that can possibly be spelled out, but there will still be residual discretion.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: On the face of it, the reply by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government seems to be perfectly reasonable. The noble Lord has said that these cases will be in the regulations and that we can debate the regulations. As I understand the situation, if the Committee takes exception to any part of those regulations—I may be wrong about this, and, if I am, I hope that someone will put me right—then we have to decline to accept the regulations as a whole; we cannot alter them. This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
We do not want an endless number of people spending a considerable amount of time coming forward with a whole set of regulations, which your Lordships will

537
have an opportunity of debating, only to find that there is general agreement that one or two of those regulations, or parts of the regulations, are unacceptable; and then we have to reject the whole thing. I think that that would be a terrific time-waster. I think that Amendment No. 26, which I have moved, and the other amendment, which I think is even more important, are desirable and in the best interests of good government.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I mention one point. I wonder whether my noble friend could assure us that there would be no question at all of the sort of gather-up provision that he was envisaging in the regulations setting up the prescribed cases being found to be ultra vires when one came to the regulations? It seems to be a curiosity when regulations are to set out prescribed cases that those same regulations would also try to deal with cases which are not prescribed, and leave a discretion there in addition to the provisions which are intended to avoid such a provision.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The whole idea is to put into regulations as much as can reasonably be put in. There is a great deal of experience over many years of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's working of the various things that have cropped up. A great many of those things will be covered by the regulations put in. It is obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, that one cannot think of everything, so there will be residual discretion for those hardship cases not covered by the regulations.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Can my noble friend answer the question that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has just put to him? Has he already taken legal advice as to whether the kind of escape clause which he outlined would be intra vires in this particular Bill when it becomes an Act? I know that it is an awkward question to ask in Committee, but I make this suggestion to him. If the noble Lord opposite withdraws the amendment, will my noble friend undertake to obtain a considered legal view, if necessary from one of the Law Officers, before the next stage of the Bill? Perhaps some noble Lord would then put down an amendment and my noble friend could
538
make a statement on that. That would reassure us, because the point of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has raised a doubt in. my mind. I go with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, so far as to say that I think to have no escape clause, to try to forecast every conceivable type of problem and hardship, will beat the ingenuity even of the highly intelligent people in the noble Lord's department.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I beg the noble Lord and the noble Baroness the Minister to take the advice of two distinguished Members of their side who have held distinguished office in this particular field? Together they are unbeatable when it comes to knowledge. I should be happy not to press this amendment to a Division if the Government felt they could undertake this.
Lord HALE: I rose to put this point before my noble friend intervened. I am impressed by the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. It seems to me that the suggestion he now makes is greatly to the advantage of the Government so far as the law is concerned. If he accepts the amendment now he is only taking what will be something similar to a residual power after the specific order is made. If he accepts the amendment now it will not be so much incumbent upon him to set out this long and difficult list in the order. He gets the benefit of it both ways. He is taking no more, on his own statement, than an amendment which provides for an exercise of discretion, and he says, and keeps on saying—I am bound to say that I sympathise with the fact that some commentators have rather overlooked that he said this—that he intends to provide a final discretion after he has set it out. To have it now gets over the point about ultra vires and enables him to rethink the drafting of the order if he decides the order is necessary, and without involving any special legal difficulties.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: In the nature of the case we have not seen the regulations. We cannot at this stage. We do not know how comprehensive they may be. Surely the logical procedure, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, is to cover in the regulations all the things which experience shows are likely to happen, and to put into the Bill itself

539
the safety net. Surely a safety net stuck into the regulations is rather illogical. If regulations are made to provide for all these emergencies, you can then properly put into the Act itself,
"and also in cases of exceptional hardship discretion will remain with the officer".
Lord SANDYS: My noble friend has expressed willingness to look at this, but there were some points which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised that I think it would be timely to mention now because he also spoke to Amendment No. 28. In this regard the brown volume, the Notes on Clauses, at page 93 has much information to impart. I should like to draw Lord Wells-Pestell's attention to paragraph 14. I can at the same time assure him, when he referred to local disasters, that they were included. If I may, I shall quote my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker in another place, at column 788 in Standing Committee E. She said in this particular regard:
"I think I can give the right honourable Gentleman a complete assurance. It would include local and individual disasters".
She went on to give an example, which might help the noble Lord, because she defined the circumstances. She said this:
"I remember one in my constituency. A house was burnt to the ground overnight and the family left without clothing or household goods. There were seven children to be looked after. That would be covered by the ultimate discretion even if the persons in that household were not in any other way entitled under the regulations to be made under the schedule".
I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful. I have found it difficult to absorb 103 hours (I think) of talking in another place in Committee stage, which took something like 23 or 25 days, and it is quite clear that I did not pick up that particular example.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: In view of the pressure from behind me, I am very happy, after what my noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Boyd-Carpenter have said, to take this back and see what legal aspect there is to this, and we can return to it at the next stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I say to the noble Lord that it was not only
540
behind him but it was on his extreme right—and he must be careful of anything coming from the extreme right. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.19 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 32, line 38, at end insert ("but no account shall be taken of any powers which may be available to local authorities as defined by section 2(i)(a) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I happen to be a vice-president. I introduce this amendment to seek clarification. Basically, the AMA is concerned with several matters in the Social Security Bill which could affect the expenditures of local authorities, especially the hard-pressed metropolitan areas. These are the effects on local authority expenditure and services in kind of typing up SBC discretionary payments. I shall be quoting several examples which give rise to concern, especially the home help charges.
When the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Reg Prentice, responded to a proposed amendment to the Bill put down by Mr. Andrew Bennett for AMA probing its effects on local authority expenditure, a categorical assurance was given in Committee in the other place that there was no intention behind the measure to transfer extra financial responsibility from the supplementary benefits system to local authorities, and that this regulation that would be made would carry forward the existing principles. The association welcome this assurance but they are still concerned. Currently, people receiving home help services can be granted a contribution by the Supplementary Benefits Commission towards their expenditure on fees for home help services.
For example, where local authorities charge home help flat rate of £1 per week, people already in receipt of supplementary benefit may be given an additional amount of 50p or 70p per week towards the cost. Others may, because they must spend on domestic assistance, come within the

541
eligibility criteria for supplementary benefit assistance. But it is clear from correspondence between the DHSS and the local authority associations that after November SB officers will discontinue meeting any claims for a contribution to the cost of home help services. Worse still, the SBC is already withdrawing from some existing local schemes whereby increases in home help charges would have been covered by the SBC. This occurs in places like the London Borough of Enfield and also in Wakefield. Indeed, the AMA was very surprised to find for both home help charges and other fees that the local offices in the Wakefield area are already interpreting the Bill as taking effect from now and reducing benefits immediately. They are saying that any changes in a client's supplementary benefit—for example, to take account of rent or rate increases—means any contribution towards home help would cease; and, although the client may already have been in receipt of such allowance, so far as places such as Wakefield are concerned, since the benefit of most clients will be adjusted to take account of the rate increases with effect from 1st April 1980, this virtually means that charges for other things like home help services would cease to be allowed as from that date, as would possibly other grants as well.
This is particularly surprising for the AMA, since they had understood from the SPC in a letter sent at the end of February that existing beneficiaries, whose entitlement to an addition for local authority home help charge arose before 29th February, still retained their additions at least until November 1980. It is quite clear that SBC is interpreting very rigidly its stated view that local authority savings should not be achieved by a transfer of financial responsibility to the centrally-funded supplementary benefits scheme. This is clearly worrying to local authorities. They are not income maintenance agencies. The Government's own figures on this reckons that there will be a saving to the SBC of £140,000 in November.
This is not a saving to local authorities and they are now in a dilemma. Either they have to forgo any projected income from new charges by waiving or reducing charges to those eligible for supplementary benefit, or they have to insist on the full charge being paid by those whose financial
542
need for extra supplementary benefit is not in question. Thus, life is made even more difficult for those already in a precarious financial position.
Claimants will already have to pay 50p out of their basic allowance as a new payment. Now they may have to pay £1, unless authorities which have budgeted for this income can waive the charge and find reductions on other services to compensate—and we all know what that means; other services for other needy groups could suffer, for example. I should therefore like to press for some clarification from the Government on these issues. A lot has already been said about the regulations, both here and in another place. The regulations could reflect my point. The regions should have discretion in such local schemes as those in Wakefield and Enfield in operation, otherwise there will be much suffering. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The point that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has made is, of course, that he is concerned that the Government are hoping to shift the responsibility from the social security system on to local authorities and I should like to make it quite clear immediately that the aim of the regulations is to codify practice. It is not to introduce a new practice but to codify what it is; and it may be helpful to the Committee to remind them that the annexe to the Notes on Clauses beginning on page 86 do in fact set out the general line of the recommendations so that they can be looked at now before they are published later on in an order. I think this perhaps answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made in moving his amendment.
A distinction, therefore, is already drawn and will continue to be drawn between the duties and powers of local authorities. As regards duties, it would clearly be double provision from public funds if there were to be an entitlement to an exceptional needs payment for an expense which local authorities have a duty to meet. Hence, the regulations will not provide for exceptional needs payments for telephone installations for the disabled. Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1972 clearly makes it a duty for the local authority to provide help with telephones if they decide this is

543
necessary. Since that Act came into operation the Supplementary Benefits Commission have been very little involved in this field and provision will not be made in the future through the supplementary benefits scheme. The fall-back power to provide exceptional needs payments to meet expenses not covered specifically elsewhere in the regulations will also preclude payments where a local authority is already required to meet the expense, otherwise there would be an overlap.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has specifically raised the point about home help and the home help service, and he might note that in fact this point arises on Amendments Nos. 41A, 65B and 72—and will, I think, be debated when we come to debate them. The present amendment, No. 27, is concerned with the general point about overlaps between local authority duties and the supplementary benefits scheme, and I hope I have said enough at this stage to make clear that we do not believe that there is an alteration of the principle by the regulation-making powers for the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is simply codifying the practice and not establishing a new one.
Lord JANNER: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the reply that she has given and I shall certainly report this to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 33, leave out lines 5 and 6.
The noble Lord said: I am working on the assumption that the Government, while looking at my Amendment No. 26, will also look at Amendment No. 28; in which case I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord JANNER Lord JANNER moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 33, line 26, at end insert ("including the
544
circumstances of those acting as foster parents on behalf of the local authority.")
The noble Lord said: I have already informed the Committee that I am speaking on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and I have already spoken about discretionary payments and regulations to be made about special payments. My other main point concerns foster parent payments. This I feel to be a very important matter of principle. In some parts of the country foster parents, who do a valuable job for society, find that payments from local authorities for the maintenance of foster children are taken into account by the SBC if they are supplementary beneficiaries. This makes the foster parent ineligible for supplementary benefits for herself, even though there may be no element of "reward" in the payment from the local authority. This is despite an earlier ruling by the commission, in a letter to the association on 22nd March 1978, that such payments (that is, for foster children) should be disregarded. Local authorities are trying very hard to recruit foster parents. These are very important people, who do a wonderful job for the community; and because they operate from their own homes, they are not tying up resources in expensive residential accommodation for local authorities to provide.
May I draw the Committee's attention to one case which the association recently heard about in Sheffield. There the issue has been brought to the forefront by the DHSS withdrawing supplementary benefit from a foster mother who has recently fostered a severely handicapped child, and whose own child has now reached the age of 16 years. This case is by no means unique, and other local authorities have been experiencing similar difficulties, since the SBC are following a clear policy on this matter.
However, with reference to the Sheffield case, the regional controller at the DHSS has refused to exercise any discretion for making an exception to the policy in the case of this foster mother. She has also appealed to a tribunal against the decision, but has had her appeal refused there, also. I gather that the regional controller says that, although women who are solely responsible for dependent children under the age of 16 who are living with them, are exempt from being

545
required to register for work as a condition for receiving supplementary benefit, this does not apply to foster children. In other words, any person who accepts a foster child into her home when her own children have reached, or are about to reach, their 16th birthday, would cease to be entitled to supplementary benefit because the foster parent would no longer be able to satisfy the condition of registration and availability for work.
The commission says that the local authority has to pay the foster parent sufficient for her own needs as well as those of the foster children, but this argument fails to understand the concept and objectives of fostering, which are that people should be encouraged to take into their own homes children whose own parents cannot care for them, and care for those children as members of the family. This provides a child with a home environment which is as normal as possible, and which he or she would otherwise be denied. To turn fostering into paid employment undermines the whole basis of this objective, and many social services staff have been of the view that if paid fostering was to become the norm, rather than the exception, it would be difficult to exclude people whose motivation is financial gain rather than commitment to the wellbeing of the children.
It may be that the argument which has been put to Sheffield by the SBC; namely,
"In the commission's view it is for the local authority, as is the practice of some authorities, to pay the foster parent sufficient for her own needs as well as those of the foster children",
is intended to apply only to those small number of foster parents who would otherwise be eligible for supplementary benefits. If not, the cost at a time of restriction in local government expenditure would be immense. To offer such a payment just to a small minority of foster parents, many of whom would be different from other foster parents only in the single fact that they would otherwise be eligible for supplementary benefit, will be seen by other foster parents to be so obviously inequitable and unjust as to he a deterrent to the effective development and extension of fostering programmes.
The alternative, which Sheffield has adopted as a temporary measure in
546
relation to this particular case—and I believe that other authorities have also done the same—is to pay enhanced fostering rates to those foster parents who have been excluded from supplementary benefit in this way; but this is hardly a satisfactory solution, since the people concerned enjoy the rights neither as claimants nor as employees, and the way that their income would be regarded for the purposes of other welfare benefits claims is unclear. Thus it could well be a source of further confusion and controversy.
Local authorities are now paying a more reasonable and uniform set of rates across the board for standard fostering schemes. They have recently completed surveys for the local authority associations in order to demonstrate this. This is admirable, but there will still be cases where people such as the Sheffield lady with the handicapped foster child, who, in other circumstances would be entitled to supplementary benefit, are deemed to be ineligible for it because she is being given a grant by the local authority. This is a matter of social policy which I think the Government should look at. We all want a good fostering service. We must do our best to encourage it. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that we have all listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has had to say, and let me say right away that the Government are very much in favour of fostering arrangements, for all the reasons that the noble Lord has enumerated, with which I agree entirely. As a Government we have repeatedly emphasised our commitment to the promotion of family life, in the belief that the family provides the best environment for the healthy development of children. What we are talking about in this particular amendment is how fostering arrangements should be funded.
The intention is that the revised supplementary benefit scheme should follow closely the present policy of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Under that policy, a person who has been a local authority foster parent for some time before claiming benefit will not be regarded as available for other work and will not therefore be required to register for

547
employment as a condition of receiving benefit. The same view will be taken where a claimant is looking after the child of a relative, since we recognise that this is often a feature of a close-knit family.
However, I suggest that different considerations apply where a person already getting benefit, who has no children of her own, and who is capable of work, decides to take on the task of fostering children for the local authority. Had she taken on other full-time work, then supplementary benefit would have ceased. The purpose of the decision in these circumstances to become a foster parent is to change the claimant's status from unemployed to lone parent. The effect, if the intention of the amendment were accepted, would be to continue the payment of supplementary benefit which otherwise could have ended.
The Government's view is that in these circumstances the payment of supplementary benefit is inappropriate. In effect, I am giving the answer which the local Supplementary Benefits Commission gave to the particular inquiry which was made by the Sheffield authority, and which the noble Lord quoted in his remarks. It is for the local authority to make it possible for people to act as foster parents. It is the principle of supplementary benefit that people who are capable of working should receive benefit only while they are actively seeking work and are registered for it, which clearly would not apply in the case of someone taking on foster children in those circumstances.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that there is no intention to apply that principle rigidly, but we think that, in the circumstances that I have explained, it would be right to continue to regard the claimant as available for work. It follows that we should not go to the other extreme proposed in this particular case. I hope I have said sufficient to enable the noble Lord, Lord Janner, to feel that we have taken the point; but if we accepted the amendment, it would be establishing a completely new principle, and so I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness JEGER: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Janner. I am amazed that the noble Baroness refers
548
to a woman taking on this job as being capable of work. I cannot imagine harder work for a woman to take on than, as in the case to which my noble friend Lord Janner referred, a very severely handicapped child. That must be the hardest work in the world; and all the reports which have come in indicate that this child has made progress and that there seems to be a very good and stable relationship.
I should have thought that, even if there is no other reason for sympathy towards such cases, there should be on the grounds of cost to the Government. If a woman in this position is told to go and get another job, then what is to happen to that child? My understanding is that if a severely handicapped child is taken into the very specialised form of local authority care that disability would need, it costs public funds something like £100 a week for the rest of that child's life. It seems to me quite absurd on economic grounds, and quite wrong on the basis of human relationships and the sort of one-to-one care that disabled children need in as normal a family as possible. I hope the noble Baroness will look at this again. There cannot be very many cases of this kind; and I am sure there is a wide appeal, right across party lines, to all of us who care about the bringing up of children with severe handicaps, particularly.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, because I think we are talking at cross-purposes on this matter. She has said that it is quite wrong to suggest that somebody who is fostering children is capable of work. The point I was making is that there are two quite separate sets of circumstances. The present situation, as I understand it, is that a person who is now a local authority foster parent and has been for some time before claiming benefit would not be regarded as available for other work because, of course, she is a foster mother, and therefore would not be required to register for employment as a condition of receiving benefit. So that case is met, which I think is the case which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised.
The case which, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is raising is the slightly separate issue of somebody who has been receiving benefit, who has

549
not been a foster parent but who might become a foster parent and should continue to receive benefit. The difference is that, had she not taken on the foster children and no longer needed the benefit, she would have been capable of work. She is therefore in a position different from that of somebody who is actually fostering. We are talking about two different sets of circumstances. What we are trying to say is that we are not altering the rules in any way under this Bill. They remain as they were before; and I think it would not be right to extend them in the way which has been suggested, but of course it would be right to maintain them in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has described.
Lord JANNER: Perhaps I may emphasise the point which the noble Baroness has made. We are dealing here with a very important subject. Far from it being a normal subject, it is something that affects children who otherwise have suffered because of the conditions under which they have lived before. The provision of a satisfactory foster home for them is something which I am sure every member of this Committee, as well as everybody outside, would wish to see done in a way which would not embarrass or hurt the foster parent herself or himself. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Baroness. I do not think that at this stage I want to press the amendment, but I hope that she will consider this matter between now and the following stages. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.44 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 33, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person becoming engaged in remunerative full-time work until the expiration of a period of 15 days from the beginning of the engagement in the case of a person whose remuneration is normally paid weekly and 30 days in any other case.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals mainly with monthly-paid people. I think noble Lords who have run businesses will appreciate that when one promotes a member of the staff and he suddenly
550
finds himself moved from a weekly wage to monthly pay, it presents a problem, but the employer usually helps out. But when the worker is unemployed and is starting a job on monthly pay, then the problems are even worse. Amendment No. 30 would allow monthly-paid workers to continue drawing supplementary benefit for the first month after starting a job instead of doing so for only 15 days.
The question was in fact discussed in Social Assistance, paragraphs 4 to 18—and I quote:
"If it were thought desirable to achieve a greater equity as between weekly and monthly paid the present 15-day period could be retained, but the practice of making supplementary benefit awarded in the period from then until the first pay day recoverable could be dropped".
I repeat that monthly-paid workers should be entitled to receive supplementary benefit for a month after starting a job instead of the 15 days allowed for weekly-paid workers. This is in recognition of the fact that the monthly-paid normally have to manage for a month on their last wages payment on becoming unemployed. At present, they may exceptionally be able to get urgent need payments after 15 days, but such payments are recoverable, and the Government propose that this should continue.
Although I admit the ground was covered very fully in another place, I ask: can the Minister give an assurance that the power of recovery would not be used in these cases? I am only seeking that assurance, and I do not intend to press hard on this if the Minister can give a reasonable assurance. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I acknowledge that the present 15-day rule is generous to the weekly-paid, for it means that their entitlement to benefit continues up to their first pay day even where they have to work a week in hand. But for the monthly-paid, who have to wait a further fortnight for their first pay day, this is on the face of it less generous. The present rules are designed to treat everyone alike, and I think this is perfectly defensible. The monthly-paid receive the same help as the weekly-paid. Adapting to the monthly pay cycle is admittedly more difficult, but most employers who adopt this system make it flexible enough by way of advances of salary to cater for those who cannot

551
manage; and the monthly-paid are usually better placed to cope with such arrangements and the necessary repayments.
There is a further consideration, and that is the cost involved in any change. The cost is very difficult to quantify, but this would be an open invitation to claim benefit, and if all unemployed people who entered monthly-paid jobs were to claim supplementary benefit for the full period the cost would be very considerable. The most recent estimate was that this could be as high as £30 million. At a time of great pressure on resources, we do not think that this change, even if it were fully desirable in principle, could command sufficiently high priority to justify money being diverted to implement it. The number of claims at present from monthly-paid workers is thought to be relatively small, so that whether there is a real need for help through the supplementary benefits scheme is at the moment unproven.
Monthly-paid workers who claim supplementary benefit currently outside the 15-day period are eligible for urgent need payments under Section 4 of the Act, which would normally be recoverable. Although this is not specified in the annex to Notes on Clauses, we intend that they should continue to be eligible for payments on that basis, and will so provide in the regulations. We cannot go any further than that, and we do not think there is a need to do so. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This is a wonderful assurance! I would classify it as a kick in the teeth. The noble Lord was talking about millions of pounds and said there were very few cases; and then he said that an employer is usually very good in these cases. We are talking about people who have been unemployed. If an employer has taken on a new employee from the unemployed queue, he must have some reservations about whether that employee is going to be worth while keeping on for that month. Therefore, the employer is not so ready to advance in a case like that. I would be the same if I were an employer. It is a risky business. Therefore, I do not think that the Government are being at all reasonable. However, we have even greater issues to argue
552
and I will not argue this one further. I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding that probably we shall come back to it at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.52 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 33, line 45, after ("subsection (1),") insert ("for the words "his requirements for" there shall be substituted the words "so much of his requirements as exceeds £16 for any week during" and").
The noble Lord said: It may be that a number of noble Lords will feel that this particular amendment would be better raised under the Social Security (No. 2) Bill when it comes before us. What I want to say now I say more in sorrow than anger; because, the day after the first Committee stage of this Bill in this House, the other place had the Second Reading of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. It may be that noble Lords with a great deal of experience behind them will feel that it is really discourteous, and I would go so far as to say offensive, to the dignity of this House to have the No. 2 Bill before Parliament at a time when this House is considering the No. 1 Bill—which the No. 2 Bill is going to change dramatically and drastically.
Parliamentary procedure permits of a No. 1 Bill and a No. 2 Bill—I was about to say almost simultaneously but certainly one after the other, but I cannot remember a single case where a No. 2 Bill has sought to change very fundamentally the No. 1 Bill. I begin to ask myself, as no doubt do other noble Lords, why we are bothering about this Bill at all if, in a short space of time, we have to consider another Bill which is going to change the No. 1 Bill very substantially. It is because I think it is important that matters which will come before us under the No. 2 Bill can be dealt with in this particular Bill. I have already on a previous occasion referred to one matter and I want to refer now to the position of the industrial disputes which the No. 2 Bill will he dealing with by way of reduction of supplementary benefit for strikers.
In moving the amendment which stands in my name and those of my noble friends behind me, I want first to set out

553
the present position because I think there is a good deal of ignorance of what comes the way of the striker in this country. At present a married man on strike can receive supplementary benefit only for his wife and children; single men and married women can normally claim no benefit at all, except in very restricted circumstances of urgent need. The rates for families of strikers are £14·65 for the wife and for children (according to the age of each child) as follows, but subject in each case to a reduction of £4 for child benefit: for a child under five the wife or mother gets £5·20; for a five to 10 year old, £6·25; for an 11 to 12 year old, £7·70; for a 13 to 15 year old, £9·35—subject in each case, as I have said, to a reduction of £4 for child benefit.
It is fair to say that, in addition, the amount of household rent or mortgage interest repayment will normally be added, although this amount will be reduced if there are any other adults living in the household. The amounts calculated as above will be reduced by any other income which the family has, subject to the disregard of certain small amounts. If the striker's wife is working, her net earnings will be taken fully into account except for the first £4. All other income will be taken fully into account except for the first £4 of such income. This will apply to any strike pay, tax rebates and picketing expenses, less actual fares, which a striker is receiving and to any other personal income which he has, such as disablement or war pension.
When one takes that into account, there is a very considerable imposition placed on the striker's family. In addition, even a married man will not normally be entitled to any supplementary benefit in respect of his family needs for strikes of short duration or the initial periods of longer disputes, because his last wages before the dispute started and any wages in hand and holiday pay will be treated as covering the equivalent future period.
What I have just said applies to all strikes and also to lockouts by employers, regardless of the merits of the disputes or actions of employers prior to the disputes. Thus, it covers cases where an employer has acted in breach of agreed procedures and where he has acted illegally; where,
554
for example, he failed to observe wages council rates or health and safety legislation. The rules apply not only to workers who themselves go on strike or refuse to cross picket lines but also to workers laid off as a result of disputes if any aspect of their terms or conditions of employment stand to be affected.
May I ask your Lordships to look at the Government's proposals? The Government's main proposal is to treat a person on strike or lockout as a result of an industrial dispute as receiving a certain amount of extra income. They have tended to drop the word "deeming". I do not know what the net effect of that is: whether they deem that a striker is going to be in receipt of £12 a week. But if they have finally decided to drop that, then their intention is to reduce the amount of supplementary benefit by £12. This £12 is not to be attributed in law to any particular source, but the Government clearly intend—or did intend; we are not sure of what their intention is—that it should come from union strike pay.
In the case of single people, they already have no entitlement to supplementary benefit except on grounds of urgent need, and the Department of Health and Social Security will only accept that there is urgent need where there is a combination of adverse financial and personal circumstances. Single people living with their parents (unless they themselves are on supplementary benefit or sharing with other adults) are unlikely to qualify. However, where single people can qualify the DHSS will bring up a claimant's income only to a maximum of £12.50 per week at present. Assuming that the reduction of £12 is going to be made, then, certainly as far as a single striker is concerned—if it applies to him—the remaining entitlement to supplementary benefit would, as your Lordships will see, be minimal.
I want to talk about the effect of the Government's present proposals. This will hit hardest those workpeople who are lowest paid, particularly with larger families, and who will have least other resources on which to fall back. We have to face the fact—even if the Government have not done so—that it could mean the break-up of some such families and more children having to be taken into care at

555
local authority expense or claims to social workers for cash help under the Children and Young Persons Act. It will further harm local shops and businesses in towns and villages where a large proportion of the Community are affected by strikes. I have in mind the steel, mining and motor industry and the docks because families will have even less money to pay off existing debts and make new purchases during the strike. The saving to the Government expenditure in turn will be quite insignificant in the context of total social security expenditure.
At Second Reading, I mentioned what the amount was. Betweeen 1974 and 1979 the total amount of supplementary benefit paid during the disputes averaged less than £3 million a year. By any reckoning, that is an insignificant sum. Strikers and their families can already lose a lot of money during strikes and will be further penalised by the Government when forced to resort to exercising their right to strike. The argument that I am about to put forward may not commend itself to the Committee, but I think that it is something to be proud of: we in this country for decades have allowed men to go on strike when they have felt the need and the justification to do so and yet at the same time have said, "All right, while we will not contribute towards your maintenance, we will not let your wife and family suffer." This is the essence of real democracy. As I have said, the amount is less than about £3 million a year. In all other EEC countries, and in Japan and the United States of America, public assistance of some kind is available also to strikers' families. Strikers and their families can only lose a lot of money during strikes and will be further penalised by the Government when they are forced to resort to exercising their right to strike.
The only other point I want to make is that I think that the Government's proposals will only make strikers' families financially even worse off than at present without making any contribution to removing the reasons for striking or promoting solutions. More difficult to assess is the effect of supplementary benefit on the duration of disputes. It is quite clear that supplementary benefit generally makes up only a small proportion of income during disputes. So the Government's proposals would not be effective if they are to be used
556
as an instrument to force men back to work. That is quite clear. There are items such as savings, tax rebates, strike and hardship pay, earning of spouse or children, child benefit or borrowing to contribute to the family upkeep and in addition normal spending is cut back including deferment on hire purchase, rent, mortgage payments and other things.
This is going to impose a tremendous burden upon the family. It may well be that there is a school of thought in the Committee who have no sympathy with people who go on strike, whether it is an official or unofficial strike. We on this side certainly do not like unofficial strikes. We have had sufficient experience to know that there are very often legitimate reasons why men should withdraw their labour. If Members on the other side of the Committee can look at it dispassionately—and it may be difficult for them to do so—they will realise that this is so.
What is the purpose of this? Can there possibly be any other purpose than to force people back to work or force them by the threat of almost starvation so that they cannot exercise what is a democratic right? I find it very difficult to believe that the Committee will feel that this is desirable. There has been abundant evidence in the history of this country that it has been necessary on more than one occasion for people to threaten and ultimately withdraw their labour. It is not something that one wants to encourage; one would like these difficulties and disputes to be dealt with (shall I say?) in a better way of conversation, rather than confrontation. But when it does happen, the situation is going to be aggravated if the Government's present policy is carried into effect. It certainly is not going to help; it is going to make matters worse. I beg to move.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may venture to comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he complained that in considering this part of this Bill we were embarrassed by the fact that there is a Social Security (No. 2) Bill passing through another place. Whether or not that Bill might one day amend the contents of this Bill, I suggest that there is nothing we can do about it. There does not appear to me—as I hope to explain to your Lordships—to have been any

557
infringement of the rules of procedure of either House of Parliament by the introduction into another place of the No. 2 Bill. Nor does it give rise to any conflict between the two Houses. If the noble Lord has in mind—as perhaps he has—the well-known rule of both Houses of Parliament against anticipation, I wonder if I may remind him of what Erskine May says about that in the 19th edition at page 371:
"Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form".
I suggest that any public Bill is the equal of any other public Bill. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the passage which I have quoted from Erskine May, the rule against anticipation has for that reason alone not been infringed. I hope that I do not need to trouble the Committee by putting forward any other reason for saying there has been no infringement of this rule.
Surely this situation is not unprecedented. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has a valid point, it is one which should he made against the Social Security (No. 2) Bill in another place rather than in our Committee when we are discussing this Bill which is now before us. We have to deal with the Bill now before us as we find it, and I suggest that we ought not to make any assumption whatever about what the contents of another Bill which is now going through another place might or might not be when the Bill reaches your Lordships' House. Therefore, with the respect which I always have for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I would suggest that, whatever one may think about his other arguments, his procedural point has no force in it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I wonder whether the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not a little unreal on this matter. After all, the Government are in charge of the legislation; they are responsible for the introduction of the Bill which your Lordships are now considering in this Committee. While the Bill is proceeding through this Chamber
558
they see fit to introduce a Bill in another place at the very same time, and that Bill makes a substantial amendment and alteration to the provisions of this Bill. At the very least, I would say that this is a shambles as regards the management of Government business and legislation. That is point number one, and if we were sitting on the other side of this Chamber, my goodness! what eloquence we would hear on that theme.
Secondly, I am not sure that it does not go so far as to be a discourtesy regarding the proceedings of your Lordships, and I think that your Lordships are entitled to have an explanation of what is the factor which has suddenly brought about such an element. I imagine it will be said that there is some urgency in the need for the amendment that it is hoped will be achieved in this Bill when the No. 2 Bill comes here. But what is the element that explains this, and what is the pressure that has been brought upon the Government to make this indecent change while the proceedings on this Bill are still going through this Chamber?
I do not think that this is a trivial matter. I do not know what precedents the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can cite for this sort of thing—while this Bill is going through this Chamber another Bill is introduced into the other place which will have the effect of amending in due course the proceedings here in connection with this Bill. Of course, we can go on merrily ignoring the No. 2 Bill, except that it would be totally unreal if we did so. No, I think that the Government owe an explanation to your Lordships for what they have done, and I hope we shall get one. We have not had one so far.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I could intervene at this moment, because I think the noble and learned Lord has raised an important point and I would not wish your Lordships to feel that any discourtesy was intended in the arrangements which have been made. In making my remarks, I would say that I do not in any way set myself up as an expert on procedure, but I would hope that we could accept the reasons why this has come about. I shall not attempt to follow my noble friend in his quotations from Erskine May, though I listened with great interest to the point that he made. My

559
understanding of the position is that there is nothing either invalid or improper in the procedure that we are now following. In fact, the progress on the Social Security Bill is coming on quite well in this Chamber and it will, of course, receive the Royal Assent before the No. 2 Bill is due to arrive.
The reason for that—and I think it is right that the reason should be given—is in relation to the statements that were made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services on 26th and 27th March. As the Committee will know, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill was published on 28th March. These events took place before the Social Security Bill that we are currently discussing came to your Lordships' House: the Second Reading was on 1st April. These events have been subsequent to it, and I think it is right that we should have on record an explanation to the Committee of how it came about; but it is certainly not intended as a discourtesy to your Lordships.
4.16 p.m.
Lord HALE: I have now risen four times, and I wish to say only a few words, addressed with deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who began by saying that one Bill is the same as another Bill and that they are always equal. That is not the fact in this Chamber. In this Chamber, Mr. Speaker's Certificate that a Bill is a Money Bill cannot be challenged. It stops any right of debate, and so the point that one Bill is equal to another Bill is just about as silly as the statement that one noble Lord has exactly the same rights as another noble Lord. I have not found it to be so by experience.
The second point is that it places your Lordships individually in a very serious dilemma to be called upon to discuss clauses which, after all the argument is finished in this Chamber, they know it is proposed to vary by a second Bill. They are not amending, of course; they are taking measures which considerably affect the debate that is taking place at this moment, because the No. 2 Bill has the fullest provisions about the question of the £12 deduction, and certainly it was discussed last week in another place on Second Reading. I feel that this is discourteous.
560
There was an occasion quite recently when Mr. Speaker's Certificate about a Money Bill, in special circumstances when speed was essential, excited some criticism from the people who can criticise such a ruling, and the writers upon constitutional law. Indeed, it excited a certain amount of raising of eyebrows. And at this moment, in a Chamber which is being attacked by both sides, it is well that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should remember that when I was in another place, and while the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was conducting debates about the future of the House, there arose a code of conduct between the two Houses which enabled a great deal of legislation to be put through, in the first instance by a Labour Government. That code of conduct was observed in the last Parliament on one occasion by a Conservative Government, at a time when it must have been quite difficult for them to do it and when they were doing it obviously only in order to maintain the obligations of courtesy and consideration which had grown up between the two Houses. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the comments made from the Front Bench on this side were amply justified, and indeed were put modestly and with a certain reserve.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I, in order to get the position quite clear, say this. I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, reads what I said in Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I made it perfectly clear that I did not question the legality or the procedure. I went so far as to say that it is quite common if one looks over the years, for a No. 1 and No. 2 Bill to run almost simultaneously in some respects, and certainly as far as the two Chambers were concerned. I was not questioning the Government's right to do it: all I was questioning was whether it was not an affront to the dignity of your Lordships' Chamber.
Lord RENTON: I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me, as what I said has been challenged. First, as regards what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whose parliamentary experience is exactly the same length as my own, though his is much more distinguished, I would again resort, if I may, to Erskine May where, on page 493,

561
it says this:
"There is now no rule against the amendment or repeal of an Act of the same Session".
So, at least, that power is established. As to precedents, I have not the slightest doubt from my own experience, although my memory fails me on detail at the moment that one could dig up a number of occasions when Acts of a Session have been later amended by a Bill in the same Session. Of that there is no doubt whatever. I do not think it can be said that there is anything approaching what I think the noble and learned Lord described as a shambles in this Session.
Let us bear a sense of proportion about this. In this Social Security (No. 1) Bill, we are dealing with a vast range of material which, as I understand it, is not overlapped in any sense in the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, which has been introduced in another place, although I have not yet had the advantage of seeing it. The truth is that any overlap arises out of the amendment which is now before us, and which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. So it seems to me, as he so rightly and candidly said, that we are perfectly free from the technical point of view to deal with this matter, and I must confess that I feel no sense of shame from the political point of view.
I have only to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who accused me of having got it wrong when I said, in effect, that all Bills are born free and equal. I take his point about the limitation of our powers with regard to Money Bills, but nevertheless, so far as the rule against anticipation is concerned, and as stated in Erskine May, all Bills are equal.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is correct in his assertion that all of this procedure is within the rules of Parliament, though I am not quite sure that his lengthy quotations of Erskine May will help me. As Erskine May's phrases floated across the Chamber, I joined certain other Members in looking slightly stunned. I am quite sure that the noble Lord is right, but that is not really the point. The point is: is this a sensible way to conduct parliamentary business? Are the Government intending to legislate by serial, producing legislation in monthly parts, like David Copperfield, the monthly parts depending on which particular faction in
562
the Cabinet has the upper hand at a certain moment in their animosity towards the trade union movement? Are we to see the Social Security (No. 2) Bill followed by the Social Security (No. 3) Bill, when some other uprising in the Cabinet has produced a slight change in the centre of gravity of that august and important body?
It may be within the rules of Parliament, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was correct when she said that she and her colleagues meant no discourtesy to the House. Nevertheless, it is not a sensible way to proceed. If the Government are able to make up their minds in the course of the Parliamentary Session what they want in the way of social security arrangements with regard to strikers, then they should do so and legislate accordingly. But they should not chop and change from day and from month to month in the way they are doing. It is quite improper and senseless.
4.24 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: If I may, I should like to take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Such very experienced parliamentarians as my noble friend Lord Renton, chairman of the committee on the preparation of legislation which bears his name, and the noble and learned Lord sitting opposite, have exchanged some very weighty considerations on an amendment which is not correct. I have examined with interest the Bill and the amendment which we are looking at, and I listened, also with some interest, to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, because Amendment No. 31 reads as follows:
Page 33, line 45, after ("subsection (1),") insert ("for the words "his requirements for" there shall be substituted the words "so much of his requirements as exceeds £16 for any week during "and").
In fact, the words "his requirements for" do not occur in line 45 on page 33. Therefore, unhappily, I must first say to the noble Lord that the amendment is defective.
There are many further considerations on this amendment, and the noble Lord rightly, fully and accurately described the present basis for paying supplementary benefit to people involved in trade disputes. The Bill now before the Committee makes no changes in these rules. When the Bill was debated in another place, my honourable friends explained

563
that at that time decisions had not been finally taken about these cases, and that proposals would be put forward in due course. They have now been put forward of course, in the No. 2 Bill. This is why I say that consideration of these matters should be deferred until the No. 2 Bill is debated in this House.
The Social Security Bill which is now before this Committee amends the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, but makes only minimal changes in the provisions of that Act governing payments to people involved in trade disputes. I must make it clear that the No. 2 Bill makes further amendments to the 1976 Act, but changes made by the two Bills are quite separate and do not overlap except, as I have said, in very minor ways. This is an important point, which I think supports and enhances what my noble friend Lord Renton has just said. I do not believe that there is a conflict here between the two Houses over the procedure.
There were a number of further points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, which I should like to take up. He referred to supplementary benefit expenditure during trade disputes as averaging no more than about £3 million a year. I should like to make the point that payments of benefit to strikers' families during the recent steel strike alone—and this is one dispute—amounted to £8 million, and expenditure of this order can surely not be called insignificant.
Another matter of great interest to your Lordships was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I think that it bears further examination. He referred to social security benefits paid to strikers in other parts of the world. I must confess at this stage that I have not studied the ILO statistics on this, nor can I say that our information is totally complete. However, to the best of my belief at the present time, the situation is this. Social security benefits are not normally paid to strikers, but unemployment benefit may be paid in very restricted circumstances in Belgium and certain states of the United States of America. There are limitations over benefits because, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, social assistance is not automatically paid to a striker or to his family. It is paid under exceptional circumstances where
564
there is particular hardship. In the two countries quoted, the striker may receive no assistance for himself, and in most countries payment may be subject to a lengthy waiting period.
This is a complicated and technical matter, and I think it bears further consideration. However, I would challenge, in general terms, what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in part of his remarks. I am sure that he did not wish in any way to mislead the Committee, nor do I wish to mislead the Committee in what I have said; I think that knowledge is no doubt being acquired on both sides of the Committee in this regard. May I, however, say that our general impression is that it is very difficult to draw a precise parallel between the two. The terms are different; the amounts are different; the regulations are different; and, indeed, the structure of trade unions is different.
I think it would be improper to continue further along that line at the present time, but I should like to say this. Returning to the amendment, under the present system in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and the proposed system in the Bill, single strikers are not entitled to benefit. They may, however, be entitled to urgent need payments. I think that is common ground between us. However, these amendments would make supplementary benefit payable to a striker in his own right. This would alter the whole basis for payment of supplementary benefit to people engaged in trade disputes which, since 1948, has been that they are entitled to benefit only to meet the requirements of their dependants.
I do not propose to go into the merits of what is contained in this amendment because I do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle to discuss such a radical departure from the present scheme. In this Bill we are making only very minor changes, as I said earlier, to those sections of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 which deal with supplementary benefit for people involved in trade disputes. These are detailed on pages 58 and 59 of the book to which we have referred several times already this afternoon—the Notes on Clauses—and in the main are consequent upon other changes made in the Bill to the supplementary benefits scheme.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government are bringing forward these

565
new proposals to implement their manifesto commitment to review the question of financial support for strikers. As we have already said several times, these are contained in the No. 2 Bill. Therefore, at this stage I feel that I should ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether he would see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not feel disposed to do any such thing, if I may say so very kindly, because I do not think that the Government—and it may well be my fault—have appreciated what the amendment seeks to do. It refers to paragraph 8, on page 49 of the Bill, of Schedule 2. It seeks to amend paragraph 8, in line 11. It may well be that the Government have not connected the two, but I should have thought that the amendment was very, very clear. I gather that the intention of the amendment has not been appreciated, and obviously the Government must be satisfied that the amendment which I am seeking to move today is in connection with Schedule 2, page 49, line 11.
If I do take the advice given to me by the Government and at this stage withdraw the amendment, I do not feel disposed to withdraw it entirely. It may well be that I shall want to come back to it at Report stage, notwithstanding the fact that it is a matter which will come up in the No. 2 Bill. But sufficient unto the day, so far as that is concerned. Meanwhile, I shall withdraw this amendment to give the Government an opportunity to look at it in relation to line 11 on page 49.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 34, line 1, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
"8. Section 9 shall be omitted.".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. The effect would be to repeal Section 9 of the Supplementary Benefits Act, the section which provides for the repayment by deduction from wages of any supplementary benefit paid to a striker during the two weeks after he returns to work. The Minister will know
566
that Section 9 was enacted by the Conservatives in 1971 as part of their anti-strike legislation. Normally, benefit paid during the first two weeks after starting work is not recoverable. This is obviously reasonable because a man who loses his job will not normally get supplementary benefit until two weeks later. The same is true of strikers who do not normally get supplementary benefit during the first two weeks of a strike, which explains why most strikers never claim supplementary benefit at all. Yet strikers who claim benefit after returning to work to tide them over until the next pay day are told that they will have to repay it by weekly deductions from their wages. The employer is put to the trouble of making the weekly deductions and paying over the money to the Department of Health and Social Security.
I submit that Section 9 is unfair and inimical to good industrial relations. The Minister of State, as he is now, Mr. Reg Prentice, said during the Committee stage of the 1971 Social Security Bill:
"The principle is simple but needs to be reiterated at every stage. If a family is in need and meets the test laid down by regulations and shows that its income is below the levels prescribed by supplementary benefit rules, that family is entitled to benefit as non-returnable money rather than a loan and is entitled to that benefit for every week in which it has to meet the tests".
If the Government are not inclined to meet this point, I would say that in calculating the weekly amount that an ex-striker can afford to repay out of his wages he is allowed a margin of £3 a week over the basic supplementary benefit rates for himself and his family. The £3 margin has never been up-rated. To do so, I know, would require an Act of Parliament. By this November, to restore its original relationship to benefit rates, the £3 should be somewhere in the region of £10. However, it is not quite clear from the annex to the Notes on Clauses whether the Government intend to allow any margin at all in the future. What I should like to ask is this: Will the Minister confirm that the margin will not only be retained but will be increased, and that in future it will be increased regularly as part of the annual benefit up-rating? I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: These amendents, like those relating to a striker's own requirements, Nos. 31

567
and 56 in the Keeling schedule, would involve a quite radical departure from what is now long-established practice in the supplementary benefits scheme. The power to recover supplementary benefit paid in the first fortnight following return to work after a strike was introduced, as the noble Lord said, by the Social Security Act 1971. It has been operated by Governments of both colours since then.
As page 59 of the Notes on Clauses makes plain, in this Bill we are making only very minor changes to Section 9 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. However, as your Lordships will be aware, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill contains some important new proposals on the subject of supplementary benefit for those involved in trade disputes. I suggest that these amendments are better considered in the context of that Bill and therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 34, line 47, at end insert ("if his failure has continued for a continuous period of five days or wore").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with cases of failure to attend a re-establishment centre. I hope the Government will give careful consideration to this matter because it seems to me that here there is lacking sympathy and understanding in relation to a group of people in our society who need a great deal of understanding and interest. The present position under Section 10 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 is that if a person fails to maintain himself or his dependants the Supplementary Benefits Commission can ask an appeals tribunal to make a direction, the effect of which is that the person can be required to attend a re-establishment centre as a condition of continuing to receive supplementary benefit. If he fails to attend the re-establishment centre his benefit may be withheld. I use the word "may" because I know that sometimes it is not, but Section 10(4)(b)
568
gives the commission power to make such payments as they think fit in any case where a Section 10 direction is in force. In practice a man who fails to attend a centre regularly does not necessarily lose his benefit. I accept that. We are dealing in many instances with feckless people; people who sometimes really do not know what they are doing and may not even know really where they are going. Many of them are quite inadequate people.
Given that normally such people have been out of work for long periods of time and that their morale is at a low ebb, it may be counted as a success if one only gets them there for two or three days a week. I think the Government have lost sight of that point. When we are dealing with a lot of inadequate people, a lot of depressed people, a lot of feckless people and we can only persuade them to go to a re-establishment centre for two or three days a week, then I think something has been achieved.
Therefore I ask of the Government that the power to withhold benefit should be used sparingly, especially where there are dependants. I know the Minister will, quite rightly, say that benefit is not withdrawn automatically in every case. What I am concerned about is that it should be withdrawn at all without there being some clear understanding of the nature of the individual. The proposal in Schedule 2 to the Bill is that the direction to attend the centre should be issued by the benefit officer and not by the appeal tribunal, although I recognise that there is still a right of appeal. Subsection (4) of the new Section 10 however provides that a person who fails to comply with a direction shall not be entitled to a supplementary benefit allowance while he so fails. That seems to me to be too definite and, if I may say so, too dogmatic and very unsympathetic. If I have understood the Bill correctly, withdrawal of benefit would be automatic however short the period of failure to attend may be and regardless of the reason for failure.
I come back to what I have already said. I have seen some of the people who have gone to re-establishment centres, and for that matter to other clinics and, short of being taken there, it sometimes could be an ordeal for some of them to go. In the main, as I have said, many of them are inadequate and feckless people, and I

569
think we should feel pleased if we could get a reasonable percentage of them going for a reasonable amount of time. I do not like this legislation which would make automatic the withdrawal of social security supplementary benefit. This amendment would ensure that the benefit was not withdrawn unless a person failed to attend for a whole week, being a continuous period of five days or more. That does not seem to me to be unreasonable in the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord RENTON: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not think that I am quibbling with him when I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with his use of the word "inadequate", but no sympathy at all with his use of the word" feckless" in this context. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will give very careful attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said; but how far we should legislate in order to protect people who are so "feckless", to use the word used by the noble Lord, that they are not prepared to co-operate with public authority when attempts are being made to help them, I find very difficult to swallow.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said in regard to this amendment. First, he rightly quoted Section 10 directions from the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and it may help the Committee, in considering this amendment, if I explain that these directions are usually given to people who are plainly making no effort to find work or who have indicated that they have no intention of trying to support themselves; and I think my noble friend Lord Renton is correct in laying emphasis on the particular situation with which we are dealing.
Before such a direction is given the person is invited to attend a course voluntarily, and it is explained to him that the purpose of the course is not to train him in any special skills but simply to help him to get back into the routine of getting up in the morning and doing a day's work. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, rightly pointed out that we are dealing with a very special category of person here. Only when the man fails to take the opportunity, or needs a certain amount of pressure in order to get him to take the course seriously, is a
570
direction given. Thus the benefit is made conditional upon his attendance.
Where a man telephones the office or calls in to say that there is some good reason why he cannot attend—possibly he or his wife is sick—then allowance will be made for that. The sort of person who is given a direction to attend, however, is more likely not to comply with the direction for the very reason that he has been asked to attend the course in the first place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that if one has personal knowledge of a situation of this sort, which he clearly has from his professional expertise, it is quite significant when one can persuade an individual to accept that situation. The person has become content to be supported by the community in general terms. He has reached the situation where he has totally accepted that he has no particular responsibility, and of course there is a major gap to be bridged.
It might be argued, and indeed the noble Lord has argued, that five days' grace should be given, and of course in effect it is a working week. But Section 10(3) requires that there should be at least 28 days between the time the direction is given and its coming into force. I think this point is significant. Far from causing hardship, I would suggest that the sanction of stopping a man's benefit will be very much in his long-term interest and in fact will help to concentrate his mind wonderfully. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This leaves me speechless; it really does; the lack of understanding, the lack of sympathy, the lack of knowledge that is exhibited! I do not hold this against the noble Lord, Lord Sandys; I know him too well to believe that any of that applies to him. But I wonder if your Lordships realise that we let out on parole hundreds of men and women from our prisons every year; from our detention centres they are now allowed out on licence; from borstal they are allowed out on licence. They have to report to their aftercare officer, who is a probation officer, regularly. If the probation officers were to recommend their recall the first or second time they failed to keep these conditions most of them would be back in borstal, in detention centre or in prison. It is

571
because so many of them, after long periods of incarceration, and for other reasons that got them there in the first place, are inadequate—I use the word "inadequate" and I rest on the word "inadequate"—that you cannot get them to lead an ordered kind of existence.
You are dealing with precisely the same kind of people in this situation. I imagine many have been to prison or have been incarcerated in some institution, and life is a very real problem for them. To suggest that the bulk of them who fail to keep this commitment, having been instructed to do so, are people who have no intention of providing for themselves and their families is to show a complete lack of understanding of the real situation. All I am asking is that the supplementary benefit should not be stopped until they fail to go for a week. Surely to goodness that is not too much to ask. I know it is not cut off if they miss just one day or two days. What I am saying is that anything short of a week would be unreasonable.
I think it may well be necessary for the department to find out whether there is a possibility that, when a person is instructed to go to a re-establishment centre, he or she is seen by a qualified social worker who can make some kind of assessment as to whether there will be any difficulty in getting him or her to go, and—what is much more important—who will spend a little time, which very few civil servants have these days, to talk to the person as to the value of going and how he is likely to benefit. If it is given to them as a kind of instruction, then this is authority, which they tend to run away from, and we are doing the very thing that we are trying to avoid. I ask the noble Lord to accept this amendment.
Lord RENTON: I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is under a misapprehension. Some of us have experience of these things. I myself was responsible under the Home Secretary for the Prison Service for several years and have taken part in another place in legislation dealing with these very matters. If I may say so, I think that, in the remarks the noble Lord has just made in his second intervention on this amendment of his, he was doing an injustice to the aftercare officers, because it is among the prime
572
duties of the aftercare officers to see that the man gets the supplementary benefit he is entitled to. It is also among his duties to see that he either gets employment, if he can, or training if he needs it. I doubt whether it is right to suggest that the matter should be, I suggest, with respect to the noble Lord, confused by bringing in social welfare officers as well, other than the aftercare officers, who are very experienced and well versed in this work. I am very doubtful indeed whether it is right or necessary to suggest that in the circumstances of aftercare some special additional latitude needs to be given to these discharged prisoners. But in any event I implore the noble Lord to realise that we are not oblivious of the difficult circumstances in which these men find themselves.
Lord SANDYS: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton once again for putting so clearly what is the Government's intention. We believe that the aims of this amendment are misplaced. We believe that the amendment seeks to produce good practice in a particular situation, and in effect what my noble friend Lord Renton has said is that good practice is established already. To spell it out in the Bill in the way suggested, we believe, would be harmful in the long run. Undoubtedly regulations, which have constantly been referred to, will be drafted, but we believe that the spirit of the revised legislation is no different in essence from the existing Section 10 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Under the present Act and during the period of direction the payment of a benefit can be made conditional on the claimant attending a re-establishment centre. The effect of the legislation as amended by the Bill will be exactly the same; that is, the benefit will be paid providing the man attends the course. What the revised legislation will do is to clarify the right of appeal, which may at present not always be apparent where the direction is made in the first place by a tribunal. I feel that the amendment is attempting to do something which is unnecessary and that good practice can be sought in other ways. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 95.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stamp, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Stone, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strauss, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wigoder, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Foot, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Galloway, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Orkney, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

George-Brown, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Renton, L.

Avon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

St. Davids, V.

Berkeley, B.

Harvington, L.

St. Germans, E.

Caldecote, V.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Holderness, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Craigavon, V.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinfen, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

De Freyne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trumpington, B.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vaizey, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 35, line 22, leave out ("of the Economic Community").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move amentment No. 33A and to speak
574
to Amendment No. 58A. These are two short technical amendments. I am advised that, by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978, the expression "member State" is construed as meaning a member State of the European Economic Community and that, therefore, the words "of the Economic Community" in Schedule 2 are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("() for the payment of supplementary benefit in respect of clothing requirements at prescribed intervals;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. This amendment seeks to add to those paragraphs in the 1976 Act which deal with the administration of supplementary benefit, a provision to enable payment of supplementary benefit in respect of clothing requirements. This amendment is of the utmost importance for many poor families with children. I am certain that most of your Lordships will know of examples and, therefore, I shall not take time in mentioning such examples.
In another place the Minister stated that the phrase "normal requirements" includes expenditure on clothing. However, I should like to ask where that is stated clearly in the Bill. As the Government are seeking to be explicit by writing in the legal entitlements of claimants, surely the position about clothing should be made absolutely clear by accepting the amendment which I have moved. In the same speech the Minister argued that the normal scale rate of benefit is intended to cover clothing requirements. I am certain that all of your Lordships will agree how impossible it becomes to meet clothing requirements from weekly benefit payments.
I think that I should quote from the response of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the review report. It says:
"If we are to reduce the reliance of the scheme on discretionary payments, some alternative provision must be made to recompense claimants. Basically, there are two ways of doing this: by raising the scale rates sufficiently to cover items such as clothing which they are supposed to cover, or by giving everyone a payment such as the lump-sum grant proposed in the review report … we recognise that substantial increases in the scale rates are unlikely to be made soon. Thus lump-sums should be paid to help the family buy clothing and other items which the scale rates are supposed to cover".
It continues:
"If claimants are not to be forced back again into demanding exceptional needs payments for things like shoes and clothing, the new lump sums which go to everyone must be set at a sufficiently high level".
The scales have not been sufficiently increased to cover clothing needs. Nor is there any compensation for the withdrawal of discretionary grants, as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, those are the reasons for moving this amendment. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are consequential to provide that, in addition to the three requirements listed, there should be added a fourth; that is, the clothing requirement. I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Lord SANDYS: Am I correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has spoken to Amendments Nos. 34, 40, 41, 64 and 65, which are being taken together?
Lord UNDERHILL: Yes.
Lord SANDYS: These amendments would enable periodic lump-sum payments to be made for clothing requirements. I am well aware of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's support of the idea that regular lump-sum payments should be made in addition to weekly-scale payments to help claimants' budgets for items such as clothing, which the ordinary-scale rates are supposed to cover. This idea was canvassed in another document, which was available to your Lordships called Social Assistance at paragraphs 9.40 and 9.43, but I am afraid that the response to it was very mixed. Some feared that far from encouraging responsible budgeting, the lump-sum payments would very quickly come to be regarded as a regular sum to be spent on non-essentials, and would not significantly reduce the number of claims for exceptional need payments. Others supported the idea in principle, but argued that the suggested amounts were set too low. For example, the Child Poverty Action Group took this view, but the majority of national organisations, which responded to the review, opposed the idea in principle.
It must also be borne in mind that even the options set out in Social Assistance range in cost between £45 million and £85 million net in one year. Sums of that order are just not available within the nil-cost package. The proposal is also very costly in staff terms. For example, the added complexity of dealing with advance payments and working out pro-

577
portional payments for people who cease to be entitled to benefit, would undoubtedly add to the existing workload. The review team calculated that 400 extra staff would be needed. I do not think that the supplementary benefits scheme would be improved by the addition of what would, on the response to the review, be an unwieldy, unpopular and expensive system of lump-sum payments. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
As the noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, I think that I should respond to his remarks on them. In this particular field, we are considering a change in the category. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill provides for three categories; that is, normal, additional and housing requirements. In his amendments the noble Lord would produce a fourth. I think that the whole Committee would agree that discretionary elements in the supplementary benefits scheme ought to be diminished. If this is not completely common ground, I think that it is common ground in many parts of the Committee. This Bill begins that process, but it does not do it at the expense of the claimant.
Under the present scheme the basic-scale rates are intended to cover ordinary expenditure on the repair and replacement of clothing and footwear. In parenthesis, I might say that, of course, the Government are very well aware of the rising costs of both these commodities. Exceptional needs payments are available only if there are special circumstances. This will remain the position under the new scheme, the difference being that the circumstances in which extra help will be given will be set out in regulations rather than hidden behind the discretionary powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. These circumstances are outlined in paragraph 12(c) of the Annex, to which, of course, we have referred many times already. To quote the Annex, they are:

"(i) where the claimant has not been receiving benefit for which he has been eligible;

(ii) where the need has arisen … other than by wear and tear; or

(iii) where ill health or admission to hospital necessitates the purchase of certain clothes the claimant does not already have".

That is quite a frequent occurrence.
578
I should add that the determining authorities will have some discretion left to award an extra payment in truly exceptional cases not covered by the regulations if there is severe hardship. The Government believe that that is a major advance on the present system, with all its attendant difficulties of ensuring consistency of treatment across the country, and that it is not necessary to create an additional category of "clothing requirements", which is suggested by the amendments. To do so would lessen the claimant's freedom of choice in deciding how to spend his money; and where should we stop? Should there be separate food requirements, transport requirements and other requirements? The Bill provides for three categories of requirements, which I have already alluded to; that is, normal, additional and housing requirements. They are essential, and I suggest that the three categories are sufficient. More would add to the complexity of the scheme instead of simplifying it, as is our intention.
For that reason I trust that your Lordships will reject these amendments, and bear in mind that although it was the aim of the noble Lord—and I fully understand why he wishes to introduce a category entitled, "clothing requirements"—it would in effect diminish the effectiveness of the rest of the categories.
Lord UNDERHILL: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He said that the scale of payments are intended to cover normal clothing requirements. How many people who are in receipt of supplementary benefit will find it possible to meet normal clothing requirements from their normal-scale receipts'? I could give personal examples of people I know. One such person, a young teacher, is very close to me. Prior to Clegg his eldest boy had to have a clothing allowance; quite apart from someone who is on supplementary benefit. Therefore, I still think that my principle is the correct one. Before deciding whether to withdraw my amendment, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. In the earlier part of his speech, he said that the Government are considering a change in the categories. Then towards the end of the speech he said that they think the three categories are sufficient. Are they suggesting a change, or is it intended to keep the present three categories?
Lord SANDYS: I hope that I did not mislead the noble Lord; I certainly did not intend to. His amendment intends to change the number of categories from three to four. The Government intend to retain those three categories.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I wonder why the Minister says that to call it "clothing requirements" would be confusing? I should have thought that the others—normal, additional and so on—would be even more confusing. Surely, what is normal to one person is not necessarily normal to another. We are talking rather gaily about this lump sum as if it is a vast amount of money. Anyone who has attempted to get shoes repaired—always assuming that one can find a repairer—will know that it does not take very long. The scales which relate to the buying of clothes are quite out-of-date. I was mystified by the suggestion that, because you call it what it really is, it confuses people. I should have thought that it simplified it.
Lord SANDYS: In response to the noble Baroness, I think that the point is this. If with three categories you associate a fourth category it makes the administration more complicated. I quite agree with her that the naming of categories may possibly be beneficial, but if you introduce a fourth category you are not easing the administration.
Lord UNDERHILL: I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, but we should like to have a further look at this situation because we still believe that it is not possible to meet clothing needs from the supplementary benefit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("() as to the circumstances to be taken into account by a benefit officer in deciding whether a man and a woman who are not married to each other are an unmarried couple".).
The noble Lord said: This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to lay down in regulations the criteria to be applied by benefit officers in deciding whether a man and woman are an un
580
married couple; that is, they are cohabiting. If they are an unmarried couple the woman would no longer be able to claim a supplementary benefit for herself and her children. The man would be expected to support.
There will be some in your Lordships' House who will say that the whole thing is none of our business. But we have to deal with matters as they are and deal with what the Government are proposing. At present the factors to be taken into consideration by benefits officers in making this decision are laid down in instructions issued by the Supplementary Benefits Commission which are based on a report published by the commission in 1976. With the abolition of the commission responsibility for deciding whether a couple are an unmarried couple will rest on individual benefits officers, but they will still need guidance to ensure that the rule is applied with consistency throughout the country. This amendment is designed to ascertain first who will provide this guidance; secondly, whether it will be published in accordance with the undertaking given in the White Paper that:
"the rules governing entitlement to supplementary benefit will be published, and published in full".
It would appear that there are only two possible sources of guidance: either the Secretary of State or the chief supplementary benefit officer. If it is to be given by the Secretary of State it will undoubtedly take the form of administrative guidance in an internal code of instructions, which Ministers have confirmed will not be published. In any case, is it right that the department should issue to benefits officers guidance on what will in effect be an interpretation of the law (because that is what the cohabitation criteria really are) and bearing in mind that the benefits officers are supposed to be independent adjudicating authorities.
The alternative to the Secretary of State is that the guidance should come from the chief supplementary benefits officer. But the Secretary of State has stated that that officer's guide will not be published. The chief supplementary benefits officer would seem to me to be the proper person to issue this guidance, for like the local benefits officers he will be independent of the Secretary of State. But this officer is not yet appointed, and no one can be sure what line he will take. Yet the

581
Secretary of State told the Standing Committee in another place that the Supplementary Benefits Commission's criteria would continue to be used as guidance to their officers. This was confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State on 19th March in another place, describing these criteria as guidelines as to the interpretation of the law.
This is just one example, but an important example, of the confusion that is likely to arise from the ambiguous relationship between the chief supplementary benefits officer's responsibility for consistent treatment of cases and the Secretary of State's responsibility for the administration of the scheme. It is important to get the division of responsibility absolutely clear from the start, to ensure that the Secretary of State will not act in any way that conflicts with the benefits officer's independence, and to ensure that all rules will be published as has been promised. Incidentally, the Under-Secretary of State in her speech in another place added, at column 477:
"Guidelines cannot cover every set of circumstances. Benefits officers will be unable to judge simply by adding up so many pluses and so many minuses, although doing that may help. They have to use a lot of common sense in deciding whether the guidelines are accessible".
Yet it was understood that the Government wanted to be definitive on matters and to remove this kind of discretion. The Government just cannot leave discretion in the case of suspected cohabitation but remove it from other important matters. I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: The Committee will have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said on this amendment. I suggest that the position is not quite as vague and indefinite as he has suggested. I recognise that of course the definition of what constitutes an unmarried couple in this sense is important, but a considerable amount of case law has been built up, and I do not think that the Government are being inconsistent in this matter in suggesting that we need a degree of flexibility. It is not our view that it would be desirable to put a more specific
582
definition into the regulations than that to be made under the Act.
In explaining the reasons for this I cannot do better than quote from the Administrative Paper No. 5 Living Together as Husband and Wife, which was produced by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in 1976. They say:
"We have indicated that we do not think it desirable or even possible to give a precise definition in the statute of the meaning of living together as husband and wife. The courts have had remarkably little to say on the subject. Such decisions as there have been have tended to show that it is a matter which must he decided on the facts of each case. The Lord Chief Justice said in 1973, 'We have been invited to give some guidance upon the phrase 'cohabiting as man and wife', but for my part it is so well known that nothing I could say about it could possibly assist in its interpretation hereafter'".
The national insurance commissioner in a reported decision has said:
"In the variety of ways in which human beings arrange their affairs it must always be a question of fact whether or not a man and woman are cohabiting as man and wife".
It seems to us, following this statement that has been set out, that it is really better to allow case law to build up, as inevitably it will, on what constitutes cohabitation. In the meantime, it will be for benefits officers to take decisions having due regard to all the guidance that is available to them.
The new guidelines for staff that were proposed in the Supplementary Benefits Commission's report, Living Together as Husband and Wife, have been in full operation since the beginning of 1978 and are designed to help officers to adopt a flexible and sensitive approach to living together cases. The commission have emphasised that where there are grounds for doubt whether a couple are living together as husband and wife, the element of continuity and stability of the relationship is an important factor in making a judgment on cases.
The new guidance, which follows closely the line taken in the commission's report, is designed to create a more confident and frank relationship between claimants and commission officers, and it has been arranged that interviews with claimants where the question of living together is discussed are carried out by officers who have had the special training for this particular task. I hope therefore that it will be seen that what we are suggesting

583
is in fact building on good practice that has been established along agreed guidelines, and that in fact it will not be an area in which we have decided for any unusual reasons not to prescribe in the regulations. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I think this is one area where Governments again cannot really ever make up their minds. We come back again to this question of flexibility. I do not know what the situation is now, but I remember that certain widows who were accused of living with men had their pensions taken away, and they were found guilty while being proved innocent which was unusual except in that circumstance. There we had a position of flexibility which built up to some very sad cases which I remember I actually handled. On the other side, I recall (unless the Act has been changed), because I think I was then at the Box dealing with this particular one, the one for people over 80 when the State very generously gave them 25p a week extra if they survived that long. If I remember rightly, they could also collect this even if they were living in sin. When you are older, as my mother once said: "The sweets of life go to those who have no teeth." The Government cannot really clear their mind—I do not mean this Government in particular but most Governments. I think there is a danger in leaving it too flexible, bearing in mind the real hardship caused to widows. That I saw for myself.
Baroness YOUNG: I very much take the noble Baroness's point. There have been hard cases in the past, but my understanding of the position is that, in fact, particularly under the new guidelines that have been in operation now for just over two years, there is a degree of case law which is building up and the rules are much more flexibly applied. So I hope we do not have a repetition of the hard cases to which the noble Baroness referred and which we would ail regret.
The difficulty is to lay down what is meant precisely. I indicated during my earlier remarks that in the document that was published by the Supplementary Benefits Commission itself in 1976, it
584
was made quite clear that no one has found a very good definition of what is meant and it is because of that particular difficulty that we feel unable to write a definition into the face of the Bill itself.
I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made when he was quoting from the debates in another place was that the information relevant to the determination of supplementary benefit will, of course, be published. That will be published so far as the claimants are concerned so that they will know that any changes of the policy in this area—as a result, for example, of the commissioner's decision—will be reflected in the Supplementary Benefits Handbook. The basic rules will be laid down in regulations but other information will be made public in the supplementary benefits handbook which will continue to be published in an expanded form. What we are saying is that, although we are not putting a definition in regulations but relying on case law, we are, from the claimant's point of view, not only publishing the rules in the form of regulations but publishing any relevant information in the Supplementary Benefits Handbook which I think everybody will agree will be helpful to claimants.
Lord UNDERHILL: I thank the noble Baroness, but could she just tell me who will give the guidance to the benefits officers? She said that the benefits officers will be expected to rely upon case law that has been built up and also the document, Living together as Husband and Wife, but who will be giving the advice? This is the question which I posed in my earlier remarks. Will it be the chief supplementary benefits officer or will it he the Secretary of State'? If it is the chief supplementary benefits officer, how can the Government at this stage say what advice he will give? He will be an independent officer who in effect will be interpreting the law, and what we are asking for in the amendment is merely that these circumstances to be taken into consideration should be made quite clear. We are not asking about all the different types of decision that might be arrived at.
Baroness YOUNG: The answer to the question of the noble Lord is that the guidelines will remain the same as they are now and those under which supplementary benefits officers will operate will

585
continue to be as they are. The new guidance which follows closely the line taken in the commission's report is simply designed to create really a better relationship between claimants and commission officers. So far as we know, these new arrangements are working well and we see no reason for changing them.
What I think is important to recognise—and I do recognise it—is that this has long been an area of public concern. We believe that in having any kind of cohabitation rule at all we are aiming at equity between women in similar circumstances whether they are married or not. That is the basic principle on which we are working and on which judgments will be made, and it will, as I understand it, be for the new commissioner whether there are changes to be made in this matter. If I am not right about that, I shall, of course, write to the noble Lord, but I think we are all agreed on the general principle which should operate.
Lord UNDERHILL: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.37 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 40, line 39, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 37. No. 36 on page 40, line 39, leaves out the word "subsection" and inserts "subsections" to make way for the two subsections which come in Amendment No. 37. This is a matter which we showed concern about when we were discussing the role of the chief supplementary benefits officer, his legal status and powers and what he would be able to do. We are rather concerned that he should have some definite responsibility as far as Parliament is concerned. One of the points I made when we were discussing his position was that he did not appear to be responsible to anybody; he was not going to be responsible to a Minister. I asked the question: What would be the position of Members of Parliament who wanted to take matters up on behalf of their constituents, and that question is I know being looked into.
What I want to do, in moving Amendments Nos. 36 and 37, is to make sure that there are a definite legal status and statutory functions so far as the chief supplementary benefits officer is concerned, and to require him to make an annual report which would be laid before Parliament. I think we all acknowledge that the chief supplementary benefits officers will have a vital and important role in the new supplementary benefits scheme and he alone will have the power to issue guidance to local benefits officers on the interpretation of the law, on the use of their remaining discretionary powers, and on questions such as how to determine whether or not a rent is reasonable and whether it should he met in full. These are matters on which at present the Supplementary Benefits Commission issues instructions and guidance to its officers, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission is open to approaches from MPs (a point that I made a moment ago), professional advisers and members of the public.
Under the new Bill the chief benefits officer will be an official operating behind closed doors, we believe, and apparently responsible to no one, not even to the Secretary of State, since benefits officers, including the chief benefits officer, will be independent authorities. I do not wish again to go over a point that I have already gone over, but this seems to be a very unsatisfactory situation. The chief benefits officer ought to be responsible to someone; many of us think that he still ought to be responsible to the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible. So we want to take the opportunity to see that he will be answerable for those matters for which he is responsible. I beg to move.
5.41 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: When my noble friend replies will she take the opportunity to say a little more about supplementary benefits officers, with regard to the areas for which they are likely to be appointed, the numbers which the brigade (so to speak) will be comprised of, and any necessary training that they will undergo? Perhaps my noble friend could draw a parallel with the local national insurance officers, who are in much the same position, though of course local supplementary benefits officers hitherto have had much more discretion. Apparently it is intended

587
that there will still be discretion of some kind for supplementary benefits officers.
I should like to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was asking about regarding responsibility. Where there is a system under which there is a facility of appeal, and where at each stage the officers, or the tribunal, reach independent judgments, it is not immediately apparent why there should be a special dependence upon a chief supplementary benefits officer. One can talk about general control, especially the control of the education, and indeed the choice, of supplementary benefits officers. Presumably in this case there is more of a parallel with the police system, where the choices are made in very much the same way.
However, given that the regulations are there for the local supplementary benefits officer to study, and given the fact that he has to exercise his independent judgment, I do not quite see what would be the purpose of a chief supplementary benefits officer. No doubt someone has to watch the guidelines, and presumably someone has to keep an eye on how things are going in general. If this is to be the role of the chief benefits officer, no doubt as a matter of organisation he could issue to local benefit officers a bulletin about what is going on. I hope that my noble friend will say something about the general system envisaged, because so far we have not heard much detail about it.
Baroness YOUNG: In regard to these amendments, I have been asked a number of questions which I shall do my best to answer, with regard to both the appointment of a chief benefits officer and the question of an annual report. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has asked me to say something more about the general background regarding benefits officers. The Bill provides for:
"the question whether any person is entitled to supplementary benefit, and the amount of any such benefit and any other question relating to supplementary benefit which arises under this Act"
to be decided by benefits officers. The Bill goes on to require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State:
… to appoint persons to perform the functions" of benefits officers.
588
The adjudication system of the revised supplementary benefits scheme will be modelled very closely on that of the National Insurance Scheme, to which I think my noble friend referred, and which I think people will agree has worked very satisfactorily since it was established after the war. The role of benefits officers will be to decide claims and questions on the basis of the evidence and in accordance with the law, and it is the intention that their decisions shall be independent, as indeed are those of insurance officers.
In preparing myself for the discussions that I thought we might have on this matter I asked a number of questions in order to see what exactly are the parallels proposed between the two systems. My understanding is that over the course of time national insurance officers have in many instances had to deal with very many similar situations, in particular—and I have no doubt that many other noble Lords will be much more familiar with these than I am—in cases of industrial injury, for example. The national insurance officer has had to make a judgment in the particular case, and he would be under a chief officer in that particular sphere.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already said that it is his intention to appoint a chief benefits officer. His purpose in so doing is mainly to preserve the independence of benefits officers, who will look to the chief benefits officer for any advice that they may need on the provisions of the law. The Bill also requires the Secretary of State to:
"… make arrangements with a view to ensuring that benefits officers … exercise their functions in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise of those functions".
The appointment of a chief benefit officer will also be consistent with this requirement because, as the amendment suggests, the chief benefits officer will be in a position to monitor the decision-making of benefits officers and to ensure a fair and consistent approach, which I am sure we all accept as a very important factor in this matter.
I believe that the difference of opinion and thought between us is on the question of the need for a statutory appointment. I am happy to have been able to give the Committee the assurances that I have about the intention to appoint a chief

589
benefits officer, which will certainly meet the spirit of the amendment, but I am assured that no special powers are necessary, other than those that I have already quoted from Section 27 of the earlier Act.
May I now turn to the proposal to require annual reports. I know that there has been much discussion about this—certainly in another place—and we have been, and are considering, this matter, but there are, I believe, difficulties about it. There is a possible danger of confusing the chief benefits officer with the Supplementary Benefits Commission itself, or with the new Social Security Advisory Committee. I should like to assure your Lordships' Committee that their respective functions in fact will be different, and that those of the chief benefit officer will not on the face of it be such as to call for a report each year. However, should it prove desirable for him to make a report, there will be no need of a statutory requirement in order for him to be able to do so. He will be able to make a report if he thinks that it is the right thing to do.
One must see these provisions in relation to the whole structure of this area of the Bill. As I understand the position, until now, or indeed until this Bill, a great many of the decisions have been left to the discretion of benefits officers up and down the country. This has been largely criticised for a whole variety of reasons, not least the fact that the benefits and the decisions are not the same in every instance, and therefore there is a great variation. The object of this part of the Bill is to do away with this variation and to include all the general principles in published regulations; and therefore there will be less discretion than there was before. One needs to see the decisions that we have taken within that framework, because one is, I hope, getting something much clearer and much fairer over the country as a whole—much clearer and fairer and more consistent for the claimants, which is important—and, therefore, the areas of discretion are smaller.
Where they are, we are bringing the whole principle much more into line with the national insurance scheme, which has worked, I understand, satisfactorily for a number of years now; because in fact the world we are dealing
590
with is a very different world from the original intentions of what was called national assistance when it was first brought in. It was originally absolutely a long-stop for a small number of cases, whereas now, of course, we are in a world in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as I understand it, deals with about 3 million people and, including their dependants, about 5 million people. So it cannot be regarded as national assistance was originally. Therefore, one wants a different system, intelligible and clear, and much better both for those administering it and for claimants. It is within that system that we are making these other proposals; and I hope that makes clearer to my noble friend what it is that we are intending to do.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I understand the noble Baroness's explanation, and she is very persuasive, but surely there is a new situation, and is there not a gap? There is the advisory committee, there is the chief benefits officer and there are the rules. The rules are not rules which are made for ever, and it will be somebody's business to say how the rules are working out. Surely that is the thing upon which the chief benefits officer would feel obliged to report. They may well work out in all sorts of ways which are unexpected. There may be very heavy demands under one head and very little demand under another head. Surely he should be able to report on the rules; and the advisory committee, who are not directly in touch, as he is, with what is going on in the field, would then be able to say whether or not the rules ought to be altered. Is there not a gap there which ought to be filled?
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Baroness has made an important point. As I understand the situation, the advisory committee will not in fact make the rules. As its name implies, it will be there to advise. The rules are set down in regulations, and that makes the position quite clear.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: If I may interrupt for one moment, the advisory committee will surely advise the Minister about new rules, will it not? Otherwise what else will it do? Does it not give advice on the rules?
Baroness YOUNG: Precisely, yes. The advisory committee gives advice, but it does not make the rules. The question has been asked as to whether there is a gap in these arrangements. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised this point, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. What happens if, for example, a Member of another place or of your Lordships' House, or indeed anybody else, has something to say on these matters? How do they get it discussed and debated? How do they get the rules altered? I would suggest to the Committee that there would be a number of ways open to anybody in those circumstances. They can approach the advisory committee; or they can, as now, write to the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. After all, the rules would be altered because, for example, a Member of another place would say, "At my constituency surgery I was very worried because the following cases were brought to me"; or something that he or she knows from their own personal experience. This is how these things generally arise. Or some specialist organisation became very concerned that the rules were not working properly and wished to draw it to the attention of the chief benefits officer, to see whether the rules might be altered.
There are all the normal ways that we in public life all have of altering the rules or of bringing to someone's attention a need to alter the rules; and I believe that it would be right for the chief benefits officer to be able to publish a report and say, "As a result of representations made to me the rules should be altered, and therefore I am altering them". There is nothing to prevent the chief benefits officer publishing a report and saying all this. But to publish a report every year, and to write into the face of the Bill the provision that there must be an annual report, has seemed to a lot of people to be something which is really unnecessary; because, after all, what one really wants to know is when the rules are going to be altered and why they are going to be altered, and what they are as a result of their being altered. This does not require a report being made every year.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: If the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting again, he has more access to data than anybody else.
Baroness YOUNG: Precisely; but there is no point in publishing an annual report unless there is something. quite specific to report on what the rules ought to say about this matter. The noble Baroness will know as well as I do—indeed, anybody who has been in public life will know this—that the publication of annual reports is an enormously time-consuming matter, taking up the time of a great many people. Because of the new structure, if there is nothing new to say the purpose of an annual report is not as clear as it would have been. But I take the noble Baroness's point. There is a point in being able to publish when there is an alteration; and nothing in this Bill prevents that happening.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the chief benefits officer is not responsible to Parliament or is not responsible to the Minister, is it going to be left to him entirely to decide how much information he makes available? What about statistical information? What about matters relating to trends in the field of social benefit and supplementary benefit? I may have missed this, but who will be responsible for the appointment of the chief supplementary benefits officer? Is this going to be made by the Minister, or does he come up from within somewhere?
Baroness YOUNG: My understanding is that the chief supplementary benefits officer would be appointed by the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State wishes to ensure his independence. I think this has been a general rule in all these matters, which we would all agree would be right. If it is thought that he should publish a report or produce this information, it would of course be perfectly possible for him to do so. Indeed, the Government themselves could publish statistical information. They do on a great many matters. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent this happening.
Lord BANKS: The annual reports of the Supplementary Benefits Commission have been of extreme value, and they have reviewed the whole operation of the supplementary benefits system. Even although a great deal—everything, if you like; almost everything—is going to be laid down in the Bill, that still does not get rid of the need for monitoring how that

593
is actually working out in practice, what the effects of it are, the number of people involved, and so on. It would seem to me that the chief benefits officer would need to make a report available on those lines which ought to be commented upon in an extended report by the advisory committee.
Lord DRUMALBYN: What puzzles me a little about what my noble friend has said——and I am most grateful to her for the full answer which she has given to me—is her remark that consideration was given as to whether the appointment should he statutory or non-statutory. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, wants it to be statutory. I wonder whether my noble friend could let us a little further into her confidence on this, as to what were the considerations as to whether it should be statutory or non-statutory? What would making it statutory involve that would not he necessary if it were non-statutory, and vice versa?
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the very great value of reports by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, statistics and so forth; and, of course, a great deal of what we might call the extra-parliamentary monitoring of the whole system arises from a study of these reports. Are we not to have them at all in future; or are they merely to be produced when the Government see fit? If they are to be produced regularly, what is to be the machinery for producing them? It seems to me that it would be a good idea to make this part of the functions of the chief supplementary benefits officer, if only because he is going to be in charge of monitoring the system. He would then be reporting to the Secretary of State.
It might be thought that the Bill should lay down a little more in the way of requirements for the publication of the report at the times when he reports to the Secretary of State, and so forth. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has raised an important point. As things are, it seems that the Government have decided not to make this appointment statutory. If I may say so with respect to my noble friend, I do not think that she has yet made it clear on what grounds that decision was made.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I read the report of the retiring chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, David Donnison. It gave me a great insight into what had been happening in the Supplementary Benefits Commission, what they had been doing, what the effects were—the good effects and the bad effects; and it seems to me very important to have the Supplementary Benefits Commission going strongly.
Lord UNDERHILL: May I support what has been said about the Supplementary Benefits Commission reports? There will be this gap. The important thing is that it was an independent commission. Its reports were independent and sometimes critical of legislation, and even of what the Government of the day might be proposing. I am certain that the Committee will be pleased to learn from the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State says that he intends to ensure the independence of the chief supplementary benefits officer. But, surely, that independence should not go so far as he deciding whether or not he will produce a report. Surely, it is up to Parliament to say whether it wants to have a report; and he should be completely independent and free to produce it. That is the most important aspect of this matter.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: It may be helpful if I try to explain these points a little further. We are moving into new territory. I accept that these are very important points and I should like to feel that the Committee is satisfied by the explanations, because this concerns everybody who takes an interest in this matter and, not least, the claimants. If I may go through the whole process as I understand it, the rules that will replace what have been the decisions by supplementary benefits officers will be in regulations. These will be made by the Secretary of State and will he subject to Parliament in an order. They will be published. This is the new framework which I think we are all agreed is desirable.
The function of the chief benefits officer will be to explain to other benefits officers what the law is. In addition, of course, case law will develop, as inevitably

595
it must, from the decisions made by the social security commissioners. Because the rules themselves are in regulations and are published, so the case law will be published; so that, as there are interpretations of the rules (which may be altered) all this will be published and will become known. They will publish a report on this so that as the case law develops it will be possible to see how it will work.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Who will publish?
Baroness YOUNG: This will be published by the social security commissioners.
The question of statistics and trends was raised. This information will be published by the Secretary of State in publications such as the social security statistics. At any time (as I have already indicated) it is open to use all the normal parliamentary procedures, but if anybody wishes to have the information before it is otherwise published the information can be made available by Parliamentary Questions and so on. As I have indicated, the Government would continue to publish this information as before.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised a rather separate point. It would be for the Secretary of State to monitor the system and to decide how it is working. It would be for the new advisory committee themselves to decide whether or not they wish to publish an annual report (or a report) and, when they meet, they can determine whether or not they wish to do so. We cannot, I think, say now that they will not wish to do so or that they will wish to do so. It will be for them to decide. That is how we see this matter working.
May I answer another point raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. The officers to be appointed as supplementary benefits officers will be, broadly speaking, the officers who currently take decisions on individual claims and questions in the name of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If local officers, they will be graded executive officers. We do not know the exact number of these officers. When I have more information I will write to my noble friend about it. He also raised a point about statutory appointment. It may be that I have not
596
given him a satisfactory answer as to why there is no need for this to be a statutory appointment. My understanding of the position is that it is because we are in a different framework with the published regulations—which is quite different from the case law now established—that the functions of these people are quite different from the functions that there were before; because ultimately it will be Parliament who will approve the regulations. Therefore, it is a different position. If there is something further that I should add I will write to my noble friend. It is because the framework is different that the need is different and the Bill is different.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am sorry but I have not quite understood the position. May I get clear in my mind the line of responsibilities? Is the chief benefits officer directly responsible to the Secretary of State, or is the chief benefits officer responsible to the commissioners? Secondly, on the channel of communications, does the chief benefits officer communicate to the social security commissioners? If he does not, how do the commissioners know what is going on in the country? So, first, I am not clear about the lines of responsibility and, secondly, about the channel of communication.
Baroness YOUNG: I will try again on this matter. I realise that this is an important point. We are moving into new territory and I hope that I have got it right. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for deciding upon regulations which will be laid before Parliament and approved. The chief benefits officer does not make the regulations. He determines the way the rules are interpreted and other benefits officers look to him for advice. He will monitor to see (where there is a matter for local determination) that it is a fairer way and more consistent throughout the country. In the case of altering the rules, the normal procedures will be open and the advisory committee is there to make recommendations where the rules should be altered.
The whole purpose of the structure is that, because the rules are published in regulations, there are not going to be the innumerable matters of case law and of alteration. It is hoped that a lot of the volume of correspondence that there has

597
been always because one benefits officer has interpreted in one way and another in another way will cease because there will be a more consistent approach throughout the country. Therefore, the benefits officers will have the benefit of working to an agreed set of rules; their discretion will be less; if they are uncertain, they will go eventually to the chief benefits officer, who will be independent in his judgment as to what should be happening because the rules will be made by the Secretary of State and confirmed by Parliament.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am sorry to come back again but I am still not clear. I am sure that it is my fault. If people appeal to the tribunal and the tribunal upsets the decision given by the chief benefit officer, which takes precedence? Where is the difference of opinion between the tribunal and the chief benefits officer documented and to whom is this reported?
Baroness YOUNG: On this particular case, if the claimant does take up a case and it goes to a tribunal and it is taken up through the court then the court's decision must be the one which would carry. There is no point in having a decision by a court unless it carries.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for trying to clear our minds on this matter. I do not think that my mind is entirely clear as to what the pattern will be. I am still very worried about the authority of the chief supplementary benefits officer. He seems to be able to wander round at pleasure and do what he likes and not be responsible to anybody—notwithstanding the fact that he is to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
My friends and I want to look carefully at what has been said. I am sure that we shall want to return to this matter at Report stage. I do not want to divide the Committee over it because if I do we shall lose and that stops any further discussion. I do not want to do that. As the noble Baroness has said, this is most important. Therefore, we do not want to be political over this. We would be political if I divided the Committee. This is a matter of such importance that we have to recognise that there are not political implications as we normally understand them.
598
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would have what has been said on this amendment looked at carefully as the debate has not been all that long—it has been long enough, I concede. The various points could be picked up and those who have taken part in this discussion could have a letter—not different letters, but a copy of one letter—setting out what the position is. I do not mind whether the original comes to me or is sent to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, would like to have a copy, I am sure. That might save time at Report stage. It may well be that we shall decide not to pursue the matter. However, at the present moment I would want to pursue this at Report stage.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said. I entirely agree that this is a very important matter and I have done my best to answer the questions in a new and complex field. I am sorry that I have not made it as clear as I should. I have tried to put it in the terms that I understand, which I find is sometimes easier than the technical language of the Bill over which I struggle and do not find easy. I will look at the debate, write to the noble Lord and copy the letter on the points where I think there is misunderstanding.
To have one last "go" at setting it down on the record, we have the Secretary of State who appoints the chief benefits officer who is responsible to the Secretary of State. The chief benefits officer would be responsible for advising the other benefits officers on those matters for their discretion. The rules and regulations would be made by the Secretary of State but approved by Parliament. There are other matters following the line of the tribunals and the relationship of that. If a claimant goes to the tribunal and is upheld, there is no point in going to the tribunal unless the tribunal carries. I will look at all the points that have been raised in case there should be any misunderstanding. It is very important that the new structure should be fully understood. I will write on this matter.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I do not ask the noble Baroness to do any more at the moment, but would she

599
observe, as I have observed, that in her last two explanations—which have been models of lucidity—the National Insurance Commission has completely disappeared?
Baroness YOUNG: They have not disappeared because they are not important. This is a serious point. When I looked at this matter I found it difficult to understand. I often think it is easier if one looks at a parallel instance and the closest parallel is the national insurance scheme. The more one looks at the national insurance scheme the closer the parallel becomes. They are not precisely the same but the same principles apply. Looking at that is helpful. It is not strictly relevant to the amendments because we are not dealing with that Act but with something else.
Baroness WOOTTON of A BINGER: I am very much obliged.
Lord DRUMALBYN: There is the annual report of the Ministry of Social Security which covers national insurance. Perhaps the noble Baroness will consider whether it also might cover supplementary benefit matters as the best way of reporting.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
6.17 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 43, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that the resources of a person who is not a member of a married or unmarried couple and who is responsible for, and a member of the same household as, a child or a person who is excluded from entitlement to supplementary benefit by section 6(2) of this Act shall not include the first £6 of his weekly earnings and half of his weekly earnings between £6 and £20.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is to raise the earnings disregard for one-parent families to £6 a week plus 50 per cent. of earnings between £6 and £20. At present there is a flat rate £6 disregard. The Government propose to make £4 plus 50 per cent. between £4 and £20 which would leave some 23,000 one-parent families worse off unless they increase their earnings. All I want to
600
know is the answer to three points. Why should they be worse off? What is the reason for the Government's decision? Finally—the most important one to the Government—what is the cost? I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: As the noble Lord said, lone parents currently have a £6 disregard on earnings, compared with £2 for a claimant who must register for work and £4 for others. The Government's proposals are for a standard disregard of £4 for all adults plus, for lone parents, a tapered disregard of half their earnings between £4 and £20. The justification for special treatment for lone parents in this field is, I think, common ground between us. The tapered disregard will ensure that earnings up to £20 will help increase net income. This will encourage lone parents to earn more and strengthen their link with the employment field, to which many will eventually return when their children are grown up, but it might encourage some to increase their earnings to the point where they no longer need supplementary benefit.
We have made no secret of the fact that, under our proposals, there will be some losers as well as gainers—those earning between £4 and £8 will lose. But the numbers who will lose (as the noble Lord said, 23,000), and the amount lost (up to £1) will be fewer than the numbers who will gain (29,000) and the amounts gained (up to £6). This is borne out by the fact that for this change there will be a net cost of £3·5 million.
I recognise that this amendment would ensure that there would be no losers. But it would, in effect, create a double preference for lone parents. For not only would they have the taper; they would also have a higher standard disregard than anybody else. And it would add an extra £1 million on to the cost, which could not be accommodated within the overall nil cost package unless compensating savings were made elsewhere. Furthermore, the amendment would destroy the simpler approach of a standard disregard of £4, with a concession to lone parents taking the form of a taper. I suggest that the Government's approach is the right one and will achieve a measure of simplification in the rules governing

601
the calculation of benefit. There will still he an incentive to lone parents to earn more and, I suggest, a much more attractive one than the existing one, limited to a fixed sum of £6 a week.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: While thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his reply, I believe it rather implies that the real reason behind this is to get more lone parents working so that they can earn more money and get a much higher disregard. If that is true, are we not saying that more and more parents in one-parent families should be going out and doing more work, probably at a time when they really ought to be at home looking after the child or children?
It seems to me a very short-sighted policy. I have myself complained, and noble Lords opposite have complained about the number of "latchkey children" there are who go out in the morning after their mother or father has gone to work and who come home before the parent arrives. We all recognise that as being undesirable. I see that there is some merit about the idea that if people go out and earn more money they will get a higher disregard and will be better off financially, but we could be paying too great a price for the little extra that we are going to give.
I would have thought that the Amendment which is before the Committee at present, if the Government could see their way to accepting it, would improve the lot of 23,000 lone parents who will be worse off as a result of the Government's decision to take the course they propose. I would also have thought it would have been relatively inexpensive in comparison
to (shall I say?) some of the social disorder which might result from encouraging parents to work longer hours when they have very young children.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: There is a difference of view between us. In our opinion, to encourage lone parents to do some work and get the benefit from it appears to be a very good idea. It seems entirely right to encourage lone parents, where circumstances permit, to take up opportunities in the employment field. We are not trying to force them to do so; we are encouraging them to do so, and helping them if they do. But nobody is suggesting that they are obliged to do this work. Our proposals simply give them the chance to keep in touch with the employment field to which no doubt they will eventually return when their children grow up. I do not quite see the difficulty about this.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I do not regard the reply as at all satisfactory. To force lone parents to go out to work, with all the social dangers indicated by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, is something that makes one think. I believe the Government's reply represents a cold-blooded approach to an extremely sensitive social problem. Therefore, I shall divide the Committee and I hope that anybody with a conscience for one-parent families will support the amendment.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 91.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Bacon, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Banks, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hampton, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Blease, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Underhill, L.

Brace of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Chitnis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Wessl-Pestell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maelor, L.

Whaddon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wigg, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Noel-Baker, L.

Wigoder, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Renton, L.

Avon, E.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Halsbury, E.

Romney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brimelow, L.

Henley, L.

St. Germans, E.

Caccia, L.

Holderness, L.

St. Just, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Sharpies, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tranmire, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vaizey, L.

Fortescue, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vickers, B.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Galloway, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Westbury, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.33 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 43, line 26, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations shall provide that a person to whom a rate rebate under a scheme under section 11 or 12 of the Local Government Act 1974 or, in Scotland, the standard scheme prescribed under section 112 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (including that scheme as varied under section 114 of that Act) or a rebate or allowance under Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972, or in Scotland, Part II of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 has been afforded or granted and who has additional requirements in respect of heating expenses and is not entitled to a family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970 shall be entitled during the period in respect of which the rebate or allowance has been afforded or granted to supplementary benefit of at least the amount of those requirements.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment extends supplementary benefit heating additions to people in receipt of housing benefits; for example, rate rebates, rent rebates and allowances. The Government's proposals to help low income consumers with fuel costs next winter are heavily concentrated, as they were
604
last winter, on supplementary benefit recipients. The lowest rate of supplementary benefit heating addition will go up from 95p to £1.40, while those now on the middle rate will get the highest rate, which will be increased from £2.85 to £3.40. The additions will be paid, as at present, on grounds of health or accommodation that is difficult to heat or centrally heated, but families with a child under five and supplementary pensioners over 70—last winter it was the over 75s—will qualify automatically for the £1.40 addition.
Low income families where the head is in work will not qualify, apart from the small minority on family income supplement because they cannot claim supplementary benefit, and pensioners with incomes just above supplementary benefit level will get no help. On the other hand, the Labour Government's electricity discount scheme was extended to cover those on housing benefits as well as supplementary benefit and family income supplement claimants. This had the effect of helping both low paid workers and those just above supplementary benefit level.
The amendment therefore proposes to extend supplementary benefit heating

605
additions to this large additional group of people. They would have to satisfy the same criteria as supplementary benefit claimants; for example, being over 70, having a child under five or having extra heating needs. This is quite an important amendment, because for many people concerned—particularly those concerned with the care of the elderly—the question of adequate heating can sometimes be a matter of life or death. This amendment tries to assist those who are just above the supplementary benefit qualifications whom, so far as I understand, the Government at present have no intention of assisting. I beg to move.
Lord BANKS: I should like very briefly to say a word in support of this amendment. The Government's schemes for helping with fuel have ensured that those who are helped get rather more than was the case before. But they are available to a much more restricted number of people and there are many people, as the noble Lord has just explained, who your Lordships might well consider ought to be assisted and who are left just outside. This amendment would certainly help some of them, and for that reason I support it.
Lord SANDYS: The Government are very much aware of the problems which this country faces, so far as energy costs are concerned, and I hope that my reply will be looked at carefully by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because there are a number of detailed figures included in it. I regret once again that the main argument against accepting this amendment is one of cost. There are approximately 3 million housing allowance recipients, nearly two-thirds of whom could become eligible for a payment of at least the lowest heating addition rate of £1.40 a week. At that rate, the cost would amount to £135 million a year, but as some would no doubt qualify for the higher rate of heating addition the cost could be even higher.
A second point of difficulty would be the administration of such additions. The amendment refers to "additional requirements", which presumably relates to the set criteria for heating additions within the supplementary benefits scheme. To refresh your Lordships' memories, it may be helpful if I briefly run through the
606
criteria as they will apply from next November. Heating additions will be awarded where a claimant has central heating, or where his ill-health, restricted mobility or poor accommodation make it necessary for him to have extra heating costs. On top of this, all supplementary pensioner households where the claimant or a dependant is 70 or over, and all supplementary benefit householders where there is a child under five will automatically get the lower rate heating addition of £1.40 a week; disabled people who are also in receipt of attendance allowance, constant attendance allowance or mobility allowance will get the higher rate of £3.40 a week.
The administrative difficulties of identifying those getting a housing allowance who are also in one of these latter categories—the over 70s, the under-fives and the disabled—are real, but not insurmountable. However, the problems involved in trying to assess the 3 million housing allowance beneficiaries for the purpose of identifying those with central heating, ill-health, restricted mobility or homes which are difficult to heat would present an enormously complex and costly exercise. Furthermore, it would erode the whole principle of the supplementary benefits scheme to make payments of supplementary benefit on a non-means-tested basis to people whose incomes are sufficiently high to preclude them from the scheme.
In conclusion, therefore, I must emphasise to your Lordships that the Government cannot protect everyone from the full effect of rising fuel prices. We are already spending £105 million a year to protect those most vulnerable. At a time of economic difficulty, when we are making every effort to restrain the growth of the bureaucracy, the country cannot afford to go down a path which would result in a considerable extra burden on the taxpayer in terms of benefit cost and administrative expense.
I think one should pause here, because we are considering the running cost aspect of heating a home, and bear in mind something which is enormously important and which we have referred to at regular intervals in your Lordships' debates in regard to the conservation of energy—that is, the Government's plan over grants for insulation of housing. Homes which are

607
in need of insulation and which are eligible to attract that grant may qualify for doing so, and it may well be that an insulation grant could be enormously helpful. I must therefore recommend that, so far as this amendment is concerned, your Lordships should reject it.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the detailed statement that he has made and I shall certainly look at it with care. The main reason which lie advanced was cost. My amendment relates to precisely the same reason—cost to the very people who find it a tremendous burden. Unfortunately, too many elderly people use paraffin, and paraffin has more than doubled in cost. It is costing me twice as much this year to heat my little greenhouse as it did last year.
I agree about the value of home insulation. However, I have in mind elderly people, who are just over the border for supplementary benefit, who will probably be in a very confused state about applying for this and applying for that. Double glazing is also very effective, not only for keeping in heat but also for avoiding undue noise. It is a tremendous social problem. We are referring to the people who are just over the border so far as supplementary benefit is concerned, and it is these people who are suffering.
The best thing I can do is to say that we shall study the matter. Somehow or other we have got to come back to this subject—whether it will be in this Bill or in some other way I do not know. For the moment, however, we shall consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not 1710 red.]
6.43 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 43, line 30, after second ("requirements") insert ("including essential domestic help whether provided by a local authority or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with one of the points which was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. It is possible at the present time, as he pointed out, in certain circumstances for persons in receipt of the local authority
608
home help service to be granted a contribution by the Supplementary Benefits Commission towards their expenditure on this service. The noble Lord gave this example: where local authorities charge a flat rate of £1 per week, people already in receipt of supplementary benefit may be given an additional requirement amount of 50p or 25p per week towards the cost. Others may, because of the expenditure for domestic assistance, come within the eligibility criteria for supplementary benefit.
The Government have published, as we have heard more than once this afternoon, in the annex to the Notes on Clauses the proposed use of their regulation-making power, as conferred in this Bill. This states that additional requirements will be available for essential domestic help where the claimant is elderly, infirm or has heavy family responsibilities, except where the help is provided by a local authority. This would appear to end the current practice of helping to meet the cost of local authority home help in these cases—that is, where the claimant is elderly, infirm or has heavy family responsibilities. This amendment would prevent a regulation in these terms from being introduced. It seems desirable that help of the kind now given should be available for home help in these specified cases from whatever source the home help may come. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: In response to Amendment No. 41A, I hope it will be for your Lordships' convenience if, at the same time, I speak to Amendments Nos. 65B and 72, because these three amendments have a close association. Amendment No. 41A, to which Amendment No. 65B is the corresponding amendment in the Keeling schedule, would lay down, in Schedule 1 to the Act itself, that a charge for a home help should be counted as an additional requirement and therefore he met by an increase in supplementary benefit. I think it is worth pointing out that this is contrary to the construction of Schedule 1 to the Act, which provides that what constitutes additional requirements is to be defined in the regulations.
But our chief objection to the amendment lies with the principle involved in extending supplementary benefit payments to cover charges imposed by a local authority for its home help service.

609
Perhaps I may at this juncture pause for a moment to draw your Lordships' attention to the annex to the notes on clauses where, on page 116, there is a particular reference to this problem in item 75G, where it says:
"… essential domestic help, where the claimant is elderly, infirm or has heavy family responsibilities except"—
and I stress that word—
"where the help is provided by a local authority".
This view was made known to local authorities in a circular issued in 1971 and has been reiterated to representatives of the Local Authorities Association on several occasions, the most recent being a meeting of the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services, Charging Policies, on 4th March 1980.
In fact, most local authorities have in the past agreed with this policy and have charged only people with the resources to meet the charge imposed. The Supplementary Benefits Commission have recently been meeting charges in about 18,000 cases a year, a very small proportion indeed of the total number of people receiving supplementary benefit. And in the case of people assessed at the long term rates of supplementary benefit—that is, supplementary pensioners—the commission is able to meet the charge only to the extent that it exceeds 50p a week (or 75p a week for those over 80) because the legislation requires that those amounts must be found by the recipient from the higher, long-term rates. It is only very recently that the local authorities, faced with the need to make cuts in their budgets, have begun, or planned, to impose charges, in the belief that the Supplementary Benefits Commission would meet the cost and the claimant would therefore not suffer.
The commission saw this as an abuse of their policy. They accordingly decided not to take on any more charges for local authority home help services from 19th February, and people in receipt of supplementary benefit will not therefore be able in the future to receive an increase of their benefit in respect of these charges.
The Government fully agree that it would be wrong to accept the transfer of responsibility for financing the home help service to the supplementary benefits scheme. It would not be fair to the taxpayer to fund local authority savings out of
610
central government funds in this way—through the back door, as it were. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will accept that there is a special responsibility here. Nor would it be fair to those in low paid work or on other forms of low income whom the supplementary benefits scheme cannot help. To accept this amendment would be tantamount to an invitation to local authorities increasingly to finance their home help services through the supplementary benefits scheme.
It is our intention, in the regulations to be made under the Act, as amended, to provide for additions to meet charges for domestic help privately arranged, and to that extent we shall be meeting the purpose of the amendment. But for the reasons that I have given we think it would be mistaken to provide for local authority home help charges, and therefore I ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
This brings me to the linked amendment, the third in the series, No. 72, and if I may be allowed to say this, I think that from what I have already said it will be clear that the Government agree with the principle lying behind the amendment. However, the Government are also committed to giving local authorities as much freedom from statutory central Government controls as possible. Therefore we would not wish to enforce this point by statute, although we hope and expect that local authorities will take full and proper note of the Government's view. Accordingly, I ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I very much regret that the Minister has taken this view about the amendment. It seems to me that what is happening is that in certain parts of the country, being confronted as they are by this Government's proposals for cutting back on public expenditure, with cash limits and every kind of restraint that the Government are imposing as a matter of policy on local authorities, the local authorities are understandably trying to find means whereby they may continue to provide what is a very important service to elderly people without having to put an increased burden on the rate payers. I think most of us who have the rate demand notices coming through our letter boxes at the moment are feeling this

611
burden very strongly, and I think it is absolutely right that the supplementary benefits should be provided to assist the elderly and infirm in retaining a home help.
As I think many of your Lordships know, the home help is the only contact which many elderly and infirm and lonely people ever have with the outside world, quite apart from the assistance in the house. It is the only person they see except possibly the vicar or the local insurance man. It seems to me that with the impositions that this Government are placing on local government it would be tragic if anything happened to limit in any way the availability of home helps to the elderly and infirm. It seems to me to be a proper use of the supplementary benefit that a small amount like this can be provided from the commission to enable the infirm and the very poor to continue to have home helps, which otherwise, presumably, local authorities will either charge for or will withdraw the service.
Lord BANKS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the detailed reply that he gave. I did not find it altogether satisfactory and I think what has been said by my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton has made it very clear that there is another side to this case. The point which has to be taken into account is the changed situation in which local authorities find themselves and the extra burdens which are now being put upon them as a direct result of Government policy. In the light of that change I think it is reasonable to take the line that my noble friend has taken and to support this amendment. For that reason I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Bacon, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Balogh, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gregson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kaldor, L.

Underhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Amory, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Eccles, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Harvington, L.

Avon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Henley, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Holderness, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gainford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cathcart, E.

Galloway, E.

Killearn, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colwyn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Long, V.

Craigavon, V.

Gowrie, E.

Loudoun, C.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Daventry, V.

Gridley, L.

Lyell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Mansfield, E.

Romney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Mottistone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tranmire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

St. Germnas, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

St. Just, L.

Trenchard, V.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vaux of Rarrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Sharpies, B.

Vickcrs, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Reigate, L.

Strathspey, L.

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Young, B.

Rochdale, V.

Moved, accordingly and. on Question, Motion agreed to.

7.2 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: At this stage I think it might be convenient to the Committee to have a break for dinner. I would hope that we might break until 8 o'clock, if that is convenient to the Committee.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.3 to 8 p.m.]
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 44, leave out lines 3 to 17 in column 2 and insert ("£43·80").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 42 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 47. Amendment No. 42 deals with the supplementary benefits scale rates for adults. The effect of this amendment to the Bill would be to bring those rates into line with the National Insurance Bulletin benefit rates which, from November 1980 will be £27.15 in the long-term for single people and £20.65 in the short-term, with £43.45 for married couples in the longterm, and £33·40 in the short-term.
It was originally envisaged that the alignment of the rates would result in losses for long-term supplementary claimants of 40p a week for single people, and 35p a week for married couples, while short-term claimants were to gain 20p for single people and 25p for married couples. As the gains are smaller than the losses and there are far more long-term claimants (who in this case will be losers) than short-term gainers, it was expected to be one of the biggest money savers in the Bill, saving over £30 million a year.
The effect of the Budget proposals is that the alignment of the long-term rates will go ahead, but that of the short-term rates will not. That is because the short-term national insurance rates are to increase by 5 per cent. less than the increase in prices, while the supplementary benefit rates are to be fully inflation-proof instead of going up by the same amounts as the national insurance rates. As a result, the proposed cuts of 40p for single people and 35p for married couples in the long-term rates will be implemented, but the gains of 20p for single people and 25p for married couples, for short-term claimants, will not—they will get the bare amount needed to compensate for price increases.
The amendments which are now before your Lordships would have the effect of cancelling the alignment of the longterm rates, thus avoiding the losses of 40p and 35p. The new long-term rates would be £27.35 for a single person and £43.80 for a married couple. For the short-term rates, the amendments add 20p for single people and 25p for a married couple to the rates proposed by the Government, thus preserving the promised gains. The new short-term rates would then be £21.50 for a single person and £34.85p for a married couple. If the Government accept the amendments relating to the long-term rates so that there will be no losses, it would be reasonable to withdraw the amendments relating to the short-term rates. But, if there is an insistence on implementing the losses, we shall have to consider whether we shall proceed in respect of the others.
I ask the Government to give this very careful consideration because in the long run it will make an appreciable amount of difference to the recipients and I would not think—although I do not know—that it would involve the Government in considerable expenditure. I should be glad to hear from whichever noble Lord

615
is replying what, in fact, it means in terms of financial liability. I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
8.5 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am very happy to take these various amendments together, as the noble Lord has suggested. I shall start with Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 dealing with the long-term rates of supplementary benefit. As your Lordships know, these rates apply to supplementary pensioners and to those under pension age, other than the unemployed, who have received supplementary benefit for at least two years. The Bill proposes that these rates shall be aligned with the corresponding national insurance rates, which means in practice that at the next up-rating the supplementary benefit rates will go up by 35p less for a married couple, and by 40p less for a single householder, than would otherwise have been the case. The amendment would add those amounts to the new rates which were announced recently, and thus reopen the gap between the supplementary benefit long-term rates and their national insurance counterparts.
There is no very good reason for the present small differences between the supplementary benefit and the national insurance rates and that, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows very well. They are entirely coincidental, the result of a chapter of historical accidents rather than of any planned policy. The Government's proposal to align the rates will achieve an important simplification for pensioners in the structure of the social security system. It will make the overall benefits system easier for them to understand, and fewer pensioners will then qualify for very small amounts of supplementation. As your Lordships will appreciate, it is most often such small amounts of benefit which are not taken up and it is not really sensible to maintain the benefit system in a way which makes a large number of claims possible for what are relatively small weekly sums.
Alignment of the long-term rates is an essential part of the package of changes to be made in the supplementary benefit scheme. Although the individual amounts are small, the overall saving of over £40 million will make possible, at a time
616
when additional resources are not available, a number of improvements elsewhere in the scheme, such as the qualifying period for the long-term scale rates and in the children's rates. This is a redistribution of resources within the scheme which will provide additional help for families with children. The report by officials on the review of the scheme, Social Assistance, argued strongly that it is families with children, rather than pensioners, who are experiencing the most difficulty in managing on supplementary benefit, so that any redistribution should be directed towards them. I think it is time to say that previously pensioners have fared rather better than families on benefit. For example, between 1970 and 1977 the real incomes of supplementary benefit households, of whom the majority at any one time are pensioners, rose by 12 per cent. compared to 5 per cent. for all households; but for families on benefit with children the average rise was only 4 per cent.
I would stress that the amounts in question, namely 35p for couples and 40p for single householders, are relatively small. This is a once-for-all change which will be made at the same time as the November up-rating. And the effect on individual pensioners will depend on the extent to which they are affected by the overall package of changes; some will receive more overall, while others receive less than the standard uprating.
As I have said, alignment of the longterm rates is an essential component of the overall package, which could not be sustained without it. There is widespread support for the view that the supplementary benefit scheme is in urgent need of reform, but given our present economic difficulties, this must be achieved at no extra cost. That means that improvements in the scheme must be achieved by a redistribution of resources. Our proposals on the long-term rates are a vital part of that redistribution, and I ask the Committee to reject these two amendments.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 44 and 47, these would raise the main, ordinary supplementary benefit rates by 25p for a married couple and 20p for a single householder, more than the increases already announced for next November. Under the Government's original

617
proposals the ordinary supplementary benefit scale rates were also to be aligned with their corresponding national insurance rates. As a result, the supplementary benefit rates would have been increased by sums similar to those already mentioned. But we no longer envisage aligning the ordinary rates in November. At the next up-rating, the supplementary benefit short-term rates will be fully price-protected and, as a result, they will rise by much greater sums than the national insurance rates.
The scale rates will then be greater than the national insurance rates by £1·20 a week for a married couple and by 65p a week for a single householder. The increases of 25p and 20p proposed by this amendment would have been the result of alignment this November. Without alignment they have no status and could not be justified in their own right. Therefore, I ask the Committee also to reject these amendments.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Minister and his friends will realise that we are very unhappy, particularly about the 5 per cent., about which I have had something to say on two previous occasions. We on this side must consider what the noble Lord has said and see whether or not it is worth our while to come back to this matter at a later stage. This is a matter which causes us some concern. As I say, our emphasis may well have to be on the 5 per cent. rather than on the rest of the matter, but that is something which I should like to consider. I beg leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.13 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 44, line 15, column 1, at end insert ("which shall be the same for persons whose right to a supplementary allowance is subject to the condition that they are registered for employment as for other persons").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, and with your Lord ships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 46. In some measure, this is a similar matter to the one which we have just been discussing, because these two amendments would give unemployed people the right to
618
receive the higher long-term rates of supplementary benefit on the same terms as other claimants. We emphasise the fact that we are dealing here with unemployed people. At present, the longterm rates are payable to all supplementary pensioners and to all claimants under pension age, other than the unemployed, who have been on supplementary benefit for two years or more.
As we understand the position, from this November the qualifying period for those under pension age is to be reduced to one year which from our point of view—and I am sure from everybody else's—is a welcome reform. But the unemployed will still be excluded. I acknowledge that the exclusion of the unemployed from the long-term rates goes back to the commencement of the supplementary benefits scheme in 1966. However, at that time the long-term addition, as it was then called, was only nine shillings a week. Since then the gap between the short-term and the long-term rates has widened dramatically. In point of fact from this November it will be £5·85p for a single person and £8·85p for a married couple.
The officials who carried out a review of the supplementary benefits scheme recommended in their report, Social Assistance, that the long-term rates should be paid to the unemployed. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has repeatedly called for this reform and reiterated its demand in its published response to a review report. In fact, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has stated that of all the groups of claimants, the long-term unemployed—especially those with children—have the greatest difficulty in making ends meet.
I think that it raises a very important matter; that is, that whether we like it or not—and I do not think that any of us likes it—we must face the fact that there will be a growing number of unemployed. Unfortunately, one must face the fact that perhaps many of them will never work again. Their position will be very acute. It seems to me that some special consideration should be given to the long-term unemployed. I ask the Government to give their consideration to this; I hope that they do not turn it down out of hand. I should like to hear them say for the second time in all the discussions that we have

619
had since last week that they would be prepared to have a further look at this to see whether or not something tangible could be done for the long-term unemployed. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Let me say straightaway that the Government recognise that there is some widespread support for extending the longterm rates of supplementary benefit to the unemployed, particularly now that the qualifying period for people under pension age is to be reduced. The review team in its report, Social Assistance, concluded that, whatever the reason for excluding the unemployed originally, that no longer applied. As the noble Lord has said, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has placed this high on its list of priorities for change. The major problem here is, I fear, the familiar one of cost. It is familiar, I am sure, to those who served under the last Government, because they were unable to make this concession during their term of office; indeed, they were unable to go so far as to attempt even to shorten the qualifying period for the sick and lone parents, as we are now doing.
The Government are sympathetic to this proposal, but in order to limit public spending to what the economy can bear we need to be rigorous in setting priorities. At a cost of some £65 millions I do not think we can countenance this concession, at the present time. Although, as I say, we have some sympathty with the point that the noble Lord has made, I must urge your Lordships to reject these amendments.
Lord BANKS: I should like to say that I very much regret the decision which the Minister has just announced. We are talking here about equity and fairness. If the long-term rate is a certain figure for everyone else, it seems to be completely wrong that it should be less for the longterm unemployed. The amount of £65 million is, of course, a large sum of money. It is not so large a sum of money when we consider that the total social security bill is £20,000 million. I should have thought that within that total it should be possible to ensure that the long-term unemployed are treated fairly and on an equal basis with other long-term beneficiaries.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Banks,
620
knows very well that this is supposed to be a nil-cost package, and £65 million is a considerable sum of money. I do not think that I have heard any suggestion as to where that £65 million might come from.
Lord BANKS: One suggestion as to where some of the money might come from would be if we did not have a ceiling on national insurance contributions. That is a point which the noble Lord might consider. At the moment, after we reach the top limit on contributions, contributions become a decreasing percentage of the income of the contributor.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I might have known that the noble Lord would think of some extremely clever idea.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This is really a serious matter. I do not know how, when we are talking about an increasing number of unemployed, which is likely to reach 2 million before very long, the Government have the gall to say that this has to be a no cost package. Of course the Labour Government did not do anything about this because unemployment during the period of the last Labour Government for a large number of people was much more short term than ever it is going to be under this Government. Unemployment under this Government is going to be long term.
We have to face the fact unfortunately that a large number of the unemployed may never work again. It is a serious situation. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, is right when he says that one has to deal with them—he did not use the word "generously"—in the light of the position in which they find themselves. There may well be an argument that one can properly advance for short-term benefits for a short-term situation, but there has to be a long-term benefit for a long-term situation.
Unfortunately everybody who becomes unemployed knows full well that it is likely to be a long-term situation. One cannot talk about having a package that is a no-cost package if it means it is going to be disproportionately borne by one section of the community. I hope that the Government will look at the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. It is made from a great deal of experience. What weighs more with me is

621
the experience behind the suggestion. On the face of it, it certainly seems that it would be far more equitable to expect people who are earning considerably more money than others to make a larger contribution than they are making at the present time.
Baroness SEEAR: I should like to ask the Government to look again at this amendment, particularly in relation to people in the older age group. The evidence not only for the future but—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, will agree with me—under the past Government, too, was that people over 55 who become unemployed have a very meagre chance of getting employed again, particularly if they are unskilled. We must face that there are going to be a large number—some say a relatively large number—of people in the older age groups for whom there is going to be no employment. Could not the Government take this question back, if only for the older age groups, and have a look to see whether they would be prepared to modify this regulation?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The remarks that are made suggest that we on this side of the House are not concerned with the difficulties of the unemployed, and that is by no means so. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that during the course of the time that his party was in power the number of unemployed doubled, but they did not do anything about this particular suggestion which has come today. I am afraid that it is a nil cost package, and at this stage, until we can find other money—and the idea that the noble Lord has suggested is completely new to any of the thinking that has gone on so far (I know it has come up before, but it is not considered at this stage)—I am afraid I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to pursue this, but the noble Lord must not try to get out of it by throwing out one word, "doubled". Let him look at the period in which unemployment doubled. Can he deny that in the six months leading up to the last election unemployment decreased month by month? My recollection is that in the six months leading up to the last general election
622
unemployment fell month by month. This is what one has to do when one is talking about things doubling; one has to ask oneself for how long. Did the figures double for one month or two months? Did they continue to double, or did they decrease? I think the statistics show that during the six months immediately prior to the election unemployment in this country fell month by month.
Obviously we are not going to cut any ice with the Government on this amendment, any more than we have succeeded on those that have gone before, and it would be a pointless exercise to divide the Committee at this time of night. There is no alternative but to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment, while my noble friends and I consider what course of action we can take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44–47 not moved.]
8.26 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 44, line 45, leave Out sub-paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47A. With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 67B as well; the two are linked. The object of these amendments is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to alter the rates of supplementary benefit by regulation. This Bill aligns the supplementary benefit and national insurance benefit. The No. 2 Bill now in another place allows the Secretary of State, by means of an order, to reduce the up-rating of short-term national insurance benefits by up to 5 per cent. Supplementary benefit, as we heard a minute ago, is however to be fully up-rated. Therefore, short-term national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits, having been aligned in the No. 1 Bill, will diverge again in the No. 2 Bill.
This amendment is put down to draw attention, first, to the fact that the Government are taking specific action in one Bill before Parliament and proposing to nullify it in another Bill before Parliament. So they are enacting a law with the immediate intention of changing it. This amendment is put down, secondly, to draw attention to the fact that this action will

623
throw more people on to supplementary benefit at a time when we should be seeking to take people off supplementary benefit and reduce the numbers on supplementary benefit. Thirdly, it is designed to draw attention to the dangers that important policy decisions will be taken by regulation. This amendment would preserve the alignment between national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits.
The decision to abate short-term national insurance benefits in the No. 2 Bill will require an amendment of the table in Schedule 2 to the No. 1 Bill. These amendments would prevent such amendment. Whatever the Secretary of State did with short-term benefits he would have to do with supplementary benefits as well. But what I am really seeking is an explanation of why one course of action is taken in one Bill and a contrary course of action taken in the other. I should like to raise too, as I have already said, the question as to whether the Government are taking too much power in the Bill to alter its provisions by regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, the purpose of his amendments would be to repeal the power in the revised Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 whereby the table setting out the amounts for normal requirements for supplementary benefit may be modified by means of regulations. He himself has identified one reason for our pursuing this course, which I accept. It is true—and noble Lords will be aware of this—that the table in sub-paragraph 3 does provide for the alignment of supplementary benefit rates with national insurance rates. In November this will be the result for long-term benefits, but as we have already discussed in this Committee my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced on the 27th March that that will not be the case for ordinary benefits.
The Government plan to up-rate short term national insurance benefits by 5 per cent. less than the estimated movement in prices. As we explained when this matter arose earlier on in the Committee proceedings, and, of course, as has been explained in another place, this is an interim measure to take account of the fact that such benefits are not taxed at
624
present. Were this amendment to be carried, of course, this would not be possible but that is not the only reason for having it in the Bill.
The Government believe that it is right that they should have the flexibility to vary the definitions used in the table to cover situations in which the rates provided for in the table would not be appropriate. There are a number of ways in which this power will be used. For example, four students sharing accommodation might, in theory, each have an equal claim to be the householder and so be eligible for the more favourable householder rate of benefit, but it would clearly be unfair to pay this enhanced rate four times in respect of one dwelling only. So what we propose to do is to use the modifying power in sub-paragraph (4) to lay down that each of them shall be eligible for the non-householder rate plus a proportion of the difference between that rate and the householder rate according to how many of them there are in the particular house.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked if the Government were taking too much power under these regulations. I would assure the Committee that the Government will not be able to refuse what might on the face of it seem to be a very wide-ranging power because any intended modifications must be contained in the regulations which would be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, as I understand it, it is quite normal to increase benefit rates by regulation in the Social Security field. I should point out that these regulations will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure so that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate them.
However, there is one final point that I should like to make which is that the Government are determined to maintain the safety net for the poorest people and accordingly the ordinary scale rate for supplementary benefit will be fully price-protected. This will be done by using the modifying power in sub-paragraph (4) to vary the supplementary benefit and national insurance rates. These amendments, by repealing that power, would have the effect of giving claimants whose supplementary benefit is based on the ordinary rates, a smaller increase in their benefit this November than is planned: that is to

625
say by £1·20 a week less for a married couple and 65p a week less for a single householder. This is something which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Banks, did not intend. However, I hope I have said enough to indicate that there is a further purpose in the way the Bill has been drawn besides making a difference between this Bill and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, and that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will see that there are other instances which would be covered by it. It is for these reasons as well as the one that he has identified that we would feel unable to accept the amendments.
Lord BANKS: I wonder whether I might ask the noble Baroness a question? In the course of her remarks she has said that the abatement of the short-term benefits by 5 per cent. is to be an interim measure. Does that mean that the short-term benefit and supplementary benefit will be realigned once the benefits are brought into taxation?
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that I can go any further this evening and add to what has already been said on this matter. It is the intention that by 1982 the benefits will be subject to tax and therefore this will be a short-term measure in the interim. I think there has been no further pronouncement than that and I feel unable to make a further statement on that matter to the Committee this evening.
Lord BANKS: In that case, it might be a short-term measure which might have a long-term effect, because if the difference is to carry on even though the benefits are taxable, the effect of what is done next year will continue right into the future unless some specific steps are then taken to realign benefits. It was on that point that I was really seeking some elucidation, but the noble Baroness does not feel able to give it.
I do not think she dealt with the question of the sense of having one policy pursued in one Bill and another policy pursued in another. I was not too happy about what she had to say about whether too much power was being taken by the Government to act through regulations. But, in view of what she said about the other purposes for which it is intended that the power should be used and the effects that this amendment would have
626
on them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.37 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 48.
Page 44, line 50, at end insert—
"(6) If regulations prescribe as one of the conditions mentioned in the table in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph that a person shall have been in receipt of supplementary benefit during a prescribed period or periods, that condition shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of a person who, but for that condition, would have been entitled to receive supplementary benefit throughout the prescribed period or periods".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48 which deals with the non-contributory invalidity pension trap to which I made reference on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a matter which I can take very shortly, and perhaps I may be permitted to quote what I said at column 1273 on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Social Security Bill on Tuesday, 1st April. I said:
"I have been looking at the question of the invalidity benefit for young disabled people aged between 16 and 17 years who are now in receipt of the non-contributory invalidity pension of £14 a week. Had they been on supplementary benefit they would have received £12·95, and would have been eligible for special needs benefits. Had they been on supplementary benefit at the age of 18 they would have been eligible for the long-term benefits, which now amount to about £20·15 a week, but if they were receiving the non-contributory invalidity pension, the amount would be only £14".
This amendment would ensure than anybody who would have qualified for supplementary benefit for a year, if their income had been below the short-term supplementary benefit rate instead of between the short and long-term rates, would then be entitled to supplementary benefits at the long-term rate. The justice of this, I think, must be clear to everybody. It would help a considerable number of invalidity pensioners, widows and other people, and there really seems no justification why they should be put at a disadvantage. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: The point raised in this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, was raised in Standing Committee in another place on 14th February, at column 709–710. As the Minister of State then said. there is an obvious anomaly

627
here. It is perhaps most acute for those young people receiving the non-contributory invalidity pension, and I am glad to say that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce on 19th March the Government's proposals for overcoming the anomaly in this area. That was contained in the Official Report at column 248.
The problem is a little more complicated than that. It stems from the fact that a person who would otherwise be entitled to supplementary benefit may be receiving some other benefit—for example, invalidity benefit—at a rate which is slightly higher than the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit, but which falls below the more favourable long-term supplementary benefit scale rate. To become eligible for this more favourable rate, a beneficiary must fulfil the criterion that he need not register for employment as a condition for receiving benefit, and must then have been receiving supplementary benefit for one year continuously at the ordinary rate.
These are grave complications. Nevertheless, we must follow them through, and clearly the fact that a claimant is precluded from receiving supplementary benefit because he is in receipt of another benefit at a higher rate means that he is never going to qualify for the long-term supplementary benefit rate. As I have said, the Government recognise that there is an anomaly here, but I am afraid that the present economic situation militates against our putting it right, since it would cost well over £10 millions to do so.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
8.42 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 50:
Page 47, line 27, at end insert ("by the Supplementary Benefits Commission or").
The noble Lord said: I now come to the keeling schedule, and having failed to persuade the Committee to accept any of the amendments that I have moved since the beginning of the proceedings, I come
628
to a substantial number of amendments which I do not propose to move. I do not know whether, with the leave of the Committee, I may indicate that I do not propose to move the next few amendments. If I may, I now so indicate.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 58 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 51, line 9, leave out ("of the Economic Community").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 58A. This is a technical amendment to which I spoke earlier.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 69 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Baroness FAITHFULL had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 69A:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Child Benefits
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall in the tax year 1981–82 and in each subsequent tax year review the level of child benefit for the purpose of determining whether it has retained its value in relation to the general level of pt ices obtained in Great Britain; and, if on any such review the Secretary of State concludes that the sum in question has not retained its value, he shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an updating order increasing the child benefit at least to such an extent as he thinks necessary to restore its value.
(2) A draft order laid before Parliament under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 17, and I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 69A not moved.]
Clause 8 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 6 and 7]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 13, line 6, at end insert ("including a person who would cease to be entitled to supplementary benefit by virtue of his capital resources").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, which would enable the Secretary of State to make transitional regulations to preserve the benefit entitlement of claimants with savings of over £2,000. The Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Chalker, said in a Written Answer in the other place on 7th December 1979, as reported at column 371 of the House of Commons Hansard: "There will be special transitional rules to prevent an overall loss of benefit income for the vast majority of claimants. The only exception will be claimants with capital in excess of £2,000 who will cease to be entitled to benefit".
She also said that there were 13,000 claimants who in November 1978 each held over £2,000. By November 1980, when they are due to be cut off, there could well be considerably more of them as a result of the higher benefit rates now payable. In December 1976 there were only 6,000, according to the report Social Assistance.
Under the present rules capital of £2,000 is assumed to produce an income of £4 a week. A claimant with £2,000 capital and no other source of income—for example, a lone parent receiving no maintenance payments—could therefore be receiving a substantial amount of supplementary benefit, which will cease abruptly in November 1980. It is true that she would be able to requalify by spending half of her capital in order to reduce it to below the £2,000 limit, but clearly it is desirable that a woman in that situation should be allowed to retain her savings for future use.
For many claimants the £2,000 cut-off rule will be more favourable than the present £1,200 limit, above which a notional income from capital is taken into account. The "all or nothing" nature of the new rule, however, makes it particularly important that the £2,000 limit should be increased regularly to take account of inflation. I would hope that the Government would be able to give an assurance of this kind, although I recognise that it is not relevant to the amendment; I think that it would be reasonable to ask the Government to give that assurance.
What is relevent to the amendment is the level at which the limit is to be set initially. The Social Assistance report published in July 1978 stated that the £1,200 limit would then have needed to be
630
increased to about £1,600 to restore its real value to the 1975 level, but that if there were to be a fixed cut-off point which would be harsher in effect, it would need to be set at a higher level. The authors of the report suggested £2,000, but I suggest that these figures are already out of date. Simply to restore the real value of the £1,200 limit in November 1980 would mean raising the figure to about £2,300 I understand. An appropriate level for the proposed cut-off would therefore be about £3,000. At the very least the £2,000 limit should be adjusted to take account of the 162 per cent. inflation predicted for the year to November 1980; and judging by the way that things are going, the rate will be considerably more than 16½ per cent.
Raising the limit would reduce the number of claimants at risk of being cut off, thereby making the amendment which I am putting before your Lordships now less necessary. The cut-off point is not specified in the Bill, but will be prescribed, so I gather, in regulations. I should like to receive an assurance from the Government that in the regulations the figure will not be less than £2,350, because if it is (if I may use the expression which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, used a moment or two ago) the Government will be making a profit from the nil-cost package, and I think that would be very unfair. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Under the current rules, capital of £1,200 or less is ignored altogether in calculating a claimant's resources for supplementary benefit purposes. On sums over £1,200, an income of 25p for each complete £50 of capital is assumed, and this assumed income is offset against a claimant's benefit entitlement. This rule is certainly very complicated for claimants, especially pensioners, to understand, and, of course, it complicates for staff the task of calculating the amount of benefit payable to individual claimants. That is why we are proposing the much simpler rule that anyone with capital in excess of £2,000 should no longer qualify for supplementary benefit, but, on the other hand, that if they have capital of up to £2,000, none of it should be taken into account against their benefit entitlement.
This will mean that from November of this year some 13,000 people who had been

631
entitled to supplementary benefit will no longer qualify for it because they have capital over £2,000. We have always intended that we should make transitional arrangements to protect the position of beneficiaries who would otherwise lose in overall cash terms under provisions of the new scheme. But we cannot extend this protection to those supplementary beneficiaries who have capital over £2,000. This is simply because it would cost about £5 million a year to ensure that these people continued to receive benefit after November. We do not consider that this protection should constitute a first call on scarce resources, since people with substantial capital are by definition among the better-off on supplementary benefit. Furthermore, since the supplementary benefit package of reforms is designed to be cost-neutral, the £5 million would have to be found at the expense of improvement elsewhere in the scheme. Although ideally we should like to protect the position of all beneficiaries, I cannot accept that it should be a priority to do so in this area.
The noble Lord asked me whether the £2,000 would be adjusted for inflation in the future. I cannot promise that we will be able to increase regularly the capital cut-off limit. Any further consideration must depend on the economic circumstances of the day; but the figure will be in regulations and will be kept under review. So far as concerns making a profit on this, there will be no question of a saving as a result of retaining the capital cut-off at £2,000. Our costings have been done on the basis of this figure to give a nil-cost result. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: From my experience of the Ministry, may I ask the noble Lord and the Government one question? Suppose I were a widow, owning my own house and nothing else and my pension was a meagre little pension. My husband having been a miner, I have a very small pension and I own my own house, which has to be repaired, et cetera. Where do you put that so far as the £2,000 is concerned today? What would you do with me were I that widow?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: We are talking about cash when, in this context, we talk of the £1,200 which exists
632
today and the £2,000 which will be the case from next November. It has nothing to do with the value of the house.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: I think this might be a convenient moment to conclude the Committee's proceedings for today. I would therefore propose that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  LEAD: REPORT OF THE LAWTHER WORKING PARTY
  LEAD: REPORT OF THE LAWTHER WORKING PARTY
  ALCOHOL: IMPLEMENTATION OF INVESTIGATING BODIES' RECOMMENDATIONS
  ALCOHOL: IMPLEMENTATION OF INVESTIGATING BODIES' RECOMMENDATIONS
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES BOARDS: MEMBERS' SALARIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES BOARDS: MEMBERS' SALARIES
  THE JUDICIARY: SALARY SCALES
  THE JUDICIARY: SALARY SCALES
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: MAXIMUM DEMAND
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: MAXIMUM DEMAND
  DAIRY CATTLE AND MILK PRODUCTION
  DAIRY CATTLE AND MILK PRODUCTION