Sitting of 10 July 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 July.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH WELLINGTON PIER) BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before we turn to questions, I remind the House that hon. Members who are called to ask a supplementary question should ask only one, in the interests of hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper. I advise Ministers to answer only one supplementary question.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    NORTHERN IRELAND

      Irish Republican Army (Funds)
      Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the amount of funds reaching the IRA from sources in the United States of America during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of how much money has reached the IRA from United States sources in the last year. The United States authorities and leading
      732
      Irish-Americans have consistently condemned the raising of funds for the IRA, and the activities of organisations such as the Irish Northern Aid Committee. Currently the main source of IRA funds is undoubtedly local profit from crime, particularly bank robberies.
      Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, possibly as a result of talks with him, certain senior political figures in the United States such as Governor Carey, Senator Kennedy and Speaker Tip O'Neill have exercised a useful restraining influence? Nevertheless, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is taking more steps to restrain fund raising, particularly by that infamous organisation NORAID?
      Mr. Atkins: The gentlemen mentioned by my hon. Friend have undoubtedly been helpful. The authorities in the United States have prosecuted NORAID officials on a number of occasions for the illegal exportation of weapons. Currently they are taking action under an Act to ensure that NORAID is registered as the agent of the Provisional IRA. All that is helpful in bringing to the notice of the American people the activities of that organisation.

      Security Measures
      Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will undertake a review of current policy, with a view to bringing forward new measures to damage the aspirations, morale and effectiveness of the IRA.
      Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I am confident that the guiding principle of our security policy—the elimination of terrorism by the arrest, charging and conviction in the courts of those who perpetrate terrorist crimes—is sound. The ways in which the policy is implemented are constantly monitored by the Government, by the RUC and by the Army, and new measures are introduced from time to time. The advice of the security co-ordinator and his planning staff has contributed notably to this process.
      Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of damaging the aspirations, morale and effectiveness of the IRA is to put beyond a shadow of doubt that Northern Ireland will always remain an integral part of the

      733
      United Kingdom? Will the proposals which the Secretary of State put before the House yesterday help to convince it of that?
      Mr. Atkins: I do not think that there is any doubt about the will of the House and of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland that the Province will remain part of the United Kingdom. That is beyond question. Another way of damaging the morale of the IRA is to arrest its members and convict them in the courts.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Secretary of State understand that the most effective way in which this House can give expression to the will which he has just mentioned is to ensure that Northern Ireland and its people are treated in every respect as they claim and are claimed to be—an integral part of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Atkins: The future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland were discussed yesterday. I was looking forward to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I missed it.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the morale of the IRA would be seriously damaged if the Government could persuade the American Government to supply arms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Will the Secretary of State remember that the men whom he has just praised are the men who are holding up the supply of those arms?
      Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. Our request to the American Government for licences is still in and I very much hope that the American Administration will accede to it as soon as may be.

      De Lorean Car Project
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a progress report on the De Lorean car project.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Since I last reported to the House on this matter there has been some slippage in the car's development programme. The company now expects pilot production to commence in its Dunmurry plant this month and to continue until November 1980. Series production is expected to
      734
      start in December 1980 and the launch of the car in the USA is now due to take place early in 1981.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: In view of the recession in the American car industry and in view of the fact that imports of foreign cars on to the American market this year will be down by 12 per cent., is my hon. Friend reassessing the commercial prospects for this vehicle? In particular does he believe that it can achieve the sales output which its originator has claimed?
      Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that in relation to the application by the company for additional funding a major review of its prospects and marketing objective is being undertaken Insofar as the prospects for entering the American market are concerned I remind my hon. Friend that two years' orders have already been obtained from that market. That is sufficient to get production and penetration off to a considerable start.
      Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that we all wish to see more jobs in West Belfast and, indeed, more jobs in the whole of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that, because of the system of financing De Lorean, and if more money is to be provided, he could usefully ask, as a condition for that funding, that the car should be owned by the British taxpayer? The British taxpayer has paid out £53 million. Is he aware that at the end of the day the car will be owned by Mr. J. De Lorean or the De Lorean research partnership and the British taxpayer will have nothing?
      Mr. Shaw: The investment of the British taxpayer in this company is an investment in the development of an enterprise providing a substantial number of jobs in an area around West Belfast. In addition, it will provide a spin-off by way of jobs which are already becoming available in certain other companies being established there. It is in the interests both of the British taxpayer and the population of Belfast to see a successful development at Dunmurry.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is—that anxiety about the relationship of investment to equity participation in this project is not confined to Opposition Members? Is he able to tell the House how much longer

      735
      we must wait before we hear the outcome of Mr. De Lorean's demand for the latest top-up from the taxpayer?
      Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have promised a statement in the House as soon as we have concluded our examination. The time we are taking and the consequences, not only of the slippage but of the other factors outside the control of the company—such as the inflation rate and the dollar/ pound relationship—make it important that we take due time to husband every pound of the taxpayers' resources.
      Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that although there has been some slippage it has not been all that much and that the pre-sale activities of the De Lorean car, especially in the United States has been brisk? Is it not now time for the hon. Gentleman to accept the inflationary stress on that company and for his Department to back it financially?
      Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The slippage is three months and to bring a car to market penetration in two and a half years, as is presently projected, will be a considerable achievement. As far as investment is concerned, I accept the point that the Government have made a huge investment in this enterprise and that we must, therefore, look carefully to ensure that it is brought to profitable fruition.

      Constitutional Future
      Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland relating to the constitutional future of the Province.
      Mr. Humphrey Atkins: In recent weeks I have had discussions with the leaders of both the main Northern Ireland parties represented in the House. We also had a discussion lasting over eight hours in the House yesterday.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Members concerned the Government's apparent unwillingness to implement their manifesto commitment to Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Atkins: The Government have sought to return to the people of Northern Ireland, and are still seeking to do so,
      736
      more control over their own affairs. In this context the important thing is to find what it is that the people of Northern Ireland want and to see whether that matches the wishes of the House. The discussions we have had have shown that there is a clear wish among the majority in Northern Ireland for a return to devolved government.
      Mr. John: Will the Secretary of State accept, arising out of yesterday's debate, that it is quite clear that the Opposition will not accept a role for the advisory council in security matters? Even less will we accept a return of security matters to a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Atkins: I took particular note of what the hon. Gentleman said and, indeed, have taken note of what everyone said in the debate. It was most valuable.
      Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give an answer to the request I have made on a number of occasions that the Northern Ireland Committee should meet at Stormont to discuss the possible devolution of government to the Province so that the people of Ulster can sit in and listen to what is being said and discussed in their name?
      Mr. Atkins: I do not know how much support there is for that suggestion though, of course, I shall listen to it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it would mean a change in the Standing Orders of the House to enable that to happen.

      Football Ground, Crossmaglen
      Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange to meet the Gaelic athletic association to discuss the Army's occupation of the football ground at Crossmaglen.
      Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) has already made representations on this matter and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has offered to meet him and other interested parties on my behalf to discuss it.
      Mr. Canavan: Is it not about time that this spoilsport Government gave the Army the red card and told it to get off the park? To compensate the Gaelic athletic association for the occupation of

      737
      its ground would it not be a good idea for a group of Tory Members of Parliament—including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—to fly over Crossmaglen and do a sponsored jump—preferably without a parachute?
      Mr. Atkins: I am not sure that I can go along with all those suggestions. Seriously, this has been a problem for some time. I hope that we are on the point of resolving it. We are most ready to discuss it with those closely concerned.
      Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ghastly total of soldiers and police killed in and around Crossmaglen is greater than in any comparable area in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the lives of soldiers and policemen currently serving there are far more important than the sport of Gaelic footballers, bearing in mind that they receive large subsidies of British taxpayers' money while at the same time viciously discriminating against members of the police and the Armed Forces?
      Mr. Atkins: You asked me to answer only one question, Mr. Speaker. I shall give only one answer. Yes, Sir.
      Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware that the presence of the Army in Crossmaglen is hampering children going to the local school as well as hampering people going to Sunday Mass? Will he not reconsider his decision and do what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Is he aware that on that occasion his right hon. Friend met members of the GAA and hon. Members to discuss the situation concerning Roger Casement park?
      Mr. Atkins: I do not think that the Army's occupation of part of the ground belonging to the GAA has anything to do with people going to church or to school. The Army required, and still requires, part of the ground owned by the GAA. We are seeking to make arrangements to return it to it while at the same time safeguarding the interests of the Army, which is there to protect the population. As I say, we are most ready to talk to the people most closely concerned.
      Mr. John: Will the Secretary of State make it quite clear that two parts of the ground have been occupied by the Army? That is my information. One part has been occupied in the last six months and that is the part which is being given up. Will he confirm that the Army is trying to give up all of this athletic ground?
      Mr. Atkins: The Army is trying to give up the whole ground. In fact, it does not occupy the ground. It occupies part of the property belonging to the GAA. It is hoping to return to the GAA that part of the ground that was occupied in 1974. I think that we can come to an amicable arrangement—at least I hope that we can. As I said, we intend to discuss the matter with those concerned.

      Gaelic Athletic Association
      Mr. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the ban which the Gaelic athletic association places on membership by police, Army and Royal Navy personnel, he will review his policy of granting the association aid from public funds.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): While the Government deplore the particular restrictions imposed on membership of the Gaelic athletic association, we do not intend to reverse the policy followed by successive Governments in Northern Ireland during the past 18 years of giving this association some financial assistance. The GAA does not receive the full support that open membership clubs receive. It is entitled only to a restricted grant rate because of its membership restrictions.
      In present financial circumstances all grant aid schemes must be subject to further examination but, whatever changes may prove necessary, restricted membership clubs will not be grant-aided at the same rate as open membership clubs.
      Mr. Robinson: In view of the discrimination exercised by the GAA, will the Under-Secretary explain how it is possible to reconcile the payment of vast sums of public money to this organisation with section 19 of the Constitution Act which states that it is unlawful for

      739
      a Minister to aid or encourage an organisation to discriminate?
      Mr. Goodhart: That point has already been considered by the courts.
      Mr. Wm. Ross: How does the Minister justify restricting the grants if payment of them falls wholly within the law?
      Mr. Goodhart: All restricted membership clubs receive grant at a lower rate than do those clubs with an entirely open membership.

      Security
      Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Fermanagh.
      Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Castlederg, County Tyrone.
      Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on border security in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. McQuadeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 June, 30 people have been charged with criminal offences of a terrorist nature, including five with attempted murder. One person caught red-handed with 600 lb. of explosive and a revolver has been charged with the possession of explosives; and in the Dungannon area, as a result of security force vigilance, over 1,000 lb. of explosives were seized and four people have been charged. The House will be pleased to note that three men have been charged in the Republic under the extra-territorial legislation for their part in the murder of Henry Livingston, an ex-member of the UDR, in County Armagh last March.
      Two people died during the period while engaged in terrorist activity. One of these was a hooded man who was shot dead by the police after he and another man had fired at a mobile police patrol in Andersonstown. Another man
      740
      was killed when a device which it is believed he was planting exploded prematurely. Mrs. Miriam Daly was found callously murdered in her Belfast home.
      On the border, especially in County Fermanagh, policing confronts the security forces with exceptional difficulties, because of its extent and nature. It is primarily for the security forces themselves to determine the measures necessary to afford local people protection. The recent closure of several more roads across the border is one such measure. The security forces can take credit for a significant reduction of violence overall in Fermanagh recently, although individual round-the-clock protection is impossible. I am well aware of the concern on this issue, and am watching it closely.
      As far as the town of Castlederg is concerned, terrorist activity has been at a low level. There was an attempt on the life of a part-time member of the UDR in May of this year, but I am glad to say that it failed. This was the first major incident in the Castlederg area for two years.
      Mr. Goodlad: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that cross-border co-operation is of crucial importance in the Fermanagh area, and is he satisfied that it is adequate?
      Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir, Relations between the RUC and the Gardai are good and there is close co-operation between them. It is also gratifying to note that the authorities in the Republic are implementing the undertaking to the Prime Minister and myself by the Taoiseach some time ago that they would use the cross-border legislation whenever it proved possible.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: What action is the right hon. Gentleman now taking to keep closed the roads that have been closed in Fermanagh, since along these roads the murderers have come, carried out their dastardly deeds, and returned safely to the Irish Republic?
      Mr. Atkins: As I said in my original answer, a number of roads have been

      741
      closed recently. None has been reopened, although in one case a temporary bypass was attempted. Steps have been taken which satisfy the security forces that that bypass is not a security risk.
      Mr. McQuade: Are any special precaution to be taken for the 12 July parades?
      Mr. Atkins: Yes, the security forces have taken all the precautions which they deem necessary to ensure that the parades in Belfast and elsewhere on Saturday pass off peacefully. These are traditionally occasions and I have every confidence that the security forces know exactly what arrangements to make to ensure that there is no trouble.
      Mr. Molyneaux: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully support the decision to deploy an Ulster regiment in the frontier area? Is he also aware that it is right and proper that Ulstermen in all branches of the security forces should be permitted and encouraged to play a full part in the defence of Northern Ireland against attacks from another nation?
      Mr. Atkins: The deployment of units of the Regular Army is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the use of the 5th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards in the Province, and I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman was asked about the Orange parades on Saturday. In the discussions which the right hon. Gentleman had with the leading members of the Orange Order, did he give them an undertaking that in no circumstances would Prince Charles be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic?
      Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. I ask the hon. Gentleman to study the written answer that I am giving today to one of his colleagues.
      Mr. Kilfedder: Has the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions a statement by the SDLP councillor, councillor Sweeney, which was virtually an incitement to murder Protestant members of the UDR?
      Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. I do not need to refer any of these matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a matter for the Chief Constable, and I have no doubt that he will take whatever action is necessary.

      Less Favoured Areas
      Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will extend the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom marginal land survey is complete, but it would be inappropriate to make an approach to the European Community for an extension of the less favoured areas for Northern Ireland alone.
      Mr. Ross: Since a very large part of the aid that is coming from the EEC—I understand that it amounts to £40 million over 10 years—is to be paid to the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland, how on earth does the hon. Gentleman expect to spend that sum in the present area? Since the survey to which he referred has been completed, I understand, not only in Northern Ireland but in Wales, cannot an approach now be made?
      Mr. Shaw: It is my information that the surveys which are being undertaken in other parts of the United Kingdom will not be completed before 1981. It will, therefore, not be possible to make a unified approach to the Community before that survey is complete.
      On the first part of the question, the marginal land assistance to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one of the measures involved, but the question is related primarily to the size of the area which claims the grant.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not possible for the Minister to make an application to the EEC for the region of Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Shaw: No, Sir.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government, when the survey for the United Kingdom is complete, to make such an application?
      Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that such a decision would be one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He was in the Province on Tuesday this week. I think that he was clearly impressed by what he saw and by the importance of marginal land and the EEC grants towards those who work thereon.
      Mr. Pendry: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we are not comparing like with like? The situation in England is not the same as that in Northern Ireland. In the Province the beef and allied industries are very depressed. We press from the Opposition Benches that the Minister reconsiders his earlier answer and urges the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to act unilaterally for Northern Ireland if necessary.
      Mr. Shaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food is negotiating with EEC Council Ministers for a structure proposal for Northern Ireland. That indicates the commitment that he and I attach to ensuring that Northern Ireland agriculture gains benefit from our EEC membership.

      Sports Council (Functions)
      Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff of the Sports Council it is proposed to make redundant as the result of the transfer of the executive powers of the council to civil servants in Departments.
      Mr. Goodhart: The present complement of the Sports Council is 42. The Government's proposals provide for a purely advisory body without its own staff or premises.
      Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that those who will be made redundant are highly specialised, dedicated and trained personnel, whose training has taken many years? Will he give serious thought to doing something more about the matter because, through the Sports Council, those people help to break down barriers, especially between youngsters? It would be sad if they were made redundant. What does he intend to do with them if he does displace them?
      Mr. Goodhart: There will be an expanded role for district councils in that area. I expect that the highly qualified staff of the Sports Council will find employment with the district councils.
      Mr. Bradford: How much money is disbursed by the Department for the provision of facilities; and how much money is disbursed by the Sports Council?
      Mr. Goodhart: About five times more money is disbursed by the Department than by the Sports Council. The amount disbursed by the Sports Council in grants in the last financial year was slightly over £400,000. It took slightly under £300,000 in administrative costs to make that distribution.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give a breakdown of the 42 personnel? How many are experts, and how many are only office staff?
      Mr. Goodhart: About 14 of the 42 staff could claim substantial expertise in the sporting area. The remainder are office staff.
      Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister aware that the Sports Council in Northern Ireland is one of the few organisations that draws support from the whole community across the political and religious divide? Is he further aware that there is bitter resentment from every significant section of the community in Northern Ireland that is involved with sport about the way that the announcement was made, and that no consultation took place with the Sports Council? Will he be honest with the House and admit that a "con" trick has been perpetrated by making the district councils believe that they will be given added functions? Even if the Government gave them added functions, they would be incapable of carrying them out.
      Mr. Goodhart: There is no "con" trick involved in the matter. About £200,000 of extra funds should be available primarily for district councils as a result of eliminating the administrative costs of the Sports Council. Meanwhile, the members of the Sports Council may continue as an advisory body. Members with great expertise in sporting matters can serve as members of the advisory body.
      Mr. McCusker: If the hon. Gentleman is convinced that this decision is right, why

      745
      has the Minister with special responsibility for sport given a categoric assurance that he will not do the same in England, Scotland and Wales?
      Mr. Goodhart: The circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales are different from those in Northern Ireland. The administrative costs in relation to expenditure on sport in Northern Ireland are very much higher than they are in England, Scotland and Wales.

      Sports Council
      Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the Minister responsible for sport in Northern Ireland met the Sports Council for Northern Ireland before 16 June.
      Mr. Goodhart: My noble Friend Lord Elton met members of the Sports Council formally on two occasions before 16 June.
      Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister accept that one meeting was at the request of the Sports Council? Does he further accept that at the meeting on 16 June the Sports Council was told that, following a review in which it was not invited to participate, its executive functions were to be axed? Does he agree that not only does that cut across the findings of the review body on non-departmental bodies, but, more importantly, the Conservative Party's election manifesto commitment on page 292, paragraph 4?
      Mr. Goodhart: It does not cut across any commitments. Apart from the two formal meetings held with my noble Friend, there were many informal discussions.
      Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that it is accepted on both sides of the House that that body has been pursuing a valuable, non-sectarian role under difficult circumstances? If the Government are saying that the administrative costs are too high, why has there been no serious attempt made by the Minister and his empire-building Department of Education to reduce the administrative costs, rather than wipe out that valuable body altogether?
      Mr. Goodhart: More than 41 per cent. of the money made available to the
      746
      Sports Council was spent on administrative costs. That is excessive by any standards. Beyond that, there were further claims to increase substantially the administrative staff of the Sports Council. That was clearly not acceptable.

      Sports Council Functions
      Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional money he intends giving to the district councils of Northern Ireland to enable them to undertake some of the work at present carried out by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Goodhart: The money that would be available to the Sports Council for those specific tasks would normally be available to district councils.
      Mr. Parry: Does the Minister accept that nobody will be fooled by that sop to the district councils? Is it not a fact that the bulk of the work that he wishes to transfer cannot be carried out by district councils without complementary assistance from the Sports Council? Will he reconsider the issue?
      Mr. Goodhart: Over the years the district councils have built up a substantial body of expertise in that area. I have no reason to believe that they will not be able to carry out those tasks.
      Mr. Soley: What assurances can the Minister give the House that the changes will ensure adequate provision for all members of the community in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Fitt: None.
      Mr. Goodhart: The Department of Education will maintain a strict supervisory role in that area.
      Mr. Wm. Ross: Did not the Minister say earlier that, out of the £700,000 disbursed by the Sports Council, £400,000 was used for grants and £300,000 used to meet administrative costs? Did he not further point out that only half of the staff of the Sports Council were administrative staff? Therefore, the remainder must have been experts. Did he not mislead the House when he claimed that £300,000 went on administrative costs, because half of the staff were sports experts, giving advice to councils?
      Mr. Goodhart: Those with expertise in the sporting world were also carrying out substantial administrative tasks.
      Mr. John: Has the Minister been briefed to the effect that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to review this decision? How does he come to speak in the terms that he has this afternoon, with such a sturdy defence of the Government's decision? How on earth can he be satisfied that an impartial review will be made?
      Mr. Goodhart: I have seen the record of the hon. Gentleman's discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend. In the next few days a letter will be sent from my right hon. Friend to those who took part in the discussion.

      Energy Policy
      Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future energy policy in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Future policy on electricity will depend on the outcome of a comprehensive review of the position of the Northern Ireland electricity service now in progress. In the meantime, the Government have accepted a recommendation from the service that work on the second phase of Kilroot power station should cease. I shall shortly announce a package of financial assistance towards the orderly rundown of gas undertakings which have decided to close and to help consumers faced with the conversion or replacement of appliances.
      Mr. McCusker: Because of the recent developments announced for the North Sea, including several substantial additional discoveries of gas—and bearing in mind that the report that the Minister has received indicates that a gas industry in Northern Ireland is economically viable—is it not time that he changed the decision that he announced 12 months ago and gave Northern Ireland the same benefits as are enjoyed by gas consumers in Great Britain?
      Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he gave me advance notice of the publication of the Cooper and Lybrand
      748
      study to which he has just referred. We shall be undertaking a detailed examination of that study, and will let our findings be known in due course. Meanwhile, the decision which was announced last year must stand, and discussions with those gas undertakings which have decided to close must continue.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: How can the Minister reconcile those two statements—that the gas industry is to close, yet he will study an interesting report which is contrary to the report on which he has based his original decision?
      Mr. Shaw: There is nothing irreconcilable at all in the two statements that have just been made. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision was taken last July primarily on the basis that the project for the gas pipeline would not be financially viable. The report just produced suggests that there may be a case that it would be financially viable, and we must assess that case. But the fact remains that the deficit financing involved in the report just made available costed something in the order of £130 million in relation to that project.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister review the decision which was taken last July? Bearing in mind that further encouraging evidence may be presented to him, does he not agree that to be absolutely dependent on one form of energy would be shortsighted, and, indeed, at the end of the day, might jeopardise the future of the Province? I plead with the hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again.
      Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern as well as his experience in this matter. But the fact remains that gas accounts for 3 per cent. of the current energy requirement of the Province, whereas other fuels—oil and electricity—account for substantially more. It is a matter of reviewing the electricity problem. This is currently under way. Certainly gas represents a very small part of the energy requirements of the Province.

      Academic and Academic-related Staff (Salaries)
      Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to avoid further delay in settling the salaries of academic

      749
      and academic-related staff in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Goodhart: The salaries of academic and related staff in Northern Ireland are the same as those agreed for the corresponding staff in Great Britain. Decisions on these matters are not taken separately in Northern Ireland in advance of settlements in Great Britain.
      Mr. Powell: What can the Minister do, if necessary in conjunction with his colleagues in Great Britain, to deal with the conviction of this staff that they are deliberately and invariably left at the end of the queue?
      Mr. Goodhart: He can encourage his colleagues to reach an early agreement on this matter. But my noble Friend has no direct standing in these discussions.

      Interrogation Procedures
      Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on implementing the Bennett report on interrogation procedures.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The recommendations of the Bennett report, which the Government accepted last July, have been implemented.
      Mr. Bradford: Has the Minister noted that the DPP in Northern Ireland has decided not to proceed with cases against RUC members who were mentioned in the Bennett report? Will he undertake not to spend too much more time and resources on the Bennett report, but to apply all the Government's might and power in the defeat of the IRA?
      Mr. Alison: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Bennett report recommendations have been implemented, so further costs and effort in that sense do not arise. As to the decisions of the DPP, that matter is outside the ambit of my responsibility.
      Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister absolutely certain— I ask him to be absolute certain before he replies—that the recommendation in the Bennett report, to the effect that policemen not connected with the interrogation should be present to ensure that there is no ill-treatment is being carried out? Is he satisfied that uniformed
      750
      and plain clothes police officers are there to ensure that no brutality is used during the investigation?
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's question was phrased in such terms as to indicate that he expected to receive the answer "No". In the light of my reply, the advice that I am receiving is that all the Bennett report recommendations have been implemented. I am satisfied that they have been, but I shall now check carefully in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

      De Lorean Car Project
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conclusions he has reached regarding Mr. De Lorean's applications for an additional £8 million from public funds; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will make his statement on Mr. De Lorean's topping-up request before the House rises for the Summer Recess? If by any chance that should be impossible, can he assure the House that in no circumstances will the statement be issued while the House is in recess? Does he agree that we must have a chance to discuss it?
      Mr. Shaw: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety that this statement should be made prior to the recess. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall do everything that I can to ensure that the statement is made to this House before the recess. At the present time I cannot go beyond that.

      PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
      Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.
      The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to

      751
      my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
      Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister today take time to discuss with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment his statement that he believes in the introduction of compulsory work for the unemployed and his subsequent retraction of that scheme? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she or he make Government policy and whether that scheme is Government policy?
      The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not say that he believed in compulsory social work for the unemployed, so there was never any need to retract a statement which he did not make. What he said was that he believes that there are a number of young unemployed people who, as well as getting something out of the system, would very much like to put something in, and would feel it very much better to spend some of their time doing social work until they could get a job. We have had preliminary suggestions to that end and we are pursuing them.
      Mr. James Callaghan: As every young unemployed person would like to be at work, and as it is costing the Government and the State between £5 billion and £10 billion a year to keep them unemployed, why not expand the economy and give them real jobs and real wages?
      The Prime Minister: I can no more guarantee jobs for everyone than the right hon. Gentleman. It was he who substantially increased unemployment. Had he left us with numbers of unemployed equivalent to those that we left him—which were very much lower—the number of unemployed now would be very much lower than it is.
      Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Lady regard the increase in redundancies, which have more than doubled over the past 12 months, and the short-time working, which has more than quadrupled during the past 12 months, as evidence of the success of her policy, or is it nothing to do with her?
      The Prime Minister: I am afraid that it is the inevitable consequence of having to deal with some of the appalling situa-
      752
      tions which the right hon. Gentleman left me with. The right hon. Gentleman is now asking me to print more money in order to spend our way out of inflation. He knows that we cannot do that. If we were to go for increasing inflation we would also go for increasing unemployment. We will not do it.
      Mr. Callaghan: What does the right hon. Lady mean when she says that in such an event we should go for increasing inflation? Does not she realise that it is possible to keep inflation under control, and to have a diminishing and decreasing unemployment level, provided that she adopts the correct economic policies? When will she take responsibility for this scandal, for which she is responsible?
      The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dodging."] I do not dodge the issue. I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman saying that one cannot spend one's way out of inflation. He is asking us to do precisely that by printing more money or borrowing more money and putting up the interest rate. [Interruption.] If we were to do that—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for me to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. [Interruption.] Order. Whatever it is, the Prime Minister is entitled to say it.
      Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is odd that so innocent a remark and suggestion as that made by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment should have provoked quite such a hysterical reaction from those hon. Members who are normally so enthusiastic about giving something for nothing?
      The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We are anxious to help some of those young unemployed, and if we can do so by assisting them to do some social work, we shall take that opportunity.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Lady is not addressing the House, and we cannot hear her.
      Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that all hon. Members will co-operate to try to ensure that we can hear everything that is said.
      Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.
      Mr. Howells: Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss Welsh broadcasting and television services in Wales with the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales? What plans has she to save Mr. Gwynfor Evans, president of Plaid Cymru, from starving to death in October?
      The Prime Minister: I deeply regret Mr. Gwynfor Evans's threat. Neither he nor any responsible person can ever expect a Government to respond to that sort of action. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made a speech from this Dispatch Box on Welsh broadcasting, and he pointed out that if the arrangements that he has already made do not prove satisfactory he is prepared to look at them again.
      Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the indignation from the Opposition Benches this afternoon is in sharp contrast to the scene at the Select Committee on Employment yesterday afternoon, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his proposal? Is she aware that Labour members of the Committee did not ask a single question—hostile or otherwise—because it was clear that the Secretary of State was simply putting forward an optional scheme to relieve the tedium of unemployment?
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not contempt of the House for proceedings of a Select Committee to be disclosed—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter arose yesterday, and I explained that when a Select Committee is held in public no secret is revealed.
      The Prime Minister: With regard to my hon. Friend's question, the work of the Community Service Volunteers is greatly admired. They assist with a number of schemes under the youth opportunities employment programme, and it is apparent from what is happening in the House this afternoon that many young
      754
      people have far more ideals than Opposition members.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: During the Prime Minister's heavy day will she please do something that every hon. Member will support? Will she send a letter or telegram to John and Harriet Orton, who are 104 and 102 years of age respectively, congratulating them on having achieved 80 years of happy, married life? May I say, even though I may be out of order when I say it, that I know they are staunch Methodists, and perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, may also like to send them a message.
      The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that suggestion. I have already sent a personal telegram, and I would be only too happy to send a telegram on behalf of the House. I am happy with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should join the House's most distinguished bachelor in doing so.
      Mr. Speaker: I merely tell the House that I have sent a telegram. It is my ambition to emulate the couple.
      The Prime Minister: Hope springs eternal, Mr. Speaker.

      DUDLEY
      Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the metropolitan borough of Dudley.
      The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
      Mr. Blackburn: If my right hon. Friend were to visit the fine industrial town of Dudley she would find a Conservative-controlled local authority working within the guidelines of central Government and producing the lowest rate in the West Midlands. Is she aware of the excellent co-operation between unions, management and the local authority which is planning the future economy of the town? Is not this an example to the country?
      The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend appears to represent an admirable constituency, with excellent industrial relations, which I know has in it a wonderful private steelworks which accounts for about a quarter of our steel exports. He represents a marvellous local authority,

      755
      and I congratulate it on having the lowest rates in the West Midlands.

      PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
      Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 July.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
      Mr. Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister find time today to telephone the leader of the Conservative group on the Hampshire county council and ask him to withdraw the proposals to cut £10 million from the education budget, which, among other things, will lead to the sacking of 1,000 teachers by Christmas? Is the Prime Minister aware that the chief education officer of Hampshire has said publicly that if these cuts go through, the education committee will no longer be able to fulfil its statutory duties?
      The Prime Minister: The short answer is "No, Sir". I must leave these matters to the local education authority. Like the Government, I expect that it has members making great demands on a limited purse, and it has somehow to match the two.
      Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. Members—it may apply to both sides of the House—are having some difficulty in hearing some of the answers. It may have something to do with the accoustical system. Could not those responsible for the amplification of our proceedings do something about it?
      Mr. Speaker: I hope that whoever is responsible has heard that.
      Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the judgment of the Court of Appeal today in the case of Hillingdon borough council v. Streeting, the result of which is to compel local authorities to provide accommodation for people from overseas who have no connection with any local authority in the United Kingdom? Will she discuss this matter with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with a view to amending
      756
      the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act to ensure that homeless persons from overseas do not have priority in housing over the indigenous population?
      The Prime Minister: I saw that judgment, and it obviously will be of concern to many people who are seeking housing. We must consider it in detail, and decide whether that Act needs amending.
      Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the breach of faith in respect of the Boyle Commission report, will the Prime Minister confirm that she will honour the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in respect of the pay of the Armed Forces?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister take time today to read some of the 1,000 letters that were delivered to her by the four widows from Fermanagh, whose husbands were murdered by the IRA? Is she aware that the people of Northern Ireland were grateful for the fact that she was able to meet those widows and hear at first hand some of the current fears of the womenfolk of Ulster?
      The Prime Minister: I saw the four widows. It was obviously a very distressing experience for us. I learnt more from them by seeing them than I could ever have learnt from reading any number of papers or letters. They brought a large number of letters from people who live near the border. I have already seen a very considerable number of them.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I put security at the top of our list of priorities for Northern Ireland.
      Mr. David Watkins: Has the Prime Minister yet considered the petition about Consett that was presented yesterday for her attention, signed by more than 20,000 people? In considering that petition, will she bear in mind that the steelworks at Consett is meeting all the criteria that she has repeatedly laid down in this House for survival, in that it is both profitable and highly productive? Will she recognise that its loss would devastate an entire community?
      The Prime Minister: I received the petition. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the loss of a

      757
      main steelworks such as Consett and the effect that this has on the community. With regard to the point that is continually made that Consett steelworks is profitable, I must correct any impression that it has been profitable for a long time. From 1975 to 1979 it made annual losses varying from £3·5 million to over £17 million. It was profitable for only one quarter of last year, when it made something like £½ million. It is, I regret to say, again now in a loss-making position.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 14 July—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the persistent rise in unemployment.
Tuesday 15 July—Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 16 July and Thursday 17 July—Report and Third Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
At the end on Wednesday, motion on the Summer Time Order.
Friday 18 July—Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
Monday 21 July—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: The subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Callaghan: With regard to the Summer Time Order, many of us will be very anxious to know why we are being cut short on summer time next year. We hope that there will be a full debate on this subject. There is no reason whatever why we should fall into line with the others. They ought to fall into line with us, as we have obviously the most sensible arrangement on summer time.
Secondly, with regard to public expenditure cuts, which I understand are being discussed by the Government at the present time, will the Leader of the House tell us whether we are likely to have a statement on this matter next week? If so, let me intimate to him now that we would expect it to be followed by a debate.
Thirdly, as the Leader of the House has already said that Monday's debate is to be about the persistent rise in unemployment, let me indicate to him that with the remaining business at our disposal every week from now until the end of the Session we shall bring before the House some aspect of the scandal of unemployment
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have been given early warning by the Leader of the Opposition.
Without getting into a dispute on the question of summer time, I point out that it is clearly for the convenience of everyone, in whatever country within the Community, that summer time should begin and end at the same time.
There is no need for a statement concerning public expenditure. The Cabinet is carrying out its normal review of public expenditure, as it does at this time of year, and no final conclusions have been reached.
Mr. Hill: If my right hon. Friend can spare the time, will he read early-day motion 673, on the reform of the licensing laws?
[That this House welcomes the submission of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers on licensing legislation reform; believes that its conclusions result from a thorough investigation into the current problems in licensing law; and whilst not necessarily accepting all their conclusions nevertheless broadly accepts them as the basis for much-needed reform.]
Is it not time that the House discussed the jungle of legislation on which so many courts are unable to act because of the sheer immensity of the problem?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is studying these proposals, but he has at present no plans for legislation.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Leader of the House has not made the expected announcement that there will be a debate on prisons on Friday 18 July, will he say when that debate will take place? Will he also confirm that it will not be on a subsequent Friday?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am hoping that I shall be able to announce shortly a debate before the Summer Recess, but I cannot give a guarantee in the terms for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when, before Easter, I expressed anxieties about the way in which the House was expected to approve the Spring Supplementary
760
Estimates on the nod, he showed at least some sympathy? Now that we are confronted with Summer Supplementary Estimates running to £230 million of additional expenditure, will he offer some encouragement for the hope that we shall be given an opportunity to debate this before any decision upon it is taken?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend said, I am sympathetic towards the point that he has raised, both in this House and in correspondence. I do not believe that it is satisfactory that we should follow these procedures, but I think that it is a subject that would be suitable for discussion in the procedure debate that I have promised the House before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Spriggs: With regard to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated about unemployment debates in the future, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen early-day motion 748, about unemployment in Great Britain, and in the North-West of England in particular?
[That this House is deeply shocked at the reported increased number of unemployed men and women in the United Kingdom, which, with the decision of a major furniture and upholstery firm to lay off workers and to close a factory in the Manchester area, has reached the proportions of a major economic disaster in the North West Region; and calls upon the Government to take special measures to reduce the hardship caused by Conservative Government economic policy.]
Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate about the shocking conditions in the North-West in particular and in the country in general?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am, of course, aware, as is everyone in the House, of the problems raised at the moment by high unemployment, particularly in the North-West. It is for that reason that parts of the region where the problem is greatest are to retain their special development area status. That will entitle employers who are setting up, and thereby creating new jobs in those areas, to receive the highest level of assistance available under the Industry Act. But in the long term the prospects for the

761
region—as, indeed, the prospects for employment in the country as a whole—depend on our success in the fight against inflation.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of gaining control of public expenditure is now so urgent that the leisurely procedure that he suggests for considering the way in which we might consider Supplementary Estimates is not good enough, and that we must have an urgent debate about it, so that the House may consider whether it wishes to reassert its ancient rights of considering Supply?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that there will be nothing leisurely either in the approach to the debate or in the debate itself. As I indicated, it is a most urgent problem, and I hope that we shall proceed to tackle it, as action has been delayed for many years.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Leader of the House accept that there is a great deal that is contentious in the Government's proposals for agricultural capital grants? May we have an assurance that this matter will be debated on the Floor of the House and not sent to a Committee upstairs?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no plans to have a debate on this matter in the coming week. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend expect the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on arrangements to maintain an independent British strategic deterrent? If so, will there be a debate on this matter before the Summer Recess?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I cannot see my way to arranging a debate at the moment because I am anxious not to delay the Summer Recess unduly.
Mr. Ashley: Has the Leader of the House read the recent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which shows that there is widespread discrimination against women in Britain
762
today? As this discrimination is increasing, and is offensive and damaging to many women, could we have an opportunity to debate discrimination against women?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an important report. It may be that further action ought to be taken in that sphere, but I cannot promise a debate before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Silvester: In view of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 14 May, will my right Friend ensure that the view of the House is taken before the Government finally decide to renew the right of individual petition to the European Court in January next year?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know what statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 14 May. If it is an important constitutional matter, I shall take an early opportunity to discuss it with him.
Mr. James Callaghan: There are two issues that the Leader of the House has answered on which I should like to press him further. The first is public expenditure. May we take it that no decisions will be announced before the end of the Session? If so, which is what I inferred from his statement, may we also take it that no statements will be made during the recess, when it is not possible to debate them? I should be grateful for a further indication of the Government's thinking on that matter.
Secondly, it will be intolerable if the Government make a statement on the strategic nuclear deterrent without a debate. There has been insufficient debate about the important issues raised by this matter—the balance between our forces, whether we can afford it, what it should be, and so on. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are to make a statement on this matter it is imperative that there shall be a debate so that the House can express its opinion, too.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Leader of the Opposition has raised hypothetical points. I have given no indication that there will be a statement on this matter. I have not ruled it out, but I certainly

763
have not ruled it in. The logical point at which to raise the question of a debate is if and when a statement is made. At present I have no plans for a debate on the subject. If a statement is made, the right hon. Gentleman can raise this point again.
With regard to the public expenditure review, I stick to what I said. This is a normal review, which takes place in all Governments at this time of the year.
Mr. Callaghan: With respect, the Leader of the House has not answered the question. A normal review is going on. I have known many years when statements have been made. [Hon. Members: "In July?"] In July, certainly, by Governments of both parties. There is nothing exceptional about it. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that if a statement is not made before the House rises for the Summer Recess it shall not be made until the House has had a chance to debate the issue. The Government cannot just creep away into the recess and then make statements either on Polaris or on public expenditure and expect the House to be satisfied.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government are not creeping away from anything. The right hon. Gentleman has made a point without validity. I have had no requests for statements on these matters. The review that is taking place within the Cabinet at this moment, which has not reached a final conclusion, is the normal review that is carried out at this time of the year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Kilfedder: Why cannot the Leader of the House give a clear assurance that the Government will arrange for a debate before a decision is taken to replace Polaris—a decision that would cost thousands of millions of pounds and perhaps have the gravest possible consequences for the people of this country?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have had a debate on defence. I have had no application for a statement on nuclear policy.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House, one day next week, look at
764
the daily worsening position of Members' correspondence being neglected by almost every Government Department? It now takes a couple of months to get an interim reply and three months to get a substantive reply to any ordinary question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having waited for six weeks for an answer to a letter, I tabled a question and got a reply within 24 hours? If he does not do something, every hon. Member will be tabling questions asking for replies to corespondence.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that that point is being exaggerated by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lewis: Ask Members.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not have to ask Members. They would tell me prettty quickly if the general situation were as bad as the hon. Gentleman contends. Practice varies from one Department to another, but I do not believe that it is the normal practice in any Department that there should be no interim reply for, I think the hon. Gentleman said, three months.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early opportunity to debate women's employment as well as equal opportunities and the effect of modern technology on their employment? Many hon. Members have the experience that I have in my constituency, of modern technology sweeping away and eating into women's employment, especially that of young female school leavers. This is an urgent problem. In my constituency the ratio of young female school leavers to male school leavers is two to one. This is a growing problem. Surely it is time that the House concentrated its mind on the problems of women's employment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that it is a very important problem. The hon. Gentleman raised another aspect of the problem that was raised a few minutes ago. Important though it may be, I cannot promise a debate on this subject before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Hooley: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be a full-scale debate before the Government proceed with any plans to build a fast-breeder reactor?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise a debate on that subject before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Winnick: Will there be an opportunity in Monday's debate for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a contribution, bearing in mind the remarks that he made to the Tory Reform Group over the weekend? Are not his remarks even more relevant when we recognise that unemployment is increasing not only in areas where there have been problems for some time but in the West Midlands and the Black Country, where unemployment and poverty have increased substantially since the Tories returned to office in May last year?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government, through various Ministers, have expressed their concern about the present state of employment, but we have consistently maintained that until our policies have a chance of coming into operation we have to go through what I hope will be a temporary period of high unemployment.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's desire, which I am sure is genuine, to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate on Monday. At present there are no plans for him to speak from the Front Bench in that debate. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman is interested in the exegesis of my right hon. Friend's words, he should write to him about it.
Mr. Soley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger on both sides of the Chamber about the Government's casual attitude to the crisis in our prisons? His answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is totally unacceptable. There is a major crisis in our prisons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that prior to the Whitsun Recess he told me that there would be a debate on this matter after that recess. We have been told that repeatedly. Friday has been mentioned. That shows the low priority that the Government are prepared to put upon the matter. When will they give us proper time for a debate on it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The fact that we have not had a debate earlier is a reflection of the importance that the Government attach to the report, because it has
766
been necessary to hold widespread discussions on this most important report. As I told the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), on this and other occasions, it is still my hope that we shall have a debate before the Summer Recess, but I cannot guarantee that it will not be on a Friday.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept that the fact that the Opposition are devoting a great deal of their time to the subject of unemployment does not abrogate the Government's responsibility to provide time for a debate on the textile industry, which is still losing jobs at the rate of 500 a week? It is a very complicated position for the industry and it needs the individual attention and responsibility of a Minister answering to the House specifically on the textile industry.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House provide time before the Summer Recess to debate the Select Committee's report on the register of Members' interests? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, five hon. Members have not declared their interests, which makes it extremely unfair on the rest of us who have done so. The report has not yet been debated. The right hon. Gentleman has in the past indicated that he would provide time for such a debate. Perhaps if we debated that report and, as a result, some Tory Members divested themselves of their interests, we might have more jobs floating around.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently had a meeting with representatives from the textile industry, which I understand was a satisfactory meeting. I repeat the Government's pledge that when the multi-fibre arrangement expires in 1981 we shall negotiate a further agreement to protect the textile industry's interests.
With regard to the register of Members' interests and the Select Committee report, I have been instrumental in securing the publication of the register, which the hon. Gentleman may have noted—
Mr. Cryer: Yes, indeed.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cryer: I called for publication.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that solicited tribute. I cannot, however, promise an early debate upon the subject.
Mr. Skinner: On the question of coordination of Government policy, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister will make a statement on the recent remarks of the Secretary of State for Industry in America, on the one hand, when he said that it would be a good thing for American investors to come over here because we paid low wages, and, on the other hand, a fortnight after that, when he said that wages in Britain were too high and that that was one of the reasons for unemployment? May we have that matter clarified?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister ensure that with regard to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that unemployment benefit is now running at a rate of £7,000 million, out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £9,000 million, and is too high a price to be paid for the efforts to squeeze inflation out of the economy, a statement will be made on the question whether that is Government policy, especially at a time when the Government are giving aid and comfort to the steel bosses to throw people out of work, such as the people at Consett, which is the height of economic lunacy and is thereby adding more to the expenditure needed for the dole queues?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: After that, I am clearer about the hon. Member's views on the matter than about the various speeches—
Mr. Skinner: That is what the Secretary of State said.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: So the hon. Member says, but I would require to see the text of these statements and to check them against the version that the hon. Member is giving. However, as the hon. Member knows, when Ministers speak in their official capacity they are speaking on behalf of the Government. They are setting forth Government policy and they speak for the Prime Minister as well as for other members of the Government.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the House is anxious to move on. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he had not received any request for a statement on the modernisation of the British nuclear deterrent. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good order, perhaps I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my question to the Leader of the House a few moments ago was precisely a request for such a statement.
Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 (REPEAL)
  Sir Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Philip Holland, presented a Bill to repeal the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 July and to be printed. [Bill 249.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [25th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT POLICIES)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to move the motion, I must tell the House that an exceptionally large number of right hon. and hon. Members have indicated to me their wish to speak. It is clearly quite impossible for everyone who has indicated that he wishes to speak to be called to speak today, but I gather that there are other occasions on which we shall be discussing much the same subject. However, I hope that those who are called will bear in mind the number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak.
3.55 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move,
That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's economic policies which are inflicting intolerable damage on British industry.
I do not think that there can be any argument on either side of the House but that the damage done to British industry over the last 12 months is intolerable. The evidence is multiplying every day. Up to the beginning of April industry was sliding steadily downhill, but since April firms have been tumbling over the precipice one after the other. Many are disappearing for good, and most of those that remain see their profitability falling lower than ever in British history, and they are able to survive only by slashing their investment plans, abandoning their research expenditure and sacking or underpaying their employees.
Let me run quickly through a long litany of disaster. I begin with bankruptcies. Over 2,000 companies have entered into voluntary liquidation in the last three months and over 800 have been compulsorily wound up. That is three times the rate that obtained in the same three months last year, and the rate is rising all the time. If the trend continues —and it may well worsen—we shall have
770
Well over 6,000 firms going bankrupt by the end of this year.
Bankruptcies are worst, as always, in those industries that are regularly more vulnerable in a recession, such as textiles, engineering and construction. Bankruptcies in textile firms doubled in the first half of this year. Courtaulds has recently been shutting one mill every week, and 30,000 jobs have been lost in the textile industry.
In clothing manufacturing, bankruptcies have more than trebled in the last six months. In engineering and the metal-using industries, bankruptcies increased by 83 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and have more than doubled in the second quarter. In construction, 136 building contracting firms collapsed in the last six months.
There is a steady contraction throughout British industry. Manufacturing output has fallen by 8 per cent. in the last 12 months, since the Chancellor presented his first Budget. The contraction and the liquidations are not only in declining industries. For example, in chemicals, which since the war has been one of the most rapidly expanding and certainly most efficient industries in Britain and, indeed, in the world, output was sharply down in March and April, and exports are now said to be stagnating. In electronics, which should be the foundation of our future growth, the number of bankruptcies of firms has nearly tripled in the first half of this year.
The decline in British industry is not confined to the regions of secular decline. Let us take the West Midlands. Since the war that has been one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. It is now littered with industrial casualties. Apart from the car industry, there has been a sharp contraction in all engineering industries, including GKN, IMI, Glynwed, Rubery Owen, Delta Metal and Tube Investments. All of them expect the contraction to worsen dramatically, at least over the next 12 months. The situation is such that the chairman of the CBI recently said that there had been
"a great deal of talk about a Phoenix rising from the ashes—but what if we are left with just the ashes?"
That is the problem to which the House must address itself this afternoon.
The East Midlands has often been spared serious damage in a recession.

771
However the textile, footwear and engineering industries throughout the East Midlands are in a state of dangerous decline. Every day we get more bad news from all over the country. On Monday, hon. Members from all parties bombarded the Secretary of State for Industry with horror stories from their constituencies. Only this morning, we heard that the MG plant was closing down and that the furniture industry was at death's door.
Trouble is not confined to manufacturing industry. Bankruptcies in retail and wholesale firms increased by just under 30 per cent. in the first half of this year. The tourist industry is undergoing a season of near disaster. Conservative Members have always boasted of their great affection for small firms. I wonder whether they have had an opportunity to read the statement made by the chairman of the National Federation of the Self-Employed in Small Businesses last week. He said that he expected 12,500 of the employers in his organisation to go out of business within the next 12 months. He estimated that that would involve a job loss, from that source alone, of 125,000 men and women.
Of course, not all firms and businesses face the receiver. But most of those that are managing to survive do so only by cutting investment, research, manpower and pay. The Conservative Party has always rightly insisted on the importance of profitability as the source of all industrial improvement and growth. The squeeze on profitability now facing British industry is the worst since the 1930s. Indeed, it is worse than it was throughout most of the 1930s.
The other day the CBI told us that in 1980–81 British business would have the lowest profitability ever recorded. For every pound of profit earned by British firms in 1979 the MESR estimates that there will be only 17p profit in 1981. The cash threat to firms is easily the most severe since the war. It is a potential threat to the banks and financial institutions that support them. There is a real danger that the banking sector will come under the same type of domestic strain—as a result of the decline in British industry—as the international banking sector is coming under in the world as a whole, as a result of the effect
772
of the world recession on the developing countries. Investment is the seed corn for the future of our industry—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is some logic in saying that the banks will come under pressure if things continue as they are. However, the minimum lending rate was at 17 per cent. for God knows how long. It is still very high in relative terms. That means that banks and insurance companies can offset the other difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred. As long as there is a high bank rate, banks will be able to make £1,500 million profit, as they did last year.
Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend is quite right as far as the clearing banks are concerned, but merchant banks have to buy their money at high interest rates. As a result, they may face a serious threat.
According to the Department of Trade's estimates, investment in manufacturing is likely to be cut this year by up to 12 per cent. In the last two years of the previous Labour Government, investment in private manufacturing rose each year by over 12 per cent. in volume. Indeed, the fall in manufacturing investment over the next 12 months will represent the steepest fall since 1972, when the last Conservative Government were conducting the same policies as those to which they returned in 1979.
Expenditure on research and development is being cut throughout industry. Most industries stopped taking on new workers many months ago. Now, compulsory redundancies have arisen on an unprecedented scale and they have doubled within a year. In the past few months redundancies have increased at the rate of 30,000 a month. They are rising to 40,000 a month and are likely to rise further before the year is out. Most of the industrialists to whom I have had a chance to speak in the past few weeks believe that unemployment will probably reach 2 million, not by the middle of next year as I believed, or by the end of next year, as the Government claim to believe, but by this Christmas.
The consequences of such unemployment were well illustrated in today's edition of The Times. I hope that the

773
House will pay attention to it. It states:
"Nearly 500 unemployed school leavers formed a despairing queue outside a clothes shop advertising eight jobs in the employment black-spot of Sheffield.…In the queue were several young people with degrees who had waited for up to two hours, hoping to land one of the £32·50 a week jobs selling jeans at the newly opened boutique in the city where 5,400 teenagers are unemployed…Mr. Paul Caplan, a director of the company, said: 'You could call it a queue of despair. We were stunned. They were standing five abreast and some had been there for up to two hours'."
If economic dogma blinds Ministers to the human consequences of such unemployment, I hope that they will at least look at some of its social consequences. A speaker at the meeting of the London education authorities said yesterday that the scale of youth unemployment represented a time bomb that was ticking in the heart of Britain. One must consider the problems relating to the black population. During the past 12 months, unemployment among the black population has increased four times faster than unemployment in the white population. The riots in St. Paul's, Bristol, which took place a few weeks ago, were just a foretaste of what may happen in many of our cities during the coming months and years.
The problem is not confined to the young. One of the most tragic features of Britain today is that in some areas, such as Shotton, unemployment among adult males—most of whom look after families—stands at the horrific level of 36 per cent. That means that more than one adult male in three is out of work. Steel workers came down from Consett yesterday. They were all men of the highest moderation and respectability. They told us that they would face the same scale of unemployment if the Government went through with their plans to close the Consett works.
Mr. David Watkins -: In my constituency 1,400 young people will leave school this year. There are just eight jobs available.
Mr. Skinner: The policy is working.
Mr. Healey: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right; the policy is working. I shall come to that in a moment. I need not describe the level of unemployment in Wales, Scotland, the North-East and the North-
774
West, where it threatens to become high enough to damage stability not just in one town but in whole regions of our land.
The Government's only response to unemployment on this scale—unemployment that is still set to rise continually for the whole period that this Government are in office—is to cut unemployment benefit, cut training for the unemployed and think aloud about putting the unemployed to work in hospitals and prisons. I am very surprised at the Secretary of State for Employment. We have always known him as a man who has some skill with words. It is surprising how often recently he has managed to get himself misunderstood. I have no doubt that he will be very, very sorry about what he said two days ago, as he was about something that he said a little earlier.
No one can deny that the facts that I have outlined briefly represent an intolerable decline in British industry. My point this afternoon is that those facts are a direct and intended result of Government policy. On occasions I have been charitable enough to wonder whether Ministers knew what their policies were doing to the country, but I have had the opportunity to read a speech that the Secretary of State for Industry made in Chicago on 27 May. This is what he said:
"I bring you good news: Britain, which pioneered the industrial revolution, is beginning the process of turning away from stagnation. The relative decline associated with the bindweed of state power, which has afflicted Britain for several decades is being stemmed. Britain is in transition. Before very long the thousands of healthy, successful businesses will no longer be overloaded: Britain will be on its way again."
I must confess that I found that pretty astonishing, even by the right hon. Gentleman's own standards.
The key to the right hon. Gentleman's speech was what he said a few days later, when he spoke to the Electronic Association of California. We have become used to the personality of the right hon. Gentleman in recent years. He has two personalities—one is a sort of Siegfried figure, who fights with his sword against dragons—usually artificial—and the other is the gloomy Hamlet figure, who is not fighting dragons but facing real decisions in the real world.
In California, a long way from his responsibilities at the Department of

775
Industry, the right hon. Gentleman was in a Wagnerian mood. There was a sort of romantic exaltation about his speech, and I strongly recommend all Members to read it. It sheds a great light on a senior figure in the present Government. His feet were even further off the ground than usual. His whole speech was a long hymn of praise to what he called
"the perennial gale of creative destruction."
What an illuminating phrase. Now we know what he meant by all those pre-election speeches about galvanising the entrepreneurs. What he meant by that was that he was strapping the entrepreneurs down in the electric chair and then throwing the switch.
The Secretary of State for Industry expressed in this rather high-flown way the emotional mood in which he approaches the decline of British industry. He dances around the flames rather like a little boy at a bonfire. But the Chief Secretary, who I am glad to see sitting in the Chamber, takes an altogether more intellectual and systematic approach to these affairs. A fortnight ago, when he was asked about the unemployment figures, he told us that they were a necessary price to pay for getting inflation down. We know that to be his conviction, which he has often expressed in the House.
The root cause of the appalling prospects now facing British industry, much of it already in terminal decline, is the Government's belief that they have only one responsibility in economic management, and that is to counter inflation. They believe that inflation can be countered only by controlling the money supply and that the money supply can be controlled only by savage cuts in public expenditure and draconic increases in interest rates.
The Government have now had a year in which to apply this policy in practice. Their policy has proved mistaken at every point. The measures that they have chosen for controlling the money supply in the hope of getting inflation down have thrown the whole burden of adjustment on to industry, both public and private. First, the Government have engineered a heavy cut in domestic demand at a time when world demand was already falling
776
because of the recent doubling of oil prices. Secondly, they have achieved their desired cuts in public expenditure in ways that have hit industry, both coming and going. On the one hand the Government have raised the price that industry must pay for fuel and transport and the rates that it must pay on its property, and on the other they have cut orders for industry by concentrating their cuts on goods and services and on capital spending. This has hit hard not only the construction industry but also the engineering and metal-using industries.
The Government have tried to bring down the money supply growth by holding MLR at 17 per cent. for 10 months, but this has not brought the money supply under control. Indeed, it was interesting to see yesterday that the 1 per cent. cut in MLR last week was, as we suspected, just a sop to the wets, because the money supply is still growing outside the range set for it by the Government. As Ministers know all too well, it will grow very much faster in the next month or two as a result of the corset being unwound. The effect of the rise in interest rates has been not to cut private company borrowing—the reason that the Chancellor has always given the House—but to put up the exchange rate to a level at which it is quite impossible for most of British industry to compete with the foreigner, either at home or abroad.
In the past 12 months the pound has risen by 20 per cent. against a weighted basket of the currencies of the countries with which we trade, compared with the increase in our relative costs. Against Japan, the value of the pound has risen 40 per cent. in the past 12 months, although I am glad to say that with the strengthening of the yen that price advantage may be somewhat diminished in the coming months.
Finally, by doubling the rate of VAT and by increasing public sector charges in rent and rates the Government have sent up the retail price index right across the board. As a result, inflation has more than doubled in the first 12 months of a policy the only objective of which was to get inflation down. We still have big increases to come in gas and electricity prices, and rates, in the remainder of this year.

777
Meanwhile, British industry is staggering under a savage squeeze coming from four directions at once—high inflation, high interest rates, high exchange rates and low demand. That is a perfect recipe for industrial collapse, and the recipe is working. The proof is in the facts that I have just deployed to the House.
We face an appalling prospect, and our confidence was not restored by anything that the Leader of the House told us about public expenditure a few minutes ago. The Government have totally failed in one of their economic objectives. They have failed to control the public sector borrowing requirement, which turned out to be 18 per cent. higher last year than the level set by the Chancellor in his Budget in June 1979. Central Government spending in the first three months of this year has been half what the Government wanted it to be over the whole 12 months. The Government are therefore planning again to pile Pelion on Ossa. The Chancellor, we are told, is approaching his colleagues with a demand for another £1,000 million of public expenditure cuts, mainly to be achieved by a moratorium on capital spending in the public sector, which will be another karate chop to the neck of British business.
The Chancellor takes an objective and uncommitted view on most of those issues. He is a typical lawyer in that respect. I ask him to read with some care what his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last weekend—that unemployment, at 1½ million, is already adding £7,000 million to the PSBR, which implies that if unemployment rises to 2 million by the end of the year, particularly as the unemployed will include a higher proportion of more highly paid workers than in the past, the effect on the PSBR is likely to be as high as £10 billion. However, the only way in which the Chancellor can think of dealing with that situation is to increase unemployment, and hence the PSBR still further by making further cuts in public expenditure, the final effect of which will fall mainly on private sector industry.
That is bad enough, but all the problems of British industry, created by the macroeconomic policies—if I may use economic jargon—of the Government are
778
being compounded by the microeconomic policies of the Secretary of State towards British industry. It is well known that all over the world economic behaviour has changed since the first oil shock in 1973–74. Economies have been more sluggish to respond to changes in the economic environment, and there is good reason to believe that there have been structural changes in the requirements of industry, which will require major industrial structural adjustments in the next 10 years or so.
The Governments of every one of our major competitors have been giving direct physical help to their own industries to assist them to make those structural adjustments as rapidly and smoothly as possible. However, this Government have been moving out of that area. They are dedicated to a bigoted belief that market forces, and market forces alone, can produce the optimum distribution of industrial resources.
The German Government, for example, are giving massive support to the coal, railway and steel industries. The average subsidy per tonne to the German coal industry is £14 compared to £1 in Britain. That money subsidies the costs of all German industries, which, directly or indirectly, are affected by the price of coal or moving goods by rail. The British Government are reducing assistance to our nationalised industries, on which he health of the remainder of industry depends.
The French Government have just embarked on a major programme of support for their telecommunications industry, particularly in viewdata. They are to put three terminals into each of the 20 million houses that they expect to take new telephones over the next 12 years. Japan has already spent £1,000 million in direct support for its electronics industry, £500 million of which has gone to the microprocessor industry. However, the Secretary of State for Industry is refusing to allow the British Post Office to market its Prestel system, which is the most advanced in the world, by insisting that it sticks to cash limits that take no account of productive and profitable investment by the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is also dithering in his Hamlet mood—not his Siegfried mood—over

779
giving Inmos the second tranche of £25 million that it was promised years ago.
The Chancellor, we are told, is trying to engineer the collapse of the most powerful computer firm in Europe—ICL —by abandoning a long-standing Government commitment to give it preferential treatment in public purchase and throwing the contract for the £150 million new Inland Revenue computer system open to IBM, in the United States. I ask the Secretary of State, or the Chancellor, if he is prepared to do so, to answer the question tonight. We are told by this leakiest of all Cabinets that there is to be a meeting of a Cabinet committee on Monday to decide the matter. The Secretary of State for Industry can prove that that leak is untrue. He can reassure us by telling us tonight that there is no question of not giving our computer industry the public purchasing support that every other Government in the world give to their computer industry. I hope that he will be kind enough to give us positive reassurance, even if he has to spend 10 minutes talking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at some time during the evening.
Our competitors are not so daft. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Industry can give £2 million to a banking firm in the United States to help an elderly but able mining banker—if that combination is the appropriate description of Mr. MacGregor—to run BSC but is not prepared to support industries on the ground in the way that the Governments of all our competitors support their industries. I wish that he would travel to Paris at some time and get a little bit of Gallic pepper in his veins, and then make sure that we support our industries in the way that France is supporting hers. All contracts for the supply of this enormous number of new terminals for the French viewdata system, which is costing £3,000 million a year over the next 12 years, are to go exclusively to French suppliers. We should like to see the right hon. Gentleman take a leaf out of the French book.
All the countries that compete with us ensure that their financial institutions make cheap credit available for productive industry. We are the one country in the world that does not do so. The French do it through direct and indirect control of many of their banks. The
780
Germans do the same. The Japanese have a system under which every company is overgeared and every bank is overlent, because their Government stand behind every industrial loan. We started doing that when we were last in power. By far the most effective part of the whole industrial strategy was the interest rate subsidy under the accelerated project scheme. We desperately need to expand that on a large scale to take account of the problems of structural adjustment that now face us in Britain, as in other parts of the world.
What puzzles us most in this area is the extraordinary capriciousness of Government policy on industrial support. For example, after telling Harland and Wolff that the £20 million that it received last year was the last penny of Government aid that it would ever get, the Government decided, a few days before publishing a White Paper on Northern Ireland, to dish out an extra £42½ million to Harland and Wolff. They were right to do so, but they did it for political and, to be fair, social reasons and not for economic reasons. Harland and Wolff plays a role of immense importance in the society, as well as the economy, of Northern Ireland.
The RAF has just been told to buy 15 British transport aircraft instead of the American aircraft that it could have bought more cheaply. "Hear, hear" say I. The biggest U-turn so far—it encourages me slightly, because we are always looking for analogies between the second year of the present Government and the second year of the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1972—was that on British Steel. The Government have not gone far enough, but their action smells like the U-turn of the right hon. Member for Sidcup on UCS and I hope that it is the prelude to a massive shift in industrial policy along the lines that I have suggested.
We shall never get consistent industrial policy while the Secretary of State for Industry is in a perpetual dither, like Balaam's ass, between two bales of straw, one marked "monetarist theology" and the other "responsibility to British Industry". I wish the right hon. Gentleman would make up his mind or, if he cannot do that, knock it off.
There are alternatives to the approach being taken by the Government, and they

781
are being followed by all our competitors. Every one of our more successful competitors, the major countries in Europe, the Far East and on the other side of the Atlantic is following the same mix of policies that the previous Labour Government followed—management of demand in order to raise output to capacity when it is running far below capacity, as it is at present; a reasonable control of monetary growth, which is prepared to relax or suspend monetary policy if it is throwing people out of work—a course followed by the German and Swiss Governments on several occasions in recent years; and, above all, the achievement of sufficient consensus between the Government and both sides of industry to produce a climate in which there is a chance to keep pay increases in line with increases in productivity.
I wish the Government would add to that active intervention both in industry and finance to make certain that the necessary structural changes in British industry can take place as fast and as smoothly as possible. We have a better chance than our competitors of achieving changes smoothly, because our changes can be lubricated by North Sea oil.
Yet the Government, and particularly the Treasury, persistently play down the importance of North Sea oil. An extraordinary Treasury document on the economic effects of North Sea oil priced it for this year and the next four years at the price that obtained in 1978–79, which was only half the present price. The increase in oil revenue to £10,000 million in a few years' time is presented in the Brown Book as an increase to just under £5,000 million.
North Sea oil gives us a heaven-sent opportunity to ease the transition that is required in Britain, as in other countries, to new technologies and new ways of doing some of the old things in industry. But the Government are throwing that money—about £4,000 million this year—down the drain, financing unemployment and replacing revenue that has been lost due to the depth of the recession that the Government have engineered.
As the Secretary of State for Industry said in his California speech, the Gov-
782
ernment have a mystical belief in what the right hon. Gentleman called
"the perennial gale of creative destruction."
But there is no chance of restoring the strength of British industry while a Government of cold-hearted economic bigots are in charge of our affairs. The most creative act of destruction available to the House is the destruction of the Government before they destroy British industry.
4.29 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House approves the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government which are the only means of defeating inflation and providing a sound basis for sustainable economic and industrial recovery."
As so often, there was a contrast between the precision and relish with which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) purported to describe the difficulties of the scene and the facility with which he was offering inconsistent descriptions without coming near to offering any real alternatives. It is hard to believe that the right hon. Gentleman bore responsibility for any of these matters until less than 14 months ago.
I begin by acknowledging, indeed asserting, the difficulties facing our economy and, in particular, our manufacturing industry. They are real and they are the very difficulties of which we warned year after year throughout our time in opposition.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the Labour Party have no monopoly of concern in those matters. We share the concern of everyone in this country that the health of our economy should be restored. The question is which policies are more likely to yield the right solution—those tried erratically during five years of the previous Government, which manifestly failed, or those to which we are committed and which we have always made plain will take time to come to their full effect.
Of course company profitability has been declining, as it has for many years. Productivity improvements in this country have come almost to a standstill, as they have for many years. Redundancies are rising and are likely to go on doing so. However, it is not right for the right

783
hon. Member for Leeds, East to exaggerate where that is wholly unjustified. For example, we inherited a situation in which there was a balance of payments deficit of £1½ billion in the first half of 1979. By the second half of last year, it had been reduced to £¾ billion and there will be a further improvement in the first half of this year. It is worth looking at the aspects of the economy that are improving.
It is also important to recognise that by no means all of our difficulties are home made. The right hon. Member gave only a passing glance at what is happening in the world economy and did nothing like enough justice to the impact of the shock of oil price rises on the entire world economy in the past year.
The oil price increase is recognised by all who attended, for example, the Venice summit and recognised in all the communiqués issued from various meetings as having inflicted an enormous shock to the capacity for economic growth and prosperity of every industrial country. It is in that storm that we are having to reconstruct our economy in the way that is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman sought to draw the conclusion that there was something remarkably different about our economic policy compared with the policies followed by our international competitors. That is not the conclusion endorsed not only by the summit Heads of Government at Venice but also by the OECD and by the International Monetary Fund—
Mr. Healey: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to be fair, he should quote the conclusion of the central bankers of the world in the report of the Bank of International Settlements which described with wonder and horrified amusement what it called the laboratory experiment by this Government, the only Government in the world who thought they could cure inflation by monetary means alone.
Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I was going to quote, by way of example, the communiqué of the OECD in June that was precisely echoed by the communiqué of the European summit in Venice. They all agreed specifically that it would be a serious error to relax fiscal and monetary
784
policy before the current surge of inflation has demonstrably been brought under control. They underpin totally the commitment we give to that policy.
The international scene underlines the two foundations of our policy. The first emphasises the whole range of measures we are introducing, which have been universally welcomed, to improve the supply side of our economy. The second, even more important, emphasises the extent to which the conquest of inflation is crucial, with monetary policy at the heart of that policy. For the world and for the United Kingdom, our experience shows that when the inflation rate accelerates, growth slumps. When inflation begins to turn down, growth begins to pick up. Both for the world and for the United Kingdom, the recent huge rise in inflation is now affecting the growth rate crucially and will go on doing so this year and next.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir G. Howe: In a moment.
When inflation falls, we can expect growth both here and in the rest of the world to recover. That is the emphasis that emerges from the entire international analysis. The case for concentrating on inflation was clearly put in these words.
"We cannot master inflation unless we have control of the money supply…if the rate of inflation were to take off again…no responsible Government could shirk their duty for maintaining firm control over the supply of money and using the necessary fiscal and monetary instruments for that purpose. Unless we did so, inflation would soar to stratospheric heights and within a year or two unemployment would rise into the low millions.—[Official Report, 20 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1726–31.]
I quote from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to the House almost three years ago.
Mr. Hooley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It is clear that the Chancellor is not giving way.
Mr. Hooley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if the Chancellor is not giving way, he must resume his seat.
Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman, much more recently, in a debate in January last year, told the House:
"The Government are determined to maintain the monetary policy to which they have pledged themselves and the fiscal policy implied by the monetary policies."—[Official Report, 25 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 755.]
The trouble is that he was not so prepared, but we are. I hope that we can continue to count on his support. Unlike some of his hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Healey: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have done in every debate since the election, that a monetary target of 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. with inflation running at under 10 per cent. is perfectly consistent with the growth of British industry, and was so. A monetary policy which sets a target which is well under half the rate of inflation created by the Government is one with which industry and Government cannot live.
Sir G. Howe: We shall examine in a moment the responsibility for the present rate of inflation. The right hon. Gentleman will not find himself easily acquitted.
The link between monetary policy and inflation is crucial. The right hon. Gentleman understands that. At any given time, one may identify one or more temporary factors affecting inflation. Recently, as I have remarked, there was the rise in world commodity prices, not unconnected with the doubling of world oil prices. In the United Kingdom, wholesale input prices, dominated by imports, including oil, increased by nearly a quarter over last year. By contrast, they were falling in the last year of the previous Administration. There are the price increases that follow from the necessary reduction in subsidies and financial support for the nationalised industries. In the period before the election, increases in rates and nationalised industry prices had not matched the impact of cost increases. That unsound price structure had to be corrected. There are the short run consequences in the change of the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation.
I remind the House that the effect on the year-on-year inflation rate of the changes made in my first Budget will
786
pass out of the retail price index when the index is published in August.
The last but not the least of the short-term influences on the rate of inflation has been the backlash from the previous Government's pay policy. The disintegration of that policy led to immediate and accelerating pay increases far greater than the country could afford and bequeathed an inheritance of large and disruptive catch-up awards in the public sector stretching well over a year ahead. The clutch of staged comparability awards is estimated to have cost almost £3,000 million in a full year. Of that total almost a half falls on the local authorities' pay bill, with inevitable consequences for the rates.
Those are the short-term factors that have been at work, but, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the real and underlying causes of inflation usually lie in the past. The past year is no exception. The rise in prices over the the last 12 months reflects primarily the acceleration of monetary growth and fiscal expansion during the last two years of the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship at the Treasury. Whereas sterling M3 rose at an annual rate of 7 per cent. between mid-1975 and mid-1977, it increased at more than twice that rate between mid-1977 and mid-1979. That acceleration was associated with a major change in the budgetary stance with increased public spending and tax cuts that he embarked upon in autumn 1977.
Mr. Jack Straw rose—
Sir G. Howe: I shall give way in a second.
In our first year, we have managed to curb the money supply increase that we inherited. Over the last six months, sterling M3 growth, at an annual rate, has been within the 7 to 11 per cent. target range. We have not shrunk from the painful and other fiscal measures that were necessary. I stress that the high rate of inflation with which we are currently grappling was largely caused by the failure of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to exercise sufficient control of monetary and fiscal policy.
Mr. Straw: If it is correct that the rate of money supply in the previous two years caused the present level of inflation,

787
does the Chancellor agree with his Chief Secretary that pay increases over the last 12 months have not been a cause of inflation? If so, why is he blaming the Clegg award for the present rate of inflation?
Sir G. Howe: I have already dealt with that matter, as the hon. Gentleman would have known if he had been listening. I will repeat the answer for his benefit.
I explained at some length that at any one time there were a number of short run temporary factors affecting the inflation rate but that the underlying and most potent cause was the growth of money supply that we inherited from the previous Administration. It is noteworthy that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East never ceased to argue that the first two years of his Administration were dominated by his inheritance. I was interested to find him returning to that tack in a broadcast last week when in reply to a question he said:
"Certainly, but that is because of the inheritance we had from the Conservatives".
Even last week he was seeking to lay blame against us.
The task of re-establishing fiscal and monetary control makes it inevitable, as my right hon. Friends and I have often said, that the period ahead will be far from easy. Under the impact of the world recession and of our worsening competitiveness, demand for our goods has fallen. Profits have been squeezed and unemployment has been bound to rise.
I therefore come to consider—I know the concerns of my hon. Friends—the suggestions that have been made from various quarters for easing the discomfort and the pains of the transition, above all to the industrial sector. It is important to remember that all must be judged on the same basis. I cannot emphasise too strongly that we shall not be able to look forward to resumed sustainable economic growth and to reversing the rise in unemployment until we have substantially reduced the rate of inflation.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in ICI—to give him a measure of the magnitude of the
788
Problems—after the Prime Minister in her visit gave it as an example of a company which was winning through, I checked and found that the output of the basic building block of the chemical industry, ethylene, has fallen 40 per cent. in the past three months? Is he also aware that two of the three big ethylene crackers in ICI have closed down? Is that the kind of problem with which his measures will be able to deal?
Sir G. Howe: It is the type of problem which illustrates the difficulties. I am about to address myself to the various measures suggested to cope with the problems.
The basis upon which one must begin is that if we are to resume sustainable economic growth and reverse the rise in unemployment in a meaningful way, we must substantially reduce the rate of inflation. That is the basis on which we must judge, for example, the case tentatively put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East for monetary relaxation, by revising the target upwards, fiscal expansion or lowering interest rates. The reality about that is that the effect on unemployment, if any, would be shortlived. The upward impact on inflation would be certain and, in due course, on interest rates and unemployment. They would soon be back on an upward path.
If we are to achieve the necessary gradual reduction of monetary growth while bringing interest rates down to acceptable levels, public sector borrowing, as a proportion of national income must be steadily and substantially reduced. I was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman was saying that we are failing to bring public sector borrowing down far enough and fast enough or that we should be expanding it substantially.
Mr. Healey: Let me try to make it clear. I believe that the PSBR this year should be at least £3,000 million higher than the Government's aim. The London Business School and many monetary economists in the country and the world agree with me. I also believe that the Government are failing in their attempt to keep the PSBR up to the target level that they set themselves. In other words, the Chancellor has set himself a stupid target and he is totally incompetent to reach it.
Sir G. Howe: Having spent some 40 minutes making his own speech, the right hon. Gentleman has had several attempts to remake it in the course of my speech. He must know that if he were to try to expand the PSBR in present circumstances by anything like that amount his chances of holding interest rates at anything like their present level would be totally destroyed. He would lay the foundations for the next round of inflation on a catastrophic scale. He would not make such an assertion if he were responsible for it.
We must reduce the borrowing requirement. We recognise that the burden of taxation is still higher than we should like. The only effective answer is to accept the necessary restraint on overall public spending. None of our critics has proved the contrary. That is why our plans encompass a slow and steady reduction in total spending in the next few years—something which has never been attempted previously. The House and the country should be in no doubt that we shall persevere in that.
There is no question of the Government losing control of their own expenditure and borrowing in the short run. The central Government borrowing requirement for the April-June quarter published yesterday was £4½ billion. That is high in comparison with the Budget forecast for the year of £9·3 billion. The CGBR is often high in the first quarter of the year. In this year it is particularly affected by timing changes, the most important of which is that about £700 million of petroleum revenue tax, otherwise receivable in May, was paid in March. Moreover, as I said in my Budget speech in relation to cash limits and expenditure, the provision for inflation was less than the forecast might have suggested. It would not be surprising if that caused initial difficulties in some areas.
In general, however, central Government expenditure is not running at a level which is out of line with the Budget forecasts and the cash limits. It is being closely monitored. The House should be in no doubt that if problems arise corrective action will be taken. We are equally determined to secure effective control of local government expenditure.
I turn to the question of the exchange rate. I refer to the external value and
790
the effect of that on the competitiveness of industry. It is easy to forget that a strong pound brings advantages as well as disadvantages. It is an important part of the so-called transmission mechanism from lower monetary growth to lower inflation. It certainly helps industry with the cost of imported raw materials. I am conscious of the extent to which the present exchange rate is a source of worry to some industries. It is that which leads some people to suggest that we should atempt to secure a reduction in that rate.
I have to remind the House that the rate is not, to a significant extent, within my control. In so far as it is, it can be influenced in a downward direction—as the right hon. Gentleman discovered in 1977—only at the cost of undermining the tight monetary policy that is fundamental to success in the battle against inflation. Once the exchange rate begins to fall in that way, the price of imports rises. Too often in the past that has set off further inflationary demands for higher pay with the result that any gain in competitiveness is wiped out quickly. We must recognise the underlying reality that improved competitiveness can be achieved only by improving quality and marketing skills and, above all, reducing unit costs.
I turn to the alternative policy, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of using North Sea oil revenues directly to help the manufacturing sector. That is not a new proposal. I am aware that many Opposition Members favour the large-scale injection of public funds into British industry. However, such intervention in this country has been shown to be doomed to failure. It can hardly be said that we are not providing substantial sums in any event. Huge sums are being made available to the coal and steel industries, for example.
The people who are best able to identify profitable investment opportunities do not dwell in Whitehall and Westminster. They work in British industry. Differences of opinion about the establishment of a fund to handle these matters should not obscure the real argument. The argument is about whether there should be a change in our priorities in that direction. I have examined some other possibilities in that connection.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the German Government's subsidy of the German steel industry to the tune of £3 billion a year, permitting German steel to come in below our cost, to undercut our steel and motor car industries and cause pit closures? Is he aware that the cost of coal production in Britain is between one-half and one-third of what it is in the privately owned pits on the Continent?
Sir G. Howe: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures. All the comparisons have been studied and are being studied by NEDO and sector working parties. The truth remains inescapable. Out of the limited resources available in Britain, we are already making substantial subventions to the coal and steel industries.
I have considered, since resources are being eaten in that way, representations from other quarters to the effect that I should take direct fiscal action to ease the pressure on the rest of the corporate sector. We have considered that at NEDC. There are suggestions that I might make a reduction in the rate of corporation tax or reduce the national insurance surcharge. It is questionable how such measures can best help the longterm competitiveness of industry when compared with the alternatives.
I conclude that the best service that the Government can perform for businesses in the immediate future is to keep down the burden of financing the public sector and thus pave the way for lower inflation rate and, above all, lower interest rates. It will be some time before industry sees the full benefits of that policy. However, the recent reduction in minimum lending rates provides a firm indication that we are moving in the right direction.
It is not only the Government who should be pressed to respond in the circumstances that are creating difficulties for our industrial base. From now on it will be supremely important to secure the right response from all those concerned in working and managing the industrial base, and, above all, in fixing the levels of pay.
I noticed that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East listed a number of factors which he said were bringing pressure to bear on British industry. He conspicuously failed to mention the level of pay
792
demands and pay settlements. He should know, surely, that there is a direct tradeoff between pay on the one hand and output, jobs and profits on the other. If average earnings growth is faster than the growth in the money supply, unemployment will inevitably rise. We can see this clearly from the experience of the last two decades. Changes in unemployment are closely related to the movement of earnings related to the money supply, so that it is crucially important that those who work in industry should acquire a realism about jobs and pay.
Mr. Clinton Davis: This speech is unbelievably tedious.
Sir G. Howe: It may be tedious to the hon. Gentleman, but it is at the heart of the prospect of his constituents in finding secure employment. If he is not prepared to listen to this, he is prepared to neglect the central message of economic policy.
Being realistic about the relationship between jobs and pay is a question not of doing a favour to this or any other Government but of employees and firms helping themselves and all those who may depend upon them. It is a realism which is crucial for individuals as well as for organisations. Are those who seek work prepared to lower their sights in order to keep or to get that work? We have no choice but to be realistic about wages over the years ahead if high levels of unemployment are to be avoided. We must ask ourselves unflinchingly what is the cause of high unemployment.
Mr. Roger Stott: You are.
Sir G. Howe: We have to give ourselves the simple and unequivocal answer that it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce.
I can quote from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to the Labour Party conference in 1976. He knows, even if his hon. Friends are not prepared to agree, that the relationship between pay and jobs is crucial and that until realism is shot through the pay market we do not have the prospect of getting unemployment down.
Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us three times in his

793
speech that his policies must have time. He has also told manufacturing industry that there will be a decline in its output during every year of the lifetime of this Parliament. Will he now give us some indication of the time scale within which he expects to see Government policy succeeding? Will it be after the end of this Parliament or before?
Sir G. Howe: Of course it will be within the lifetime of this Parliament, and well within it. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Red Book published at the time of the last Budget, he will see clearly there the paths of progress for inflation and for the resumption of economic growth.
Mr. Callaghan: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is very helpful. If that success is to be within the lifetime of this Parliament, why does he expect manufacturing output to decline during every year of this Parliament?
Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will see that we expect output to begin growing again. I cannot put a precise date on that because it is not within the power of any sensible man to put a precise date on matters of that kind. I can, however, say with total certainty that the most effective service that the right hon. Gentleman and his party could do to the cause of recovering the path of economic growth and of reducing unemployment would be to put their full weight behind the case for responsibility in pay bargaining, given the link between pay bargaining and unemployment. I invite the Labour Party to study the extent to which, in speech after speech throughout the last Parliament, Conservative Members repeatedly emphasised the case for moderation in pay bargaining. Sadly—
Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way again?
Sir G. Howe: This is an important and serious point. Sadly, still too many trade union leaders are shying away from that reality.
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I do not resile from any comments I have ever made about the relationship between the need for res-
794
traint on incomes and prices, and productivity. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and I say this specifically to the Secretary of State for Industry—can never hope to get that cooperation as long as the Secretary of State uses such phrases as he did when he called the trade unions one of the six poisons of society.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph)rose—
Sir G. Howe: Neither the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Bob Cryer: Give way to the Secretary of State for Industry.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I saw the Secretary of State for Industry request the Chancellor to give way, and the Chancellor is refusing to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. William Hamilton: Give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry need have no concern about the way in which that question is to be answered. What my right hon. Friend said—and it was an entirely valid observation—
Mr. Dick Douglas: Let the Secretary of State speak for himself.
Sir G. Howe: My right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to speak at the end of the debate. I speak for him now and add my own gloss to what he said. The Leader of the Opposition should stay silent and hearken for a moment. He said that great damage was being done to our society by politicised trade unionism. That is an observation of supreme significance.
Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman said that trade unionism was one of the six poisons of society.
Sir G. Howe: Were it not to take the range of this debate wider than it should go, I should be prepared to develop at some length the case that the politicisation of our trade union movement has done great damage to the cause of the working people of this country.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Tell them that at Taff Vale.
Sir G. Howe: The fortunate feature is that, notwithstanding that, some union leaders have been showing good sense in the present situation. I refer, for example, to Mr. Sidney Weighell—and I do not agree with him in this respect—who is clinging to the concept of an incomes policy. On the subject of pay, Mr. Weighell is saying very much the same as we in the Government are saying. He said last week—and this is an important observation:
"In the short to medium term, considerable restraint will be required in the wages field."
He went on:
"A positive contribution on the part of the trade unions will be essential."
I regret that that useful attitude is not shared by many other trade union leaders. I regret very much that some trade union leaders are still describing the idea of restricting wages in order to save jobs as stupid and out of touch with reality. Nothing could be more in touch with reality.
Fortunately, at the grass roots where it matters, sense is prevailing on a far greater scale. We are beginning to see examples of people taking reductions in pay in order to save their jobs. We are beginning to see people arriving at sensible bargains in order to save their firms and to secure their future prosperity. The Financial Times yesterday expressed very clearly the reactions within the engineering industry in the Midlands where there is increasingly widespread recognition by those employed in it of what this implies for the sort of pay increase that they can get.
It is here in the firms themselves that reality is prevailing, whatever may be being said by trade union leaders. Phrases about "the going rate" and "keeping up with prices" do not cut much ice with workers whose firms are fighting, as they must, for markets and which are striving, as they must, for increased
796
productivity. These people understand the folly of pricing themselves out of a job and the extent to which their restraint will provide the basis of their success and their jobs in the future.
The private sector cannot be expected to take the whole of the strain. Levels of pay increases in the public sector must also be reduced. We cannot have overgenerous public sector pay awards at a time when production in the country as a whole is static or declining. That will govern our approach to the setting of cash limits for the public services and the external financing limits for nationalised industries in the coming months.
Mr. Frank Haynes: It is all right to keep bashing the trade unions. What about the bosses? There are plenty on the Government Benches and in the other place—
Sir G. Howe: As I said, the need for realism will govern our approach to the setting of cash limits both for the public service and for nationalised industries in the coming months. It is already clear that cash limits next year must be significantly lower than last year. That does not mean that we are setting norms in the public sector any more than the Lucas management, in saying that it could afford to offer a pay increase of only 10 per cent., implied a norm for the country as a whole. It is simply a statement of the reality that faces the Government. Our responsibility in that respect is essentially financial. That is why comparability, for example, cannot be allowed to continue to produce results way out of line with what is happening in the remainder of the economy. The Prime Minister's statement earlier this week shows that we do not lack the resolution to take the necessary decisions along that road.
Fortunately, there are now some reasons for seeing signs that the rate of inflation will soon start to fall. Movement in commodity and wholesale prices since the beginning of the year points to a slowing down of price increases over the months ahead. Commodity prices, other than oil, have generally fallen in recent months and in sterling terms are less than 1 per cent. higher than they were 12 months ago. The prices of industrial raw materials, again excluding

797
oil, fell by nearly 10 per cent. over that period. The benefits of those favourable trends in raw material prices will be reflected in the shops over the months ahead. They may already have helped to bring about the encouraging recent movement in wholesale output prices, which have been showing progressively smaller increases each month.
That deceleration is also likely to reflect a cut in manufacturers' profit margins, no doubt in response to greater competition in sales. The decision of Marks and Spencer Ltd. to limit price increases for clothing to 5 per cent. this autumn illustrates the strong pressures that manufacturers will be facing to keep down the rate of growth in costs and prices. There is more general evidence of that in the recent CBI survey, which showed a smaller number of firms planning to raise prices than at any time since 1973. That is indicative of a slowdown in the rate of price increases in the shops over the months ahead.
Other leading indicators give some guidance on the likely course of inflation over a longer period. Clearly the most important is the growth in the money supply, which is the fundamental determinant of the rate of inflation. Another useful indicator is the change in house prices. In the past, the movement in house prices has led the inflation rate. Thus the increase in general inflation in 1974–75 followed the house price explosion in 1972. In 1978–79, when general inflation was still modest, house prices were beginning to accelerate and reached an annual growth of 30 per cent. in the middle of last year. Just as monetary growth is now slowing down, so too is the growth in house prices. House price increases have been decelerating for about a year, and that is yet another pointer towards the slowdown of general inflation.
That enables me to say a word about the proposed increases for pensions and benefits due in November this year. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services lays the uprating order setting out the rates for the approval of both Houses, as he will later this month, he will wish to satisfy himself that the increases announced after the Budget still reflect the likely rise in prices over the period between the November 1979 uprating and this year's
798
uprating. I see no reason to depart from the view that the movement in prices over the period in question will be 16½ per cent. The indicators, especially those that are generally regarded as the leading indicators of future movements in the RPI, all point to a slow-down in the rate of retail price inflation, consistent with the first Budget forecast.
Of course, by any standards, even a 16½ per cent. rate of inflation, with unemployment at its present level, is an unattractive prospect. But there are now clear signs that, as a nation, we are beginning to come to terms with the realities of our economic and industrial position, and that the foundations for our economic and industrial recovery are being laid. The policy that we laid before the country is consistent and coherent.
I see no sign that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has a clear alternative policy. There is a sense of mystery about where his party stands on almost every issue of importance affecting economic policy.
Money supply growth is now under control. There are signs that inflation is about to move downwards. To maintain that progress it is vital that we maintain control over public sector borrowing and Government spending. We shall do that.
Unemployment is still rising because of excessive pay settlements. That will continue until pay bargaining brings down the level in line with the monetary growth rate. A slow-down in pay and inflation within the monetary target will lay the basis for growth and a reduction in unemployment. None of the alternatives on offer is attractive. None of them offers a hope for a sustained improvement in the outlook. The policies embodied in our amendment offer the best prospect of success. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.17 pm
Mr. R. McTaggart: I welcome this early opportunity to address the House on the occasion of my maiden speech. On 26 June I was fortunate enough to be the victor of a by-election in Glasgow, Central, and victory is always sweet. But for me the victory was tinged with a touch of sadness. I am conscious that I am standing in the House this afternoon only because of a tragic accident to Tom

799
McMillan, my predecessor. Tom was not only a political colleague of mine; he was a personal friend. He was also a personal friend of my family. He represented Glasgow, Central for 13 years. During that time he built up a tremendous reputation as a fighter for his constituents. He made the point to me that his job was to serve those who elected him. That was not a platitude.
Tom, although he did not keep good health, insisted on holding at least one surgery every week Those hon. Members who have to travel to their constituencies will realise how strength-sapping that must have been. I have no doubt that it was because of Tom McMillan's past work that my success at the polls evolved. If I can serve the people of Glasgow, Central as well as he did, I shall be satisfied.
My constituency is in the very heart of Glasgow, and the great industrial city which Glasgow was built up to be started there. Within my boundaries lie the city chambers, which is where the Lord Provost, the leading citizen of Glasgow, takes his seat to run council meetings. They are the administrative centre of the district council. Glasgow cathedral, which is more than 800 years old, also lies within my boundaries. Across the road is the Provans Lordship, a historic building which is also the oldest house in Glasgow. We have the Merchants House and Trade House, along with the stock exchange, and headquarter organisations in shipping, banking, insurance and retailing.
My constituency is also an important seat of learning. Strathclyde university is located within it which, along with Glasgow university, in one of my neighbouring constituencies, has places for more than 12,000 multinational students. With a further 12,000 places spread over a dozen specialised colleges in the area covering technologies such as food, science, printing and, not least, the arts, that totals 24,000 places for multinational students, which is proportionately the Commonwealth's heaviest concentration.
In the eighteenth century the tobacco barons brought the city to the boil with their American trade, and the Victorian entrepreneurs emblazoned its shipbuilding and engineering fame. My consti-
800
tuency was the seedbed of the industrial revolution in Scotland, yet there are now parts of it which have been officially declared areas of extreme multiple deprivation. Although we have some of the most historic buildings in the land and some of the best examples of Victorian architecture, we also have some of the worst unemployment figures anywhere. We suffer from the curse that is unemployment.
Where once stood factories supplying jobs and life to the area, there is now savage unemployment and emptiness. When Glasgow was built up, it was built as a city of contrast. There were grand mansion-type houses for the wealthy, and small, single-end flats with outside toilets for the lower classes. Those single-ends were vermin-ridden, and because of the unsanitary and overcrowded conditions which prevailed, tuberculosis and other diseases were rife.
Over the years the local authorities have striven to rid us of that squalor, but in Glasgow, Central, and in part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), a special initiative was required. The previous Labour Government, in recognition of that fact, set up the Glasgow eastern area renewal project, into which £160 million was to be channelled in an effort to build factories for employment and decent houses of a type in which people wished to live. GEAR, as it is known, obviously had its teething problems, but it brought hope to that part of Glasgow, an area weakened by loss of jobs and people. Yet even it is under attack by the Government's policies. It has suffered under cutbacks in public expenditure.
The jobs that we hoped that project would provide will not be forthcoming, and may never be forthcoming. At the same time, factories are closing down all around the constituency. A few weeks ago there were 4,000 job losses at Singers and 1,400 jobs lost at Talbot, Linwood. The position is so bad that even Robin Duthie, the Conservative-appointed chairman of the SDA—who is not exactly a card-carrying member of the Labour Party—was forced to attack the Government.
The effects of high interest rates and the Government's policy of non-intervention in industry have fanned the

801
flames of unemployment in Glasgow and, indeed, throughout the whole of Great Britain. It is a fact worth remembering that since the Government came to power, 300 jobs have been lost every day, seven days a week. We have heard the Government's response today. They suggest that it is the unemployed's fault for being unemployed, and that if working people did not ask for more wages firms would not close down. But in the world outside, reality is different. With inflation touching 22 per cent., it takes almost one-quarter more in the weekly wage packet just to stand still. That has happened after only one year of Tory rule.
I represent what used to be a busy, crowded and thriving community. It, like industry, has declined over the years. In fact, Glasgow, Central is now the smallest constituency in Britain. Nowhere could be more appropriate to see the devastation of unemployment than my area, and if any Government Minister wishes I shall personally give him a conducted tour so that he may see for himself. Small as it is, it still has the heart of a lion, and it roared a warning to the Government on 26 June. It told the Tories "Enough is enough". We need more initiatives, not fewer. We need more money for projects such as GEAR. We need more money for the Manpower Services Commission. The reality is that unless the Government change their course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, what happened in Bristol just a few weeks ago will be timid in comparison with the unleashed fury of the unemployed frustrated masses of Britain.
To Conservative Members representing marginal seats, I say that if anyone should be creating a fuss in this House it should be they, because they are the cannon fodder of the Government. The unemployment statistics which have been glossed over today will be a reality for many of them. When the day of the election comes and we hear the usual waxing from the Tory Front Bench, when Conservative Members in marginal seats are wiped out there will be no point in running to the Labour Party, because our ranks will be so swollen that we will have no vacancies.
5.26 pm
Mr. John Patten: I rise with great pleasure after hearing the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). The whole House will have listened with great interest and attention to what he said, and will join him in the generous tributes which he paid to his predecessor. I know exactly how the hon. Gentleman must have felt before he rose, because it was just about a year ago that I made my own maiden speech. He has been about 500 per cent. braver than I was, because he has made his in two weeks whereas I took nearly 12 weeks.
The hon. Gentleman should not for a moment think that simply because he represents one of the smallest constituencies in the British Isles he will be listened to with any less attention, any more than it should be thought that I am listened to with more attention because I represent one of the larger constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with great lucidity and clarity, particularly during the second more political and uncharacteristic part of his speech. It was a good object lesson for the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber. We had to listen to an analysis of the economy by the right hon. Gentleman which was so confused and confusing in what it said that not only was it confusing about economics but the right hon. Gentleman was unable to get his classical allusions right.
We heard a good deal about Balaam's ass. Apparently that was the ass which could not make up its mind and turn in the right direction. Perhaps some of his hon. Friends will tell the right hon. Gentleman to turn to the Bible and look at the Book of Numbers, chapter 22, where he will find that, far from Balaam's ass not being able to make up its mind, it clearly made up its mind not to go down the wrong path, stood firm and after it had been struck by Balaam on several occasions, much to Balaam's amazement opened its mouth and ticked him off. The right hon. Gentleman must simply have picked the wrong donkey.
I feel that in opening its mouth and causing such amazement to Balaam the donkey simply echoed the amazement of many Conservative Members who had to

803
listen to the extraordinarily convoluted and inelegant analysis presented by the right hon. Gentleman. That only leads me to think that he is suffering from an economic amnesia which makes him forget his five years as Chncellor of the Exchequer, the awful damage which he did to the economy and the terrible legacy which he left, with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry must now deal less than 14 months later.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will not get a job that way.
Mr. Patten: I do not wish to range as broadly across the economy as those who have spoken so far. I wish to concentrate my remarks on techniques and ways of helping manufacturing industry during the next two or three years of the world recession, while we pick up the bits left by the previous Government, and also to look at the problems of manufacturing industry, particularly in the regions.
I turn first to manufacturing industry. I have listened with care to what Labour Members have said, and I appreciate their strength of feeling, because many of them represent constituencies with very high unemployment rates. No one on the Conservative side of the House wishes to see that.
If we approach the problem rationally, it is apparent that within the next two or three years certain techniques will have to be brought into use in order to mitigate some of the worst effects of some of the worst-hit industries. We are not facing a problem of deindustrialisation, industrial deserts and so on. With respect to right hon. and hon. Members, on the Labour Benches, they often devalue their argument by such exaggeration. However, in a period of monetary restraint we may have to look for ways and means of helping firms in trouble. I hope that we do not, because most of the intervention by Governments of both parties over the last few years has been less than successful. Of course, where there are specific problems—massive plant closures—that affect individual areas, some selective assistance must continue, and the Government and the Secretary of State for Industry are to be applauded for their attitudes to closures
804
in Corby, Consett, and elsewhere. If we have to turn to more generalised relief—I hope we do not—I press my right hon. Friends to look at methods of helping manufacturing industry that do not increase the money supply and are not inflationary.
One shot in the lockers of the Treasury and Department of Industry that might be stored up for use if necessary is a possible abatement, if not a complete abolition of the employers' national insurance surcharge, a burden that was laid by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on British industry in 1966, and hiked up again in 1978. An abatement halving or abolishing the employers' national insurance surcharge would immediately improve the cash flow of manufacturing companies that may be in trouble, albeit temporarily, in the depths of a depression. An abatement of the surcharge will increase cash flow, and lessen firms' demands for credit from the banks, enabling us to stay on our monetary targets while at the same time enabling some firms in trouble to stay afloat.
If we halved the employers' national insurance surcharge, there would, because of the employment ramifications, be at least another 80,000 people in work in 1982 who otherwise would be thrown out of employment. This is one of the most important weapons that the Treasury and the Department of Industry can use.
In the longer term, and casting our minds back to what we are told about the decline of the regions, the Tories de-industrialising and laying waste to the country, and all the other exaggerations, no Labour Member can get away from one significant fact—
Mr. Skinner: What is it?
Mr. Patten: It is coming. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be patient. I am trying to spell it out so that some of our weaker brethren can understand.
In the United Kingdom today, at 1980 prices, the value added element per job in manufacturing is about £7,000, while the value added element in all other sectors of the economy is just above £10,000. If those ratios are maintained

805
and if there is even a 1 per cent. alteration from those employed in manufacturing industry to those employed in other sectors, there will be a considerable net loss of jobs—about 70,000 jobs for every 1 per cent. switch in the ratio. If that happens, the tragedy is that the job loss will be felt most in Northern regions, the regions of difficulty, while the glittering new jobs—many new jobs are being created—[Hon. Members: "Where?"] —in the South of England. The jobs will be located a long way from workers who need work in the North. That is a basic fact. It is not party politics. It has nothing to do with capitalism, but it has much to do with history.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central in his excellent maiden speech said that Glasgow, Central, was one of the seedbeds of the Industrial Revolution and now, 100 years later, it is completely run down. So, too, is much of the Northern region, because it is paying the penalty for being the first in the Industrial Revolution. The industries that were founded and which led the world 100 years ago are now at the bottom of the economic cycle. Many of them—shipbuilding and others—have come to the end of their economic life cycle. That is a fact that hon. Members must appreciate before they can begin to put forward a potential solution.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Patten: I give way with pleasure —for the first time in my career—to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Skinner: So that is what the hon. Gentleman is here for. I do not think he will get a job on the basis of what he has said this afternoon. He is trying to indicate that some of the basic industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding have now completed their lifespan and cannot return. Why then, at the recent Venice Summit, did statesmen, including the Prime Minister, sign a document stating that the old-fashioned coal industry that is based mainly in the North and in the nether regions of Britain, can double its coal production? Why has a town such as Consett, with a magnificent steel industry, with a productivity rate equal to that of West Germany, now been closed as a result of this Government's policies?
Mr. Patten: I did not mention coal or the coal industry. Indeed, I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) that the Government are investing about £600 million in the British coal industry. I was talking not about the coal industry but about manufacturing industry. In this debate we are concerned with manufacturing industries, not primary industries. I shall be happy to point out to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, the difference between a primary industry and a manufacturing industry. If Labour Members continue to delude themselves, such money and such techniques as can be used will be misspent.
If by spending double what the previous Labour Government spent in the year ending 1979 on regional aid—about £½billion—we could solve the economic problems of the North, that would be money well spent. But we have been spending money of that order for the last 25 years, and we are still nowhere nearer a solution to the basic problems of manufacturing. That money has been important in keeping some industries going, and in ensuring that social change occurs more painlessly than it would otherwise have occurred. But the idea that we can solve the regional manufacturing problems by throwing money at them is a fallacy. I ask Labour Members to think again about some of their deeply and rightly felt preconceptions about this issue.
Almost a year ago to the day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our new attitude towards regional development aid, and our concentration on special development areas, the drawing in of aid in some areas and the concentration of aid in others. That is a correct interim position for him to take. But I stress the word "interim". If we are ever to do something about the regional problems we shall have to do more than we have done over the last 25 years, when the development area process has been endlessly extended. It is now being trimmed back again. Perhaps it will be increased. Perhaps it will be more flexible. Perhaps one or two more areas will be added or taken away. None the less, we are going down the same old road and it does not seem to be getting us anywhere.

807
The Government need to undertake a thoroughgoing review of whether regional development grants and all the wonderful tax concessions—which so many firms in the North cannot use because of tax exhaustion—are doing any good at all, or whether they might be swept away.
I do not want to wave the red rag of enterprise zones and enterprise regions in front of some Labour Members, but at least let us look at the Irish example. The Southern Irish have managed, through their declaration of a 10-year tax holiday for most manufacturing industry—
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there is one major obstacle to our following the Irish example—our membership of the Common Market, which precludes us from adopting the kind of regional policies that have been so successful there?
Mr. Patten: I was unaware that the Irish were not in the EEC. I could be wrong. I look forward to confirmation of this later.
Mr. O'Neill: It is the designation within the EEC that the Irish enjoy that enables them to carry out such policies. We are prevented from doing the same thing.
Mr. Patten: The Prime Minister has shown that we can make the EEC a much more flexible animal than it was before.
A five-year or 10-year tax holiday for firms setting up in this country, including multinationals, which we need very badly in this country, would be likely to produce better results than the cat's cradle—to use one of the Secretary of State for Industry's terms—of grants and of tax concessions that we have at the moment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his reply, will be able to give us some indication of his thinking on this important issue.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I join the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) in congratulating my hon. Friend
808
the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) on his maiden speech. I have sat in the House with three Members for Glasgow, Central. If he continues to speak with the same commitment to those whom he represents as he did in his maiden speech and shows the same knowledge of their problems and feeling for their needs as he showed in his speech he will always be listened to with great attention.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Oxford, except to say that his speech will help me to make my own point. His solution is that there should be tax cuts for business and more unemployment in industry, and that is the mainspring of the Government's policy.
I do not share the view that the Government's problems will be solved either by a reshuffle or by a U-turn. Their problems will not be solved by a reshuffle, because I do not for a moment believe that the Secretary of State for Industry is committed to some mad economic dogma, as I hope to show, nor do I believe that, if the Government returned to the policy of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr Heath), which was expansion plus a pay policy, they would be likely to escape the consequences of that change of policy.
There are two root causes of our present unemployment. One is a massive world slump in the capitalist world, with 8 million people out of work in America and 7½ million out of work in Western Europe. One of the main reasons why the Western capitalist world is in a slump is that the world's bankers forced cuts in production as a result of the deficits caused by the oil price increases of OPEC.
Looking back on the problems facing this country, there is no doubt that the International Monetary Fund bears a heavy responsibility for the levels of unemployment in Britain today, because it forced upon the Cabinet of which I was a member cuts in public expenditure which have contributed substantially to the levels of unemployment that we inherited.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall give way in a minute, but I want first to have a chance to establish my argument.
At a time when the oil money from countries that were in a sense developing was available in very large quantities, for the world manufacturing industries—those of Western Europe, Japan and America—to be closing down their own productive capacity was an act of lunacy, and the IMF has a heavy responsibility for the position that faces us.
Sir N. Bonsor: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the present recession is limited to the Western world? Is he suggesting that the Soviet Union, for example, is in a healthier economic position than the Western world?
Mr. Benn: The recession has a number of causes, one of which is the oil price increase. It has created inflationary pressures that have to be dealt with. Secondly, there is the response of the bankers, whose main concern was to reduce the level of economic activity in order to bring those deficits under control. Undoubtedly, the rest of the world—the Third world and those parts of the Communist world that trade with the West—has been similarly affected.
The second root cause of the problem is the determination of the Government —the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry—to use the slump to make working people pay for that crisis and to restore profit margins in order to get back to the sort of society that existed in the nineteenth century.
There are two main obstacles to the Government's objective. One is the level of public expenditure, which many Governments—not just Labour Governments but Conservative Governments—have brought into being in order to create a fairer and more decent society. Anyone who thinks that this is the prerogative of the Fabian Society or the Left of the Labour Party should read what Harold Macmillan said in 1939. His book "The Middle Way" was well to the Left of the election manifesto put before the country by the Labour Party in May 1979. He
810
called for a planned economy to eliminate unemployment for ever.
Public expenditure not only contributed, under all Governments, to the enjoyment of higher living standards by a wide range of people who before the war were faced with slump; it also financed the Welfare State and gave Macmillan the enormous election victory he achieved in 1959. Public expenditure is now to be slashed, to be cut back, because it is an obstacle to the restoration of profit margins and the restoration of the kind of society to which the Cabinet adheres.
The second obstacle is the trade union movement, because the trade union movement in this country, freely organising under legislation granted by successive Parliaments, protects people from the sort of injustice that they would suffer if there were no trade union movement to protect them. The lowest wages in Britain today are still in those trades where there are no trade unions. We have only to look at the catering trade and the sweated trades. In the West Country, where the trade unions are non-existent, there are levels of wages that are an absolute disgrace to a civilised society.
The trade union movement must have its power broken by the Government if they are to succeed. The Government have three methods of doing this. The first is to raise unemployment. The second is to legislate to make trade union organisation as difficult as possible, if not impossible. The third is by the mass of propaganda, poured out with the help of Fleet Street—and, alas, the BBC, which fails daily in its charter obligations by not giving a balanced view of the interests of labour as against those of capital—[Interruption.] I am not talking about party balance between one politician and another. There is nothing on the BBC or on the ITN that reflects the interests of labour in the way that "The Money Programme" and "The Financial World Tonight" pump out the propaganda that comes from the City and from the sort of speech that we heard earlier.
I thought that the Secretary of State for Industry was intending to get up and explain his real objection to trade unionism. No doubt he will have the opportunity of telling us when he makes his speech. I came across this passage about

811
the trade union movement with which I do not think he would disagree:
"By the beginning of this century the Trades Union movement had long ceased to serve its earlier purpose. With each succeeding year it fell more and more under the influence of social democratic politics and ended by being used merely as the battering ram for the class war."
That is from "Mein Kampf". I bought it as a child in 1938 and have kept it since.
Almost every day, if one reads the leading articles in the newspapers in this country, one finds that the language that Hitler used is now becoming the commonplace of Fleet Street, and it lies behind the Government's determination to prevent the trade union movement from performing its double function of protecting those at work and having a perspective of a different kind of society and trying to introduce greater equality.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I am determined to leave time for others who wish to speak.
The Government's policy is not a monetarist policy; it is an unemployment policy. The object of the policy is to increase unemployment. That is why the Secretary of State shows such inadequate responses when unemployment rises. For him that is success.
Then we are told that the problem is wages. Does anyone believe that if every man in this country took a cut of 50 per cent. in wages tomorrow the economy would bounce back into life? We would sink deeper into recession because the demand for goods would fall.
Blaming the unions and wages and attaching the argument to money supply is a fraudulent presentation of the purpose of the Cabinet which now governs this country.
The industrial consequences for Britain will be absolutely tragic. When the oil runs out there will be no industry to allow us to earn our living. Yesterday I met and listened to yet another delegation from another distressed, depressed area. The Consett workers said that there would be nearly 40 per cent. unemployment in the area when the Consett works
812
are closed. Anyone who can meet people from Llanwern, Port Talbot, Merseyside, Alfred Herbert and British Leyland and be unaffected wants the unemployment that these people are having imposed upon them.
This is a deliberate policy. The money to pay the benefits which are being cut is to come from the housing, the schools and the invalidity benefits of working class people. This is a class policy nakedly pursued, and Milton Friedman has no more to do with it than any other academic. The Government are using the academic argument to restore the injustice of a society that we have not seen since Victorian days.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I promised to be brief and I want to make my argument. The hon. Gentleman has four years to justify his other view.
I put my next point seriously, having thought about it very carefully. In my judgment, the violence in Northern Ireland owes as much to high and sustained levels of unemployment as it does to the theological arguments between the Pope and the Protestant community. I believe—and the recent events in Bristol proved that it can happen almost by accident—that we are heading for a society in which those who are denied the justice to which they believe they are entitled may in some circumstances turn to violence. It is the duty of hon. Members, if they believe a matter seriously, to warn the House of what may happen. When I read in the papers and see pictures in The Times and the Daily Express of what the police may look like in 1990, dressed up like the SAS, I realise that the Government also believe that that will be possible and are preparing against the possibility that it will happen.
There is an alternative policy. One of the tragedies is that the media never allow the British people to hear the alternative without being told that it comes from an extremist, dangerous, Left-wing view. There is an alternative, and it is the alternative of putting full employment as the main objective and expanding the public services to meet the need by employing the unemployed with the use of the money that is not used.

813
That is the money that is available through North Sea oil—money that is now improperly spent on expanding defence beyond the levels of our partners in Europe. We need that money to expand public services, to increase public investment on the basis of public ownership and to protect our industries from being pounded to destruction at a time when they do not have the equipment yet in place to allow the nation to earn its living.
If I say a "planned economy", that is no more than Harold Macmillian said in 1938. The money is available for that purpose. No one will persuade the British people, when they watch the television and see what money is spent on, that there is no money to meet basic needs in education, housing, health and for the elderly.
This week the Pope has been in Brazil and he has made some remarkable speeches. I am not a Catholic. I was brought up at very much the other end of the spectrum, but I concur with some of the words used by the Pope in Brazil:
"Justice will either be achieved through thoroughgoing and brave reforms on principles which respect man's dignity or it will be achieved—without lasting results or benefits for mankind—by the forces of violence. …The persistence of injustice and its consequent menace to society exists when the distribution of goods is based only on the economic laws of growth and a bigger profit, and when the results of progress reaches the majority only superficially, when the gap between the minority of the rich, on the one hand, and the majority of those who live in misery and want, on the other, persists."
The Brazilian situation is different in all but one respect. The Government of Brazil share the economic philosophy of the Government of this country. If the Government do not listen to those who come to make the case that they have as of right, and believe to be their right, to have work and homes, care for their old and education for their children, the consequences will be very serious not only for this Cabinet but for this country.
I believe that the time has come when the Labour movement should lead a crusade to explain to people that what is happening is not a painful monetarism to which there is no alternative but a fundamentally unjust policy that has to be rejected and resisted to the fullest extent until the men who believe in it are driven out of public office altogether.
5.57 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: First. I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart), in particular his generous references to his predecessor.
I am pleased to take part in this debate because it gives the House the opportunity to disabuse itself of some of the more outrageous notions about the decline of the manufacturing base of the United Kingdom.
I cannot recollect any significant single Act by the Labour Party in government that made a lasting long-term contribution to the economic welfare of the country or to the creation of jobs in industry.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Stock relief.
Mr. Dunn: To be charitable, the Labour Party in office did nothing in particular and did it very well.
Mr. Joseph Dean: If the hon. Gentleman does not know of a single Act which brought lasting benefit to industry in this country, I suggest that he reads the report of the proceedings on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act, piloted through by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), which gave this country the finest chance that it has ever had of re-equipping its industry.
Mr. Dunn: I am sorry that I gave way.
The Labour Party still seems to be obsessed with who owns industry. The manufacturing base of the United Kingdom has been in decline since the war. In 1951, 53 per cent. of those in employment worked in manufacturing industries and 47 per cent. worked in service industries. By 1966 the trend had moved significantly so that half the British work force was employed in service industries and half in making goods for sale. By 1976 the trend had continued apace so that a majority of workers—57 per cent.—were employed in service industries and 43 per cent. in manufacturing industries.
I acknowledge that OECD figures show that foreign industrialised competitors have undergone a similar transformation,

815
but the difference between our competitors and the United Kingdom is that British output has slowed down and will contract over the next year, whereas other trading nations with the same industrial variables continue to improve productive capacity and consequently give rise to improvements in living standards.
For Britain, the years that have witnessed the transformation have also witnessed the growth of unemployment, in as much as many older established industries have declined and newer industries have not come forward to take their place. Home industry has been unable to meet competition or lacks the ability correctly to forecast and to meet changes in demand caused by increased technology and customer selection, Indeed, The Economist, on 7 April 1979, said:
"Britain remains good at fundamental research, but a laggard in mundane skills: e.g., the ability to tailor products (new or old) to market demands; to improve (and then maintain) quality; to adopt (and adapt) the right production process; to discipline (and nurture) suppliers of components."
The problem for British manufacturers goes much deeper. Low production has in the past led to low profits, and low profits have led to low investment. High-cost machinery poorly utilised, and excessive fixed and variable costs, have resulted in higher unit costs. Such a condition can only invite high retail prices which are radically undercut by foreign competition.
By any of the usual yardsticks, our trading position is poor. In 1975 the return on capital employed in the United Kingdom was only 4 per cent., whereas in the United States it was 19 per cent. By 1978 the United Kingdom position had improved by only 2 per cent., to 6 per cent., while that of the United States had improved by 5 per cent., to 24 per cent. The 1979 figures for OECD industrial production show that since 1975 United Kingdom output has improved by only 14 per cent., whereas the United States had improved output by 30 per cent., Japan by 40 per cent. and Western Germany by 20 per cent. During the same period, unemployment in the United Kingdom has risen by a third, while in the United States it fell by 29 per cent., in Japan there was no change from a minuscule 2 per cent., and in West Germany it fell by 25 per
816
cent. To take a yet further yardstick, investment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom was lower during the years 1974 to 1977 than industrial investment in Germany, which was much higher, as it was in France, Italy and the Netherlands.
It is not simply the lack of investment, the lack of productivity and restrictive practices that have brought us to this present state of affairs. It is to do with our poor reputation abroad, our inability to produce the right goods, of the right quality, at the right price, at the right time. Many firms lack the flexibility to introduce a new product mix and, like the firm in the Midlands that made the best steam locomotives in the world, they suddenly find themselves overtaken by better-placed alternative sources of supply.
I represent a seat in the South-East, Dartford, which has an unemployment rate of only 3 per cent., and falling. Last month our unemployment figure fell by 300, from 1,500 to only 1,200 when the last figures were issued. We have the mismatch problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten). Simply, in the last 10 years many local firms have turned away orders because they simply could not get the skilled labour. Yet it seems a very odd position indeed to have many skilled unemployed workers in the North-West and the North-East when many firms such as those in Dartford are looking and begging for skilled workers.
It seems that people on Merseyside are, understandably, reluctant to leave their community, their friends and their natural habitat. I understand all of that. But none the less, in the 1930s people were able to walk for miles, as my grandfather did. There were thousands of people after one job. There are many jobs in the South-East, yet many people in the North-West are reluctant to come down.
Of course, I am not demanding or asking that there should be direction of labour, but it seems to be a constraint on development that modern labour is not mobile.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Member believe that it is fair to suggest to workers in constituencies in the Northern region that they should come to London to get work?
Mr. Dunn: I was born in Manchester and I left there to work in London for better job prospects and employment. Many thousands of people have done the same, and I see no reason why others should not do so. If the mountain will not go to Mahomet, Mahomet must go to the mountain, or whatever the saying is.
The second problem to which I should like to refer is the problem of training in established industries for the production of new skills. Many people are today being trained almost for redundancy in the sense that they are being trained in the old ways and are not taking on board the new technological skills which will matter enormously by the turn of the century.
There is the problem of setting up new businesses. I accept that high interest rates are a disincentive to the entrepreneurs and that they will lead to investment in Government stocks and not in venture capital. But I hope, too, that the Government's policies—as I believe they will when interest rates start to fall—will produce an upsurge in entrepreneurial activity which will create the new jobs for the future.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, I rather like the Irish idea. A business acquaintance of mine has tax exemption until the year 1995 as a result of his planning and building programme, because the system, as I understand it, is that if one plans an addition to a factory, for a period following the building of that addition one is exempt from certain forms of taxation. So it pays in Ireland continually to increase the manufacturing unit because of the attraction of tax relief.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: How would the hon. Member do that in England?
Mr. Dunn: Secondly, and more importantly, I welcome the creation of the enterprise zones. I hope that the Secretary of State will enlarge upon a national application of some of the elements of those zones. I should rather like the whole of the United Kingdom to be declared an enterprise zone. I shall be grateful to receive my right hon. Friend's comments.
It seems that the present Government have given the sort of thrust to industry that is given by the Governments of West
818
Germany and France. I only hope that the recognition of the Government's activities will take place over the next year. To our friends in industry it is important that we stay calm and collected and proceed further down the path that the Government have set.
Finally, I make one comment about the intrusion into firms' activities. It seems unnecessary today that firms such as those in my constituency in the South-East can receive visits from over 87 different organisations. Representatives of these organisations can demand the right to enter a firm's premises at any time, to look at the books, to look at the activities and to hold up the flow of work. Indeed, whereas 10 years ago one organisation would send one inspector for half a day, today five inspectors will enter a firm and stay for a week. Accordingly, the results of that action upon the flow of work within a firm can be very difficult indeed, especially for small firms which are not able to cope with that sort of demand from those organisations.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Give us examples. These are generalisations.
Mr. Dunn: The Government have my full support in the measures upon which they are embarking. I hope that the success of our policies will be there for all to see in a very short time.
6.8 pm
Mr. William Whitlock: I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. I want to make a speech of reasonable length, partly because many hon. Members wish to speak and partly because I have a sore throat.
No doubt the difficulties of many individual industries will be paraded in this debate to add to the veritable catalogue of disaster which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) outlined.
I want to talk about the hosiery and knitwear industry, which in 1979 had an output of £1,350 million at factory prices. It is an industry of considerable importance. Last week there occurred something which I do not think has happened previously in the history of this House. This unique event, in itself a measure of the magnitude of the disaster facing an

819
industry, was the joint approach by representatives of the Knitwear Industries Federation and of the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers to Members of Parliament with constituencies in which there are knitwear factories. They came to the House in order to impress on hon. Members the deadly critical situation that now faces the industry. They wanted to ask hon. Members to bring home the facts of that crisis to the Government. After many attempts to warn Ministers about the depth of the problem, the industry feels that Ministers have not accepted the signs of impending total catastrophe.
Both the employers and the unions in the knitwear industry have stressed that the industry has a productivity record that is second to none. It enjoys an enviable industrial relations record. It has a wealth of creative skill. Despite its difficulties it has kept abreast of the latest technological developments by means of investment. However, despite such merits and achievements, the industry is in grave difficulty. As hon. Members know, there has been a dramatic drop in the sales of clothing since last autumn. That has arisen as a direct result of the Government's monetary policy and the doubling of VAT.
Home consumption is falling and exports are proving more difficult to make, yet import penetration of the domestic market is increasing. That has resulted in the loss of 6,000 jobs in the knitwear industry in the nine months preceding February 1980. It is estimated that there has been a further loss of about 3,000 jobs since February. Therefore, 8 per cent. of the knitwear industry's work force has been cast off within a year. As about 60 per cent. of the industry is concentrated in the East Midlands, where it accounts for one in eight jobs in manufacturing industry, one can see that the East Midlands has been particularly hard hit. Many firms are clinging by their fingernails to a continued existence. That tenuous hold may slip at any time. If that happens, Britain will never again retrieve what it has lost.
Much of the industry is in danger of extinction. How have Ministers responded to the industry's warnings and pleadings? They have merely told its representatives "Compete, or go under." That is
820
what their words amount to. It would seem that the Government are completely uncaring about the consequences for Britain if the industry should disappear irrevocably. The situation would be worse if it were not for the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. The industry asked the Government to allow companies which have benefited from the scheme to apply for a further six months of assistance, in order to save jobs. I hope that that request is being earnestly considered and that it will be conceded in order to retain a valuable labour force. If it is not retained, and if the Government do not take action to help the industry, there will be no industry left to take advantage of improved trading conditions when the hoped-for upturn in our economy occurs. If that upturn does not come soon, and if the Government do not take the action that the industry desires, that industry will disappear.
In addition to the extension of the short-time working compensation scheme, the Government could take further action to help the industry and to give it hope. There is a considerable lack of hope in the industry now. Ministers must stiffen their resolve to ensure that Britain gets a fair deal in international trading arrangements. That is all that the industry asks for. Neither the Knitwear Industries Federation nor the Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers is protectionist. However, they feel that they have a right to tell the Government to exert every possible effort to claim a fair deal for the industry.
We all know that the British market is the most open market in the world. It is being penetrated by countries which bend international rules and those countries are being aided and abetted, unfortunately, by British wholesalers and retailers, who put their interests before those of Britain. Those international rules are largely dictated by countries which do not allow such penetration of their own markets. The Government, with their large majority, must stand up for Britain in international negotiations, and ensure that the yawning chasms in the import restriction arrangements are closed. If the Government undertake to do that, I am sure that they will have the backing of the whole House.

821
People will go to incredible lengths to get into our markets, and that has been demonstrated by a recent BBC television programme. I did not see that programme, but, if Ministers saw it, I hope that they learnt a great deal. I hope that they will act on what they learnt. I hope that they will realise that fiddles, quota dodging and the bending of a variety of rules cause a fund of misery.
I said earlier that neither side of the industry was protectionist. Both sides understand that poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere, and that uplifting the lot of those in the underdeveloped countries is a matter not only of Christian social justice but of enlightened self-interest for the developed countries. The progress of the developing countries must not be achieved by sacrificing established and essential industries in the developed world, such as the textile and clothing industries which employ large numbers of people.
The liberalisation of trade must not come about at the expense of massive redundancies in the developed countries, where industry cannot compete with low-cost imports which are often the products of labour grossly exploited in a manner repugnant to the International Labour Office.
The industry welcomes Ministers' assurances that the Government are prepared, in consultation with their EEC partners, to take a tough line on the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, which expires at the end of 1981. I warn Ministers that the newly formed all-party knitwear industries group will watch closely to ensure that those assurances are carried out. That is in the future. At present, the industry does not believe that the Government are making full use of the current MFA to protect the industry from disruptive imports. Scope exists for more rapid and effective use of existing provisions and, if Ministers wish to demonstrate that they believe that the industry must be retained in this country, they must look at the proposals put to them by the industry to that end. If they are to do their job properly, Ministers must press for the speeding up of consultations with the Mediterranean and ACP associates when the 1980 permitted import levels are approached. They must see that immediate action is taken to
822
suspend imports if the levels are exceeded. In short, all avenues available to the Government to secure a fair deal for this British industry must be explored, and explored not in a leisurely manner but with the necessary speed to prevent irreparable damage to the industry in this country by those who flout and bend the rules.
The knitwear industry's problems do not stem from low productivity, over-manning or poor industrial relations. Neither do they stem from excessively high wages. None of those things applies in the industry. The problems stem from the Government's monetary policy and their failure to protect the industry fairly and properly. This Government boast about the way in which they help small firms. But the knitwear industry is one in which 75 per cent. of the firms employ fewer than 100 people, and the minimum lending rate, even the reduced rate, is imposing penal and crippling charges on those people to the point where it is seriously undermining the viability of many firms and reducing their opportunities to invest in the latest plant and equipment; for such charges are, of course, borne on a greatly reduced level of activitl.
The knitwear industry is in danger of extinction and it must be saved. It will be saved only if the Government have the will to save it. The industry has been asking hon. Members who have knitwear factories in their constituencies to tell the Government "For God's sake demonstrate that you are willing to save the industry and that you wish to support it and do everything possible to ensure that it continues to remain in existence."
6.24 pm
Mr. John Butcher: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the right hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was somewhat puzzled by the line of argument of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who referred very clearly to "the management of demand". I took this to mean some form of what we used to call "Butskellism". In the course of my remarks I hope to look at some of the options which we used to parade before the

823
Chamber under the guise of Butskellism and to check on their availability to the present Government.
Far more fascinating were the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. He had the gall and the nerve to refer to the slump in the capitalist world. He dodged an intervention from one of my hon. Friends, but I must remind him that at present the Comecon countries owe the Western banks and financial institutions about £26 billion. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union operates an economy in which between 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. of the gross national product is dedicated to the manufacture of armaments and the servicing of its armed forces. Indeed, there has been one estimate by Erikson that as much as 30 per cent. of the GNP of the Soviet Union could be going towards the facilities that would be necessary for "a war economy".
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South East, also referred to the role of the trade union movement in protecting people. Many people would argue that the form of protection that has been given to working people by the trade union movement since the Second World War has accelerated all those trends that have caused employers to shed labour. For example, if I were to look at the balance sheet of the Transport and General Workers Union, I would find that it spends £15 million a year on administration. I have checked those figures. By the same token that same union spends £6 million a year on benefits to its members. That is some form of protection for the members of trade unions.
Labour Members may argue that if there were more strikes and the trade unions were paying out more in strike benefits, those proportions might be altered or even reversed. But I have checked the figures over a number of years and I have found that the ratio of administration to benefits hardly changes at all.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, but I am a union member. I suggest that the figures the hon. Member has quoted reflect the growth of that particular union, which is the largest in this country. The fact that is does not pay out so much in benefits
824
demonstrates its ability to negotiate without calling its members out on strike.
Mr. Butcher: I can only ask the hon. Member to check the track record of fraternal unions in other parts of Western Europe and in the United States. There are ways of protecting members' interests other than by the time-worn and prehistoric methods that are used by trade unions in this country
If the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East were in the Chamber now I would ask him to look at a book written by a man who is no friend of the Conservative Party—a man called Kornhauser. He wrote a book called "Mass Society". I enjoyed reading it about 12 years ago when I was studying social sciences. I read it on the basis of "Know your enemy". This gentleman, in defining his terms of mass society, described it as "grains of sand, the antithesis of a pluralistic society". That is the sort of society that would emerge if the right hon. Gentleman's ideas were ever given rein in this country. Happily, that day will not occur. But no doubt the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East would hide behind certain other aspects of his policy. He would say that there will be participation and democracy—just enough to keep the peasants happy. Again, I hope that that day will never come.
The right hon. Member referred to the media and their alleged traditional bias—the fact that television no longer gives the coverage that the trade union movement should merit. I have a rough idea of the right hon. Gentleman's alternative—the public control of the media and public participation of people who work in the media in the editorial content of the media. I can imagine the day when the local NUJ chapel votes on whether a particular story on South Africa should be released to the poor unsuspecting public at the other end of the television screens.
Mr. William Hamilton: What has this got to do with the debate?
Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) should refer those remarks to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East. When the right hon. Gentleman talked about a "thoroughgoing and brave reform" I

825
could have reminded him of Meriden. I could also have reminded him of the Scottish Daily News and of his "big is beautiful" phase when he produced that disastrous amalgamation that we now call British Leyland. In listening to the right hon. Gentleman I thought at one stage that he might be a reincarnated Chartist. At another I thought that he might even be a utilitarian and that somewhere John Stuart Mill was turning in his grave. I finally decided that the right hon. Gentleman was neither. No utilitarian or Chartist would have finished his speech with a quote from the Pope.
It is far too easy in a debate such as this to say what the Government cannot do instead of what they can. I hope that it goes without saying that the Government, particularly at present, cannot print money. As was vividly demonstrated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the inflation from which we are suffering was grafted on to a 15 per cent. base level, which was the figure for the increase in the money supply during the last three months of the Chancellorship of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
Secondly, we cannot simply increase public expenditure. To do that we should have to increase the public sector borrowing requirement and/or increase taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to tampering with demand and the danger of reducing it. Would he be prepared to come back to this House and say that his increased expenditure was to be financed from increased taxation? Is he aware what that would do to the level of demand in the domestic economy?
Thirdly, we cannot devalue the pound. We do not have the power. The net contribution to our current account from North Sea oil revenue is running at £8 billion. I am referring to the contribution to the balance of payments and not the Exchequer. When our Prime Minister goes to economic conferences, she is viewed with considerable envy by the other Heads of Western Governments. They may envy her large majority and the fact that she does not have to face an election for at least three years. However, when those seven wise men and one wise woman sit down together, what they envy most is that my right hon. Friend is the
826
only Prime Minister who presides over an economy that is self-sufficient in energy and has a stable future. Those who make investment decisions about money going to Kuwait, Germany, Brazil or the United Kingdom will weigh such factors heavily in the balance. Regardless of the amount of Government tinkering in the City or with the Bank of England, and regardless of changes in the money supply, those factors will always weigh heavily with the people who wish to buy or sell pounds.
It is a sobering thought that, when the Government's policy succeeds and when inflation and interest rates come down, we shall still have exceedingly great pressure on a highly valued pound. It will still remain attractive to those who wish to invest in Western economies. The long-term implication is that we shall have to live with a highly valued pound for many years to come. We will be fooling people if we pretend that we can subvert its level, pull the rug out from under it or reduce its value by some temporary measure.
Fourthly, we cannot isolate ourselves from trends in world trade and output. The London Business School has been quoted. It forecasts that world industrial production will fall by 5 per cent. over the next 12 months. However, I guarantee that over the next 12 months we shall have another ritual dance, another Supply day debate, when our part of the 5 per cent. reduction in world trade will be blamed on the Administration.
Fifthly, we cannot increase Government investment, not so much for practical as for philosophical reasons. Our track record on investment push tactics is not good. We could try the Japanese approach of having a Ministry of International Trade and Industry, as it is significantly entitled. We could go for the French system which would demand an almost Napoleonic reform of our governmental institutions. We could opt for the American method of public bodies placing massive contracts. I have referred in a previous debate to £8 billion out of £30 billion in the American electronics industry coming from public contracts. However, for some strange reason, perhaps because we have always defined the wrong mechanism, we have been lousy at making entrepreneurial decisions where public money is involved, for instance, in creating the NEB. If I were

827
to make any recommendations to my right hon. Friend, I would suggest that he looks at the American demand-pull option.
Even with our current reduction in public expenditure, I hope that my right hon. Friend will concede that there is room for manoeuvre between the balance of public expenditure that goes to capital purchase and investment and that which is spent on the current account, particularly in the building industry. I am told that about 250,000 of those in the dole queues are ex-building workers. I am saddened that, when local authorities in particular reduce their budgets, they tend to take the easy option of reducing capital expenditure. The Governement have no control over that. I wish that Labour Members who complain of reductions in capital expenditure would endorse the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, so that such decisions could be stipulated, but I suspect that that day will never come.
Sixthly, we cannot enter into a phase of protectionism, although I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). What he witnessed in the textile industry I am now seeing in the car industry, and more particularly the motor components industry. We must be careful not to stipulate simply protectionism, quotas or tariffs, which would be another easy answer. That may be a cruel deception.
I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) on the Opposition Front Bench. I recall vividly his contribution to a Supply day debate on unemployment about 10 days ago. Unlike the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, in that debate the right hon. Gentleman put forward an alternative economic philosophy. He had three proposals One was managed trade, which has a slight hint of selectivity, if not quotas or protectionism, about it. I believe that there are better proposals for looking after the interests of British industry, such as the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the report that she published on free and fair trade in the motor components industry. A German car manufacturer can introduce a tied franchise, which stipulates that the spare parts in
828
the after market come only from German manufacturers. We, too, could pursue such measures.
The right hon. Gentleman can give free rein to his views, as he is anti-Common Market. As a pro-European I believe that we have commitments that we must honour. But the right hon. Gentleman must also honour commitments to the GATT.
Mr. John Silkin: I always do, particularly article 12 of the GATT. Surely the hon. Gentleman supports a protectionist basis for the economy, because is not the EEC protectionist in its imports of both manufactures and foodstuffs?
Mr. Butcher: All EEC member countries are signatories of the GATT. I concede that the mechanism inside the Common Market for eliminating protectionism elsewhere is clumsy. I believe that we should look closely at the dumping in this country of Lada cars from Comecon countries, but it would take a great deal of trouble to get that through the agencies in the EEC whose help we would hope to obtain.
I have three reasons for not wanting to plough the protectionist furrow. We are all familiar with the retaliation argument. I take the example of four industries in Coventry—cars, textiles, aerospace and telecommunications. What we gained for cars and the textile industry we might lose for the aerospace and telecommunications industries.
Coventry is in the front line of the whole debate. If the issues were explained to Coventrians openly and without the almost Nixonian attitudes of protectionism, which may be good politics but are appalling economics, they would share the Government's view in this matter.
My second objection to protectionism or quotas is that if we protect the domestic market one of the first phenomena that will emerge will be a switching of goods from export markets to the much easier domestic market, where it will be possible for firms to make profits with far less trouble and, indeed, without even having to pay an export manager.
Thirdly, tariffs particularly, and import controls generally, would so affect the balance of payments that the pound might

829
rise in value. I am sure that many Labour Members who favour import controls want the pound to be devalued. But if they want to re-enforce the trend towards a higher value of the pound, protectionism is one of the ways of doing it.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman apply those three objections to agriculture?
Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman has, as always, made a brief intervention; and I can only hide behind the subterfuge of saying that I should like notice of his question.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took up the politicisation of the trade union movement. That is an economic factor which affects our performance and the ability of Governments to govern. I assume that the remarks of Mr. Moss Evans, as reported in Financial Times yesterday, have some relevance to current thinking within the Labour Party, which is presumably developing its alternative economic strategy. Mr. Evans said that he wanted no part in a rigid, inflexible control over wages and added:
"But if we go back to the principles the trade unions used in the last major attempt at a comprehensive plan for the economy—the social contract—those principles were essentially also for an extension of democracy."
I wonder whether Mr. Evans had his tongue in his cheek when he said that. I suspect that the extension of democracy to which he referred is an extension for trade union leaders who wish to have the mat rolled out at No. 10. I suspect that Mr. Evans has missed the fundamental point, that the social contract took us perilously close to the creation of a corporate State. The trade union movement not only fed information into government, but became almost an arm of government.
I suspect that Mr. Evans would be surprised if he were told that what he is stipulating is not too far from something that Mussolini would have found rather attractive. The article said that Mr. Evans stated that
"the experience of State corporations had been a 'very disillusioning one' for the unions. Public sector workers felt that there was little difference between working in them and working in the private sector."
830
I cannot see why there should be a difference. Mr. Evans continued:
"We need a new drive in our approach to the public sector, a new initiative for nationalisation, not on the old model, but with the goal of introducing democracy at every level."
I wonder what the difference would be. I suspect that participation and democracy at every level would eventually mean two lines of management and two areas of discussion. I can foresee conveners and shop stewards sitting down with managements discussing whether products should be exported to Chile and whether it was socially desirable that South African-based multinational companies should be accepted as suppliers. In other words, I foresee chaos, unreality and perhaps the subverting of the trade union movement's original objectives.
In looking for an alternative strategy, we inevitably have to look behind the Labour Party to the trade union movement, but I look forward to hearing the alternative approach of the right hon. Member for Deptford.
6.46 pm
Mr. Joseph Dean: The object of the debate is to highlight the erosion of manufacturing-based industry in this country. I shall follow some previous speakers and talk in a domestic vein about the area that I represent.
Leeds is not a one-industry city. It has a conglomeration of industries and is not doing as badly as many other areas. However, I view with concern, and in some respects alarm, the trends that are showing in the city.
I do not accept the ridiculous suggestion of the Secretary of State for Industry that low wage rates will provide more jobs. I do not believe that that course will help to solve our problems. Leeds is not a high-wage area compared with other big cities. I was an engineer in a factory before I was elected to the House and I know that the average engineer's wage in Leeds is lower than that of his counterpart in Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham or London. Average wages in most industries in Leeds are slightly lower than those in areas of a similar size with similar industries.
Sir Keith Joseph: I was not referring exclusively to lower earnings but to lower unit labour costs, which can come from

831
a combination of earnings plus higher productivity.
Mr. Dean: The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that workers, by offering their services for lower wages—
Sir K. Joseph: Or higher productivity.
Mr. Dean: It is an odd argument, because the Labour Government were constantly berated at the time of the social contract for compressing differentials and making it unattractive for people to work. If we adopted the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we could be out on a limb.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Will my hon. Friend take the matter further? Can he imagine the situation on Merseyside where two vacancies are being chased by 4,000 school leavers? How are those 4,000, by reducing the wage for which they are prepared to work, supposed to find a job under the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Dean: The only answer perhaps is to adopt the other ridiculous suggestion, made last night by the Secretary of State for Employment, that it should almost be a condition that youngsters who are drawing unemployment benefit would have to consider various types of community schemes.
Leeds is a stable area for wages and industrial relations. It is almost faultless. Even in that situation, a rapid erosion of the base industries is beginning to show. The main industries are engineering, clothing manufacturing and textiles. Figures show that since the Government took office there have been 1,400 redundancies in engineering, and short-time working affects between 5,500 and 6,000 employees. Redundancies in the textile industries, together with the clothing manufacturing industries, amount to 5,000, with 11,500 on short time. The situation throughout the whole of West Yorkshire is tragically worse. As one who, twice in his lifetime, has faced redundancy or had to move because a factory is closing, I can say that a production unit which is hit by short time working rarely recovers fully. More often, the companies start to go out of existence and most of those on short time move a little further along the redundancy queue.
832
So alarmed are people in Leeds that the local chamber of commerce and industry, which is certainly not oriented towards the Labour Party, sought support, through its president, for the concept that a letter be sent to the Prime Minister calling for an immediate cut in the minimum lending rate with progressive cuts to follow.
It is true that the minimum lending rate has been cut by 1 per cent. The cut is so small that it will be almost inconsequential and will have little impact on the saving of jobs. It may do a little for profits. According to the Yorkshire Evening Post, the basic traditional industries in the area are working at only 60 per cent. capacity. I put it to the House that nobody operating in a free market, as most of these industries have to, can possibly keep going indefinitely working at 60 per cent. capacity. They are not financed that way. Most companies are built to produce a maximum of production in order to justify their finance.
What is the role of the Secretary of State for Industry in the present strategy? I am a great believer in the ballot box and in democracy. It is a great pity that the Government show all the signs of not uniting the nation, which was the intention the Prime Minister proclaimed on the doorstep of No. 10 Downing Street, but of dividing it. It is sad that the Secretary of State for Industry, who is a Leeds-based Member, appears to be one of the co-architects of a policy that is eroding the base that sent him to the House. I put it to him—he may care to answer some of these points when he replies—that he did not fight the election in Leeds on the platform that there would be dramatic reductions in job provision. He did not fight it on the basis that there would probably be 2 million unemployed this year and, according to predictions, not all by prophets of gloom, 3 million next year. A lot of those unemployed will be Leeds people.
Sir Keith Joseph rose—
Mr. Dean: I shall give way in a moment. It is significant that, among all the Tory successes in the general election, the majority of the Secretary of State for Industry dropped. His percentage of the vote dropped. I question whether, if he tested the electorate now, he would be coming back here. There is a case to answer.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. He says that he does not think that I told the daunting truth of what I believe and yet asserts that because I told the truth my majority dropped. I shall send the hon. Gentleman my election address. He will see how clearly I explained my point of view.
Mr. Dean: I happen to have seen a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's election address. Nowhere can I find mention of 2 million unemployed, the doubling of VAT and a 100 per cent. increase in inflation in 12 months. That is not in his election address, or anyone else's
I want the charge to be answered. I put some questions to the Secretary of State for Employment a few weeks ago regarding the Government's strategy. Although unemployment was rising, I wanted to know the job loss and the job gain, which is a different criterion. The figures showed that unemployment was increasing in every area. They also showed a much more adverse balance sheet in Labour areas than in Tory areas. The South-West, represented, apart from Swindon, four seats in Bristol and the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), by Tories, had a net gain of 15,000 jobs. The almost totally Conservative area of East Anglia, where there are only three Labour MPs, two in Norwich and one in Ipswich, had a gain of 10,000 jobs. The South-East, which includes the inner London area, had a loss of 15,000 jobs. The North-West, predominantly a Labour-voting area, had a loss of 33,000 jobs. The area that the Secretary of State for Industry and I represent had a loss of 10,000 jobs.
I have tried to draw conclusion from those figures. I hope that they do not constitute a deliberate policy, showing that the Government are hell-bent on creating two nations. One of the saddest sights that I have seen in my six years in Leeds, which had an international reputation for producing among the best, if not the best, clothing in the world, mainly men's suits—I am wearing one, as I hope is the Secretary of State for Industry—and ladies' suits, is that names that were a household tradition are going to the wall—Saxon Hawk, Hepworth's and, also Burton's, which has almost disappeared other than as a seller
834
of tailoring goods rather than as a manufacturer. The empire has been completely eroded.
Mergers and takeover bids have been involved. I raised the problem of import penetration with the previous Government, so I am not crying about it only now. I do not accept that controls will have much of an adverse effect on us. I want to retain a global outlook, but my priority is the well-being of my constituents. I am not prepared to stand by while industries which have employed thousands of people disappear in months with the social consequences associated with that.
If we want to tackle the problem and stop the bleeding quickly, another substantial decrease in the minimum lending rate must be introduced. It is nonsense to argue that it can be held back any longer. We must re-examine import controls. Leeds does not have a history of militant strikes. It is a docile area where people want to work if the wages are reasonable. All they ask is to be allowed to get on with the job.
The biggest tragedy is the problem facing youngsters leaving school. The number of school leavers in Leeds who do not find jobs and go straight to the dole queue is slightly below the national average. However, it is catching up fast. The people in my area do not want the moon. They want a reasonable living, a chance of reasonable schooling for their kids, decent hospitals; and, most of all, they want to give jobs to youngsters who have struggled to obtain qualifications. It is becoming more difficult for qualified children to obtain jobs.
Most of the kids in my area leave school at 16 to go into a factory and take money into a household that needs it, and to play their part in society. The Government's policies are denying youngsters in areas such as mine that facility. The damage that is being done to our seed corn will be seen for generations to come. The Government are creating a terrible legacy. I hope that they will listen to our pleas. Sometimes the Secretary of State for Industry comes across as a man of compassion. His industrial strategy involves industrial thuggery. I hope that he will stop it as quickly as possible.
7.3 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I shall develop the remarks made by the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) about the various aspects of the textile industry. I have two interests in the subject. My constituency is close to Nottingham, North where there is a substantial knitting industry. I have an interest in the problems of that industry from a constituency point of view. Before I came to the House I was a manager in the textile industry. I declare an interest, in that the business belongs to my family. I have, therefore, a constituency interest in defending textile workers. I have worked in the industry and tried to cope with its problems.
When people talk about declining job opportunities in the textile industry, they often confuse the problems that are associated with low-cost imports with the other problems associated with the structure of the industry and the development of productivity. Statistically, more jobs were lost in the textile industry in the last 10 years as a result of improved productivity than as a result of low-cost imports. It is an over-simplification to ascribe all the problems of employment in textile areas to low-cost imports. The industry has no interest in preserving outdated working habits to maintain levels of employment. The unemployment problem to a substantial extent is the result of improving productivity, which all hon. Members should support.
People from both the employers' and trade union sides of the industry frequently go out of their way to say that they are not protectionist. Many euphemisms have been invented to describe what I regard as protection. The most frequent is that we are not in favour of restricting trade or import controls but that we are in favour of fair trade. Another was invented recently by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who said that he was interested not in free trade but in managed trade. They amount to the same—to restricting imports.
If one argues the case for restricting imports of textiles, one must be clear what that means. It means that, because of the low value-added involved in its products the industry can afford to pay only relatively low wages by British standards. One
836
is saying that industry should be protected, and that one is prepared to leave the free forces of the market to operate on the motor industry, the electronics industry or the computer industry but that an industry which pays low wages and produces less wealth for the community should be protected. I do not see the logic of that.
It is more sensible to accept an obligation to provide employment for people in the industry and to discharge that obligation by encouraging the movement of workers away from a traditional and low wage industry to other industries that can afford to pay higher wages and produce more wealth for the community.
Holland has pursued that policy with a reasonable degree of success. The Dutch Government have encouraged adjustment in the textile industry by retraining and Government assistance. As a result, output in the textile and clothing industries has fallen in the last 10 years whereas in Britain output has risen. However, Holland is able to employ a larger proportion of its work force in that industry than we are and are able to pay higher wages.
People who argue the protectionist case often cite the views of the Cambridge Economic Policy Group. Mr. Wynne Godley resents being quoted as an authority for the textile protectionist lobby. His argument is the same as mine—that, if one sector of the economy is protected rather than the whole of the economy, a distortion takes place in favour of low-wage, low-value-added industries. He believes that it is better to protect everything. I believe that we should move as quickly as we can, humanely, to a position where we protect as little as possible and, preferably, not at all.
It is strange that the textile lobby always claims that the textile industry is a special case. The problems that the industry faces in terms of the competitiveness of its imports and exports are nothing special. Large sectors of manufacturing industry involved in international trade face the same problems. I shall return to the problems of competitiveness in a minute.
Before I do that may I say that in any discussion of economic and industrial policy the most important characteristic that we should seek is that of balance.

837
Anyone who says that he has the economic panacea which will ensure expansion and the growth of the economy and that, if we pursue that one policy, it will provide for our future, is guilty of gross over-simplification. I believe that the Opposition who argue the case for protection are guilty of advancing such a panacea. Their arguments cannot be substantiated.
So it is with those who do not observe a proper balance in the rest of economic policy. They are also guilty of oversimplification. The Government rightly proclaim the importance of controlling inflation. It is not to the credit of any hon. Member to argue that inflation is, somehow, unimportant. Inflation can be very unfair in its effects upon society across the board. It is particularly unfair to those who have spent their lives working and saving to provide for their old age. Those savings have quite often been in fixed-interest bonds and stocks. Such people see the value of their savings decline year after year and rightly and reasonably they feel angry with the politicians who allowed that to take place. It is the worst form of exploitation that those people should have been encouraged to save and for those who are in charge of the economy to have used those savings in a way that cannot possibly be represented as being in the true interests of the people who, 15 or 20 years ago, responded to the clarion call to save. That is one way in which inflation can be unfair.
The second way is that an inflation rate of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. imposes upon every person operating in the economy the need to take part in a reckless scramble to climb over other people and to get ahead on the helter-skelter. It imposes obligations to keep ahead all the time of others who should be partners rather than competitors in the economic process. It undermines the social cohesion necessary to the advancement and expansion of any society or economy. Therefore, any policy which does not place proper emphasis on the dangers that inflation can place upon the social fabric and which does not place proper emphasis on the stress created by inflation and the danger of society tearing itself apart is totally irresponsible.
Exactly the same charge can be made against those who, recognising the im-
838
portance of inflation, do not also recognise the importance of the other aspects of economic policy. It is not enough to say that our economic policy should be devoted solely to the control of inflation. Economic policy is about more than simply preserving the value of the currency. It is about providing jobs and improving the standard of living. It is about providing for growth of output. It is about better social services and the rest of the indications of a wealthy and expanding society.
I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say that perhaps the Government are made up of a large number of people drawn from the money side of the economy rather than from the industrial side. They, perhaps inevitably—because they are uncertain of the validity of their utterances—stress the importance of monetary disciplines and under-stress the importance of what I term the wider, real economic priorities with which they should be concerned.
I should like to examine one of those priorities. My concern in this context is about the effect of our policies on the competitiveness of producers who operate in our economy. People ask what is the problem and it is one of the peculiar ironies and geniuses of the British to be able to see a black cloud in the middle of any silver lining. If I am asked what the problem is I say in a word that it is oil—that is, the way in which oil is being treated by the economy as a whole.
I have statistics to support my case. Between 1976 and 1979 the net contribution of North Sea oil and gas to the British economy rose by £7¼ billion. If we had not imported the oil that we produced last year, our import bill would have been 20 per cent. higher than it was. Against that background it is not surprising that the pound has risen as strongly, as far and as fast as it has done. The savings on imports because of oil revenues has, naturally, exerted—as was inevitable—a strong upward pressure on the exchange rate. That has obviously been compounded by the high interest rates which, for domestic reasons, the Government have seen fit to impose and by the popularity of the Government's policies as they affect the value of money. Those policies are popular in the financial communities of the world which are also more concerned about the value of our

839
currency than about the performance of the real economy.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman earlier drew favourable attention to the experience of the Netherlands. Does he agree that the Dutch also faced a similar problem some time ago with their currency because of North Sea gas? The great difference between the Dutch experience and ours is that they did not make the senseless error of seeking to depress domestic demand to the extent that this Government are doing as a deliberate act of policy. Nor did the Dutch seek to counter the inflation they experienced solely by monetary methods.
Mr. Dorrell: The results of the Dutch policies are not the same as those we now experience. One of the interesting characteristics of the absorption of North Sea gas into the Dutch economy is that it was done with a small variation in the real exchange rate of the guilder. That is the point upon which I should like to concentrate.
The effect of all these factors on the exchange rate last year was that by the end of 1979 the pound was 25 per cent. above the level of 1976. Taking account of inflation its real effective exchange rate was 25 per cent. above for the average in 1976 and it has risen a further 9 per cent. since the end of last year. In other words, there has been a 35 per cent. increase in the real exchange rate between the middle of 1976 and today.
The result of that strengthening of the pound becomes clear if we look at the effect of the contribution of oil on the balance of payments. Last year the oil contribution was £7¼ billion higher than in 1976. Yet despite that massive inflow into the current account the whole current account deteriorated last year compared with 1976 by £1¼ billion. Far from showing a large growth in the current account surplus we saw that account getting worse against the background of a massive inflow.
It is possible to argue that that in itself is not a bad thing. It is possible to argue that what should have happened is that the growth within the domestic economy should have been put on to a higher plane because demand that was formerly provided by the external sector was now provided in the internal sector.
840
It is possible to argue that what should have happened is that the economy should have grown at a faster rate because there was more internal demand than would have been the case without North Sea oil.
Whatever the theoretical attraction of that argument, one can say only that it has not happened. The arrival of oil into the domestic economy has not contributed to an expansion of our rate of growth. On the contrary, it has simply replaced economic activity that existed in the economy before oil came in. Since oil, for all practical purposes, employs almost no one, but the manufacturing sector that it has replaced was particularly labour-intensive, that has inevitably led to the unemployment we now face.
If all this were simply a matter of history and I were merely recording what has happened in the economy my speech would be an interesting academic analysis which would not take us forward. However, I want to concentrate the Government's mind on what I see as the threat of the future, which is an even further deterioration in the position we now face.
Even if the exchange rate in real terms remained as it is now, the British economy would still be 30 per cent. less competitive than it has been on average during the 1970s. For as long as the domestic economy is being held down as hard as it is, it is reasonable to assume that British manufacturers will continue to maintain their export volume for the contribution that that gives them. They will accept pressure on margins in order to maintain volume, and the balance of payments will not suffer unduly. I am concerned that, when the economy eventually begins to recover, those manufacturers who are now maintaining export volume, albeit at greatly depressed margins, might divert that capacity to satisfy the home market. Companies will cease to export, which will lead to a decline of export volume. The expansion of our domestic market will suck in more imports. Obviously, I am describing a straightforward, old-fashioned balance of payments crisis resulting from an uncompetitive economy and leading to devaluation.
In other words, I fear that at this moment we do not face the choice between devaluing and not devaluing. The choice is between devaluing a little now

841
in order to pre-empt that loss of competitiveness and that loss of manufacturing capacity and having a much larger devaluation forced upon us in 18 months or two years time.
Mr. Alan Clark: My hon. Friend is presumably arguing, therefore, for a reintroduction of exchange controls, because without them it is not possible for central government to determine exchange rates.
Mr. Dorrell: I say with great respect to my hon. Friend that that is not true. The Germans, the Japanese and the Swiss have over the past 10 years consistently held down their exchange rates by intervening in the open market. None of them has had external outgoing exchange controls. On occasions they have played around with incoming exchange controls. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to pursue the point?
Mr. Clark: We are not an interventionist party, and we are not at the moment operating our economy on interventionist lines. If my hon. Friend is to come clean about this we shall listen to him with great attention. The point of lifting exchange controls is to allow market forces to operate. My hon. Friend is simply discarding that purpose and is attempting to combine that with strong intervention in adjusting the rate.
Mr. Dorrell: I am arguing my hon. Friend's case for him. I am arguing the case for lifting exchange controls and suggesting that to reimpose exchange controls would obtain the opposite result to the one that I would prefer.
I want, either from the private or the public sector—and in terms of the current balance it does not matter which—a capital outflow of the kind that was created by the German, Japanese and Swiss Governments in order to maintain the competitiveness of their internal economies. The case that I am making is that we do not face a choice between doing that now and not doing it. The choice is between doing it now and doing it later, and if we do not do it now we run the risk that our economy, when it revives, will be so uncompetitive that devaluation will be forced upon us. We shall be unable to maintain a balance on
842
our current account as we are doing at the moment.
7.25 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: We have heard some remarkable speeches today. Amongst them was the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). That is probably the first time for a long time that a Leeds Member has thought fit to intervene in a debate that is largely about unemployment. As I understand the statistics, Leeds has a long way to go to join the super league of unemployment. The fact that areas like Leeds are worried is probably the best indication we could have of the seriousness with which many people view the problem.
I am one of those rare birds in this House who can claim to have worked in manufacturing industry—at least until I was elected for Parliament. The company for which I worked is interesting in the context of this debate because its problems are the problems of large sections of industry. It manufactures rock drills and compressors. There is virtually no United Kingdom market for rock drills. A few people in Cornwall do hard rock mining, and they will buy a few drills. But there is no United Kingdom market adequate to sustain a rock drill manufacturing presence.
That company has therefore depended for 150 years for its survival on the ability to export. The simple fact is that the company's engineering products are not much better or much worse than anyone else's. After 150 years' effort at improving rock drills it is not surprising to hear that manufacturers in Britain, America, Sweden and Germany have all come to the same conclusions about design. Therefore, this company is a victim of or a victor over the problem of selling at a reasonable price, delivering on time and providing service when it is required.
That company, when it is competing with Germany, Japan and the other manufacturing nations, is, as a result of deliberate Government policy, suddenly worse off in international trade by some 20 or 25 per cent. purely because of the change in the international value of the pound.
It is not often admitted in this House that unemployment stood at 1·3 million

843
14 or 15 months ago with exchange rates as they were then. Given a 20 per cent. change on those figures, we face the prospect of horrifying and unacceptable levels of unemployment before the next year is out. For as long as the Government continue to run the economy by controlling the money supply with no pay policy, they will be forced to hold interest rates at a high level and the international value of the pound will rise.
It is possible that interest rates could drift down to 15, 14 or 13 per cent., although I find those possibilities a long way off. However, if we are to rely only upon a money supply policy we can guarantee that interest rates will always be on the high side because that is the method of economic control needed to control the volume of money in circulation.
Such a policy applied to this country, with its current oil reserves, can lead only to a serious decline in our manufacturing industries. The living standards of all depend in the long run only on the success or otherwise of our manufacturing and industrial base. There is in my part of the country a substantial tourist industry which helps the economy of the country in many ways. The tourist industry is secondary to that basic industry. Other than the little import trade that it might gather from overseas visitors, whether the tourist industry in Cornwall is buoyant or bad is a direct reflection of Britain's industrial performance, and very little else. The same can be said for those who work in the National Health Service or in education. If we cannot improve our basic industry, all the secondary occupations that make life so enjoyable for many will falter or fall away.
If Britain is in economic difficulty the Government should use the money produced from North Sea oil to support the basic work-producing elements of our economy, and not turn upon them as though they were doing some basic harm. Logic suggests that in difficult times the Government should support them and not cast them aside. I have come back to a favourite theme in my speeches about the economy, namely, how can we get the wealth that is being produced in the North Sea into that basic industry? In Committee on the Finance Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley
844
(Mr. Wainwright) proposed that the Government should change the tax system greatly to ease the way in which the private individual could invest relatively small sums on the stock market. There is a great deal to commend that to the House.
One way or another we must get the money produced by oil into industry. It is not logical for the House to continue to pretend that, because we have oil, the exchange rates must rise. That makes our industry uncompetitive. Logic suggests that the money produced by the oil industry should be put back into industry to help compensate for the exchange shift that has taken place because of the presence of oil. If we do not evolve policies along those lines I dread to think about where we shall be in another two years.
I do not believe that pay is the sole answer to inflation. I am a Member of Parliament for a county in England—I do not always accept that it is in England—which has the lowest average wage of any county in Britain, except for the county of Roxburgh. It has an 11 per cent. level of unemployment, and that is in the middle of summer. I mention Cornwall because everyone keeps talking about the North, the North-West, Wales and Scotland. I recognise that those areas have their problems, but if one studies the statistics one will discover that at the other end of England the problem is as bad as it is in some of the northern areas. I am not claiming that it is worse than the North, but it is as bad.
This week I received a telephone call from a public-spirited shopkeeper in my constituency. He told me that for the first time in 20 years he would not be able to follow his tradition of taking on two school leavers this year. He has always pursued that policy, whether or not he had work for them to do, because he thought that it was part of his social responsibility. Because the squeeze on his business is so tight, he is having to make decisions on the basis of survival.
In the West country recently, a Conservative candidate deserted his party—for which he stood at the last election—and joined us because he could see that the Government's current policy towards small business operators, among whom he numbers himself, was absolutely suicidal. I remember the right hon.

845
Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) saying long, long ago, when I was barely interested in politics, that investment and productivity are the two parts of British industry that must be improved. Investment is largely a reflection of the Government's tax policies. The Government must devote a great deal of their time during the next 12 months to thinking of satisfactory ways in which North Sea oil money can be put into industry.
On the question of productivity, we need a fundamental change of attitudes in industry. I remember working for a company in the year that it made £3 million profit, which was a great deal of money 10 years ago. Many Opposition Members take the attitude that profit is something nasty, cheated and stolen, and should never happen. That was never my attitude to profit. I did not think that there was anything wrong with my company making a profit that giving some of it to David Penhaligon would not put right. We must install massive systems of profit sharing, whereby the bulk of people in the industry feel that they are directly, financially and intimately concerned, and that they have a considerable interest in their company being successful, aggressive and "go-go" in its outlook. Unless we can get that back into our industry there is little hope for Britain. I advocate broad profit sharing schemes.
The way that power is exercised in industry needs a fundamental shift. It is time to recognise that those who provide the labour in industry are equal to those who provide the capital—not necessarily superior or inferior, but an essential and equal part of the partnership that is required if industry is to be competitive and aggressive. The day has arrived when we should seriously consider basic reforms of industry and seriously consider the possibility of giving those who work in a company an equal right, when it comes to electing those who control the destiny of their enterprise, as those who provide the money. I have enough faith in the British work force, among which I worked for a large number of years, to believe that, if we give a financial incentive and responsibility directly to the individual, there will be a response.
846
If we cannot galvanise that response in the next 18 months or two years, British industry will be on the verge of collapse.
The position will not appear to be that dramatic until we begin to run out of oil. If this House does not ensure that Britain has a strong industrial base when the oil begins to run out in 20 years, people outside will not thank them for it. We shall become one of the very poor nations of the Western economy.
7.37 pm
Mr. James Hill: The subject of this debate should be renamed "The lost opportunities of the past two decades". Industrial decline has not taken place only in the last 15 months. There have been lost opportunities not only in European trade but in world trade when dealing with the developing and emerging nations, and in the co-operation of trades throughout the world. Time and again Britain, possibly its manufacturers, and certainly its politicians of all denominations, have lost opportunities that now no longer exist.
When I heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) talking about a bankruptcy figure that might reach 6,000 this year my reaction was that he obviously had not checked the statistics. His speech was similar to one that I made during the three years 1975, 1976 and 1977. Without wishing to make a party point, may I say that during those years the bankruptcy figures for 1975 were 5,398, for 1976 5,939 and for 1977 5,831. Now we are told that bankruptcies are so severe that they will reach almost 6,000. It is the constant attempt to score points off each other that loses us the respect of the public who listen to the debates.
We have a duty this evening to talk not only about the past 15 months and about lost opportunities but about how we shall face up to the next 20 years. No one has mentioned the real change in attitude by the British work force. There is a move away from the dog-in-the-manger approach, both by management and the work force. We are already hearing that people working with good management are taking lower increases in salary because they know that their companies are in difficulty and, in one case, even taking a decrease in salary

847
because they realise that their company, which is facing enormous outside pressures, is likely to collapse and become only a statistic in 1981.
Therefore, the British work force is already beginning to change its attitude. In the past it may have put pressure on the management in order to get as much of the cake as possible. I believe that the reality is now beginning to filter through to all levels of industry that people must work together to protect their jobs. I am very pleased to see it.
I did not shed one crocodile tear when Mr. Robinson, the head of the British Leyland shop stewards, lost his job. I said to myself "Surely this is retribution. This man has now created a vast pool of unemployed". Slowly but surely the realism has dawned that one cannot compete in any market, be it the EEC or world markets, while having constant strife on the shop floor for whatever reason.
All hon. Members know that there have been some ridiculous strikes in the past. For example, there was a strike in one factory because of the smell of cats. That is nonsense. There has even been a strike over the price of tea in the canteen. The power of the shop stewards was beginning to run out of control. In Vosper Thornycroft, in my constituency, one shop steward had an argument with the person in the snack bar opposite the dock gates. The woman had increased the price of her rolls by 1p or 2p, and the shop steward pinned a notice on the works board stating "The snack bar opposite is out of bounds". When there is that lack of feeling on the shop floor, bad decisions will inevitably be made.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Member has referred to bad strikes. Perhaps he will comment on whether the strike which was carried out by financial interests—when overnight they refused to buy the previous Government's gilt-edged shares and made a profit of £200 million—was good or bad.
Mr. Hill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has prepared a full speech and that he will raise that point. I am trying to stress that there is already a change of attitude. Up to now, I think that we have been a little gloomy. Like Labour Members, I place a lot of the
848
blame for our present difficulties on the Big Five banks. For far too long they have accepted the fact that when MLR goes up it does not mean 17 per cent. but as much as they can get according to the reliability or status of their clients.
The point was made earlier that merchant banks which borrow from the Big Five charge an incredibly high interest rate. We want the merchant banks to invest in industry, not necessarily small industry. I am not sufficiently single-minded to think that only small industry is beautiful. Industry as a whole needs the support of the merchant banks. I include in that the farming industry, which has been short of liquidity for many years.
Therefore, the Big Five now have a duty not always to regard MLR as a bonanza but to be the entrepreneurs which banks were 100 years ago. The banks should take more risk with their capital. Not enough risk is taken by the Big Five in order to make small companies viable.
That brings me to the question of enterprise zones and the Budget which were discussed in the Finance Bill Committee. I believe that many of the clauses in that Bill will help people to invest more. I am particularly thinking of clause 36, under which the losses of a company can be written off against the profits of others. That is the sort of thing which will allow individuals and trustees to become more entrepreneurial, thereby aiding small businesses. Certainly people who take a risk by investing money in the microchip industry should be able to offset at least some proportion of the losses against profits.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: If the banks will not enter into that spirit of risk to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, surely there is a case for imposing a windfall profit tax on them which would allow public investment to be used where private investment lagged behind.
Mr. Hill: I must admit that at one time I felt that the Chancellor might well be attracted by a windfall profits tax on banks. He has resisted it this time. From the debate this evening, a warning should at least percolate from the House to the Big Five—[HON. MEMBERS: "Is the hon. Gentleman in favour or not?"] I am trying to explain and I am being helped

849
enormously by Labour Members. The message must percolate from the House this evening that unless the banks become more socially responsible and supportive of entrepreneurial activities the Chancellor may well consider windfall profits tax for a future Budget.
Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to use 10 words where one will do. Will he answer a straightforward question? In the parlous state of investment in British industry, is he in favour of a windfall profits tax on the banks or not?
Mr. Hill: At present, no, because only a few weeks ago, the Chancellor gauged this matter, obviously with far more information at his disposal than I have. I shall certainly support him if at any time he comes forward with a proposal to tax windfall profits.
An hon. Member was absolutely right in saying that we cannot allow our industry to be so depressed that when the upturn comes virtually no one will be available to benefit from the increase in trade which will result. That was probably in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry when he put forward the proposals on enterprise zones, especially the need for small workshop areas at a time when we are desperately trying through the Budget to redirect investment money. All of us must ensure that at the critical stage when there is an upturn the industry exists to support it.
I should like to refer to the so-called British car industry. We all know that Spain produces the small Ford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Escort"] No, the Fiesta. We know that Germany produces the Ford Granada and that a certain number of Cortinas are made on the Continent. I think that Belgium is one of the countries. It is rather tragic that the British car industry's percentage of world production has fallen so drastically, not only in the last few years but all the way back to 1950.
In 1970, the United Kingdom produced just over 2,098,000 cars, which was 7·2 per rent. of world production. I do not include those cars which were made in Spain, Germany or Belgium. In eight years, the number has declined to just over 1½ million. Therefore, there was a loss
850
of about 600,000 vehicles. However, that represented a fall of nearly half in our percentage of world production, because it amounted to 3·9 per cent.
The same story applies throughout British industry. For example, in 1970, British shipbuilding accounted for 6·3 per cent. of the world total, whereas Japan accounted for 48·1 per cent. In the world output of crude steel in 1970 we had 4·7 per cent. of the market, and Japan had 15·6 per cent. By 1979, we do not have to be told what happened because there was a lobby from Consett only yesterday.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where were the Tories?
Mr. Hill: In the House of Commons as usual, probably working assiduously in their rooms.
In 1979, we produced 2·9 per cent. of the world output of steel, and Japan was still producing 15 per cent. Those statistics are there for everyone to see, and I am surprised that we have to be told time and again that we are doing badly. We know that we are doing badly. It is time that we told people in what areas we are doing well.
From time to time there is a feeling that all is not good. I have a list of items that will gladden the hearts of some hon. Members. GEC Industrial Controls supplied equipment to a value in excess of £7 million for the offshore and land-based installations associated with North Sea oil. GEC Turbine Generators Ltd. sold generators to South Africa to the value of £200 million. British Aerospace has just sold six Hawker Siddeley 146 aircraft to the Argentine national airline for £85 million. Plessey Radar exports 60 per cent. of its output—obviously a great source of other currencies. Much as we decry the Japanese, Sony has a factory in Wales employing 600 people, and it has just announced a £10 million expansion programme.
One way in which the Government could help in their public purchasing programme would be to look more and more towards British companies. ICL and other companies are competitive on the world market and they could be assisted. In Europe—certainly in France—a public contract almost invariably goes to a national company. I agree that

851
it is always best to leave public companies to make their own decisions on purchasing, but once in a while we should give some assistance. Sir Michael Edwardes made a plea from the heart that people should buy British Leyland, but perhaps the products were not right at the time. But there are manufacturers in this country who are worthy of a contract from some of our nationalised industries and public authorities.
But all is not gloom. I know of a change of attitude. In probably one of the most difficult areas of industrial relations—Southampton docks—there has been a change of attitude and a feeling of wanting to draw in more trade rather than having demarcation disputes, and so on. There is now a feeling that good labour relations, working together with management, and sharing problems will be the future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) will agree that over the last 12 months labour relations in Southampton docks have been excellent. That is my glimmer at the end of the tunnel.
7.54 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne: We have already seen in Preston and in other parts of the North-West the real meaning of the decline in British industry. We have seen closures and rundowns at Courtaulds, Carrington Viyella, Ribble Paper Mills, and in various other factories. In April this year there were 8,505 unemployed, and in June there were 11,304 unemployed—a marked increase in a very short period. In contrast, at British Aerospace where military aircraft are produced, there is a high level of productivity. Reference has been made recently to Britain being the best defended bankrupt nation in the world. It is not my intention to go along that road. I am more interested in suggesting one or two aspects of the decline that need urgent remedy.
At Seddon Atkinson in my constituency—a part of International Harvesters—where commercial vehicles are manufactured, a productivity agreement was reached between the management and workforce, through their trade unions, which resulted in the doubling of productivity. A highly efficient work force there produces an excellent product. That is
852
the sort of thing that would have been applauded by the Prime Minister, according to some of her speeches.
But what is the position today? That agreement was reached a few months ago and the productivity figures have been revealed only recently. The answer for those workers in Seddon-Atkinson is now a three-day week, and many workers who produced more efficiently, with greater productivity have succeeded in putting themselves out of work.
In Carrington Viyella, in a textile producing area where several mills are involved in Eccleston, Rochdale, Walkden and Tarleton, all of which are close to Preston and the North-West, another 700 jobs were recently lost. At British Leyland—many of the workers there in the truck and bus division live in my constituency—the five-day working week is being reviewed on a weekly basis. Engine production is buoyant. However, the T45 assembly line is experiencing problems of various sorts, not least on the industrial relations aspect of a management that seeks to maximise productivity without examining some of the major areas of dissatisfaction among the workforce.
Alongside that, there is the tremendous competition from Europe—from Volvo and Scania. Those vehicles appear to have an easy access to Britain, and European Governments give subsidies to protect their exports and to ensure their price competitiveness in order to corner a greater share of the world market in a recession. Britain is an easy area for their products. It has been suggested that a recession today means that imports and exports in the world market are falling. But the most significant factor in the United Kingdom is revealed by the 1979 figures of imports of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods. The figure was £31 billion, and the total import bill was £48 billion. If we deduct oil from that at £6 billion, we have a figure of £31 billion out of a total import bill of £42 billion. In other words, 70 per cent. of the total import bill in 1979 was in manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. In 1974, it was only 50 per cent; in 1966, it was only 30 per cent. Already in the first quarter of 1980, the imports of manufactures and semi-manufactures total £9,095 million.

853
One can only speculate on what the figure will be at the end of 1980.
Years ago in Britain the exports of manufactures produced a surplus which paid for our imports of food. This is no longer true. Indeed, imports of finished and semi-finished manufactures may this year exceed the exports of manufactured goods. By this process we are importing increased unemployment.
Labour Members will recall that in 1979 we had a deficit with the Common Market of £3,000 million. Yet when we were taken into the Common Market by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—aided and abetted by some Labour Members—we had a trade balance with Europe. The position, therefore, has markedly deteriorated over the years of our membership.
On the question of import penetration in relation to home demand, it is signficant that 100 per cent. of all office equipment in the United Kingdom at present is imported; 61 per cent. of textile machinery is imported; 56 per cent. of all vehicles are imported. The trade deficit in 1979 in finished and semifinished manufactured goods in the United Kingdom is sometimes compared, when one talks of selective import controls, with the problems of the developing world. But it is much more realistic—and there is a much better political lesson in it—if we look at the deficit with, for example, the United States in 1979 of £541 million, with Japan of £761 million, and with West Germany of £2,516 million. In other words, to talk in terms of selective import controls is not, as is often implied, a threat to the developing countries but a matter in the main, for the major Western capitalist, producing nations.
The trade surplus figures for 1979 make very interesting reading—£2,907 million for the United Kingdom and £3,994 million for the United States of America. Then we come to some really astronomical figures—West Germany £27,736 million and Japan £33,707 million. As I have already indicated, what we should be seriously considering is controlling imports from West Germany, Japan, the United States, the Netherlands and France.
854
The overall import deficit would be much worse without North Sea oil revenues, which are being used deliberately to prevent the deficit from being several thousand millions higher than it is. But what happens when the oil revenues run out—given the existing economic policies? The answer is that we shall have a deindustrialised nation, and an economic recovery could then take generations to achieve in the United Kingdom.
The financial statistics at April 1980 show, on page 117, an interesting position concerning the export of private investment. The figure for 1979 was £5,000 million, and over the last five years there has been an outflow of roughly £15,000 million of private investment. So the multinationals export in order to erect and maintain factories abroad which produce goods to send back to the United Kingdom for sale. There is no patriotism among the multinationals; there is no concern there for the future of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the absence of concern by the multinationals for the problem of the unemployed in Preston is equalled only by that of the Tory Front Bench.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has referred to statistics, which are of very great importance. Will he also turn his attention to the problems of trade unions and others when negotiating? Who is importing these products? When we are considering the problem of workers in Preston and other parts of the country losing jobs in sectors which are subject to very heavy import penetration, would it not be beneficial to British industry and to the trade unions to know who is responsible? It may be recalled that when the Courtaulds closures took place in Lancashire, evidence was coming forward to suggest that Courtaulds was importing the very products that workers were producing in the United Kingdom and thereby throwing them out of work.
Mr. Thorne: That is a very important point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to learn that one trade union is shortly to publish a pamphlet on the decline of British industry in which it tackles precisely the problems that he has indicated. There is in the Preston area a growing awareness among workers at

855
shop floor level of precisely who are the guilty parties.
I hope that the Labour Party—perhaps the Opposition Front Bench will pay close attention to this—will ensure that the records of members of the present Cabinet are very closely examined in terms of their business and economic interests, so that we can refute any suggestion that they are in some way making a sacrifice when they accept a 5 per cent. reduction in their pay as Members of Parliament. For many of them, that 5 per cent. reduction is quite irrelevant. It would be very interesting if the Labour Party were to produce the sort of figures that it produced some years ago to show the kind of people we have in the Government at the present time, and what is their background in terms of the needs of British industry.
I am drawing to a conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it is pertinent to mention that several Conservative Back Benchers treated us to speeches of 18 to 25 minutes and said very little about the subject that we are debating.
It is suggested that 200 companies are likely to control 75 per cent. of total
856
world production by 1985. That alarms many Opposition Members. The realisation that the decisions of these companies will be taken on the basis of what is in their best financial interests, irrespective of people's needs, means that any expectation one may have about action on the Brandt report will be reduced to nought.
In short, I believe that action on selective imports is vital. We need in the short run, as quickly as possible, a major public investment in housing, railways, health care, education and training, social services, and so on, in order that such investment will act as a multiplier to British manufacturing, if accompanied by selective import controls. In the absence of that sort of remedy, we can safely predict that there will be 3 million unemployed by 1984, and that there will be a big iron-fisted brother waiting to deal with the social problems that such poverty will create. One can only speculate on how many more prisons will be needed then. That is why in my view, and the view of an increasing number of workers, we cannot afford to allow the Government to stay in power to produce such havoc in the United Kingdom. Get them out.
8.10 pm
Mr. John Lee: In many ways, this has been a depressing debate. One would have thought that until May 1979 we had a booming economy, minuscule unemployment, substantially rising productivity, virtually strike-free labour relations and no closures. But, as everyone knows, manufacturing industry has been declining for several decades under Governments of both persuasions.
We have lost sector after sector of our manufacturing capability. It is depressing to go round factories in our constituencies and see so much imported machinery. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and others have commented on that fact. It is depressing to see what has happened to our machinery manufacturing capability. In terms of machinery manufacture, if one misses out on one generation of machines, it is almost impossible to get back into that industry. That is what has happened. We also know about the import penetration that has taken place in the consumer sector.
I do not want to go over the reasons for our decline or to apportion blame. These are sterile and pointless efforts. Much of industry is going through the equivalent of open heart surgery. In my constituency there have been short-time working and substantial textile mill closures and there has been short-time working in the furniture industry. All this, of course, works its way through to the wholesale and retail trades.
Yet our clearing banks are some of the most profitable in both absolute and relative terms in the world. One is entitled to question—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) referred to this point—whether the banks have been overdoing it. Was it necessary for them to charge the premiums over minimum lending rate that they have been charging in the last few months? In the circumstances, given their level of profits, could they not have said "In view of the 17 per cent. MLR, let us make a reduction in our normal premium and come down 1 or 2 per cent."?
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, all is not gloom. There are some bright signs.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Where?
Mr. Lee: Given the level of the exchange rate, our exports have held up remarkably well. It is a most creditable performance. A number of our industries even now are doing exceptionally well in home and world markets—for example, aerospace, telecommunications manufacture and mining machinery manufacture.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Telecommunications is a nationalised industry.
Mr. Lee: The telecommunications manufacturing sector is not a nationalised industry. Not enough, but some, of those industries are doing well at present.
We are getting greater realism in wage settlements. Increased productivity is, and will be seen to be, coming through during the next 12 to 18 months.
One encouraging sign is the substantial take-up of the new small factory units which have been built during the last few months. We need them in areas such as North-East Lancashire—my political area—where in the past, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) will know, firms have expanded and taken advantage of the old former mill premises. Most of the mill premises have now been absorbed and used. But North-East Lancashire and other parts of the country desperately need the new small factory units.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Ernie Ross: In the last few months the speed of Britain's economic and industrial decline has accelerated to a frightening pace. A stream of major companies—from motor components to confectionery and from textiles to toys—has announced redundancies and closures. The existence of whole industries is in question. Previously prosperous regions in Britain have seen their economic and industrial base crumble. With unchanged policies, the 1½ million unemployed have only one prospect—that they will soon be joined by hundreds of thousands more jostling them in the dole queues.
The catastrophic economic policies of the Tory Government have massively increased the difficulties. High interest

859
rates and the high value of the pound—the result of monetarist dogmas of the Prime Minister and her supporters—threaten permanently to weaken British manufacturing industry. At the same time, the immediate economic outlook for the whole of the capitalist world is bleak.
In 1979 the United Kingdom imported more manufactured goods than it exported. British manufacturing industry employed 1,170,000 fewer people than in 1970. Manufacturing output was a mere 6·4 per cent. higher than at the start of the decade. These three statistics show clearly the extent of the decline of British manufacturing industry during the 1970s.
In the past Britain has relied on a surplus of trade in manufactured goods, together with a surplus on invisible trade, to pay for imports of raw materials and food. The surplus on invisible trade has declined in recent years. Although it still remains important, it is unlikely to expand very much. The decline in the surplus in manufactures is at present being offset by North Sea oil production.
The decline in manufacturing industry is severe, but in the engineering industry it is even more severe. Britain's past industrial and economic success has depended to a large extent on engineering. But the figures for the last decade show clearly that, if the performance of the whole of the United Kingdom's manufacturing has been bad, that of engineering has been worse.
The range of statistics available for the engineering industry is narrower than for manufacturing industry as a whole. Looking at output, employment, import penetration and trade performance, it is clear that only in employment has engineering fared better than United Kingdom manufacturing industry or engineering in France and West Germany. The figures for output are perhaps the most striking. Between 1970 and 1971 manufacturing output grew by 6·4 per cent. The output of engineering and allied industries grew by 2·5 per cent. While the rest of the economy was slowly recovering from recession, engineering output declined still further.
The extent of the decline of the United Kingdom's engineering industry becomes
860
immediately apparent when United Kingdom engineering output is compared with that of West Germany and France. This shows a 1 per cent. decline in the United Kingdom's engineering output between 1975 and 1979, compared with a 20 per cent. increase in France and an 18 per cent. increase in West Germany.
When these figures are combined with output figures, the picture of productivity growth which emerges is as follows. In West Germany engineering productivity increased by 19 per cent. between 1975 and 1979. In French engineering the increase was 25 per cent. In overall British manufacturing, productivity grew by 8 per cent., but in British engineering the productivity increase between 1975 and 1979 was only 2 per cent. Unfortunately, comparable investment figures, which might go some way to explain the difference in productivity growth, are not available.
Between 1970 and 1979 imports sharply increased their share of the United Kingdom market for engineering products. Details are not published for the engineering and allied industries sector as a whole, but there are figures for the six main areas making up this sector. These show that, with the single exception of shipbuilding, all areas of United Kingdom engineering have lost a share of the United Kingdom market to imports. In each case, imports rose more rapidly than imports of manufacturing as a whole. The largest rise was in vehicles where the imports share of the United Kingdom market more than trebled between 1970 and 1979. In mechanical engineering, the largest single area, imports increased their market share by 60 per cent. over the period.
The whole of the engineering sector has been hit. One example is the electronic consumer goods sector. The decline of the electronic consumer goods industry—television, radio, tape recorders, and so on—is now so advanced that the British Radio Equipment Manufacturers Association considers that the industry needs important controls in order to survive. That was the point made in the NEDO progress report, published in January 1980. Overall import penetration in the industry rose from 16 per cent. in 1970 to 46 per cent. in 1978. Statistics from the same organisation show

861
that in the colour television market, the industry's most important area, import penetration has risen from 7 per cent. in 1970 to 27 per cent. in 1979.
It is particularly worrying that no United Kingdom manufacturer makes the product with perhaps the greatest growth potential, namely, the video cassette recorder. In 1979, the United Kingdom imported 150,000 video cassette recorders. A study of the United Kingdom electronic consumer goods industry, by the Boston Consulting Group identified three main reasons for Japan's better performance in the manufacture of colour televisions: better design, better quality components and larger scale production.
In its recent report on the microelectronics industry, the NEDO sector working party criticised the Government for reducing support for the development of microelectronics. In July 1978, the previous Labour Government allocated £70 million to encourage production in Britain. The Government have cut that by at least £15 million. In an earlier report, the working party pointed out that the Japanese Government spent £140 million on the development of very large-scale integrated circuits.
Figures for expenditure on research and development in absolute terms and per head of the population show that the United Kingdom has almost slipped to the bottom of the league. There are two other disturbing elements in the United Kingdom's research and development programme. First, in real terms, the amount spent by the United Kingdom on industrial research and development fell by 12 per cent. between 1967 and 1975. In the same period, West German research and development expenditure rose by 44 per cent. French expenditure rose by 17 per cent., and Japanese expenditure rose by 90 per cent.
Secondly, the United Kingdom overall research and development effort has been distorted by defence. In the United Kingdom, 46 Per cent. of expenditure goes on defence. In West Germany the figure is 11 per cent. That represents an obvious misdirection of necessary manpower and funds.
Conservative Members have argued in favour of dropping exchange controls in order to allow firms to invest overseas.
862
Overseas investment by United Kingdom firms is clearly damaging to the British economy. If hon. Members need an example, they should consider the survey that was carried out by Houston and Dunning in 1976. It showed that United Kingdom companies were planning to service their European markets mainly from Continental bases. They pointed out that when coupled with the evidence that Continental firms are servicing United Kingdom markets, more through exports than from production facilities in the United Kingdom, it was somewhat discouraging for the future growth of the United Kingdom's economy.
Multinationals, both British and foreign, take investment and other decisions on the basis of their own interests. Their concern is for the highest profit for the corporation, not the economic welfare of the countries in which they operate. All available evidence indicates that the decisions that have been taken have acted against the United Kingdom's interests and have helped the speedy decline of British manufacturing industry.
Labour Members have argued, and will continue to argue, in favour of import controls. The increase in the number of imports is more a symptom than a cause of the decline in manufacturing industry. There are two ways in which the high level of imports makes a reversal of that decline more difficult. First, import penetration is now so extensive that the domestic market share of British industry in many sectors is too low to sustain recovery.
Let us consider the motor industry. Leaving aside the foreign-owned companies, whose investment and production plans are determined on a world-wide basis, the United Kingdom's industry is represented by British Leyland. In 1979, British Leyland sold only 386,000 vehicles in the United Kingdom. It sold 693,000 world-wide. Volkswagen sold 777,000 in its home market of West Germany, and Renault sold 692,000 in France. That contrast illustrates how difficult it is for British Leyland to generate funds to match the investment of the Western European economies.
We must also consider the effect of imports on the balance of payments. At present, a combination of the revenue from North Sea oil and a low level of economic activity has held Britain's

863
balance of payments deficit to £2,400 million on the current account. Any expansion of the economy without controls would bring such a flood of imports that it would offset the benefits of North Sea oil and cause a balance of payments crisis.
We shall continue to argue for an extension of public sector expenditure. Experience since the war has shown that, in an economy with spare capacity and unemployed resources, the Government have the power to raise the level of national income and employment by increasing public expenditure. That has the effect of injecting spending power into the economy and of stimulating its expansion. Moreover, a substantial part of any increase in public spending is self-financing because the national Exchequer benefits from a rise in revenue from taxation, both direct and indirect. It also benefits from a reduction in the cost of unemployment benefit. The extent to which any increase in public expenditure is self-financing varies according to the type of expenditure.
Historical evidence for the United Kingdom suggests that between a half and two-thirds of an across-the-board increase in public expenditure would be self-financing after a year or so. In recent years, a line of argument has been developed to the effect that an increase in public expenditure, far from benefiting an economy with unemployed resources, would cause it harm. It is claimed that a rise in public expenditure will "crowd out" the same amount of spending in the private sector, or perhaps more. Jobs may be created in the particular public sector which are expanded, but the effect of that expenditure would be to destroy an equal number of jobs, or more, in the private sector.
That explanation of deindustrialisation was popularised by the Oxford economists Bacon and Eltis in an article in The Sunday Times of 10 November 1974, and in their book published in 1976. It has been adopted enthusiastically by Tory Ministers, who argue that public expenditure must be cut in order to make room for the private sector to expand. In November 1979, a White Paper on public expenditure declared:
"Higher public expenditure cannot any longer be allowed to precede, and thus prevent, growth in the private sector."
864
However, that argument is disproved by the severe cuts in public expenditure which were made in the years 1975 to 1979. If public expenditure on goods and services had been preserved at its 1975–76 level as a share of national output in 1978–79, public expenditure would have been £8 billion higher. It has been estimated that about half the rise in unemployment of 900,000 during that period was caused by cuts in public expenditure.
Between 1975–1976, and 1978–1979 private investment rose by £1,400 million. However, there was a fall of £4,700 million in public investment. Thus the private sector took up only one-third of the room made for it by the cuts in public spending on investment. Excluding investment in the North Sea, which cannot plausibly be said to be linked to the size of the public sector, this proportion falls to one-fifth.
The evidence shows that the doctrine of "crowding out" is contradicted by experience in Britain in recent years. Manufacturing industry has not been deprived of financial or labour resources by the volume of public expenditure. There is only one area in which scarce resources and skilled manpower may be preempted by the public sector to the detriment of private industry. That is in defence. I shall not touch on defence tonight; my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) did that quite adequately. What I shall say is that the present Tory Government's policies offer no solution to the problems of deindustrialisation. Their concentration on the illusions of excessive public spending and the abuse of trade union power is driving the economy deeper into recession and so accelerating the progress of deindustrialisation.
Other Opposition Members have put forward the alternatives that they would like to see the present Government adopting if decline in British industry is not to continue. I would certainly argue that the relative decline of Britain's manufacturing industry began in the previous century. Faced with the challenge of other, more dynamic countries, Britain tended to rely on privileged access to the resources of the Empire and on supplying capital and financial services to the world rather than modernising its industry. The

865
deep-rooted belief in free trade and market forces has meant that State intervention, although it has greatly expanded, has not been used effectively to bring about the necessary reconstruction of our manufacturing industry. The long-standing overseas orientation of the City of London, which has been joined by the internationalisation of the major British manufacturing companies, has worked against the maximisation of investment in our domestic industry.
Opposition Members have heard nothing tonight to change the demand that the Government change their course now if we are to have a manufacturing industry in the late 1980s.
8.30 pm
Mr. Richard Body: When I entered the Chamber a short time ago, I had no intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of seeking to catch your eye. However, the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has propelled me to my feet, because I do not think that the hon. Member and other hon. Members who have spoken in the same vein appreciate the full consequences of their argument when they call, as they have called, for import controls.
Of course we may regret that many consumers in Britain will prefer to buy a Japanese car rather than one manufactured in Birmingham. We may regret that so many people prefer to buy a shirt manufactured in Korea rather than one manufactured in Lancashire. It is one thing to regret those purchases, but it is another thing altogether to say to British consumers "You shall not have the freedom to buy what you would wish to buy". When Opposition Members make speeches of that kind, they must be more frank with the British people. They should say "If given the chance, we shall take away people's freedom to buy what they would wish to have ".
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Wish?
Mr. Body: Yes—wish to have. There is no compulsion on me to buy a foreign car. It so happens that, being a good European, as several hon. Members may know I am, I prefer to buy a French car. I regret to say that it is a better car than many manufactured in this country. I
866
regret my decision, but I have made it. [Interruption.] I sometimes flaunt my French car to prove that I am a good European, and I believe in European free trade. However, while it is a matter of regret that so many people may make such purchases, it is a very different thing—I do not think that this is appreciated on the Opposition Benches—to call for import controls, which are a direct onslaught on the freedom of the British people to buy what they wish to have.
An import into Britain—not an enemy missile here to attack us—is something which is willed to come here by the consumers of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No import can come into Britain unless it is to be purchased and someone wants it. I dare say that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) buys something that is produced abroad. I dare say he would like some of the food that can be produced so much more cheaply.
Mr. Frank R. White: The hon. Gentleman has asked us to be frank with the consumer. Will he be equally frank with the consumer? Will he explain to the consumers of this country, when his Government's attitude to the textile industry has resulted in no textile industry in Britain, what choice and what freedom the consumer will have then, when textile prices are fixed by textile barons outside this country, whose present manipulations of textile prices do little for the Third World population but a lot for the textile barons who are financed by foreign capital in other countries?
Mr. Body: I thought that that argument had been rebutted time and again—
Mr. White: Let us hear the answer now.
Mr. Body: —by organisations which are concerned with the welfare of the Third world.
That has been argued very cogently. If we say that people in Hong Kong and elsewhere should not send their shirts and other textiles over here, we will undoubtedly damage their meagre prosperity. It will be a very bad day, both for them and for our own consumers, if we have a Government who stand between a willing buyer and a willing seller. That is the essence of

867
import controls. The State—the merchants of compulsion—would tell the consumer that he no longer had the freedom to choose what he wanted. That is implied in the Opposition's arguments. If they advance that argument again, they should do so with rather more frankness than we have heard today. Imports can come into this country only so long as people wish to buy them. I do not think that the freedom to buy from abroad should be limited in any way at all.
I believe that food should also come freely into this country. It would be to the advantage of many people in Lancashire and other parts of the country, who are anxious about import penetration, if we had a great deal more import penetration by those who produce food far more cheaply than we or any other member of the EEC can produce it. I hope that hon. Members noted the facts which were given in a written answer yesterday and which indicated that, if we had the freedom to buy food from the low-cost producers of the world, the average family would be £5 a week better off.
Mr. Dan Jones: I wonder what the hon. Member would say if he were a manufacturer in this country and saw that similar manufacturers abroad were being heavily subsidised by their Governments. Would he take the same view?
Mr. Body: If they are being subsidised, that is dumping. I regret that our anti-dumping legislation has gone by the board, and that we cannot invoke any anti-dumping provisions except by a long rigmarole via Brussels—a tortuous process which does not work satisfactorily. It is time that we put that right. I do not think that there is any dispute between me and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) on that score.
Opposition Members have suggested that we do not believe in import controls at all. That is nonsense. We believe in one control—the most natural, effective and efficient control that exists. It is self-regulating and works constantly. It is a floating exchange rate. When exports fall and imports rise unduly, the exchange rates adjust automatically.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The free market philosophy of monetarism works only when one has a currency that is dependent on imports and exports. It does not work when one has a currency such as ours, which is grossly over-valued because of North Sea oil. The whole equation is destroyed, and to talk in those terms is irrelevant. If we could forget the North Sea, the hon. Member's argument would be relevant, but North Sea oil is creating a currency which is bankrupting many areas of export manufacturing industry.
Mr. Body: That is a non-argument. We export oil and I regret that we export so much. I wish that we could have Norway's energy policy, but that is not our freedom. If we seek that freedom, limitations will be imposed on us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that and will explain it to the public.
I regret that we are exporting oil in the way that we are. Our currency is thereby strengthened, which makes it more difficult for our other exports to be sold and easier for imports to come into the country. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we must not have a new industry such as the oil industry and that we should have a museum society that holds on to its existing industries.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument about a free market, and his advocacy of being a good European and free marketeer. How does he reconcile free enterprise with the EEC practice of keeping food off the market and interfering with supply and demand in building food mountains?
Mr. Body: The common agricultural policy is a load of nonsense. I believe that the hon. Gentleman shares my view of the Common Market. We may travel by different methods, but our conclusion is the same. I do not defend the Common Market. I am as opposed to it as anyone in the House. My tongue may not have been sufficiently visible in my cheek when I said that I was a good European. I am a free trader. I believe in trading freely with EEC countries. If the Common Market was a free trade area, my opposition would be lessened.

869
I have been goaded into speaking at greater length than I intended. I wished briefly to deal with the argument for establishing import controls. Those who advocate import controls should be frank with the British people. Such controls are an attack on the freedom of consumers to buy what they wish to have I repeat that no imports can enter the country without the people being willing to buy them.
7.42 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) complained bitterly about the gloom and doom that had pervaded the debate, and asked for the good news. There is little good news. It is interesting that the only successes in the past few weeks have been in publicly owned industries. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister mentioned the mining industry, British Aerospace was referred to by the hon. Member for Test, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the shipbuilding industry.
The hon. Member for Test was correct in saying that the decline in the manufacturing base of British industry is not new, although it has been greatly exacerbated by the Government. British industry has been in decline for decades, if not for generations. It is alarming to look at the figures. Since 1966, 1·6 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry. In that same period, 700,000 jobs have been lost in the construction and mining industries. The new industries, such as petrochemicals, and new technologies, have created only three new jobs for every 100 jobs lost in that period in the more basic and traditional industries. It is disturbing that the decline in our industrial base has occurred not only, or even mainly, in the traditional, older industries and that the import penetration of the domestic market has eroded new, high technology industries.
It is extraordinary that a manufacturing country with the record and tradition of Great Britain no longer manufactures typewriters. It is extraordinary that, but for the grace of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), we
870
would not have even a foothold in the manufacture of motor cycles, even though 20 years ago we had 70 per cent. of the world market. The Meriden motor cycle factory exists by courtesy of the previous Labour Government and because of the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). Many Conservative Members have said that the import figures do not tell the full story and that we often import in order to re-export, but there has been large import penetration of some of our newer industries, particularly those manufacturing consumed durables. For example, we import 96 per cent. of dish washers, 70 per cent. of hair dryers, 60 per cent. of cars—only 10 years ago the figure was 7 per cent.—45 per cent. of automatic washing machines, 45 per cent. of agricultural machinery and 45 per cent. of machine tools. I could go on at length. Those are not old industries such as cotton, textiles and mining. If we cannot make our way in our own country in those new industries, the future will be bleak and disturbing.
We are not merely suffering competition from abroad and losing the occasional market. We are losing jobs, particularly in the typewriter and motor cycle industries. With the loss of those jobs we lose the skills attached to them. With the loss of those jobs and skills we lose the prospects for our children and their children. With the loss of those jobs, skills and prospects we lose the ancillary skills and services provided by ancillary suppliers.
All of that is having a devastating effect on our industrial base, our future prosperity and the opportunities that will be available for future generations to find appropriate work and to receive education and training for the necessary skills. That situation will dramatically change the whole structure of our economy, our life style and the society to which we have become accustomed.
As I said at the start of my speech, the process has been going on for a long time under successive Governments of both parties, but it is clear that the present Government's economic policies have exacerbated the position.
Mr. Bob Dunn: No.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) may shout "No",

871
but we cannot talk about vulnerable British industry and the years of neglect and decline and claim that the current 22 per cent. rate of inflation, compared with the 9 per cent. rate left by the Labour Government, has no effect on the situation. Conservative Members cannot suggest that the record 17 per cent. MLR that we had until a few days ago had no effect or that the high value of the pound has no effect. All those factors affect the situation.
Otherwise productive and viable British firms and industries are being made uncompetitive by the Government's economic policies and by high inflation, high interest rates and a high-value pound. Part of all that are the disadvantageous consequences of North Sea oil revenues which are ensuring that a greater number of imports are being sucked into the economy, because the oil revenues are being dispersed into general consumption, partly through tax reliefs.
The more appropriate and more efficient way to deal with the problem would be to support British industry when it is vulnerable and when it needs help in re-equipping and in withstanding foreign competition. That can be done only by using public revenue, through publicly owned and supported schemes such as the National Enterprise Board, to give finance to a Ferranti, to a Fairey, to an Alfred Herbert and to a British Leyland. The first two have proved to be eminently successful companies. Both had to be bailed out by a public body with public money and now the Government are selling them off.
Mr. Tom McNally: My hon. Friend is developing a useful argument. Is he not aware that many companies, such as Fairey, Ferranti and ICL, with workers in my constituency and faced with problems, would go to the wall under the ideology of this Government. The philosophy would be to lock the gates and to close the company when, with a little Government intervention, a viable company could be saved to prosper for Britain.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I was making that point. The record is clear in relation to Fairey, Ferranti and many others. Those companies would not exist today in their efficient and profitable form had it not
872
been for the public support and public money given by the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton deserve a great deal of credit for pushing through imaginative policies at a difficult time in the period of the previous Labour Government.
It is not only those companies which have benefited. Many privately owned companies that have never entered into public ownership exist as successful and profitable companies because, at some stage in the past when their future was in jeopardy and their prosperity in doubt, public support was available and given. One of the most impressive companies—always quoted by Conservative Members —which had the sense to refuse a job to the Prime Minister when she was a young graduate student, is ICI. It is a shining example of a highly profitable private enterprise firm with large exports and a big domestic market and production in this country.
ICI exists today as a company only because public money was put into it many decades ago at a time when it would otherwise have gone to the wall. That example can be repeated time and again. It is an example that, for some reason, through blind stupidity or dogma, the Secretary of State for Industry refuses to acknowledge and accept. It is an example that should be followed in the perilous and difficult economic situation in which the country now finds itself.
It is clear that the policies being pursued by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will not help British industry but will lead to its further demise and decline, with disastrous consequences for people in this country. The consequences will be particularly disastrous for those living and trying to work in regions such as those I represent. The Secretary of State has not merely refused to help; he has maliciously hindered any attempts by industry in that region to help itself by withdrawing intermediate area status from large areas of the North-West that have abnormally high levels of unemployment. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has gone further still and has made massive, vicious and unprecedented cuts in the training and retraining programmes and the opportunities available for young people.
Mr. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vital work of the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency has been made more difficult by the limitations placed upon them by the Government? It is not surprising that only last week the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, Robin Duthie, was clear and categoric in his condemnation of the Government's industrial policy and their inability to help to resolve the problems of the deprived areas of the country that are fortunate enough, like Wales and Scotland, to have development agencies that would go a long way to help resolve the difficulties.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend is citing what might be regarded by Government Members as a tainted source. One could use what they would regard as a respectable source such as the small business men in my constituency who are still waiting for the small business men's friends to act on their behalf. Multinational companies and domestic companies are wondering when the wonderful economic revival that they were promised will happen. What price now Tory support for small business men? They have received a clobbering from the Government. As the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer said, 2,000 bankruptcies have occurred in the last three months.
We know that on Merseyside the decline is not new and that decline is always worse in vulnerable regions such as Scotland, Wales, the North-West and the North. The decline has accelerated to an enormous extent in the 14 months in which the Government have been in office. Already in the North-West, 52,000 redundancies have occurred with another 5,000 on the way before September. Since the Government came to office, 14,500 redundancies have occurred on Merseyside and another 6,000 will occur before September. About 1,700 redundancies have taken place in Kirkby with a further 90 to come.
Since the Government came to office 40,000 job losses have occurred in the North-West and nearly 600 firms have closed for ever. On Merseyside 4,000 jobs have been lost and 104 companies have closed for ever. In Kirkby 460 jobs have been lost and eight companies have, closed for ever.
874
There are no further job opportunities or prospects for any of the men, women and young people in the North-West, Merseyside or Kirkby. The Government's economic policies are adding to the depression and the intolerable, unacceptable levels of unemployment. On Merseyside alone 91,000 men and women are unemployed. That is 12 per cent—twice the national average—with pockets of unemployment as high as 20 or 25 per cent. in my constituency. In Merseyside 17,000 people have been unemployed for over two years with 1,243 of them in the small town of Kirkby.
No one needs to talk about the waste of talent and human resources involved in such unemployment levels. No one should need to talk about the humiliation, degradation and loss of self-respect that occurs to school leavers and adults as a result of long months and years on the dole. Yet the Secretary of State does not understand. Why does he not understand? His hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) said earlier that the Cabinet is composed of men with money who do not understand. He said that the Cabinet was composed of money and that it did not understand. That is the clue. Members of the Cabinet have never been unemployed. Their families have never been unemployed. Their fathers have never been on the dole. They have no conception of the misery and destitution which is experienced by many thousands of my constituents.
Mr. Darrell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to represent me as saying that my right hon. Friends are moneyed men when I said that they are men who are skilled and interested in monetary matters rather than the real economy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I quoted what the hon. Gentleman said. One does not miss such a remark when it comes from a Government member.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said, amid jeers and laughter from Government Benches, that if the level of unemployment is allowed to continue there will be political instability and, perhaps, further riots a la

875
Bristol. He was jeered and laughed at. Of course there will be. We cannot allow thousands of our young people to be thrown on to the scrap heap in what they regard as an unjust and indefensible way and with a moral disregard for them and for their future when they can see clearly that there is manifest injustice in the way wealth is distributed in our society.
They clearly see the injustice of the way in which they are treated compared with the way in which other people can run through their own lives—as was said of Members of the Cabinet by the hon. Member for Loughborough—with no worries, concerns or troubles to upset the comfortable, complacement and cosy world in which they live.
Unless the Prime Minister recognises clearly and sensitively the problems that are faced by hundreds of thousands of people in this country and stops sacrificing them on the altar of Tory dogma the social fabric of our society and its political stability will be at risk. The Government bear a great responsibility, as do those hon. Members who form the backbone of Government support, to ensure that that does not occur and that the degradation of society does not take place.
9.2 pm
Mr. John Silkin: It is my happy duty and pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) on an outstanding maiden speech. It is a long time since the convention that a maiden speech should be absolutely devoid of any political content was observed in the House. I am very glad that it was not observed in this case. My hon. Friend gave us a clear indication of what life is like both in his constituency and in Glasgow as a whole.
My hon. Friend was joined in his strictures of current unemployment by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock), Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Even the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) reiterated the same strictures. If the rest of my hon. Friends who waited a long time in order to speak had been able to make their speeches, I think that they would have told the same story.
876
I wish to make one thing very clear. The subject of the debate did not seem to be a matter of profound interest to Conservative Members. Just over one hour and 20 minutes ago the only right hon. or hon Member sitting on the Government Front Bench was the Secretary of State for Industry and I felt that he had got there by habit more than anything else. There were only three of his hon. Friends sitting behind him on the Back Benches.
It is a matter of vital importance to the Opposition. That is not to say that we do not recognise that there are deep-seated trends in manufacturing production. Hon. Members on both sides of the House made that point and I absolutely agree with them. Certainly during the decade which has just passed there has been only a 6 per cent. rise in manufacturing output in this country and there has been a fall in sectors such as vehicles, steel and parts of the engineering industry. One might say that a 6 per cent. rise is better than nothing. But is it?
During the same period there has been an increase in France of 33 per cent., in the United States of 44 per cent. and of 46 per cent. in Japan. Those are the latest OECD figures. What is happening now, and this is why the position is so desperate and so damaging, is that the Government are taking us right back to the beginning of that decade and perhaps before.
In March of this year our manufacturing output was 2 per cent. below the 1975 level. The Chancellor himself said that he expects manufacturing output during 1980 to drop by 4·5 per cent. to be followed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out, by a series of drops throughout the remainder of this Parliament. That is what is happening under a Tory Government.
As a result of this decline so far, 1 million jobs in manufacturing industry have ceased to exist. That is why there has been so much concern from Labour Members representing all sorts of constituencies. At the same time, manufacturing investment has begun to lag considerably. This point was touched upon by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), but he did not give these figures, which are very significant. They are the latest figures of investment per

877
worker in manufacturing. They show that, whereas in Britain £660 was invested per employee, in Belgium the figure was £1,340, in France £1,840, in the United States £2,190 and in the Netherlands £2,210.
All this shows a lack of investment in our manufacturing industry. It demonstrates that we lag behind other countries not only in our manufacturing process but in our industrial innovation. There is no denying that British industry has been unwilling and unable to put new ideas into production. This can be judged by research and development, which is as good a test as any. Britain was the only major OECD country in which R and D activities financed by industry declined absolutely between 1967 and 1975. The same has applied to private investment.
As I explained in a debate a couple of weeks ago, when it was a case of saving Ferranti one could not even get that great entrepreneur the National Westminster Bank to step in. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) was telling us what splendid entrepreneurs the clearing banks were.
The same can be seen in manufacturing trade performance. In 1970 this country had a surplus on trade with the rest of the world in manufactures which exactly offset the deficit of trade in food, fuels and raw materials and other visible trade. That was necessary. We are a manufacturing and exporting country. However, by 1980 the manufacturing surplus offsets less than half that deficit. The deterioration has happened in most of manufacturing. The Secretary of State for Trade said recently on television that he thought that it was confined to the motor vehicles section. That is not true. It applies across the board. The reason is lack of investment and failure to modernise or re-equip. That has been the story of private investment in British industry for many years.
Mr. John Patten: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the deterioration is caused by lack of investment? Does the productive use of that investment play no part in the analysis?
Mr. Silkin: I am saying that it is a major factor if one cannot get the funds for private investment in British industry. That must have its effect.
878
This failure of our manufacturing trade performance has not always been because our prices were too high or because our productivity was too low. I know that the point has been made several times by the Secretary of State. The failure has often been because the quality has been too low and our products out of date. They have been out of date because of that failure to invest, to modernise and to re-equip. The evidence for that is clear. The science policy research unit at Sussex University fairly recently compared United Kingdom and West German exports of about 30 machinery products. It took as examples machine tools, printing machinery and process plant, and it came to an interesting conclusion. It found that Germany outsold the United Kingdom in export markets for 26 of the 30 products. That was despite the fact that German prices were higher than United Kingdom prices. Therefore, it is not always, as the Secretary of State tells us, a question of Britain outpricing itself in the market. It is very much a question of investment, or the lack of it.
During the same decade there has been a conflict, almost an inequality, between two sets of years. There have been years when there has been a period of expansion and growth, and there have been years when there has been either very small growth or a decline. It is interesting to note what happened during that period. When the annual GDP growth exceeded 2 per cent., in every case manufacturing output rose by an annual average of 3·4 per cent. When growth was under 2 per cent., or at 2 per cent., output fell by an average of 1·3 per cent. In a good growth year manufacturing productivity rose by an annual average of 4·5 per cent., and in a bad year by only 0·2 per cent.
That shows an interesting fact. If we are prepared to increase demand and expand, our output rises. That is of vital importance. That would be the policy that a Labour Government would need to impose at this time. It is a policy for now because, when we look ahead to three or four years of Tory government —and I hope that we will not have to look to that—none of us can say what the exact landscape will look like. It will be gloomy, and it will be a more derelict Britain than we have known in

879
our lifetime. If we were to take power at this time, we would have the strategy that Britain requires. It is a policy for expansion. But before we do that we need to protect those industries that are under attack—industries where our home base is being eroded at an accelerated rate.
I was interested to note that that view was taken by a number of my hon. Friends—for example, by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North, Preston, South, Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), Leeds, West—and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). They all took that point of view, and regarded it as absolutely vital. But that, by itself, is not enough. It is only a piece of machinery to stop the total demolition of British industry. It is vitally necessary to ensure that British industry responds and moves ahead again. For that we need Government action on a large scale.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Test is not here. He made a valid point, with which I thoroughly agree. He said that the Government's purchasing policy should be used for the protection and expansion of British industry. As an example of that, he instanced ICL. Opposition Members agree with him that public purchasing is absolutely vital. For that and other reasons, we oppose the denationalisation and the privatisation that has taken place during the past year. We warn the Government that a continuation of that is liable to destroy, to an even greater extent, the basis of British manufacturing. There are rumours that it may now be taking place in shipbuilding. If that were to happen, it would spell the utter destruction of British industries. Therefore, public purchasing is the first requirement.
There must be Government action to ensure that British industry responds to all that the Government can do. There must be pressure on industry to invest, in the same way as in Japan the Ministry of International Trade and Investment—MITI—has given the incentive and drive to Japanese industry and investment. That can be done only by agreeing the goals sector by sector and making planning agreements with individual firms to carry out what needs to be done in the national interest.
880
That cannot be done, however, unless there is a strong regional policy. There must be a return to the days of the Labour Government, not the destruction of regional policy that we have seen under the Secretary of State for Industry, to which in panic moments he adds the occasional town or part of a town as another industry is destroyed. In addition, there must immediately be a cut in interest rates. The highest interest rates in our history have contributed more than anything to the present failure of British industry to respond to what is happening.
High interest rates affect industry in two ways—first, because firms cannot borrow at a reasonable rate and, secondly, because interest rates are kept at a level where they force the external value of the pound to an unreal rate. All of us accept that, except, apparently, the Treasury Bench, because the poor Chancellor asked "What can I do about it? That is the real value." The answer is simple. If interest rates were cut, the value of the pound would come down, which would make our goods much more competitive instead of having to fight like they are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk mentioned ICI as a company which is doing extremely well. But even chemical firms are finding difficulty at present in selling abroad, because they are competing—[Interruption.] I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) was crossing the Floor.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East mentioned one other thing which is of vital importance—what we do with North Sea oil revenues. It is a rather terrifying fact, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointed out, that £7,000 million a year is needed to support the present number of unemployed—1½ million. That sum could go up to £10 billion if unemployment reaches 2 million, which it is said it will reach by Christmas.
Effectively, of course, North Sea oil revenues are being used, not to support people working in industry or even to support industry, but rather to support unemployment.
Mr. Joseph Dean: Surely my right hon. Friend heard successive Conservative Members underplay the role and

881
value of North Sea oil revenue and how it became available. One hon. Member said that it was the best card which the Prime Minister held when she met the other members of the EEC. Is it not a fact that had it not been for the previous Labour Government she would not have had that card in her pocket?
Mr. Silkin: There is no question about that. But I am concerned with what we do with the growing revenues from North Sea oil. I and all other Labour Members want them to be used in the interests of our people and of British industry. They are being wasted, and that is a tragedy. We must ensure that North Sea oil revenues are channelled into industry, and not into creating and maintaining unemployment.
As an immediate plan, we need a realistic agreement with the unions for greater flexibility. But we can get that only if we create full employment, higher public spending, increased industrial training and increased industrial democracy. Right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench keep murmuring about political power. The political power that they are exerting at present is so destructive that it does not deserve comment.
In a speech last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that what is happening in Britain today is not an act of God but an act of government. It is wrong for people to say that there is no real Tory strategy today. There is a strategy—more or less. There are more bankruptcies, more closures, more redundancies, and fewer jobs, fewer factories and fewer homes. That is the Tory strategy. I confess that from time to time I have a sneaking admiration for the sheer impudence of the Chancellor, who says that there is no alternative strategy to what the Government have to offer. Is there no alternative strategy to a policy of total anarchy? I have set out our policy so that he can understand the points.
But what is the policy of the Conservative Government? I know what it was when they took power, and what it was at the time of the election. There were to be income tax cuts, an incentive Budget which would set everything
882
rolling, and the frontiers of the State were to be pushed back. There was to be slashing of public investment, slashing of regional aid, and a change-round in public ownership—privatisation or denationalisation. Within one and a half to two years—that was all that the time lag would be—that strategy would generate its results. We are very close to that time now. We have had over 14 months of Conservative government, and what is happening is a decline in British industry and employment. If the time lag is one and a half to two years, from what date does it operate?
Only the other day, the Chief Secretary said that we were in for three years of unparalleled austerity. When does that start? When does it finish? In three years? At the end of that period, will there be a light at the end of the tunnel? There is no promise of it. On the contrary, as the Chancellor admitted, the drop in manufacturing output goes on year after year, every single year of this Parliament. That is the basis on which it is operating. So we shall have three years of unparalleled austerity, growing and growing and growing, with no light at the end of the tunnel. In the meantime, there is massive unemployment, which will reach 2 million by Christmas and may well reach 3 million within a year or two after that.
In the face of that, the Secretary of State for Industry says that the Government have to take those measures because workers are pricing themselves out of a job. Are school leavers pricing themselves out of a job? When he made his speech only the other day about school leavers, he said that they were being priced out of a job by other workers. We cannot accept that when we realise exactly what is happening and the number of vacancies and the number of applications that there are. These are not people losing jobs; these are people who are not getting the chance to have jobs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East quoted from The Times report of what had happened in Sheffield, when he said that 500 young people had queued for a couple of hours for a matter of eight jobs. But the same thing was happening in St. Helens, where nearly

883
2,000 youngsters have entered an employment market offering only three jobs. The position is described as the worst for years.
I have had reports from the Northern region, where the same thing is happening, and where the number of apprenticeships being offered is a drop in the ocean compared with the number of school leavers applying. So this is happening all over the country, and these are not isolated examples.
But this has nothing to do with trade unionists pricing themselves or others out of a job. This is a deliberate act of policy by the Government. It will be interesting to see what happens when the next school leaving figures come out. I have a feeling that the Government will be delighted that we are in recess in August. They will be happy that they do not have to answer for those figures.
In failing to deal with the economy, the Secretary of State for Industry has gone back to the oldest target the Tories have ever had—the bargaining power of the unions in wage negotiations. It is exactly the same as what happened in the 1920s. At that time the miners were told "Accept lower wages and there will be no unemployment." There was unemployment for years and there were low wages. Everything that we have heard today shows that this is so. The hon. Member for Truro mentioned 11 per cent. unemployment in what he said was a low wage area. We have heard from hon. Members from the textile areas. It is acknowledged that the textile industry is a low-wage industry, yet we are seeing the end of the textile industry in our country and vast unemployment.
We heard yesterday about Consett, where there have been comparatively low wages, great productivity and great profit from the point of view of the Tory philosophy. Yet we have a closure that is to take place in, I believe, September of this year.
Mr. David Watkins: My right hon. Friend may have heard the Prime Minister answering me earlier this afternoon, when she said that the steelworks at Consett was now working at a loss. I utterly refute that statement. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Prime Minister misled the House deliberately, but she has been wrongly briefed. The British Steel Cor-
884
poration used to publish monthly figures. If those figures were still available, they would show that the steelworks is still running at a considerable profit.
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the impression we received from those who work in the industry and know something about it. That may be an additional reason for believing that perhaps it is as well to have on the board of BSC people who know something about the industry and not people who, at whatever expense they are brought in, do not.
This is the first Government since the war to take office intent, not on reducing unemployment, but on raising it. That is something which we cannot take, which the country cannot take and which our people will not take. People with memories of the past thought that we had left such things behind us. But the Government are taking us back to the conditions of the 1930s, of which Clement Attlee spoke in "The Will and the Way to Socialism". He wrote of
"idle men, idle money, idle machinery."
It is the waste of human lives, the waste of human families, the waste of a great country, that we deplore. It is this policy of industrial scorched earth that is tearing the guts out of our country.
If that sort of society is what the Government mean by the words in their amendment—
"providing a sound basis for sustainable economic and industrial recovery"—
we reject it utterly. We reject it not only because it is wrong, but because we can see what the future holds.
What will happen when steel, motor cars, shipbuilding, textiles and all the industries have ceased to exist in this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "And fishing."] Fishing is another. What is the country to exist on? Will it exist on tourism, oil—though the oil revenues will support the unemployed—and a rentier investment from money which has gone abroad and is seeking a return to this country? It is an economic system doomed to failure because it creates not a single hope, not a single job and not a single way of living in this country. It is for that reason that I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion in the Division Lobby.
9.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I join the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin)—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where are the right hon. Gentleman's supporters?
Sir K. Joseph: — in welcoming the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and congratulating him on a fluent maiden speech delivered with admirable self-possession on what for most of us in our own case was a pretty intimidating occasion.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Good Socialist content as well.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman allowed himself to reflect strongly what he thought were the interests of his constituents, although in the more controversial part of what he said there was a hint that he might be suggesting some things with which some of us might not wholly agree. However, we congratulate him on his maiden speech.
The House also heard four vigorously delivered speeches which focused mainly on the problems of industry in the hon. Members' constituencies. I refer to the speeches of the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock), Leeds, West (Dr. Dean), Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who coupled with his description of industrial problems a vivid catalogue of the wickedness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) argued for mitigation of the pressures upon industry, urging in particular that the Chancellor should consider at a suitable time some remission of the national insurance surcharge and some thoughts in connection with regional policy.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) spoke up vigorously, I am glad to say, for profit, though he wants it more widely shared. I only wish that there were more of it to be shared.
My hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) made thoughtful and interesting speeches on a range of subjects, but were particularly penetrating on the dangers of protection-
886
-ism, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
I am sorry to have missed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I understand that he spoke robustly against protectionism while arguing at the same time that we must contrive to secure from Brussels a more effective anti-dumping policy. I think that it is consistent to argue against general protectionism while seeking to protect industry by anti-dumping procedures from unfair competition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, in an examination of the repercussions of oil, urged the Government to secure, if possible, a lowering of the exchange rate as a step towards making room for manufacturing industry. His speech was very well argued. However, I must point out that any lowering of the exchange rate would wreck any attempt to control the money supply and ruin the prospect for getting down inflation. My hon. Friend, in his careful analysis, listed all the other purposes, as well as abating inflation, which he thought the Government must seek to serve. I can only tell him that those precise purposes which he listed are those which the Government constantly seek to reconcile with the overriding priority of abating inflation. Indeed, we are always seeking the optimum combination of public purposes.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South-West—[Interruption.] Leeds, West —I apologise as a neighbour of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: And the Secretary of State is trying to run British industry!
Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) gave us a catalogue of woe—a real catalogue of real woe. But there was no hint of policy in what he said. Not one of those awkward choices which he knows from his own experience has to be faced by Governments and Chancellors was presented to the House. Who would have thought, from hearing his speech, that his own monetary squeeze in 1975–76 was arguably worse in the pressures that it brought to bear on industry than the squeeze, the contraction, now in operation upon industry? In fact, I suggest that the Labour squeeze was fiercer in 1975–76.
The dimension totally lacking from the speech of the right hon. Member for

887
Leeds, East was that of history. The right hon. Member for Deptford at least had the grace to explain—as if we needed much reminding—that the decline in British manufacturing industry started, not today or even yesterday, but many years ago. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East spoke as if it had started only when the present Government came into office.
Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman has made it worse.
Sir K. Joseph: Even some of his hon. Friends, especially the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), indicated by quoting statistics from years back how long the erosion and the decline in British manufacturing industry has been going on.
But if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East gave us no policy, the right hon. Member for Deptford gave us policy in abundance. The trouble is that his policy did not cohere one part with another. What the right hon. Member for Deptford urged upon the Government. and declared would be Labour policy was an increase in public spending, coupled with more consumption, coupled with some sort of agreement with the trade unions. He identified the problems facing our economy as demand problems. The volume of imports coming into Britain shows what an enormous amount of demand there is for our manufacturers to seek, let alone the huge world demand that still remains.
Britain's economic problems are not demand problems. In our view, they are problems of supply. If the right hon. Gentleman's policy were to be put into effect, the result would be not the lower interest rates which he says would result but, from the higher public spending which he urges, enormously increased interest rates and a raging inflationary inferno.
Mr. John Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on that point, but the point that I really wanted to put to him is this: is it not the fact that it is not increased demand that is taking place but the destruction of our own industries and the importation of foreign goods in place of our own home-produced goods?
Sir K. Joseph: I shall devote the bulk of my speech to this very subject. However, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Deptford on his political tact. He has normally given the House a great diatribe about the importance of protectionism. But because he was winding up in a debate which had been opened by his right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has recently made a very vigorous speech against protectionism, the right hon. Member for Deptford very carefully steered off the subject.
Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman was busy talking to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. If he had not been talking to him, he would have noticed that I supported seven or eight of my hon. Friends who had urged selective import controls.
Sir K. Joseph: That is a far cry from the right hon. Gentleman's general comprehensive argument in favour of protectionism. Manufacturing industry's present problems have not been caused by the Government.
Mr. Joseph Dean rose—
Sir K. Joseph: I shall not give way. I repeat, the problems of British manufacturing industry are not caused by the Government. My evidence for saying that—
Mr. Dean rose—
Mt. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way. Therefore, he must be allowed to continue.
Sir K. Joseph: My evidence for that statement comes from last week's editorial in the New Statesman. The New Statesman argues that the present problems of manufacturing industry have been precipitated but not caused by the Government, given the rise in oil prices, inflation and the recession. What has caused the decline in British manufacturing industry? [Hon. Members: "You".] I no longer share the analysis of the New Statesman. The reason for the decline of British manufacturing industry is straightforward and simple. Its cause is declining competitiveness. The decline has been accelerating for many years.

889
I question the case for judging the performance of British manufacturing industry by the numbers of those engaged in it. One can postulate that, as in agriculture, a smaller work force could produce a vastly greater quantity of saleable goods. Indeed, that must happen if we are to afford the large number of extra jobs in the non-tradeable services, including public services, that we all desire.
Mr. Straw rose—
Sir K. Joseph: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The decline in the manufacturing work force has been coupled with a huge increase in manufactured output in most of our competitor countries. In those countries, extra jobs have come from services, including public services. That may not have occurred in every country, but it has occurred in most. The decline in our competitiveness and in our manufacturing industry has been dramatic. I shall give the House only one figure. Between 1955 and 1975 our share of the manufacturing output of the OECD countries fell by over 40 per cent. It fell from 10 per cent. to under 6 per cent. I would argue the competitiveness is both the explanation and the key to recovery.
I accept that there are some highly efficient firms which are well managed and which have co-operative labour forces and which will go to the wall if they persist in staying in exactly the same sector of business. The Opposition must face the facts that they had to face when they were in government. Low-cost competitor countries, without any unfairness, buy the most modern machinery in the world, hire excellent management and put low-cost but fair labour to work, in order to compete with Britain and the rest of the world. There is no way, by sheer competitive efficiency, in which some of our firms can stand up to that competition. I do not say this lightly because I recognise the fearsome difficulties, but those firms must shift into other sectors of that market or go up market or choose some goods that have a premium value. Some of our firms are managing to do that.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Sir K. Joseph: No, I will not give way. I wish to cover all the speeches.
890
At this stage I wish to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). So far as I could follow his farrago, I think he shirked the basic choice. He did not make it clear whether the economy for which he was arguing would rest upon the market—that is the sale of goods and services to those who are willing to buy them by those who are willing to produce them—or whether it would rest on a siege economy. Was he arguing for siege or selling? If he is arguing for the market, he cannot escape the need for our businesses to be competitive. If he is arguing for a siege economy, not based upon willing producers and willing buyers, away goes our freedom and in through the door comes poverty.
Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the policies he is pursuing are creating a siege economy for millions of families whose freedom to work and enjoy decent public services has been removed by the policies that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying through? His claims that he speaks for freedom will be regarded as totally hypocritical throughout the country.
Sir K. Joseph: I have always thought that the right hon. Gentleman was very shifty in his use of the word "freedom". I argue that competitiveness is the crux of the matter and that it has been eroded over the years.
It would be wrong to assume that the only way of achieving greater competitiveness is to increase the quantity of investment, as the right hon. Member for Deptford sought to argue. First, there are two interpretations of the figures that he gave. He quoted figures to show that in this country the investment per head is much lower than it is in competitor countries. But that alleged fact could be interpreted quite differently. Suppose that we had just about the same quantity of investment as our competitor countries, but that we were overmanned double compared with them. That also would produce the same low investment per head.
The question to ask is why it is not worthwhile to invest in this country. It is not lack of money. Over the years the pension funds have had enormous sums of money which, in the interests of the pensioners they serve, they wish to

891
invest profitably. But because of the squeeze on profits by the uncomprehending wage pressure of the trade unions, unaccompanied by higher productivity, profits have been so squeezed that investment has not been worthwhile.
It is not just investment, nor is it management. Management varies in quality, and some is excellent. It is not even lack of competitiveness or just the trade unions, although overmanning is our economic bane. Competitiveness involves all three—investment, which depends on the prospect of profit, management and co-operation by the work force. Above all, it requires comprehending attitudes and understanding by the work force arm the population that jobs and standards of living depend on satisfying the customer at home and abroad. That is the base for jobs and standards of living.
How do we become more competitive? Let us try to learn lessons from this debate. One of the benefits of the present unavoidable pressures on manufacturing industries is that we are already beginning to become a shade more competitive. The pressures will in time produce greater competitiveness. I beg the House—and I include the right hon. Member for Deptford—not to make the simple mistake of extrapolating from present unemployment trends or even the present rate of increase of unemployment. Self-correcting forces are at work in any economy. The pressures will remain on manufacturing industry, and will get worse before they get better.
However, there are forces leading to recovery that we can already identify. I shall explain what I mean. First, companies in their own interests of survival are having to improve their performance even though that means cutting investment, even for the moment research and development. Even that is worth while for a period if we become more competitive.
Mr. Eric S. Hafer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir K. Joseph: Secondly—
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way, and he must be allowed to continue.
Sir K. Joseph: Secondly, co-operation on the shop floor and in the office will increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) told us. Realism is already increasing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) said. Some skilled men and managers will be snapped up by an expanding company if they are released from another company.
As inflation and interest rates fall—and they will fall—so, happily, we shall find the pressures reducing. Destocking will come to an end as stocks are adjusted to the lower level of demand. Savings will decrease, and demand will increase. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must be fair and give the Secretary of State the opportunity to be heard.
Sir K. Joseph: World trade will recover. The soiree of wealth and prosperity is not the Government. The source of jobs and standards of living stem from the natural desire of most individuals in any society to improve the condition of themselves and their families. That is the key issue. In all the economies in the West there is government involvement to a greater or lesser degree. Although we have reduced the government involvement that we inherited, and will reduce it further, this Government are still heavily involved in the economy, and we have a huge public sector.
Government involvement in an economy is not a yardstick of effective competitiveness or performance. The yardstick is the degree to which Governments have created frameworks that stifle, dilute, weaken or debilitate the natural resourcefulness, within the law, of individuals.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir K. Joseph: No.
Mr. Barnett: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way. Therefore, he must be allowed to continue.
Sir K. Joseph: This country has been famous in history for the character and adaptability of its people. [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The strength of the House has been the right to speak. The Secretary of State must be allowed to continue his speech, as the Opposition spokesman was allowed to do.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that the strength of the House has been a willingness to speak for the needs of the nation?
Sir K. Joseph: Successive Governments in this country have with the best of intentions, erected what has become a debilitating framework and we have reduced the resourcefulness of our people.
The Leader of the Opposition recalled correctly that I spoke in a radio broadcast nearly a year ago of what I thought were six poisons in our economy. I used the word "poisons". If it offends, I shall change it to "handicaps".
The poisons or handicaps that have debilitated our economy and go far to explain the decline in competitiveness that we are debating are deficit financing, fiercely progressive direct taxation, which has been changed by the present Government, nationalisation, the cumulative effect of educational, welfare and housing arrangements, laws and regulations that have together created an anti-enterprise culture which emphasises rights and not duties and emphasises the pervasive responsibiliites of government, the wickedness of profit, hostility to wealth creation and the role of the producer and not the consumer.
The fifth of the poisons or handicaps—
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir K. Joseph: No. The fifth poison or handicap is a large, Luddite and politicised trade union movement. Trade unions are in the business of restricting output. How can it be that our manufacturing industry will not decline when we have such pervasive trade unions?
The sixth poison or handicap is egalitarianism. Socialism has been the parent of many, though not all, those handicaps. A country can prosper even with nearly all those handicaps. We have competitors who have nearly all of them. But we have every one.
Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a considerable difference between a handicap and a poison? After all, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a handicap to the Government, but the Secretary of State is a poison not only to the Government, but to the whole country.
Sir K. Joseph: The miracle is that we have done—
Mr. James Hamilton rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Queston be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 305.

Division No. 396]

AYES

[10.00 pm

Abse, Leo

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Dalyell, Tam

Adams, Allen

Buchan, Norman

Davidson, Arthur

Alton, David

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianeill)

Anderson, Donald

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Ian

Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Canavan, Dennis

Deakins, Eric

Ashton, Joe

Carmichael, Neil

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dempsey, James

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Cartwright, John

Dewar, Donald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Dixon, Donald

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Cohen, Stanley

Dormand, Jack

Belth, A. J.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Douglas, Dick

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Conian, Bernard

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cook, Robin F.

Dubs, Alfred

Bidwell, Sydney

Cowans, Harry

Duffy, A. E. P.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Dunnett, Jack

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Crowther, J. S.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cryer, Bob

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

English, Michael

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rooker, J. W.

Ennals, Rt Hon. David

Litherland, Robert

Roper, John

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Rowlands, Ted

Faulds, Andrew

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Ryman, John

Field, Frank

McCartney, Hugh

Sandelson, Neville

Fitt, Gerard

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Sever, John

Flannery Martin

McElhone, Frank

Sheerman, Barry

Fletcher, L. R. (Iikeston)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Sheidon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McKelvey, William

Short, Mrs Renée

Ford, Ben

MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Forrester, John

Maclennan, Robert

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Foster, Derek

McNally, Thomas

Silverman, Julius

Foulkes, George

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

McTaggart, Robert

Smith, Rt Hon J (North Lanarkshire)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Freud, Clement

Magee, Bryan

Soley, Clive

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marks, Kenneth

Spearing, Nigel

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)

Spriggs, Leslie

George, Bruce

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stallard, A. W.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Stoddart, David

Ginsburg, David

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

Slott, Roger

Golding, John

Maxton, John

Strang, Gavin

Gourlay, Harry

Maynard, Miss Joan

Straw, Jack

Graham, Ted

Meacher, Michael

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Haynes, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Tilley, John

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Tinn, James

Heffer, Eric S.

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Torney, Tom

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Morton, George

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Home Robertson, John

Newens, Stanley

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Homewood, William

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

Hooley, Frank

Ogden, Eric

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Horam, John

O'Halloran, Michael

Watkins, David

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

O'Neill, Martin

Weetch, Ken

Howells, Geraint

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wellbeloved, James

Huckfield, Les

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Palmer, Arthur

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Park, George

Whitehead, Phillip

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Parker, John

Whitlock, William

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Parry, Robert

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

John, Brynmor

Pavitt, Laurie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Penhaligon, David

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Prescott, John

Winnick, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Woodall, Alec

Kerr, Russell

Race, Reg

Woolmer, Kenneth

Kilfedder, James A.

Radice, Giles

Wriggiesworth, Ian

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Wright, Sheila

Kinnock, Neil

Richardson, Jo

Young, David (Bolton East)

Lamborn, Harry

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Leadbitter, Ted

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Leighton, Ronald

Robertson, George

Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Donald Coleman.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

NOES

Adley, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Budgen, Nick

Aitken, Jonathan

Blackburn, John

Bulmer, Esmond

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Peter

Burden, F. A.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Body, Richard

Butcher, John

Ancram, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Butler, Hon Adam

Arnold, Tom

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Bowden, Andrew

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Churchill, W. S.

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Bright, Graham

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Banks, Robert

Brinton, Tim

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brittan, Leon

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bell, Sir Ronald

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Clegg, Sir Walter

Bendall, Vivian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Brotherton, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Cope, John

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Cormack, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Bryan, Sir Paul

Corrie, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Buck, Antony

Costain, A. P.

896

897

Cranborne, Viscount

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Proctor, K. Harvey

Critchley, Julian

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Raison, Timothy

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Kershaw, Anthony

Rathbone, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rees-Davles, W. R.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Renton, Tim

Dover, Denshore

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rhodes James, Robert

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Knox, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Lamont, Norman

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Lang, Ian

Ridsdale, Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Latham, Michael

Rifkind, Malcolm

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Eggar, Timothy

Lee, John

Rost, Peter

Elliott, Sir William

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Emery, Peter

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Scott, Nicholas

Eyre, Reginald

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Faith, Mrs. Sheila

Loveridge, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Farr, John

Luce, Richard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Fell, Anthony

Lyell, Nicholas

Shersby, Michael

Fenner Mrs Peggy

McCrindle, Robert

Silvester, Fred

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Macfarlane, Neil

Sims, Roger

Fisher, Sir Nigel

MacGregor, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Speller, Tony

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Spence, John

Forman, Nigel

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

McQuarrie, Albert

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Fox, Marcus

Madel, David

Sproat, lain

Fraser, Rt Hon. K. (Stafford & St)

Major, John

Squire, Robin

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Marland, Paul

Stainton, Keith

Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.

Marlow, Tony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, John

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Marten, Nell (Banbury)

Steen, Anthony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mates, Michael

Stevens, Martin

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mather, Carol

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Mawby, Ray

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Goodhart, Philip

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stokes, John

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stradling Thomas, J.

Goodlad, Alastair

Mayhew, Patrick

Tapsell, Peter

Gorst, John

Mellor, David

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Gow, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Tebbit, Norman

Gray, Hamish

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Greenway, Harry

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Grieve, Percy

Miscampbell, Norman

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmonds)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thompson, Donald

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Moate, Roger

Thornton, Malcolm

Grist, Ian

Molyneaux, James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Monro, Hector

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Montgomery, Fergus

Trippier, David

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moore, John

Trotter, Neville

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morgan, Geraint

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hannam, John

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Viggers, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Waddington, David

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Murphy, Christopher

Wakeham, John

Hawkins, Paul

Myles, David

Waldegrave, Hon William

Hawksley, Warren

Needham, Richard

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Hayhoe, Barney

Nelson, Anthony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Neubert, Michael

Wall, Patrick

Heddle, John

Newton, Tony

Walters, Dennis

Henderson, Barry

Onslow, Cranley

Ward, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Watson, John

Hicks, Robert

Osborn, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stevn'age)

Hill, James

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Wheeler, John

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Hooson, Tom

Parkinson, Cecil

Whitney, Raymond

Hordern, Peter

Parris, Matthew

Wickenden, Keith

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Wiggin, Jerry

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wilkinson, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pattle, Geoffrey

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pawsey, James

Winterton, Nicholas

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Perclval, Sir Ian

Wolfson, Mark

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pink, R. Bonner

Younger, Rt Hon George

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Pollock, Alexander

Jessel, Toby

Porter, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Powell. Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 247.

Division No. 397]

AYES

[10.13 pm

Adley, Robert

Eggar, Timothy

Kimball, Marcus

Aitken, Jonathan

Elliott, Sir William

King, Rt Hon Tom

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Peter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Eyre, Reginald

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ancram, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knox, David

Arnold, Tom

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lamont, Norman

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Faith, Mrs. Sheila

Lang, Ian

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Farr, John

Latham, Michael

Atkinson, David (B'moulh, East)

Fell, Anthony

Lawrence, Ivan

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lawson, Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lee, John

Banks, Robert

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Bell, Sir Ronald

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bendall, Vivian

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Loveridge, John

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Fox, Marcus

Luce, Richard

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fraser, Rt Hon. H. (Stafford & St)

Lyell, Nicholas

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

McCrindle, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Macfarlane, Neil

Blackburn, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacGregor, John

Blaker, Peter

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Body, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Glyn, Dr. Alan

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Goodhart, Philip

McQuarrie, Albert

Bowden, Andrew

Goodhew, Victor

Madel, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Goodlad, Alastair

Major, John

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gorst, John

Marland, Paul

Bright, Graham

Gow, Ian

Marlow, Tony

Brinton, Tim

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Brittan, Leon

Gray, Hamish

Marten, Nell (Banbury)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Greenway, Harry

Mates, Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Grieve, Percy

Mather, Carol

Brotherton, Michael

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmonds)

Mawby, Ray

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mayhew, Patrick

Buck, Antony

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epi'm&Ew'll)

Mellor, David

Budgen, Nick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bulmer, Esmond

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Burden, F. A.

Hannam, John

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Butcher, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Butler, Hon Adam

Hastings, Stephen

Miscampbell, Norman

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hawkins, Paul

Moate, Roger

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawksley, Warren

Molyneaux, James

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hayhoe, Barney

Monro, Hector

Churchill, W. S.

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Montgomery, Fergus

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Heddle, John

Moore, John

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Henderson, Barry

Morgan, Geraint

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hicks, Robert

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Cockeram, Eric

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Colvin, Michael

Hill, James

Murphy, Christopher

Cope, John

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Myles, David

Cormack, Patrick

Hooson, Tom

Needham, Richard

Corrie, John

Hordern, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neubert, Michael

Cranborne, Viscount

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Newton, Tony

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Onslow, Cranley

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Osborn, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Dover, Denshore

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jessel, Toby

Parkinson, Cecil

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Parris, Matthew

Durant, Tony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Dykes, Hugh

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Patten, John (Oxford)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pattle, Geoffrey

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Kershaw, Anthony

Pawsey, James

900

901

Percival, Sir Ian

Sims, Roger

Trotter, Neville

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Skeet, T H. H.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Pink, R. Bonner

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Pollock, Alexander

Speller, Tony

Viggers, Peter

Porter, George

Spence, John

Waddington, David

Powell. Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Wakeham, John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Proctor, K. Harvey

Sproat, Iain

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Raison, Timothy

Squire, Robin

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Rathbone, Tim

Stainton, Keith

Wall, Patrick

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walters, Dennis

Rees-Davles, W. R.

Stanley, John

Ward, John

Renton, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Watson, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Stevens, Martin

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stevn'age)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Wheeler, John

Ridsdale, Julian

Stokes, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Ritkind, Malcolm

Stradling Thomas, J.

Whitney, Raymond

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Tapsell, Peter

Wickenden, Keith

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Wiggin, Jerry

Rost, Peter

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Wilkinson, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Tebbit, Norman

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Scott, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

young, Sir George (Acton)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Thompson, Donald

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Thornton, Malcolm

Shepherd, Richard (Aldrldge-Br'hills)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shersby, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

Silvester, Fred

Trippier, David

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dempsey, James

Home Robertson, John

Adams, Allen

Dewar, Donald

Homewood, William

Alton, David

Dixon, Donald

Hooley, Frank

Anderson, Donald

Dormand, Jack

Horam, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas, Dick

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Howells, Geraint

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dubs, Alfred

Huckfield, Les

Ashton, Joe

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Eastham, Ken

John, Brynmor

Beith, A. J.

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

English, Michael

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Bidwell, Sydney

Ennals, Rt Hon. David

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Evans, John (Newton)

Kerr, Russell

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Faulds, Andrew

Kilfedder, James A.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Field, Frank

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fitt, Gerard

Kinnock, Neil

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Flannery, Martin

Lamborn, Harry

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Buchan, Norman

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Leighton, Ronald

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Ford, Ben

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

Campbell, Ian

Forrester, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Foster, Derek

Litherland, Robert

Canavan, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Carmichael, Neil

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Cartwright, John

Freud, Clement

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McElhone, Frank

Cohen, Stanley

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Coleman, Donald

George, Bruce

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McKelvey, William

Conian, Bernard

Ginsburg, David

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Grecor

Cook, Robin F.

Golding, John

Maclennan, Robert

Cowans, Harry

Gourlay, Harry

McNally, Thomas

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Graham, Ted

McNamara, Kevin

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Gower, Sir Raymond

McTaggart, Robert

Crowther, J. S.

Grant, John (Islington C)

McWilliam, John

Cryer, Bob

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Magee, Bryan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marks, Kenneth

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shetiles'n)

Dalyell, Tam

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Davidson, Arthur

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Haynes, Frank

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Sprlngb'rn)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Maxton, John

Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)

Heffer, Eric S.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Meacher, Michael

Deakint, Eric

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

902

903

Mikardo, Ian

Robertson, George

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Tilley, John

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Rooker, J. W.

Tinn, James

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Roper, John

Torney, Tom

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Rowlands, Ted

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Morton, George

Ryman, John

Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Sandelson, Neville

Walnwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

Newens, Stanley

Sever, John

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Sheerman, Barry

Watkins, David

Ogden, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Weetch, Ken

O'Halloran, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Wellbeloved, James

O'Neill, Martin

Short, Mrs Renée

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Whitehead, Phillip

Palmer, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

Whitlock, William

Park, George

Skinner, Dennis

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Parker, John

Smith, Rt Hon J (North Lanarkshire)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Parry, Robert

Snape, Peter

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Pavitt, Laurie

Soley, Clive

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Pendry, Tom

Spearing, Nigel

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Penhaligon, David

Spriggs, Leslie

Winnick, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Stallard, A. W.

Woodall, Alec

Prescott, John

Stoddart, David

Woolmer, Kenneth

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Stott, Roger

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Race, Reg

Strang, Gavin

Wright, Sheila

Radice, Giles

Straw, Jack

Young, David (Bolton East)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Richardson, Jo

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
Resolved,
That this House approves the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government which are the only means of defeating inflation and providing a sound basis for sustainable economic and industrial recovery.

UNIVERSITY FEES (HONG KONG STUDENTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
10.24 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: The people of Hong Kong will appreciate that in singling out this subject for urgent debate Mr. Speaker has been quick to recognise the deep concern about the Government's apparent discrimination against their students in the matter of university fees.
When the Government announced that overseas students should pay the full cost of the education that they receive at universities in Britain, there was general understanding of that principle although not universal acceptance of its merits. Most overseas students and their Governments resented the change, but the policy was consistent so long as it was aimed at
904
all overseas students. However, when the application of the policy was set down in the DES circular of 10 June, it turned out that the policy was aimed not at all overseas students but only at some. Students from the EEC are to pay the same fees as those from the United Kingdom.
It is difficult to follow the logic of subsidising students from France and Germany and at the same time complaining about Britain's net contribution to the EEC budget. That exercise is designed to cut public spending, yet subsidies are retained for the very people whom we believe we are already subsidising too heavily. It may be that we benefit through subsidies from our EEC partners to British students studying in Europe. If so, what is the balance? Perhaps the Minister will give us some estimate of the consequential costs or benefit to Britain and explain the nature of our obligation to extend this concession to the European Community.
But the subsidy goes further than Europe. The countries of the Community are listed in the circular to which I have referred. Hon. Members probably think that by now they know which countries they are. It may come as a surprise to them to learn that, in addition to the well-known nine EEC countries, no fewer than 13 others are included. Five are recognisable as part of the principal countries, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but the remaining

905
eight territories are not recognisable as part of the principal countries. Apart from Greenland and Gibraltar, they include the French overseas departments such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion, St. Pierre and another that I cannot pronounce. There are, no doubt, good reasons for including in the EEC those remaining French colonies which are departments of France, but it is preposterous to allow the technicalities of the Treaty of Rome to drive us to make absurd distinctions in recognition of obligations to the dependent territories.
Why, for instance, should concessions be made to students from Guadeloupe and Martinique but not to those from the British Virgin Islands, which are next door? Why to those from French Guiana but not Belize, or to those from Gibraltar but not those from the Falkland Islands? Above all, why should Britain give favourable treatment to French and Danish overseas territories while excluding students from its largest remaining territory, Hong Kong?
Britain has not followed the French practice of calling its overseas territories departments of Britain and having them return their own representatives to Parliament—otherwise there would be more Members in this House representing Hong Kong than there would be representing Scotland. Yet Britain is ultimately responsible for the administration of Hong Kong. Its relationship with Hong Kong is much closer than with the sovereign States of the EEC. Similarily, Britain's relationship with countries formerly dependent on Britain and now independent members of the Commonwealth is clearly of a more distant and less responsible nature than with a dependent territory which has no prospects of ever becoming independent.
The relationship between Hong Kong and Britain is advantageous to both, but it needs to be nurtured. From time to time this involves recognising Hong Kong as being different and distinct from foreign countries when devising policies for overseas territories. The distinction is not without beneficial consequences for Britain. If Hong Kong were just another Chinese city, does anyone imagine that British exports to Hong Kong would still be three times those to the whole of China or even that exporters would find
906
it possible to maintain and develop our present exports to China without the Hong Kong base?
No other group of 5 million people in Asia purchases anything like the value of British exports that Hong Kong does. Even Japan's total purchases exceed Hong Kong's by only one-third, despite the fact that Japan's GNP is 50 times that of Hong Kong. The income from insurance, banking, shipping and airline operations is substantial. Two of our nationalised industries, British Airways and Cable and Wireless, earn a large proportion of their profits in Hong Kong. Landing rights at its airport are in the gift of our Department of Trade. We are the only European or American country able to trade off landing rights at an important Asian airport for concessions elsewhere.
All this flows from the fact that Hong Kong is not a foreign country but a dependent country. Although dependent, Hong Kong makes few calls on Britain. Without aid, it has made astonishing progress in providing its own education in the face of quite staggering demands. When liberated from the Japanese occupation in 1945, with a population of only 600,000, there were not even enough primary schools for all its children. The influx from China gave Hong Kong a population of 4 million by 1971, yet by that year primary schooling was available for all. An even greater effort was required to produce secondary school places for all primary school leavers, but this was achieved by 1978.
The provision of places in universities and polytechnics has also progressed, although the supply of post-secondary education is still less than the demand. This is because the Hong Kong Government have—quite rightly, in my view—given priority to getting secondary schooling for everybody. Even though priority has had to be given to expansion of secondary education, the number of full-time students in higher education has increased at an average of 7 per cent. a year over the last five years. Similar progress has been made in housing and medical services.
All these achievements are now threatened by the excessive rate of immigration from China. Last year the population of Hong Kong increased by over 6 per cent., due very largely to

907
emigration from China and the influx of refugees from Vietnam. It is as if the population of the United Kingdom were to increase by 3½ million people in a year. Four hundred to 500 new immigrants are still arriving every day.
The strain on all social services and education is severe, yet it is precisely at this time that Britain chooses to inflict even greater pressure on Hong Kong by increasing the cost of university education in Britain by two, three or five times, depending on the course.
University students from Hong Kong are among the most diligent and talented. On return to Hong Kong they carry British traditions and standards with them. A large proportion of leaders in commerce, industry and the professions in Hong Kong were educated in Britain, and always have been. The connections forged there in their youth are lifelong and show directly in their perforence for trading with this country.
It will be very difficult for the people of Hong Kong to accept protestations of support from Britain when they see that students from overseas territories of the major EEC countries are treated in Britain on a par with British students while students from Hong Kong, a British overseas territory, are treated in Britain as foreigners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Colonial exploitation is a term which I had hoped had passed from the terminology of the relationships between Britain and its dependent territories. The retention of discrimination in this matter against British dependent territories is an extraordinary inconsistency which I hope will be removed before the fees become due in this autumn.
10.34 pm
Mr. Edward Rowlands: I intervene briefly in this very important debate in order to associate the official Opposition fully with the remarks of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan).
There are moments in any nonsensical policy when the absurdities and the anomalies of that policy destroy its whole rationale. The hon. Member's speech has amply demonstrated those absurdities and anomalies.
We have arrived at a position in which islands belonging to the French Government are entitled, under the EEC rules,
908
to have the same preferential treatment, whereas dependent territories, whether they be Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands, the British Virgin Islands or a number of other territories of which I can speak personally—having in the previous Labour Government been the Minister responsible for our relations with those territories—are not so entitled. For those students to be discriminated against in this way reveals the absurdity of the policy.
There are times when a general policy statement can be revealed for what it is —when its anomalies and idiosyncrasies can be revealed. We associate ourselves with what was said about the policy by the hon. Member for Howden.
Does anyone believe that we should discriminate against students from Hong Kong, the British Virgin Islands or the remaining dependent territories, of which there are 17 in all, Hong Kong being the largest, when students from French overseas territories are entitled under the EEC rules to study here on the same basis as other EEC students?
Will the Minister explain the so-called logic of that argument? [Interruption.] Irrespective of the figures, it is nonsense. Is the Minister going to say "We do not think that anybody from Martinique or any other territory will come here"? We accept the principle of allowing French overseas students to come here—it may be a dozen, 15 or whatever; I do not care what the figure is—but to discriminate against students from our dependent territories is a disgrace.
The Government preach the idea of promoting Western influence and rejecting influences from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. To cut back on British Council grants and other areas of intangible influence that we have been able to promote and achieve is nonsense.
I hope that the Minister will not rest his case on the argument he has been pressing from a sedentary position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will reject it if he does. We support the statement made by the hon. Member for Howden.
10.37 pm
Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would not expect me to question the policy of having high fees for overseas students

909
since 1974–75 when I had the dubious distinction of being quoted in The Times leader for saying that the then fees were peanuts. This is not the time or place to go into the scale on which fees are raised.
I want to make a brief intervention because I was recently in Hong Kong. I urge my hon. Friend not to be too insular. I think that there are important questions here of the relationship between Hong Kong and this country which transcend the narrow considerations of his Department and of finance which are difficult for him in his dealings with the Treasury.
I went to Hong Kong with my hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Hunt). We were struck vividly by the concern expressed about this matter. This was the touchstone of our relationship with Hong Kong. We were asked "Is it a dependent territory or is it a foreign territory?" That was linked with the Cathay Pacific issue, now happily resolved to Hong Kong's satisfaction, I think, with the nationality problem, with the question of the MFA negotiations and with the financing of British troops there. All these matters coalesce and take on a dimension and importance beyond the specific question of Hong Kong students in this country.
There is a direct and specific gain to this country in having Hong Kong students here. My hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral and I were urging Chinese business men to buy more British goods, more British cloth. Our hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is going out there with a delegation to urge them to buy more of our goods. What do we do? Do we hold out our hand to them to show that they matter to us? When they look at what we have done for French dependent territories, they are disappointed. That is the central question.
We must not take for granted the status of Hong Kong. The bulk of students coming to Britain from Hong Kong for higher education go into engineering. They do not go back to Government service or white collar jobs, as is so often the case in this country. They go into industry and commerce and, therefore, have a direct impact on investment. In our own interests, it is important that the Chinese leaders in that colony have a British bias when they come to decide on investment and purchasing.
910
I urge my hon. Friend, with his interest in and his writings on the history and philosophy of conservatism, to maintain a belief in empiricism and to judge forces on their consequences and not merely in terms of the specific requirements of his Department and its dealings with the Treasury. There are important outside consequences to be considered. We must nurture our relationship with Hong Kong. We should not take it for granted. If we are to use Hong Kong, as we must, as the key bridge towards boosting our new relationship and rapprochement with China, we must build and maintain links with Hong Kong.
10.40 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who has recently returned from Hong Kong. I was with our fleet in the Far East at the time of the reoccupation of Hong Kong. I was again in Hong Kong two years ago with Milton Friedman, who was contemplating a television programme about Hong Kong, where he felt there were useful lessons to learn.
I appreciate the genuine concern of my hon. Friends over students from Hong Kong. However, we cannot divorce consideration of those students from the Government's overall policy on overseas students. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) was a member of the Select Committee dealing with the matter. The reports are being carefully studied, and the Government's response will be given shortly.
We have no lessons to learn from the Labour Party about foreign students. Labour policy on quotas and increasing fees has failed. Our policy will succeed. I am pleased to see signs of reform on the part of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). However, it was Anthony Crosland who first introduced differential fees for overseas students in 1967–68. Labour Governments increased those fees five times. The Conservative Government increased them once. In 1978–79 a Labour Government introduced quotas. We shall kill the fatted calf if the prodigal son has truly reformed, but we shall not know that until we see another Labour Government in power.

911
It is important to consider the figures. In the 10 years from 1967–68 to 1977–78 the number of overseas students, heavily subsidised by British taxpayers, many of whom would have liked to go to university, multiplied. Hon. Gentlemen may shake their heads, but I have more confidence in the man in the street. The trouble with the Labour Party is that it has lost its beliefs.
The Labour Party tried to control the number of overseas students but instead multiplied it. Labour Members now object when we try to control the number. I am sorry to draw so much blood. but it is interesting to see how the Labour Party's guilt complex manifests itself.
Mr. James Johnson: What about Hong Kong?
Dr. Boyson: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to protect his Front Bench colleagues. He is a courteous man. However, they are beyond saving.
Over the past 10 years, the number of foreign students in our universities has increased by 18,500—the size of two universities the size of the university of Birmingham. We cannot let the British taxpayer continue to support that increasing number.
I am not a lawyer. I take advice on legal questions. The dependent territories of France are legally part of France. Hong Kong is not part of Britain.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The situation is morally wrong.
Dr. Boyson: It may be morally wrong, but one cannot go into court and expect to have a case dismissed because one is morally right. France's dependent territories are part of France. That is the only way that the EEC can work.
Hon. Members have raised the question of numbers.
Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Boyson: No.
Mr. Kinnock: Shameful.
Dr. Boyson: We know how long the hon. Gentleman takes once he gets on his feet. We can never get him down again. I will not allow him to intervene. I am replying to my hon. Friends and some Labour Back Benchers, but not to the
912
Opposition Front Bench. Let me give the figures.
Mr. Kinnock: Do not mislead the House.
Dr. Boyson: I shall not mislead the House. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) should not talk about anyone misleading the House, bearing in mind what he said recently about school books.
In 1977–78 only seven students came to Britain from France's overseas territories. How many were there from the rest of the world? We have talked about a figure of 86,000. How many were there from the Commonwealth? We all appreciate the Commonwealth. There is at least equal feeling for the Commonwealth on the Government side as there is among the Opposition. After all, who initiated the debate? Was it the Opposition or was it Conservative Back Benchers who are genuinely concerned?
Mr. Christopher Price: It is incumbent upon the Minister to say how much weight the Government attach to the numbers argument, which has a point to it, and, against that, how much weight they attach to the issue that some of us consider much weightier—namely, the influence of Britain in the world and our responsibilities towards dependent territories.
Dr. Boyson: That is a serious question. I shall answer it in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked it. How does one transfer morality into legal practice within the EEC? That is the problem. Legally, French territories are part of France. Hong Kong is not part of Britain. The whole question turns on that. That is how the difficulty has to be looked at.
I mentioned the numbers because no one can say that the British university system was being overcrowded by the seven students to whom I referred. We could absorb them.
I have great respect for the educational knowledge of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. We have had many great battles over the past 15 years and he has often scored points at my expense. In 1978–79 there were 5,000 students from Hong Kong in all our institutions, includin 1,600 in universities.

913
Reference has been made to the EEC decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden did not stress that aspect. He mentioned the dependent territories of France. We made that decision as regards the EEC in the light of the principle of student mobility within the Community. I have never been an enthusiast of the EEC. If there is such a thing as an agnostic on the EEC, I am it. But we are a member of the EEC and we must act as such. The EEC is the only area of the world which sends us fewer students than we send to it. Everywhere else the opposite applies.
Mr. Kinnock: That is a stupid argument.
Dr. Boyson: To the hon. Member all arguments are stupid except those he puts forward. Some people, however, even disagree with the points that he makes on the basis of his great brilliance.
We have brought into practice a new scholarship system for overseas postgraduate students which will apply to Hong Kong as to everywhere else. I believe that people will come here not for first degrees but for postgraduate degrees as more universities become developed in Hong Kong. We are building up to the point where within three years one-seventh of the postgraduate research students in this country will be funded. Many of them will come from Hong Kong.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides about £36 million to be spent in parts of the Commonwealth and the Third world to help students. That should be borne in mind. I shall be greatly interested, when the figures are published in the autumn, to discover how many fewer we are taking from various parts of the world. The figures two months ago showed that applications were only 12 per cent. down, yet the numbers could fall by 17 per cent.
914
before the universities would lose a penny of the money that is paid to them.
My hon. Friends referred to the development of higher education in Hong Kong. It has been progressing very well. There are now two universities and one polytechnic there. One aspect that we are considering is the loan system that has been developed in Hong Kong. Last year $26 million was provided interest free to the universities under the loan system. The figure for the polytechnic was $8·5 million interest-free. Perhaps the Government of Hong Kong could be approached on the possibility of some of that help being transferred to Hong Kong students in this country. I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
When we know the figures in October, we shall monitor what has happened. We have put £5 million into postgraduate courses in universities to prevent their going under this year. If we find that certain territories are particularly affected, while we cannot guarantee that we shall change the policy we will look at the situation as it has developed and against the background of our own economic circumstances.
If we can do anything in any way to help Hong Kong in the development of its higher education system—this applies to my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—we shall do it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden for having raised the point. We understand his concern. he also realises, I know, the need for cutbacks, given the economic circumstances of this country. We are prepared to continue a dialogue within our present policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE
  PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE
TRADE
  Aircraft Accidents (Investigation Procedure)
  Aircraft Accidents (Investigation Procedure)
  Golf Balls (Imports)
  Golf Balls (Imports)
  Registry of Business Names
  Registry of Business Names
  Paper and Board Products
  Paper and Board Products
  Sir Freddie Laker
  Sir Freddie Laker
  Japanese Cars (Imports)
  Japanese Cars (Imports)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Border Security
  Border Security
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company
  Harland and Wolff (Subsidies)
  Harland and Wolff (Subsidies)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Retraining
  Retraining
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Attendance Allowances (Taxation Policy)
  Attendance Allowances (Taxation Policy)
  Export Prices
  Export Prices
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  European Economic Community (Trade Balance)
  European Economic Community (Trade Balance)
EMPLOYMENT
  Greater London Council Area (Job Losses)
  Greater London Council Area (Job Losses)
  Tandy Organisation
  Tandy Organisation
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Retraining and Training
  Retraining and Training
  Fort William Underwater Training Centre
  Fort William Underwater Training Centre
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Standard Industrial Classification 1968
  Standard Industrial Classification 1968
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Confectionery Industry
  Confectionery Industry
  Electronic Engineers
  Electronic Engineers
  School Leavers (Ince)
  School Leavers (Ince)
  TUC
  TUC
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  THE TAOISEACH
  THE TAOISEACH
  ANGLESEY
  ANGLESEY
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  CHILD BENEFIT
  CHILD BENEFIT
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  EMPLOYMENT BILL
  GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
  GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT
  BRITISH ACADEMY
  BRITISH ACADEMY
  BRANDT COMMISSION
  BRANDT COMMISSION
  YALTA MEMORIAL
  YALTA MEMORIAL
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Paid Envelopes
  Official Paid Envelopes
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
WALES
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Budget Payments
  Budget Payments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Compensation Funds
  Licensing Compensation Funds
  Discharged Restricted Patients (Offences)
  Discharged Restricted Patients (Offences)
  Cambodian Refugees
  Cambodian Refugees
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Scientologists
  Scientologists
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Members of Public Boards (Public Comments)
  Members of Public Boards (Public Comments)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
  Radiobiology (Research)
  Radiobiology (Research)
  Grammar Schools (Assisted Places Scheme)
  Grammar Schools (Assisted Places Scheme)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Secure Accommodation
  Secure Accommodation
  Children's Homes
  Children's Homes
  Psychiatric Teaching
  Psychiatric Teaching
  Ethnic Minorities (Ante-natal Care)
  Ethnic Minorities (Ante-natal Care)
  Insurance Costs
  Insurance Costs
  New Commonwealth and Pakistani Children
  New Commonwealth and Pakistani Children
  Rampton Hospital Patients (Police Inquiries)
  Rampton Hospital Patients (Police Inquiries)
  Surgical Waiting Lists (Ince)
  Surgical Waiting Lists (Ince)
  Skelmersdale Hospital
  Skelmersdale Hospital
  Supplementary Benefit Recipients (Home Help Service)
  Supplementary Benefit Recipients (Home Help Service)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Ethnic Population
  Ethnic Population
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Adult Attendance Allowance
  Adult Attendance Allowance
ENVIRONMENT
  One-parent Families (Inner London)
  One-parent Families (Inner London)
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Local Government Manpower
  Local Government Manpower
  Lead Concentrations
  Lead Concentrations
  Gipsy Children
  Gipsy Children
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Bricks
  Bricks
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Timber-framed Houses
  Timber-framed Houses
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  House Building
  House Building
  Public Houses (Rents)
  Public Houses (Rents)
  Radioactive Emissions
  Radioactive Emissions
  Boundary Changes (North Wiltshire)
  Boundary Changes (North Wiltshire)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Licensing Offices
  Vehicle Licensing Offices
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Insurance Costs
  Insurance Costs
  British Transport Hotels
  British Transport Hotels
  Transport Systems (Fuel Efficiency)
  Transport Systems (Fuel Efficiency)
  M54 Motorway (Compulsory Purchase Orders Inquiry)
  M54 Motorway (Compulsory Purchase Orders Inquiry)
DEFENCE
  Offshore Patrol Vessels
  Offshore Patrol Vessels
  Propellants, Explosives and Rocket Motor Establishment
  Propellants, Explosives and Rocket Motor Establishment
  Parachute Assault Capability
  Parachute Assault Capability
  Naval Contracts
  Naval Contracts
  Territorial Army (Scotland)
  Territorial Army (Scotland)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board
  Licensed Premises (Tenancy Agreements)
  Licensed Premises (Tenancy Agreements)
  BRITISH LIONS TOUR
  BRITISH LIONS TOUR
ENERGY
  Oil-Saving Investment
  Oil-Saving Investment
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  European Community (Energy Costs)
  European Community (Energy Costs)
  Research (International Comparisons)
  Research (International Comparisons)
  Trawsfynydd Power Station (Nuclear Incident)
  Trawsfynydd Power Station (Nuclear Incident)
  Nuclear Incidents
  Nuclear Incidents
  Nuclear Power Stations (Radioactive Exposure)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Radioactive Exposure)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Insurance Costs
  Insurance Costs
  Act of Settlement
  Act of Settlement
INDUSTRY
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Motor Industry (Output)
  Motor Industry (Output)
  Hexachlorophene
  Hexachlorophene
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Oil Savings
  Oil Savings
TRADE
  Energy Consumption (Appliance Labelling)
  Energy Consumption (Appliance Labelling)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HEATHROW BUS SERVICE
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, 1 beg Lave 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, following further inquiry, they are in a position to make a statement about the possible development of a bus service to Heathrow Airport from the West London Terminal area.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I fear there is nothing I can usefully add to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne last month.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: I am sorry, my Lords, I was taken by surprise; would the Minister kindly repeat that?
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, my Lords, of course. I fear there is nothing I can usefully add to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne last month.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I can. Knowing how reasonable the noble Lord is and that he has connections with Leeds, as I had in the past, may I ask him whether he is aware that what I am really after is getting recognition of the fact that people going out to Heathrow Airport would welcome a bus service from the central area to all three terminals, one for which they would be perfectly willing to pay? They do not
1284
want a free service and they do not think that the airlines should run it. if I may move on from that, may I ask the Minister whether he regards it as unreasonable that passengers and families going on holidays should have luggage? So long as that luggage is within the limits imposed by the airlines would he not agree, as I am sure his noble friend Lord Trefgarne would agree, that it was really wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his spontaneous statement on 12th June, to say that people with luggage should take a car or a taxi?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, of course people who travel are expected to have luggage with them, and everyone recognises the problem that there is in this whole situation. I suspect that no one knows more of this than the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, herself, who has pursued the matter so assiduously for so long. I am sorry that I am not able to give her the kind of assurances about the services that I know she would like, but I think it would be fair to say that this is a problem which is now exercising everyone's mind, perhaps not least because the noble Baroness herself has pursued it so vigorously; and without my being able to make promises or commitments at this stage, I hope that there may be a solution to this problem before too long.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, without being too much of a nuisance, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, whether I could talk this over with him privately? Is he aware that I am not concerned as to who provides this service, whether or not it is the local authority—I presume that is the GLC—but that it should be paid for? Perhaps I could come and see him about it and try to soften him up on that point?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, of course I shall be delighted to talk to the noble Baroness about it.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who asked a supplementary question last time, may I ask the noble Lord this question: Does the noble Lord agree that as well as holidaymakers, the infirm, the handicapped and the elderly also have a problem with regard to luggage?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, of course I agree. Who would not agree with that? The problem is not to accept that there is in fact a problem but to decide the best way of coping with it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, not agree that if British Airways did not propose to waste large sums of money on the ridiculous idea of painting out the word "Airways" on the sides of all their aircraft there would doubtless be ample funds available for reviving a coach service from Cromwell Road?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not really expect me to comment on that, although there may be many who have sympathy with the point he has made.

HELSINKI FINAL ACT: MADRID CONFERENCE
3.5 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that the Madrid Conference in the autumn to review the Helsinki Final Act will discuss fully those clauses renouncing the use of force against any state, and those promising respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the self-determination of peoples; and that disarmament (apart from confidence-building measures) will continue to be discussed mainly in the proper forum.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is our firm intention that the Madrid meeting should review comprehensively the extent to which all principles and provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, including particularly those to which the noble Lord refers, have been implemented or disregarded. Although disarmament will doubtless be raised, it remains our view that it is most appropriately discussed in other fora.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. Is my noble
1286
friend aware that his reply will greatly reassure many people who are highly critical of the French President's suggestion that disarmament should feature very prominently at the Madrid Conference, specifically called to review the working of the Helsinki Final Act?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am glad that my Answer reassured my noble friend. Certainly the most important aspect of the Madrid review conference will be to consider the implementation up to now of the Helsinki Final Act.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, will the British delegation be led by a Minister or by an ambassador? Secondly, will there be the most effective co-ordination among the western countries represented there covering their attitudes and proposals in regard to the preparation of the agenda and agreement to the procedures of the conference, and the proceedings of the committees and the plenary conference itself? Also, in particular, in view of our experience at the Belgrade meeting in 1978, will there be the closest co- ordination on this occasion with the United States delegation?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, final decisions in respect of the leadership of the British delegation to that conference have not yet been taken, but I can assure the noble Lord that British participation will be at the highest appropriate level. I can also assure the noble Lord that we shall be discussing these matters very closely with the western delegations.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, including in particular that of the United States of America?
Lord TREFGARNE: Certainly, my Lords, including the delegation of the United States.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the statement he has made today and the manner in which he and his colleagues have acted in respect of these particular problems, may I ask him if he will keep in mind, first, the kind of action that is being taken at present by the USSR in arresting some 300 people before the Olympic Games and in driving out of the

1287
city some 60 other people? Secondly, will he also keep in mind that now an attempt is being made to prevent Jewish students from entering universities, and in fact in regard to the Moscow University itself practically no Jewish mathematics students are allowed to go into the university in order to study mathematics in spite of the remarkable success of those who have previously been there?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I agree readily that the Soviet implementation of their Helsinki undertakings is, to say the least, highly unsatisfactory. On 2nd July my honourable friend Mr. Blaker made a detailed report to the other place on the recent implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, or failure to implement it, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will arrange for that report to be circulated in our Official Report.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence for speaking again but this is an extremely important matter. Can we take it that there has been an independent review of the performance of the Helsinki agreement, including the vital point made by my noble friend, similar to the review conducted with the support of, but not controlled by, the Foreign Office two years ago, before the Belgrade meeting?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, during the period of this Administration, and I think also of the previous one, the Government have made reports to Parliament at six-monthly intervals and that is the document to which I referred just now.
Following is the report above referred to by Lord Trefgarne:

HELSINKI FINAL ACT
FURTHER REPORT ON SOVIET AND EASTERN EUROPEAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1979 TO JUNE 1980
General
1. The period since the last report has been over-shadowed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and by the continued occupation of that traditionally neutral and non-aligned country by substantial Soviet military forces.
1288
Soviet troops have been directly engaged in attempting to crush Afghan popular resistance to their occupation and have inflicted appalling suffering on the Afghan people. This action violates all the norms of international behaviour including the provisions of the UN Charter and the Principles of the Helsinki Final Act. It has been condemned by an unprecedented majority of members of the United Nations and by the Islamic world. It represents a most serious set-back to the pursuit of genuine détente and international cooperation which can only develop on a global basis and on a foundation of trust and mutual confidence. In CSCE terms the most regrettable consequence of the invasion has been to demonstrate the vulnerability of the CSCE process if certain signatories choose to take advantage of détente in Europe to pursue narrow national advantage elsewhere.
2. More or less coinciding with their aggressive action in Afghanistan, the Soviet authorities have similarly shocked world public opinion with an intensified campaign against political dissenters within their own borders, of which the banishment to Gorky of Academician Sakharov has been only one of the more widely publicised instances. Such actions are clearly intended to silence protest against Soviet infringements of human rights, and in particular of the Helsinki Final Act, and appear to have been timed partly with the opening of the Olympic Games in mind (and possibly also the approach to the Madrid meeting). The denial of certain basic human rights and of the freedom of the individual to monitor the implementation by governments of the Helsinki Final Act has continued in a number of other countries in Eastern Europe, notably Czechoslovakia.
Basket I—Security in Europe: Principles guiding relations between participating states; Confidence-building measures and certain aspects of security and disarmament
Principles
3. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, carried out under the guise of an "invitation" from a government whose leader was murdered shortly after the arrival of his "guests", violates a clear

1289
commitment by the signatories of the Final Act to conduct their relations with all other states in the spirit of the 10 Principles. These include the Principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity of states, inviolability of frontiers, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, refraining from the threat or use of force and non-intervention in internal affairs. The last of these specifically states that signatories will refrain from any intervention in the internal or external affairs of another participating state "regardless of their mutual relations". Soviet action cannot possibly be claimed to be consistent with respect for these Principles. The Soviet authorities have, moreover, sought to distort the meaning of the Principles by claiming their own action to have been justified by alleged but unsubstantiated intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan by other countries. The reaction of Eastern European governments to the Soviet invasion was slow, uneven and generally unenthusiastic. The Soviet Union's allies have tended to argue that developments in Europe should be regarded as distinct from those elsewhere and that the latter should not be allowed to affect the CSCE process. The underlying assumption in such a position that détente is "divisible" is unacceptable.
4. The leaders of the seven Warsaw Pact countries none the less reaffirmed their adherence to all ten Principles of the Final Act in a Declaration issued after their meeting in Warsaw on 14th and 15th of May. The main focus of their interest, however, continues to be the promotion of what they term "military détente", the military aspects of security. To this end, the Soviet Union and its allies continue to call on CSCE participating states to sign a treaty on the non-first use of nuclear or conventional weapons, and affirm their support for a wide range of loosely-framed arms limitation or disarmament measures of a largely declaratory nature (from a world treaty on the non-use of force, to a cut in the major powers' military budgets). More specifically, the Warsaw Pact states have proposed that the Madrid Review Conference should endorse Warsaw Pact ideas on the holding of a multi-stage conference on military détente and disarmament
1290
in Europe, for which the Polish Government has offered Warsaw as the venue.
5. Ministers of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, in the communiqué issued after their meeting in Ankara on 25th and 26th of June, noted that the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan had seriously affected the confidence necessary for progress in CSCE and stated that it was a matter of particular concern that the Soviet Union had acted and was still acting in Afghanistan in a manner violating the Principles to which it had committed itself at Helsinki at the highest level. Ministers agreed that allied representatives should engage in a thorough review of implementation at the Madrid meeting and that they should also continue to develop a balanced group of proposals and remain prepared to discuss concrete proposals which might be advanced by other participants. But Ministers also noted that the prospects for progress at Madrid and in particular for the consideration of new proposals would be influenced by the course of the review and would depend on the international situation at the time.
6. The deterioration in the implementation of Principle VII—human rights and fundamental freedoms—already noted in several countries in the last report—has continued. In the Soviet Union, a systematic campaign of searches, arrests and trials directed against advocates of human, religious and national minority rights have evidently been launched. Some 100 people are known to have been arrested or tried since October. The administrative and evidently illegal exile of Academician Sakharov on 22nd of January removed one of the dissidents' major links with the outside world Sakharov's present isolation has given rise to fears for his and his wife's health and safety. In addition to the Helsinki monitoring groups in Moscow and in the Ukraine, several of whose members were sentenced to long terms in camps and internal exile, including most recently Malva Landa and Viktor Nekipelov, the main targets of the drive to sweep dissidents out of sight have included the publishers of samizdat material, unofficial Christian groups such as the Reform Baptists, dissident

1291
Orthodox priests and believers and a body investigating Soviet political misuse of psychiatry, three of whose members, A Podrabinek, V Bakhmin and L Ternovsky have recently been arrested. After 5 months' detention, Father Dmitry Dudko was produced on Moscow television on 20th of June to confess to and renounce his errors including consorting with correspondents and other foreigners, and allowing his "anti-Soviet" and "slanderous" works to be published abroad.
7. Whereas a record number of 50,000 Soviet Jews emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979, the rate of emigration has declined from a level of over 4,000 a month in November to some 2,200 in April and May this year. In several areas, the emigration authorities are refusing permission to emigrate on the grounds that the prerequisite invitations from abroad are from relatives with insufficiently close kinship. Emigration from other ethnic groups (Armenians, Germans, Greeks and Spaniards) continues to run at a lower and variable level. In recent months, a small number of dissidents have also been permitted to emigrate, or been forcibly expelled, as in the case of Vladimir Borisov.
8. In Czechoslovakia, the appeal of 6 members of the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted (VONS) sentenced on charges of subversion, was dismissed in December, despite a petition said to be supported by over 700 Czechoslovak signatories and official representations of concern in the West. Western lawyers were prevented from attending the appeal, and several who had travelled to Prague were expelled. The remaining 4 members of VONS arrested in May 1979 were released, but are still under investigation. Harassment of an active group of Catholics in Bohemia and Moravia has continued. Another target of police and judicial action is a small group calling itself the Independent Socialists, whose leader Rudolf Battek has repeatedly been detained and now awaits trial on a charge of assaulting a policeman.
9. More recently the Czechoslovak authorities have gained further notoriety in the West through their
1292
campaign to disrupt unofficial philosophy lectures organised by Dr. Julius Tomin, a Charter 77 signatory. Academic seminars held in private flats have been broken up and participants detained for a day or two at a time. On at least six separate occasions, foreign visiting lecturers (including the Master of Balliol College, Oxford, in April) were prevented from delivering their contribution, detained and subsequently expelled. So far there has been no satisfactory explanation of which Czechoslovak law the visitors had broken.
10. Under the amnesty declared in the GDR to mark the country's anniversary, just under 22,000 people were released by mid-December. Of these, it is estimated that some 2,500–3,000 were "political" prisoners, who are thought to remain under supervision, to have little choice of employment and to have to report regularly to the police. There is so far no confirmed report of any prosecution under the tighter public order legislation introduced in the course of 1979, with the apparent object of deterring certain dissident intellectuals from communicating with foreigners. Following the expulsion of Huebner and Bahro, several more writers critical of the régime have been permitted to leave for the FRG (some apparently with the option of returning to the GDR).
11. In Poland, whose record on human rights has been better than that of most of the countries in Eastern Europe, there has been an uncharacteristic increase in police activity against dissidents, in the period leading to the Party Congress in February and the parliamentary elections in March. Leading dissidents were detained on the eve of unauthorised anniversary demonstrations in November and December (and 4 were subsequently sentenced to 1–4 months' imprisonment). Reprisals in the form of sackings were taken against a number of workers in Gdansk in February for commemorating the December 1970 food price riots. Members of the "Flying University" (which organises private lectures on subjects not covered by the official curriculum) came under increased police pressure, and 2 are known to have been fined. The editor of Robotnik, the journal of

1293
the unofficial Committee of Social Self-Defence, was sentenced in March to 3 years' imprisonment and a very heavy fine, for various alleged criminal offences, while Miroslaw Chojecki, director of the unregistered Nowa publishing house, was detained for over a month, released, and then tried on charges of stealing a state-owned duplicating machine. He and one co-defendant were fined and given prison sentences of 18 months each, suspended for three years; two other defendants were fined and given one-year sentences, also suspended for 3 years.
12. In Romania, no new incidents have been reported. However the activities of SLOMR, the Free Trade Union of Romanian Working Men, have effectively been suppressed. It is believed that its leaders and Father Calciu, the dissident Orthodox priest, remain in prison.
Confidence-building measures
13. The Soviet Union recently gave notification of an exercise involving some 30,000 men of the Soviet Group of Forces in the GDR in mid-July. As on most previous occasions of this type, observers are not being invited. Apart from this, no major military exercise had been notified by the Soviet Union or its allies under the terms of the Final Act since last July. There is no reason to suppose that any notifiable exercise has in fact taken place in any of the Warsaw Pact countries.
14. In December, the Warsaw Pact Foreign Ministers collectively endorsed the additional confidence-building measures put forward for consideration by President Brezhnev last October. More recently, Warsaw Pact leaders have stated that it would be appropriate for the further development of confidence-building measures to be considered during the first stage of a conference on military détente and disarmament in Europe, after discussion at the Madrid Review Conference. In this connection, NATO Ministers meeting on 25th and 26th of June recalled their agreement last December to work towards the adoption during the Madrid meeting, as part of a balanced outcome, of a mandate for further negotiations
1294
under the aegis of the CSCE as proposed by the Government of France, on militarily significant and verifiable confidence-building measures applicable to the whole of Europe, including the European part of the Soviet Union. They expressed the hope that circumstances would permit concrete results in this respect at the Madrid meeting and agreed to continue their common efforts in this area whilst recognising that these same circumstances required NATO countries to evaluate developments on a constant basis.
Basket II—Co-operation in the Field of Economics, of Science and Technology and of the Environment
15. There has been no change in the factors (including shortage of hard currency) which increasingly incline Eastern European countries towards counter-trade policies in defining their import requirements. This continues to he a serious constraint on the development of trade relations with Eastern European countries; in increasing measure, counter-trade and buy-back provisions have been a determining element in major contracts (particularly in the GDR and Romania).
16. Two recent developments, which have still to be tested in practice, may ultimately have a beneficial effect on trade by simplifying administrative procedures and authorising new forms of international economic co-operation. In April, the Czechoslovak Minister for Foreign Trade outlined measures that would enable certain Czechoslovak production enterprises to conduct foreign trade directly, without passing through foreign trade organisations. In March, a Bulgarian decree provided for various forms of partnership between Bulgarian organisations and foreign firms. Hungarian interest in developing new aspects of co-operation, including joint manufacturing and marketing, was reflected in an Anglo/Hungarian seminar on co-operation in third markets held in Budapest.
Business contacts and facilities
17. In general, there has been little change in the practical circumstances governing the day-to-day activities of firms operating in Eastern European

1295
countries. Despite the provisions of the Final Act, firms trading with the Soviet Union generally still have inadequate access to end-users and continue to suffer delays, inconvenience and uncertainty arising from dealings through the intermediary of designated foreign trade organisations. These difficulties are reflected in the unduly protracted course of some negotiations, and also in the delays experienced by some firms in securing accreditation. Practice in Eastern European countries is not uniform and is generally better in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Firms seeking to establish representative offices still face problems of accommodation in all countries, though the pressure is easing as new hotels or trade centres come into service. Rents, payable in hard currency, for office space or converted hotel suites tend to be high and in certain countries are rising fast.
Economic and commercial information
18. There has been no development in the general quantity, quality or timeliness of economic and commercial information, either published or made available in response to specific inquiries. There has in fact been a further deterioration in the amount of detail in the published statistics of the Soviet Union and GDR for 1979. Elsewhere the range of performance previously noted has been maintained, with Hungary and Poland generally more forthcoming than others in releasing information necessary for making a realistic market analysis.
Basket III—Co-operation in Humanitarian and Other Fields
Human contacts
19. In general, the modest improvements noted in previous reports in the handling of applications for family visits, family reunification and binational marriages have been maintained though the procedures are protracted, expensive and in some cases require repeated applications.
20. Czechoslovakia and the GDR were reported to have reduced their backlog of exit applications for binational marriages and family reunification at the end of last year (though
1296
none of them involved travel to the UK). In Czechoslovakia, the time taken to process applications for family visits has been reduced from 3–5 weeks to a matter of days. Exit visas for short absences are normally obtainable if the visitor is financially supported from abroad; but difficulties arise if any family member is recorded as an "illegal" emigrant. The cost of an emigration passport varies (from a small sum up to about £1,000) according to age and educational status. In the GDR, as previously noted, 90% of the successful applicants for family visits to the UK (136 cases) are pensioners. There has been no progress in the case of a British subject refused permission to visit her children and grandchildren in the GDR, and one long-standing bi-national marriage application has still not been approved.
21. Soviet performance continues to be disappointing: only three of the 23 outstanding personal cases in lists submitted to the Soviet authorities last year have been favourably resolved. In recent practice, the Soviet wives of British subjects have generally been permitted to emigrate within a few months of marriage; but there are currently a number of cases where marriages have been prevented through the denial of an exit visa to a Soviet woman, or of an entry visa to a British fiancé. In Poland, there are few serious problems in this area. Of about 8,600 private Polish applications for UK entry visas over 6 months, some 5,000 are estimated to have been for family visits (higher than the total for all the other countries put together). Emigration passports (mainly for wives of British subjects) are normally granted within four months (at a cost of about £70, plus in some cases a refund of education costs); two recent applications have, however, been refused.
22. There has been no substantial change in the practices of Hungary (with some 500 family visitors to the UK over six months), Romania (with 73) or Bulgaria (with 101).
23. Although the rationing of foreign currency allocations for private journeys is clearly a limiting factor, there has been no overall reduction in the number of tourist visits to the UK from Eastern

1297
Europe. Tourism in the opposite direction is normally encouraged as a valuable source of hard currency, and the services offered by state tourist organisations have expanded correspondingly over the years. In recent months, however, there has been a disturbing series of incidents involving British (and other Western) visitors to the USSR. The Government has protested to the Soviet authorities in Moscow and to the Soviet Ambassador in London about particular cases of assault, intimidation and harassment of British visitors, some of whom appear to have been singled out for such treatment as a result of their having made contact with Soviet citizens.
Information
24. There has been no improvement in the situation described in earlier reports as regards the availability of Western press publications. Except in Poland, where limited quantities of Western publications are to be found on sale at normal outlets, Western non-communist newspapers and periodicals are not available to the public. Token quantities can occasionally be found in hard currency hotels and airport kiosks, basically for sale to foreigners. Western communist newspapers are generally available at normal outlets.
25. There has been a further welcome increase in the number of British books on sale to the Soviet public, and in the number of bookshops selling foreign books in Moscow and in the provinces. Demand is brisk, despite the relatively high rouble price and the limited range of titles.
26. In Romania, the official party daily and other journals have for the first time reproduced material from Panoramic Britanic, the British Government's official Romanian-language information magazine.
Improvement of working conditions for journalists
27. Working conditions remain professionally uncongenial for journalists in most of the countries, though instances of actual harassment declined
1298
in comparison with some earlier periods.
28. The Czechoslovak authorities remain both hypersensitive to the contents of Western press reports and unhelpful in their dealings with Western journalists. They withdrew the accreditation of the BBC Central European correspondent in December 1979, as a mark of disapproval of his material. They have also recently impeded the normal operation of news agencies by restricting the type of work undertaken by their Czechoslovak support staff. In principle, however, accredited correspondents and visiting journalists are free to travel throughout the country (under varying degrees of surveillance).
29. In contrast, a British journalist in the Soviet Union has recently experienced difficulties in visiting Tallinn and Kurgan, two cities ostensibly open to foreigners.
30. The regulations concerning foreign journalists and the public order legislation introduced in the GDR in 1979 continue to circumscribe the activities of accredited foreign correspondents. Correspondents from some Western countries find that applications to interview GDR citizens are processed excessively slowly. Restrictions on the information activities of diplomatic missions arc as strict as ever.
31. There are no British journalists permanently accredited in Hungary, but visitors (including some of Hungarian origin) are rarely refused entry, and have reasonable freedom of movement and access to sources. Romanian officials are normally helpful to visitors, including television film crews; but the Government has recently had occasion to protest over the treatment of a British journalist working for the Observer, who, on being refused an entry visa on arrival at Bucharest airport, was detained for two days and nights while awaiting a suitable departure flight. During this time he was denied access to British consular officials before being expelled. Another journalist, the Guardian correspondent resident in Belgrade, was the object of very close surveillance during a visit to Bucharest in May.
Culture and Education
32. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the banishment of Academician Sakharov, Anglo/Soviet cultural exchanges declined sharply, as planned visits and concert tours were cancelled or postponed on both sides. Bilateral cultural, educational and scientific exchange programmes with Eastern European countries have not been adversely affected. There are in fact welcome signs of expansion in this area despite financial stringencies. One disappointment is the continuing difficulty experienced in educational exchanges with Romania, including the organisation of high-level academic events.
Science
33. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the decisions of the Belgrade review meeting, a Scientific Forum involving "leading personalities in science from participating countries" took place in Hamburg from 18th of February to 3rd March. The meeting brought together distinguished scientists from the participating states as individuals rather than as representatives of governments. Many Western scientists considered the meeting to have been of only moderate value in strictly scientific terms. However, the atmosphere generated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the exiling of Dr Sakharov in January 1980 meant that the meeting had a particularly political flavour. Western scientists were forthright in criticising the Soviet Union's treatment of many of its scientists and the difficulties experienced in establishing direct contact with them. The final document of the Forum duly noted that "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (Principle VII) by all states represented one of the foundations for significant improvement of their mutual relations and of international scientific co-operation at all levels".
Conclusions
34. The CSCE process cannot be divorced from the general course of world events. Soviet action in Afghanistan and increasing violations of human rights in the Soviet Union and certain other Eastern European countries are an affront to the spirit and letter of the
1300
Helsinki Final Act. Such events have altered drastically the political conditions in which next November's Madrid Review Meeting will now take place and considerably reduced the chances of making progress. At the same time the Government believes that the significance of the Madrid meeting has if anything increased, since it will provide a necessary opportunity for East and West to take stock of the causes of the current state of their relations.
35. The Government remains attached both to the CSCE process and to the promotion of genuine détente. But this can only be on the basis that the participating states abide by the norms of international behaviour. The Soviet Union cannot continue to act as in recent months and expect the Madrid meeting to confirm that business is as usual in Europe. It is for this reason that priority must be given at Madrid to a full, frank and thorough review of implementation focusing particularly on the shortcomings of those concerned as measured against the commitments undertaking in the Final Act. The search for genuine détente and the CSCE process itself would suffer were this responsibility to be evaded.
36. The prospects for the development of new proposals at Madrid are not encouraging in present circumstances. The introduction of new proposals where agreements already reached are not being honoured would severely strain the credibility of the CSCE process. The Government is none the less prepared to do business at Madrid on a realistic basis provided that the rules of international behaviour are respected. We will, therefore, be ready to make progress, but only on the basis of proposals which are substantial in content and capable of producing real and tangible benefits. The worth of new proposals must be decided on the basis of their substance and their appropriateness will depend on developments both before and during the Madrid meeting.
37. It is in this spirit of realism and pragmatism that the Government, together with its partners in the Nine and in NATO, will approach the final stages of preparations for the forthcoming review meeting in Madrid.

RITUAL SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
3.10 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve the ritual slaughter of animals whereby the throats of cattle are cut without any form of anaesthetic having previously been administered.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 provides that animals shall either be slaughtered instantaneously by means of a mechanically-operated instrument in proper repair, or be subjected to stunning, effected by means of a mechanically-operated instrument or an electrical stunning instrument in proper repair, and instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes. The only exemptions from this requirement, which have been granted by Parliament, concern the slaughter of animals by the Jewish and Moslem methods for the food of Jews and Moslems, and this must be without the infliction of unnecessary suffering. These exemptions have featured in our law for a very long time. The position is similar in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the RSPCA have produced a report or statement in which they describe the ritual slaughtering of animals as being horrific and, according to veterinary evidence, have shown that the animal can remain conscious after slaughter for an average of 90 seconds? Is he of the opinion that this suffering is unnecessary, in view of the fact that, according to a statement made in a press report by Dr. Abul Siddiqui, the President of the Ulster Islamic Centre:
"Moslems have no objection to an animal being stunned first before its throat is cut"?
Would the noble Earl, therefore, urge his right honourable friend in charge of
1302
the Department of Agriculture to make an order that the animals should be electronically stunned before their throats are cut?
Earl FERRERS: No, my Lords; I regret that I cannot do that, because it would require a change in the law in order for that to be done. I am aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has issued statements of its views. They are entirely entitled to hold what views they wish. Parliament has discussed this matter on a number of occasions, but the debate has always been inconclusive, and as a result of that it has been decided by Parliament that these exemptions should be made for the killing of these animals on religious grounds and for religious convictions. That is the law as it stands, and must remain so until Parliament decides to change it.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to point out that the Jewish method of slaughter of animals has been very carefully considered? I myself have visited, with a Member of Parliament, a slaughterhouse at which the animals are slaughtered. That Member of Parliament withdrew an objection to the exemption after he had seen it and stated that it was clearly an instantaneous and effective method of killing an animal. In those circumstances, will the noble Earl assure the noble Lord who raised the question that, in so far as the Jewish method is concerned, there is no doubt at all, because there is ample evidence to show that the animal is instantaneously killed?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, asks me to be a postbox for his views to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I am happy to undertake that facility. What I would say to the House is this. I realise that people have many views on this. But this is a religious matter. Parliament has always taken account of people's religious feelings and that is the reason why the situation is as it is. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that my right honourable friend announced on 4th December that the terms of reference of the Farm Animal Welfare Council have been extended to include welfare at the places of slaughter, and I understand

1303
the Council will be turning their attention to this subject and will be considering all slaughtering practices, including religious methods.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as a member of the delegation appointed by another place to witness these slaughters, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I and my colleagues came to the conclusion that the Jewish method was no more cruel than the gentile method? But is it not possible to prevent these cattle from suffering in this way by an anaesthetic before they are turned upside down when their throats are cut?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that is a possibility in so far as CO2 has been used, but that only on pigs—and of course that does not help the Moslems. With regard to actually injecting an animal with an anaesthetic, of course that would leave a taint in the meat, which again would not be in accordance with Moslem wishes.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to consider again what I have just said? Will he agree that precautions are taken, not only to have an anatomical expert to kill animals by the Jewish method but also in having a casting machine, which gives no anxiety to the animal itself? In those circumstances, will he consider that any creation of attempted difficulties should be avoided?
Earl FERRERS: Yes, my Lords; the situation as it is is that these animals have to be slaughtered by a method which has to be approved by my right honourable friend.

ANGOLA: SOUTH AFRICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES
3.17 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 steps they have taken to persuade the South African Government to cease their military invasions of Angola and put into effect the United Nations resolution on Namibia.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government are working to solve the problem of violence in and around Namibia at its roots, through the United Nations Plan. Together with our Western partners, we have told South Africa that we are deeply concerned at their military activities in Angola, and that we hope that all sides will exercise restraint. We will continue to use our influence with South Africa in favour of the Secretary General's recent proposals for solving outstanding problems.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would the British Government agree that this is a naked invasion of a sovereign state which has been taking place since 8th June, and would they consider applying the same kind of publicity for their views to the invasion by South Africa of Angola as they have—and it is the same principle if not the same extent—to the invasion by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken if he seeks to compare those two events. The situations are very different indeed. In any event, there is now conflicting information on the position in Angola. South Africa maintains, and indeed have so informed Mr. Waldheim, that all their troops have left Angola, although the Angolans deny this.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the Government have brought any pressure to bear on the Government of Cuba, or whether the United Nations Secretary General has brought any pressure to bear on the Government of Cuba, to withdraw their troops from Angola?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that is a very pertinent supplementary, if I may say so, although I do not have any information on it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that if there are any foreign troops from Cuba in Angola, they are there at the invitation of the Government and not for the purpose of carrying out hostilities against the people of Angola? Could the Minister say what is the status of the prisoners who were taken by the South African military when they invaded Angola

1305
18 months' ago and who have been held in detention ever since, and whether these prisoners are covered by the Geneva Convention? Is the noble Lord aware that the Red Cross recently obtained the permission of the Administrator General of Namibia to visit these prisoners? Further, what report has he received about their welfare and the allegations of torture of prisoners which have been made by several authorities?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, at the outset of his remarks, the noble Lord referred to the "invitation", as he put it, for the Cuban troops to enter Angola. I have come to be very suspicious of that type of invitation after what happened in Afghanistan, when the alleged invitation was apparently issued by someone who had been shot the day before! As regards the condition of the prisoners, to which the noble Lord referred, he will know that this matter was raised when Dr. Viljoen came to London recently and the answers that we received were satisfactory.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to ask about that last sentence with reference to the putting into effect of the United Nations' resolution on Namibia. Are not the Government of South Africa now defying both the United Nations and the United Nations mission which has been acting in Namibia? Are they not so doing by recognising a puppet government not recognised anywhere else in the world; by their raids into Angola; by their refusal of a demilitarised zone and by their refusal to agree to the confinement of forces to bases?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the attitude of the South African Government in this matter and the policies that they have pursued do lead us to make representations to them, as I have already described. But, some of the assertions made by the United Nations in this matter leave us with some doubts as well.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, is it not a fact that all these incursions by South African troops into Angola have been provoked by acts of violence from north of the border? While having great respect and admiration for the noble Lord who asked
1306
the original Question—and not believing that if he were, with his personality, heavily struck, his inclination would not be to hit back—is it not a fact that the incursions from south of the border have probably been far less frequent than the great number of incursions, with the intention of violence, from the north to the south, into South-West Africa?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the South African Government certainly maintain that they are striking back legitimately when they make these incursions into Angola. None the less, we feel that these actions are, to say the least, unhelpful in the present circumstances and we hope that they will stop.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, is it not a fact that for a long time now the whole policy of the South African Government has been to thwart the intentions of the United Nations in regard to Namibia; to be in default of the unanimously adopted resolution relating to that country; to prevent the creation of a democracy and a free state in Namibia and thereby to imperil the very hopeful example of Zimbabwe; and to place the future peace of Southern Africa, as a whole, in grave jeopardy?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, there is more than one UN resolution on this matter. The latest one, Resolution 475, contained extreme language envisaging sanctions against South Africa and, indeed, we abstained on that resolution. However, although, as I have said, we certainly believe that these last incursions were highly regrettable, none the less there is a little light at the end of the tunnel in this matter and we are hoping to advocate a more constructive policy in future.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I should like to return to the noble Lord's original Answer to my Question. Would he agree—and remember that I specifically used the word "principle"—that in principle the invasion of Angola is in the same category as that of Afghanistan? If that is so, why was it that the British Government abstained in the Security Council when the Security Council, with the exception of the United Kingdom, the United States and France, condemned that invasion?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I said earlier, these two situations are in no way comparable. To begin with, the South Africans have now largely withdrawn from Angola, although I agree that there is room for more than one view as to whether they have completely withdrawn. In any event, the South African position on some of the other matters is rather more constructive. For example, responding to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 12th May their communication contained some positive elements, including commitment to international settlement and the demilitarised zone concept and other matters.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
The Committee stage of the Health Services Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for about an hour.
The European Communities (International Railway Tariffs Agreements) Order and the New Bus Grants Order will be taken during this adjournment.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL
Read 2ª

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
3.27 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to make changes in the local administration of the health service in England and Wales]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Clause 1 is designed to undertake a fundamental reorganisation of the National Health Service, and we on this side of your Lordships' Committee have not put down any amendments because we are broadly in agreement with what is set out in that clause. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State powers to make changes in the local administration of the Health Service. As we understand it, district health authorities are to be set up in place of area authorities, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether she is in a position to say how many district health authorities there will be. As I understand the situation at present, there are 90 area health committees and something like 209 district authorities. Is the noble Baroness in a position to say what the organisation will be, because in my submission, clearly there are unlikely to be 209 district health authorities and, obviously, because of the size of the area health authorities, there must be more than 90?
I am wondering whether the noble Baroness the Minister is in a position to give the Committee some indication of what the pattern is likely to be. At present, the boundaries of the area health authorities fit in very nicely with some, if not all, of the local authority boundaries and it makes administration of medical services and co-operation with the local authorities very much easier. I wonder whether the setting up of the district health authorities will take into account the areas of the local authorities. Although I recognise that it will not be possible to fit them in completely, will they ensure that if a district health authority has to cover more than one local authority, as far as possible it takes in one division or two divisions of another local authority so as to keep the administration as simple as possible? Can the noble Baroness the Minister say how many hospitals are likely to be closed under this new arrangement when it comes into being?

1309
Bearing in mind that the changeover will take some considerable time—I have heard it said that it will take one year, two years, and even four years; I am quite certain that a reorganisation of this magnitude could not possibly take place in one year—is the noble Baroness in a position to say how long it will take, and is it the Government's intention that all area health authorities will be designated district health authorities? The Bill does not seem to me to be as clear on this as I had hoped. I should like to refer to the Notes on Clauses, at the top of page 6, where it is said:
"Subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State by order to establish health authorities for districts as well as or in substitution for the existing AHAs".
Therefore, it rather suggests that some area health authorities may remain, and I thought that that was contrary to the idea of the reorganisation.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether there is any implication of all this on the regional health authority. In what way will the regional health authorities in the country be affected, and will there be any change in their responsibilities? Further, I should like to ask the noble Baroness what sort of saving will be achieved. I understand it has been said that something like 10 per cent. will be saved, but I am not clear—perhaps I ought to be—of what it is 10 per cent. of. I notice that in another place it was mentioned that there would be a saving of about £30 million, or perhaps even more. I should like to know on what basis this 10 per cent. figure is given.
Furthermore, is it right to assume that the £30 million saved will result from the loss of jobs on the part of a good many at present working in the area health authority, or will it result from some other cause? So far as I can work out, having regard to the number of people employed, if the saving of £30 million is to be made as a result of a reduction in staff, it will mean that the jobs of about 3,000 employees will be terminated. If the figure is more than £30 million, presumably the number of people who will lose their jobs will be greater.
There is only one other matter which I should like to raise, and I hope that on this the noble Baroness the Minister can
1310
give some sort of comforting reply. We, on this side, have a strong feeling that the Government wish to bring to an end the community health councils. I cannot imagine that anybody who is familiar with the work done by community health councils could possibly come to the conclusion that their usefulness had come to an end. Notwithstanding that our hospitals deal with millions of people every year as out-patients and an enormous number as in-patients, and millions of people see their doctors and so on, the only watchdog that the consumer has—and in this particular instance the consumer is the patient—is the community health council. I should like to take this opportunity—in case I do not get one later on during the Committee stage of this Bill—of paying tribute to the work of the community health councils. I know that some area authorities, some regional hospital authorities, have found them to be a nuisance. But it is part of their rúle to be a nuisance in the sense that it is part of their responsibility to draw to the attention of the various medical committees, the area health authorities and the regional health authorities matters that are happening that ought not to be happening. We really ought not to be afraid of it. We ought to be glad that there is such a body of people, because the National Health Service is, as I said, an enormous concern dealing with tens of millions of people every year. It cannot always hope to do the right thing; it cannot always expect to do it. There are bound to be difficulties.
I believe that the community health councils have rendered the community —particularly those who are in contact with doctors and hospitals—a very valuable service. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to say that it is not the intention of the Government to seek to do away with the community health councils. I apologise for putting so many questions to the noble Baroness, but I thought it was better done under Clause 1 than to try to bring them in elsewhere.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I think that the whole Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving us an opportunity to look in some detail at Clause 1 and for the way in which he

1311
has introduced his remarks. It gives us a chance to look at the very many matters which come under this very important Part of the Bill. I am also grateful to him for giving me notice of a number of the points that he wished to raise. It is important for the Committee to recognise that Clause 1 is purely a permissive clause. It enables the Government to carry out the changes proposed in our consultative document, Patients First, if, in the light of the responses to the document, it seems right to do so. Therefore, it may help the Committee if I give some indication of the tenor of the responses that we have already received to this document.
There has been, particularly from within the National Health Service itself, a widespread welcome for the Government's broad objectives; these objectives are to simplify the structure of the NHS and to strengthen management at hospitals and community services level. Equally encouraging, there has been a welcome for the Government's specific proposals to achieve these objectives. In the context of this clause, that means the possible abolition of the area tier of health authorities.
There is a fair measure of agreement within the service that the major structural weakness of the 1974 reorganisation was the establishment of the multi-district area. The concept of the statutory authority at area level with its own team of officers administering an area divided into two or more non-statutory health districts, each with its own team of officers, has not worked as well as had been hoped. Lines of accountability have become blurred; there has developed an over-complex bureacracy; staff and patients have seen the authority as remote and impersonal.
If your Lordships approve this clause it will be possible to establish a general pattern of smaller unitary authorities based broadly on existing health districts, each with its own clearly accountable and simplified management structure. Your Lordships will note that the clause is so drafted as to permit a gradual change. This is an important point. There will be no one appointed day when the entire service undergoes an upheaval. We envisage that that change, if change there is to be, should be within an overall time
1312
scale and should come at an evolutionary pace to minimise any disruption as far as possible.
I should say right away that the Bill does not compel change at the level of the regional health authorities—this is one of the points that the noble Lord asked—nor indeed at departmental level. This does not imply that we regard the scope for change as existing only at the local level, but we propose no immediate change in the size, membership and functions of regional health authorities. I think it would be helpful to clear that point.
May I now turn to the detailed points that the noble Lord asked. He asked how many district health authorities there might be, and whether there would be the same number as area health authorities at present. The answer is that it is not possible to say precisely how many district area health authorities may be established if our proposals are implemented. We estimate that there might be between 150 and 180 such authorities, some 70 to 90 more than the existing 90 area health authorities. But decisions about this have not yet been taken, and I would draw the noble Lord's attention, on the point about links with local government and as to whether or not the district health authorities are coterminous with local government boundaries, to page 6, paragraph 5, of the Notes on Clauses in which he will see:
"Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to determine that a district may correspond with an existing area. In these cases the existing area health authority may simply be reconstituted as a district authority and renamed accordingly.
"Decisions on these points have not yet been taken, and therefore there is considerable flexibility about it at this stage".
The noble Lord then went on to ask about the time-scale. I hope I have said enough for him to recognise that we are not going to have one day on which this will happen. It will be a gradual process, which I think everybody will come to believe is a much wiser and more sensible way of going about this. If the proposals in Patients First are confirmed we shall be asking regional health authorities to conduct reviews of structure at area and district level and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
We envisage that many changes could be effected by mid-1982, but that might

1313
not be possible for all. Our present aim, as set out in Patients First, is that all structural changes should have taken effect by the end of 1983. The timing of changes to management arrangement will depend first on the date of establishment of new authorities who it is proposed will carry responsibility for these reviews, secondly on the availability of suitable officers, and third, on the possible need to negotiate changes to Whitley agreements.
The noble Lord asked me about the savings that we anticipated. Our judgment on this matter is that after the initial years when transitional costs will have to be met, the implementation of our proposals would result in a reduction in management costs of up to 10 per cent. I think that is where he has the figure of 10 per cent. At current prices we should expect this saving to be of the order of £30 million.
On the question of the numbers of jobs that might be lost, it is difficult to estimate a figure until the reviews, both of the structure and the management arrangements, have taken place. But we can say that there are at present 251 separate area and district headquarters organisations, and if our estimates of between 150 and 180 district health authorities prove to be accurate there would be a reduction of between 70 and 90 of these headquarters organisations with some consequent loss of posts. I see from the further amendment that the noble Lord has down that we shall be looking at this whole area of questions about redeployment, and so on, and I think it would be helpful if I left the rest of my remarks on that subject until we come to debate that particular amendment.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the future of community health councils. I recognise the force of what he has said, and I am sure that there are many people who recognise the valuable work that community health councils have done. I should like to confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will announce his decision on this matter when he makes his general policy statement on the structure and management of the service later this month. I hope, having answered these specific points and given our background to the thinking on this clause, that the Committee will feel that it is an
1314
essential part of the Bill and that we have taken account of the views that have been expressed to us on a very wide scale. We are, of course, still receiving information on the consultative document and we shall be proceeding gradually over the implementation of these proposals.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I hope that the Minister will heed the plea that where possible the area health authorties will be coterminous with existing authorities. One of the things that people suffer nowadays is that they have hardly got used to the name of the authority before it is changed. Certainly it is possible to be in one area for health, another area for education, another area to pay your electricity bill, another one for the Post Office, and so on. We add all the time to the complication of life to a number of very simple people who, in the end, really do not know where they go for the particular services they demand. This has never been more noticeable than in the health services.
If this change can be effected with as little complication as possible, I am sure that the Minister will see that this happens, even if we have to have a change of name yet again. That is in itself a confusion. But if the area could at least run counter to some of the areas that people already know, this would make life a little easier for the people who have to use the services.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Following on Lady Phillips's remarks about areas and having a name to cover a whole series of services, I would put a point to the noble Baroness for the Government to consider. I am not here to put forward any political criticism at all. I think that the noble Baroness and the Committee will agree that some reorganisation of areas covered by regional health authorities is in fact necessary. The most outstanding example is London and Greater London—the GLC area.
The present situation is chaotic in London with its divisions into sections controlled by a number of RHAs covering not only parts of the GLC area but large areas of rural and semi-rural districts with interests and problems completely different from the metropolitan area. In fact, the diversion of funds to outer areas by RHAs

1315
has enforced debateable economies in the GLC area, and led to hospital closures and other cuts against the needs of Greater London residents and also the needs of commuters travelling from the favoured outer areas who need and get treatment in London hospitals.
St. George's Hospital, as we know, has been closed, and Westminster is under threat because the proposed closure of the medical school will mean a drastic reduction in beds and reduction of service, albeit with a financial saving which seems to me the basic reason behind it. Apart from this, many thousands of medical cases are sent to London hospitals from all over Britain for investigation and very often treatment. I think it is an accepted fact that London has become a very important centre of medicine with a world-wide reputation.
The case for a regional health authority for London covering the GLC area is overwhelming, not only because of its density of population but also because of its unique position as a centre for famous teaching hospitals, and also taking into account the tremendous daytime increase in population through workers employed in offices, shops, factories, markets, et cetera, together with visitors for business and pleasure, and travellers in transit by air, rail, and road, all of whom present demands on the metropolitan health services, and hospitals which are not fully met or covered by the present piecemeal set-up of the regional health authorities.
One regional health authority for London would provide better liaison with the GLC and its associated London boroughs, providing, as they do, social services closely allied to the health service. It seems to me to be unthinkable that the country's capital, with its special needs, has been divided up so far in such a fashion, which has seriously eroded its medical needs. Here I attach blame to all the Governments who have handled the health service since its inception. In conclusion, may I say this: The Government must think seriously about this situation, which must surely be remedied, and in this I feel sure they would have the support of the Greater London Council and the people the council strives to serve.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. Corning from a rural area, I should like to tell the Government that their health district is served from Northallerton and the social services from Harrogate, which is in a totally different health district. It would be very much easier for health and social services to co-operate if they came from the same district and people knew each other. The poor old patient just does not know where to go or who to contact.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: Obviously, I was very interested, because of my interest in a regional health authority, to hear the noble Baroness express a desire that the change that is coming should be as evolutionary as possible. I believe in that myself, but only to a certain extent, because I think we have got to balance very carefully the feeling of uncertainty that will hang over a large number of National Health Service staff if the change is too evolutionary. I think it is essential that we set a deadline, for instance, for the appointment of chief officers to the new districts and that we should try in all regions to stick to that deadline as far as humanly possible.
I would hope that the noble Baroness the Minister implied in her reply that the reorganisation and the appointed day within a region would still remain the responsibility of the regional health authorities. But there is one thing that worries me enormously about the whole of this change. That is the responsibility left on regional health authorities to keep financial control during the period of change. That is another reason why I do not want the evolutionary change to be too elongated, because it is going to be very difficult to keep financial control during this period. There are many areas in this country which have created centralised finance offices for more than one district. It does not take a great amount of imagination to see what will happen when the chief officers of that area authority apply for the district finance officer's post. They have to safeguard their future; they are looking to where they are going in the future. The problem of dividing that finance office into three different finance offices, while at the same time keeping financial control, is not going

1317
to be an easy task, and the longer that period is the more difficult it is going to be.
Baroness YOUNG: I and my colleagues are grateful for the general welcome that has been given to this clause and the very helpful and constructive suggestions that have been made by all those who have spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised a very important point about not allowing the reorganisation to go on too long. Can I reiterate what I said at the beginning in answering the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about the time-scale of this? We hope that all the structural changes will have taken place by the end of 1983. This should give time for some evolution, but clearly not an indefinite length of time, for precisely the kind of reasons the noble Baroness herself has made clear, particularly about staff appointments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, both raised important points about coterminosity of local authority areas and possible district health authority areas. We recognise that coterminosity is important, but it is not necessarily the overriding factor in the structure of the NHS. We very much take the point about the value of coterminosity and will certainly emphasise its importance in any guidelines that we issue, taking account of the very practical point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has made on this matter. But it may well be that health service considerations such as the numbers of patients in one particular place or the siting of major hospitals might argue against coterminosity in some places. Practical effects as to where one actually has a hospital and whether it can, in fact, fit in with the local authority must also be considered. However, we take this point very much and I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take note of the points that have been raised, because they are ones with which we are broadly in sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised a point about reorganisation in London. As he probably will know from a number of Questions asked in your Lordships' House on this very point, quite recently we have been considering once again many of the problems of London. What is needed now is not really a further inquiry
1318
but some action, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has established a London advisory group to help him reach decisions on London. It will be advising on major health service issues in London and it has been asked to give priority to considerations of the pattern of acute hospital services in London and to the new structuring of the health authorities. We did in fact have some discussion on this very point in a parliamentary Question not so long ago, and I am quite certain that the right way of proceeding is to wait until this committee has given its advice on this matter. But, again, this is a matter on which no decisions have yet been taken because we are waiting for the result of this particular report.
I should say in conclusion that I realise I did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about hospital closures, but at the start of our deliberations I should like to confirm that we are not talking about hospital closures at all in this Bill. The reorganisation of itself will not lead to any hospital closures; that is an entirely different issue.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Health Service Staff Commission
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to appoint, within one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, two Commissions to be called the National Health Service Staff Commission and the Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission; and the Commissions—

(a) shall consist respectively of such persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint as members of the Commission after consulting the bodies appearing to him to represent persons employed in England, or, as the case may be, employed in Wales who are liable to transfer in pursuance of section 1 of this Act and any other bodies appearing to him to be concerned with transfers of such persons in pursuance of that section; and

(b) shall in the case of the National Health Service Staff Commission exercise its functions in relation to England and in the case of the other Commission exercise its functions in relation to Wales.

(2) It shall be the duty of each Commission—

(a) to keep under review the arrangements made by relevant bodies in recruiting and

1319
engaging employees and the arrangements made in transfers in pursuance of section 1 of this Act and to give advice to the Secretary of State and the relevant bodies with respect to the arrangements;

(b) to consider and advise the Secretary of State on any matter which he refers to the Commission as being a matter which in his opinion arises in connection with persons liable to transfer in pursuance of section 1 of this Act;

(c) to consider and advise the Secretary of State on the steps required to safeguard the interests of persons liable as aforesaid; and

(d) to arrange for the consideration of representations made to the Commission by an employee transferred from the employment of one health authority to that of another objecting to such a transfer and for the giving of advice to such employees by the appropriate Commission;

(e) shall so advise health authorities that no officer employed by a health authority at the date when the Commissions are appointed shall be deprived of employment within the National Health Service in consequence of this Act save with his express consent freely given to his employing health authority and the appropriate Commission in writing;

and each Commission shall have power to take any steps which it considers are appropriate for the purpose of selecting and recommending to Regional or Area District Health Authorities and special health authorities persons whom it considers are suitable for employment by any of those authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may—

(a) give directions to each Commission with respect to its procedure;

(b) give directions to relevant bodies with respect to the furnishing by them of information requested by the appropriate Commission and with respect to the action to be taken by them in consequence of advice given by that Commission;

(c) pay to any member of either Commission such remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service;

(d) defray any expenses incurred with his approval by either Commission in the performance of its functions; and

(e) wind up either Commission in such manner and at such time as he thinks fit;

and it shall be the duty of a body to which directions are given in pursuance of this subsection to comply with the directions.
(4) In this section "relevant bodies" means bodies from and to whose employment persons are liable to be transferred by virtue of section I of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany. The purpose of this amendment
1320
is to establish a health service staff commission, and the amendment sets out clearly the scope and function of the health service staff commission which we on this side of your Lordships' Committee recommend and hope to see. I am going to assume that all noble Lords have studied the amendment very carefully, and therefore I do not propose to deal with it line by line, but just to speak to it in a general way. In the last analysis—and I think this is confirmed by what we have heard from the noble Baroness the Minister and others who took part in the discussion on Clause 1 standing part—the reorganisation of the National Health Service as envisaged in the Bill will be a tremendous undertaking and we must not close our eyes to that fact.
Not only will it be a tremendous undertaking, it will affect a large number of individuals, and in many cases—and we must not run away from this—it will affect a large number of jobs. The best estimate—if "best" is the right word to use—is that it may result in the loss of 3,000, or possibly more, jobs. The Minister was right not to attempt to give a figure because it is extremely difficult until the thing gets rolling to know what will be the outcome. Thus, a large number of people will be threatened with dismissal, and it is therefore important to keep the human factor in the forefront of our minds.
I do not want to repeat what I have said on other occasions, but we are in danger of thinking of unemployment as a statistic. It is not a statistic to the individual who finds himself or herself without a job. It can be the most traumatic experience of any experience, and in moving the amendment I am not unmindful of the duties and responsibilities of the Whitley Council. The nature and size of the reorganisation is such that my noble friends and I are strongly of the opinion that there must be a health service staff commission. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government, and as a similar clause was embodied in the National Health Service (Reorganisation) Act 1973, there is nothing new in this; it has been done before, seven years ago, when the health service, which we are discussing today, was reorganised. In the circumstances, I hope the Government will

1321
not be opposed to the idea in principle, even though they may say there were difficulties on the last occasion.
Any major reorganisation—and, as I have said, this is one—is bound to affect a large number of people, and those who are likely to lose their jobs must have every protection and consideration. Noble Lords who remember the reorganisation of the health service in 1973 will know something of the morale of the employees and the shattering effect it had on them. I believe that to some extent—I cannot say to what extent—it had a lasting effect. From 1973 to 1980 there have been many difficult periods in the history of the health service and a number of unfortunate incidents, and there has been a great deal of turmoil in the NHS in the last seven years. That turmoil undoubtedly affected the service which the hospitals were able to give, and it undoubtedly affected many thousands of patients. We cannot allow that kind of thing to recur and we must do everything we can to prevent it. It is not unfair to say that this Government—and I am not out to make political points—are not very good at industrial relations. We are much better at it, so they should take our advice.
We have before us a Bill which will soon become an Act, yet no word from the Government as to what is involved or how the problems arising will be tackled. If I had not been raising the matter this afternoon, I do not suppose for one moment that anybody on the Benches opposite would have raised the question as to what will happen to so many people at present in the NHS. If the Government are aware of the magnitude of the undertaking and problems involved, now is the time to tell your Lordships what they propose to do. I hope they will say that they will deal with it by adopting the amendment. In the other place, the Secretary of State was not forthcoming on this subject in Committee. If, therefore, the Government will not accept the amendment, then I must ask for a clear and reasonable explanation as to how they propose to deal with the chaos which is bound to arise.
We are glad to see the reorganisation, but let us face the fact that it will throw
1322
up many problems affecting individuals, and they must have somebody to look after and watch their interests. I can say that a NHS staff commission is wanted by the staff side and by the unions—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will take my word for that—and that is a desire coming not just from these Benches or from certain people who are sometimes awkward; it is the desire of the staff and unions. The unions connected with the Whitley system have been involved in reorganisation, not only in the NHS but in other public services—I have in mind local government reorganisation, new towns and a number of other bodies—and in all those instances staff commissions were established and greatly assisted in the smooth transition of the reorganised services.
I have referred to the size of the task facing the Secretary of State and his department, a task which, it is thought, could take up to the end of 1983, three and a half years from now, to achieve. But whatever the time taken, it will cover a very wide field of interests taking in a large number of people, and to embark on such a reorganisation without a staff commission will militate against a trouble-free reorganisation. It is not only that we want the reorganisation to go smoothly—nobody would gain anything from it being otherwise—but we must speak of this as employers, for I suppose that every one of us in your Lordships' House, as Members of Parliament, stands in that kind of relationship with everybody employed in the NHS, if not legally then certainly morally. The Secretary of State must carry the staff with him, and acceptance of the amendment would assure that, because, as I have said, it is what they want.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind that several groups of different disciplines will be seriously affected by the reorganisation. I understand that they include—and the Minister was perfectly frank about this—the managerial side, but we are thinking of nurse managers, works officers, senior catering staff and several other groups, managerial people who will not find a job very easily in the present or future circumstances at the age they will be if they are deprived of their employment. We must bear in mind that they have given excellent service and have made improvements arising from their own skills. Let

1323
us pay tribute to the people in our employ. By their skill and competence they add to the general efficiency and smooth working of institutions and organisations, and now many of them will lose their jobs. I am sure that the Government are aware of that.
We on this side of the Committee hope that the reorganisation will be achieved in the shortest possible time. My noble friends and I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, in this matter. We hope that those who will be displaced will be considered in such a way as to be able to seek employment perhaps elsewhere in the National Health Service, should an opportunity present itself. Those who do not succeed in retaining their jobs should be able to obtain all the advice and help they need. Redundancy and similar matters have to be considered, and in my view and that of my noble friends a staff commission is essential. The staff must know that there is an independent body looking after their interests.
I hope that on this occasion the noble Baroness will show some understanding—I do not mean that unkindly, though I realise that it may sound unkind—because I believe this matter to be of supreme importance. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with flesh and blood, with human beings, I hope that the rest of your Lordships will feel that there must be set up the kind of organisation that we propose which would be in evidence and would give help to those who need it. I beg to move.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I say at the outset that this is a very important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has raised. It is most useful that at the start of the Committee proceedings we should be debating the whole question of a staff commission and the arrangements that we are proposing for the staff. We accept just as much as does the noble Lord the importance of maintaining the confidence of the staff during this period of reorganisation. The noble Lord asked for a clear and reasonable explanation of what is to happen to the staff, and I very much hope that I shall be able to answer the questions that he has raised and to reassure the Committee on these particular points.
1324
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made it clear on several previous occasions that the Government's view is that national staff commissions for the purpose of any National Health Service reorganisation which follows decisions taken on the document Patients First are unnecessary. However, I wish to emphasise that that in no way implies that we are unsympathetic to the understandable anxieties of health service staff, simply because we do not believe that staff commissions will necessarily smooth the path of reorganisation, from the point of view of either management or staff. In fact, the proposed new clause does more than seek the establishment a national staff commission or commissioners; in one particular respect it seeks to determine what advice they shall give to authorities. I shall return to that point.
I recognise that the proposed new clause reflects the wish of NHS staff side representatives that staff commissions should be established, and I take the word of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that that is the wish of the trade unions as well. However there remains the question: are the commissions necessary? No one has argued convincingly that a staff commission should, as the 1974 English commission was, be involved in the actual appointment of individual officers—that is, by shortlisting. Indeed, I have heard criticisms of the 1974 commission's role in this respect and fears lest complex arrangements of that kind should apply again.
So we come to the procedures for appointing staff. For the 1974 reorganisation, the staff side were consulted by the staff commission, following which the procedures were laid down. On this occasion, the staff side have told us that they wish procedures to be agreed between management and staff sides; and we have accepted this. The staff side have argued that discussions and negotiations over the whole range of staffing issues should take place within the ambit of the General Whitley Council. Again, we have accepted this, and taken action accordingly. This leaves only the question of appeals, and all along we have said that we accept the need for an appeals mechanism, if necessary with an independent component.

1325
In short, I do not think that a convincing case has been made for the need for staff commissions of the kind that have been described. However, I think that the respective positions of those who do and those who do not want staff commissions are not necessarily irreconcilable. There is some middle ground, and we must find it, perhaps by building on the recognition —shared, I believe, by both management and staff interests—that an effective appeals mechanism will be needed to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. Perhaps agreement can be reached in this direction. If members of your Lordships' Committee, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, or the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, wish to give advice on the form that that mechanism might take, I should be very happy to convey it to my right honourable friend as a matter of urgency. The advice could be given in the course of the Committee proceedings, or noble Lords may care to write to me, or perhaps discuss the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
now wish to turn to that part of the amendment that would require a commission to advise that there should be no compulsory redundancies, and to confirm straight away that we are anxious that these should be avoided if at all possible. Indeed, there are a number of proposals which are either specifically, or at least in part, designed to see that compulsory redundancies are reduced to an absolute minimum; and if that minimum proves to be nil, then it will be all to the good. First, we think that any reorganisation should be spread over a period of time—and I have already indicated the timescale: this is in part to help with the problems of the staff. That, with sensible recruitment policies in the meantime, will mean that we can count on natural wastage to take care of much of the expected reduction in posts.
Secondly, there are proposals for a premature retirement scheme. Again, I believe that this will have a very significant effect on the picture and, as with natural wastage, will take care of a significant number of posts. Of course, natural wastage and premature retirement are, in a sense, negative ways of avoiding redundancy, and we believe that we must
1326
be positive, as well. There may be people who, because of the changing needs of the service, have certain skills which are no longer needed, but they may have a depth of background knowledge of the service which we would do ill to ignore. In such cases we should use to the maximum any opportunities that there may be for redeployment, and, if this can be helped by retraining, we should see that this possibility is fully explored. I believe that if these measures do not entirely rule out the need for compulsory redundancies they will very much reduce them. But at this stage I cannot give a guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancy. What I shall say is that terms that we shall offer to anyone who is made compulsorily redundant will be fair, and we are quite ready to discuss them with the staff side.
What is now important is that we should quickly get down to joint management/staff side discussion of these important issues: how posts are to be filled; protection of pay; the terms for premature retirement; and, in the last resort, redundancy. A joint mechanism for these discussions has now been agreed with the staff side—a committee of the General Whitley Council. Offers have been made to the staff side and the first joint meeting of the committee has been held. We have a duty to allay the natural anxieties of those staff whose posts could be affected by reorganisation, by reaching and publicising firm agreements on all these matters.
The Committee may wish to know that, with the exception of pay, which will remain a matter for the functional Whitley Councils, negotiation of the whole range of staffing issues will take place in a special committee of the General Whitley Council. This committee has held its first joint meeting, and is to meet again later this month.
I hope that by setting this out very fully I have said enough to assure the Committee that we do understand the points put so well and so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the anxieties of the staff; that we have got agreement about these procedures with the staff side; and that the committees are meeting. I hope he will feel that we have met what I think are the quite natural anxieties as to the proposals that we are making.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is always difficult to take in what people say, and I should like to look at Hansard tomorrow and read carefully what the noble Baroness the Minister has said. But may I ask her whether I am right in thinking that when she says, "We will see" and "We will offer", she means that the Secretary of State, through his representatives, will consult with the staff side of the Whitley Council on all matters relating to staff—the transfer of jobs, the loss of jobs, redundancy or whatever may result from the reorganisation?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes.
Lord SHINWELL: Before the noble Baroness replies in detail, may I say that one listens to a debate such as this without having much knowledge of the subject; but I am bound to say that although the noble Baroness expressed sympathy and understanding and replied to almost every one of the points raised by my noble friend, the one point to which she did not reply, and which concerns me as a listener, is whether my noble friend was justified in asserting that as a result of this reorganisation probably 3,000 people associated with the National Health Service will be made redundant. The noble Baroness said that it was not the intention to institute compulsory redundancy. That is all very well, and she did refer to the possibility of wastage. But the question which really concerns one in a matter of this sort is whether, as a result of reorganisation —and reorganisation, no doubt, is essential —3,000 people are going to have their services dispensed with. I think that question ought to be answered, because I am bound to say that if it is not answered satisfactorily, although it is not my business (I am not on the Front Bench and do not decide matters of this sort) I should like to vote against the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on the point that he raises. In answering the first debate that we had, on Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?, I tried to answer the very question that his noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell put about the numbers of people who might be affected by the reorganisation. The figure which has been quoted is 10 per cent. of management costs; that
1328
is the amount of savings. But the fact is that we cannot give an estimate of the number of jobs which might be lost until we have the reviews of both the structure and the management arrangements, and these have not yet taken place. What I have said is that we do not intend that there should be one appointed day when the new arrangements will come into force, and one of the reasons for this, of course, is to allow time for consultation and for redeployment, and to meet the obvious staff problems that will arise and which, quite rightly, cannot be settled very quickly.
We have therefore, with the agreement of the staff side, set up the joint management-staff side discussions; and I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the kind of issues they will discuss are how posts are to be filled, the protection of pay and the terms of premature retirement and, in the last resort, redundancy. I should like to confirm that should there be compulsory redundancies we shall be looking at the compensation arrangements, and in the case of anybody who might be made compulsorily redundant the matter will be discussed with the staff side; and the staff side has agreed to these arrangements. What we want to do is to try to avoid any redundancies, but there will be all sorts of other matters that I think can be discussed, negotiated and agreed. We believe that the time lag between now and the end of 1983 should make a lot of these difficulties somewhat easier, because it gives us time to consult concerning staffing arrangements and to redeploy, and, of course, for there to be some natural wastage, which will also make the situation much easier.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: I am particularly interested in the turn which this short debate has now taken. In answer to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, when he asked how many jobs would be lost and if it were right that perhaps 3,000 would go, the Minister made a reply which related not to the precise question but to the savings in management costs; and I think I am right in saying that she thought there would be a 10 per cent. saving in these. I may be wrong, but it strikes me that part of the saving in management costs presumably relates to the reduction in manpower and

1329
relates to such items as wages, compensation, redundancies and all that kind of thing.
I am really now wondering what thought we can believe has been given to this estimate of 10 per cent. if we cannot be told how many jobs are to be lost. If the number is 3,000, the saving from wages and so on will be £x; if the number is less than 3,000, it will be less than £x, and if it is more than 3,000 it will be more than £x. At any rate, there must be some relation-ship—it may not be precise, but there must be a relationship of some kind—between the savings in management costs, said to be 10 per cent., and the number of jobs lost. I know that the number of jobs lost is only one part of the total savings, but I think the noble Baroness the Minister should go a little further in replying to my noble friend Lord Shinwell.
Baroness YOUNG: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Howie, was in his place when I was answering the first debate, but at the risk of repeating myself let me say that I do not know where this figure of 3,000 has come from. I have not given it, and so far as I know it is not based on any estimate at all. I am not trying to conceal anything from the Committee; I am giving the Committee all the information at my disposal, and should I find that I have any more information that I can give I will of course come back at a later stage. When I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, how many jobs I thought might be lost, I said that we cannot give an exact figure, but what we can say is that at present there are 251 separate area and district headquarters organisations, and, as we believe that after our proposals there will be between 150 and 180 district health authorities, this means that there will be a reduction of between 70 and 90 headquarters organisations; and it is on that estimate that the figure of 10 per cent. is based.
How many redundancies there might be is quite a different matter, and really would be impossible to calculate for the reasons I have given, because a number of things will inevitably take place in the intervening time while all this is worked out. The assurance I want to give is that we are doing everything we can to
1330
minimise individual hardship and difficulty: we are giving the extra time in order to help these procedures along; and we have got agreement over this joint cornmittee, which I hope will prove to be successful.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: May I come in at the end of this debate? I probably should have spoken a little earlier. May I say that, personally, I have great reservatons about a national staff commission. I have reservations because I lived through the last re-organisation of this service, when the national staff commission, the shortlisting and the national advertising of the jobs of all the top officers created really enormous problems and, I believe, great hardships for the staff involved in the National Health Service. So I would hope that we would not have a staff commission which undertook duties of that kind. I should have thought that it might be necessary for each regional health authority to have an appropriate organisation within each region to look after the interests of staff and to deal with appeals machinery within the region.
If we are to avoid an enormous up-heaval, we must keep these changes on a regional basis. What worries me is what the noble Baroness said in reply to the question of redundancies; that there would be a 10 per cent. saving, a saving of roughly £30 million. I agree that the figure of 3,000 is a figure that cannot be justified. Until we have carried out the reorganisation of the management structure within each district, we do not know what it will be; but my understanding of the reason for the reorganisation is that it is not to save 10 per cent. on administration, but to create a better-managed health service. I believe sincerely that there will be hardly any redundancies, because we need to strengthen the management at unit level—which is going to take care of the people who in the past re-organisation were pulled up to the top and were not close enough to the decision-making process. Taking account of natural wastage, if we are to reorganise the service so that it is managerially more efficient I do not believe that we are going to have a great many redundancies. We might have a few. Each region should set up its machinery to deal with the problems thrown up in that way.
4.32 p.m.
Lord GIBSON-WATT: Following what the noble Baroness has rightly referred to as her view of the future of the reorganisation—and I speak as one who was closely embroiled in the last reorganisation in the 1970s—I agree with what she says of the unforeseeable difficulties in this particular line that we ran up against after that reorganisation. I do not think that figures mean a great deal, when we are talking about 10 per cent. or 30,000. I would agree with her that that is not the core of the argument. I listened carefully to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, voicing, rightly, the deeply-felt understanding of those who work in the health service. I myself believe that what my noble friend has said about the appeals mechanism is really the core of the matter. I look forward to hearing more from the Government on how this will work out. I would hope very much, so far as Wales is concerned—for that is my particular interest—that there will be a separate appeals mechanism operating in Wales for the seven areas health authorities that exist there. But I believe—and I stress the point made by my noble friend—that when talking about a period of three and a half years, we will have automatic wastage whether or not we like it; we all grow older. The important thing in this, as she has said, is that every single case which is a problem and which could lead to any redundancy should have very special consideration by the special committee of the Whitley Council and by the appeals mechanism to which she referred. I repeat that I look forward to hearing more about that in the future.
Lord AUCKLAND: I rise to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has just said. I well remember speaking on the 1973 reorganisation Bill in this House—and speaking on it in a highly critical manner. Having served until then on the house committee of a large mental hospital, I have some experience of the problems up to that time and of the problems that have ensued since. This particular clause, as my noble friend has said, is the core of the Bill. The amendment which we are discussing, although it has some shortcomings, is one which I hope the Government will consider further; because the disruptions and the disputes within the health service over both
1332
Bills have arisen very largely as a result of reorganisation. The hospital management committees were wound up; we had the very large authorities, which undoubtedly served as best they could, but communications within the authorities and within the hospital staff (were they nurses or administrative staff) were not of the best.
I think the main problem of the noble Lord's amendment is this. This commission will presumably cost a fair amount of money to set up. We do not know how many people will serve on it; we do not know how much they will be paid for, presumably, they will have to be paid. Such savings as one hopes there will be as a result of the Bill may be eaten up in the setting up of a staff commission. One wonders how one is going to get over the problem of looking after the industrial relations side during this period of reorganisation. Although I agree that there should be no flexible appointed day, nevertheless I hope, for the sake of the staff and for the sake of the National Health Service as a whole, bearing in mind how much reorganisation there has been, that the period is not over long.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: 1 should like to intervene, first, to say that there will be some very agonising decisions to be taken by those responsible for deciding between one officer and another. It is not a pleasant task and I am thankful that I am not involved this time as I was last time. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, when she says that there will be practically no redundancy. I do not speak from the regional health authority angle, but from the area health authority angle in as much as I was a member of an area health authority for some time. In the present set-up (and some noble Lords will appreciate this point) there is almost a complete duplication, from top to bottom, of the area health authority staff and the district authority staff. That is one of my objections to it. If one takes that into account, even allowing for wastage, there is bound to be considerable redundancy. I am not prepared to put a figure on it. Nobody can. But I would forecast a far higher figure than any of those already given. This is inevitable, due to the structure of the service at the present time.
4.40 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think the Government must know more than the noble Baroness the Minister is telling us. I have a shrewd suspicion that she is drawing a veil over this. The noble Baroness referred to 251 management teams. I do not know the exact number of staff in a management team, but it is very substantial. She says that at the very most there will be 180 district health authorities, and perhaps as few as 150; but that around 70 to 90 management teams will go. I do not know the size of a management team. It would require only 30 people from each of those management teams to be discharged, and there would be the 3,000 I have been talking about.
I know that there is no point in arguing this matter any further because I am sure that we shall get no more information out of the noble Baroness the Minister. But I do not think that we ought to allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of false security, supported, if I may say so, by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who says that the figure cannot be justified. I am sure that she is not in a position to say it cannot be justified; she can only say that she would be very surprised if the number was as large. I am relying upon the figures that the Government have given: the 251 management teams will be reduced to between 150 and 190. I say that that will mean a very substantial number of people losing their jobs.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to confirm again that the object of this Bill —certainly this clause—is not to save money. I was grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, made this point quite clear, because our whole objective in this connection is to get a simplified management structure with better accountability. We believe this is something which will be welcomed by the public and it comes about as a result of our consultative document Patients First.
We have become drawn into the question of costs and savings, quite rightly, because the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised it. Having said we think there will be some savings, that suggests that is the purpose of the Bill. I assure the Committee that is not the case. I should like
1334
to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I am not hiding something from the Committee. I wish that I could give the information that he would like. Perhaps I can try another explanation and say that there is no direct relationship between the 10 per cent. figure that I gave of reduction in management costs and reductions in manpower, which is a very important point to make.
The reason why I say this is that the 10 per cent. reduction in costs is in fact our judgment of what we think can be saved as a result of the reorganisation. The fact is that the precise amount will depend on a whole host of local decisions taken within overall national parameters, but on local decisions about the grading of staff and the like. We cannot possibly judge now at this stage what reductions in manpower there might be. For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that it is a very profitable exercise to go round saying that thousands of people will be made redundant. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, quite rightly made the point from her great experience in hospitals that there will be a lot of redeployment into more effective organisations. I was glad to have her support that we could well manage our affairs within the structure that has been agreed rather than by having a staff commission.
My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt made the important point about the appeals machinery. This is a matter on which I have asked the Committee for their views because we have no determined policy on this matter. This is something on which I hope very much noble Lords opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, or my noble friends Lord Auckland and Lord Gibson-Watt, with their experience, may have something to say. That would be helpful.
Regarding regional mechanism, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I agree that there should be regional appeals mechanisms. Indeed, we want as much as possible to be handled at regional level. As I said earlier, we should be grateful for advice on the precise form that this might take. Only when regional mechanisms cannot resolve disputes would we see matters needing to come to some form of national appeal. This is very much in line with what the noble Baroness hoped. Perhaps I might

1335
confirm that we propose that there should be a minimum of national rules, and that flexibility should be given to regions to apply those rules by local agreement in the way which best meets the needs and circumstances which apply locally. We accept entirely that any variation from the national rules or guidelines should be the subject of agreement of the staff side interests; and, furthermore, that an effective appeals mechanism should be available for anyone who felt that he had been unfairly treated.
I think that I have given to the Committee all the information I have. I should like to give the assurance that if there are other matters they want to raise between now and the next stage, I shall be happy to write to them or meet them and discuss these issues. I should like to get as much agreement as I can over this important matter of staff. We believe that our approach is one that has been accepted by the staff side and therefore
will work helpfully. I should like to reiterate that on this one area of the appeals mechanism on which we have not reached any decisions we would be very glad to hear from noble Lords any ideas they may have. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is comforting to hear her words. This must be the first Bill that has been introduced into the House of Lords in the past 12 months where somebody on the Government side has said: "The object of saving money is not the purpose of this Bill". I cannot accept what has been said, and I must test the Committee on this particular amendment.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bowden, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kaldor, L,

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Collison, L.

Leonard, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wigg, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brock, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alport, L.

Chelwood, L.

Elton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ampthill, L.

Clwyd, L.

Falkland, V.

Auckland, L.

Colyton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Banks, L.

Craigavon, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Barnby, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gainford, L.

Barrington, V.

De La Warr, E.

Garner, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bellwin, L.

Derwent, L.

Gisborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Dormer, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dundee, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Gridley, L.

Marley, L.

Selkirk, E.

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

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Hanworth, V.

Morris, L.

Spens, L.

Henley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stamp, L.

Holderness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hunt, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Northchurch, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimberley, E.

Orkney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Porritt, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Redmayne, L.

Vickers, B.

London, Bp.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Waverley, V.

Lyell, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rugby, L.

Young, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Savile, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to make grants towards expenditure on services of common concern to health authorities etc. and local authorities]:
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 22, leave out from ("which") to end of line 26 and insert ("in the view of the Area Health or District Authority in consultation with the local authority will benefit or assist the public health, health education and welfare of the population within the local authority concerned;").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2 and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 because they are really consequential. I will address my words to Amendment No. 2 but, subject to what happens to that, the rest follows, I believe.
I welcome very much the fact that Clause 4 of the Bill makes joint financing statutory and that it extends its provisions to Scotland. I also welcome paragraph (b), which extends the use to which joint financing can be put to district councils in relation to their responsibilities under the Residential Homes Act 1980. All those things I agree with and, as has been said before, we are here discussing an enabling Bill, which, in the light of the outcome of the consultations on Patients First, will become the basis of reorganisation of the health service.
1338
To me, the whole ethos of that document, Patients First, is about a return of he maximum of power of decision-making to the local community. This is something with which, as has already been said, all noble Lords in this Chamber agree.
What I am attempting to do in substituting the words in 28A(1) under Clause 4 is to proceed along exactly those lines, to give greater power to the local people and to the communities to decide how they spend their joint financing. I am perfectly aware that a large number of different uses can be made of joint financing under the present legislation, but I am concerned that there seem to be what I think are unnecessary restrictions on its use in relation to local social service authorities. One of these, for instance, is in the field of health education. Health education is perhaps one of the most important things that we should undertake, because it is only by first-class health education that we will prevent unnecessary illnesses and perhaps be able to make sure that the NHS can meet all the demands of the community. Human beings themselves have got to do something to keep fit, and health education is one way in which we can help people to lead more healthy lives.
At present—this happened as a result of the last reorganisation—health education is the responsibility of three separate authorities; the education authority, the environmental health department and the NHS; and probably the largest chunk of it is carried on by the NHS. I believe it is essential that we should bring together in some form these three different authorities. We can do that by using joint

1339
finance to create something similar to a health education team, and thereby help to pool the resources of the three bodies and achieve a more effective result. If one thinks back to the medical officer of health's department in local authorities, that was more or less what happened.
It would also help to overcome the very fine line between the responsibilities of those various three authorities. This is something on which we cannot use joint finance at the moment. I should, therefore, like greater freedom for local authorities to take decisions themselves on how to use the limited funds that are at their disposal for joint financing.
In my view, joint financing will become increasingly important, because almost everyone now admits that with our desire to try to keep people out of hospitals, to keep them out of long-stay institutions and to keep them out of geriatric homes, we are moving more and more towards community care, and it is in community care where the interaction between local authority social services and the health services is very great.
Our aim should be to keep people in the community. For instance, there are schemes afoot so that attached to a Part III accommodation we might build a small nursing wing, which would enable social services personnel, community nurses, district nurses and health visitors to have a bed to which people, who normally lived in their homes, but who, for some reason or other, needed pure nursing care for a period of time, could be taken.
Under present legislation for joint financing, we can use joint financing money for putting that kind of wing on to a Part III accommodation. But, amazingly enough, under the legislation we cannot add it to a health centre; we can do it only if it is called a hospital. There are a great number of these small, niggling restrictions on how joint financing can be used, which is quite wrong. But they will always exist as long as the rules and regulations on how to use joint financing are laid down from upon high.
The Government are committed to returning power to the community. Here is a perfect example of where, if the joint consultative committees, on which
1340
both local authorities and health services are represented, feel that a scheme is justified, and they consider that they should use joint financing, that should be enough. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that the whole Committee has listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has said, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 and to the series of amendments. I am glad of the general welcome that she has given to Clause 4 on the joint financing arrangments. The amendment that she has proposed would have the effect of extending the scope of joint finance beyond the personal social services to a broad range of functions, some aspects of which lie outside the responsibilities of local government. Indeed, she herself argued her case on extending the area for joint financing schemes. However, the intention behind Clause 4 is to give legislative expression to the present well-established arrangements known as joint financing.
The purpose of joint financing is to enable health authorities to grant-aid personal social services projects that are likely to be of value in the overall provision of care in the area; thus, incidentally, benefiting also the health services. The words that the amendment seeks to remove contain the statutory definition of the personal social services.
The funds for joint finance are part of those voted for health and personal social services, and the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible for both. That is one reason why the Government believe it is appropriate for the National Health Service to help fund joint schemes in the social services field, but consider it would not be appropriate to extend the use of NHS resources in the way that has been suggested.
Perhaps I might take the example to which the noble Baroness referred of health education, which, indeed, is singled out in this amendment. In addition to the activities of the Health Education Council and those of the health authorities themselves, both of which are funded by the Department of Health, aspects

1341
of health education are carried out by local education authorities, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Transport on such matters as road accidents, the Department of Employment regarding safety at work, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on various nutritional matters, the Department of the Environment on health education with regard to sport and so on. It would be difficult to accept that National Health Service funds should be used for all of these matters.
The position in the public health field is that collaboration between local authorities and health authorities is already very close. The functions previously exercised on behalf of local authorities by the medical officer of health are now, following the reorganisation of local government in 1974, generally undertaken by an officer of the health authority appointed for this purpose by the local authority—usually a community physician.
Legislation specifically requires the Secretary of State for Social Services to make available the services of staff and facilities to enable local authorities to discharge their functions relating to public health. In these circumstances, it seems unnecessary to have to consider depriving the social services of any of the limited joint finance available to them.
The trouble with the term "welfare", which is included in the amendment, is that it does not have a generally agreed definition and could embrace a variety of matters, including social security. It is, however, often used to mean the personal social services and in so far as it does the clause, as it presently stands, enables joint finance to be applied to those services.
Even restricting consideration to matters which are specifically the responsibility of local government, there are clearly many fields with a health dimension where the health services can benefit from joint planning and collaborative effort. Such collaboration has increasingly been a feature of the work of the joint consultative committees, and we very much hope that this will continue and expand.
However, acknowledgement of such interdependence is not a convincing reason for using National Health Service and
1342
social services resources to fund the responsibilities of others. I think that the Government's position on this amendment is aptly summarised in paragraph 2.7 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which said
"The National Health Service cannot cover the whole field".
It may be helpful to the Committee, if I add that we recognise that joint finance, provided with a statutory basis as it is by this clause, has a very useful part to play in assisting the continued development of the personal social services and in enhancing collaboration at local level. In recognition of this, my right honourable friend has said that the amount allocated to joint finance will be gradually increased over the next few years.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. When I suggested that the use of joint financing should be extended, I apologise if I gave the impression that I thought it should be extended to all the fields which the noble Baroness mentioned. I thought that freedom to use joint financing should be extended, so long as there was agreement by the JCC. The JCC consists of representatives, members and officers of the health authorities and representatives, members and officers of the local authority. I should have thought that the knowledge that members of a health authority have of the limited funds available would mean that the way in which they would agree to money being used for the improvement of health education and welfare—I agree that "welfare" is a difficult word to define—within their local community was in safe hands.
I was hoping that, somehow, in the introduction to this Bill we could remove many of the restrictions that hamper people when they are trying to perform services to the community. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot accept the amendment. I shall read with interest exactly where I went wrong and perhaps will move a similar amendment on another occasion. In the meantime, I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I take it that the noble Baroness is not moving Amendments Nos. 3 to 7?
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: No, 1 am not.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of health authorities, etc. to raise money etc. by appeals, collections, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We oppose Clause 5 as we feel that it is completely and absolutely unnecessary. Considerable fund raising activities are being carried out all over the country by voluntary bodies such as leagues of friends and other organisations. There is evidence that such efforts are extending into the field of providing not only comforts at Christmas and so on but also—and this is very important—urgently needed equipment. Because of the financial limits imposed upon health authorities, they are not permitted to spend money on such equipment at this time. Why encourage health authorities to engage in efforts to raise additional finance when, let us face it, their major duty is to ensure the efficient administration of the health service? This work is being carried on by voluntary effort, at no cost to the health service. Therefore I repeat: why engage officers, and it may be quite a number, in fund-raising efforts when their primary duty and obligation to the health service is to see that it is managed efficiently?
Furthermore, and this needs extremely careful consideration, the effect of fund raising efforts organised by officials of a health authority could be to dampen down voluntary effort. The great value of leagues of friends, apart from their fundraising value, is the involvement of many people in the community and the creation of a relationship not only with the hospital but also with the staff and patients.
I mentioned this point during my Second Reading speech, and I invited noble Lords to come along to a fête in
1344
which I had a certain interest. I can say that the result of that fête, on a rotten, wet Saturday afternoon, was a net profit of over £4,200. My experience at that fête was remarkable, considering the weather. There were happy crowds of people at the fête. When I say "happy", I mean that I did not meet a miserable person. What is more important, the staff—the nurses and others—were running stalls and taking part in the effort, bringing some of the elderly patients around in wheelchairs. Most sensational of all, I found a chamber orchestra performing most beautiful pieces of music. When I inquired of the senior nursing officer where they came from she said, "They are our medical staff". This was a completely happy relationship.
May I put it this way: I doubt whether rank-and-file hospital staff would cooperate if it were a fund-raising function organised by officials of the health service and the hospital. Nor do I think that we should get the same community commitment and the involvement of so many people.
I appreciate that the Government intend the provisions of the clause to be permissive, but it is, in a sense, an encouragement direction. We are given a very vague indication of the sort of money raising activities that are envisaged. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who gave us a list which was reminiscent of a little function run by the Mothers' Union—the sort of stuff that is part and parcel of friends' activities. And they do much more than was mentioned.
This is a very important point. What are the officials going to be involved in? We have to be very careful, and there has been a request for guidance. All the guidance that we have had so far has consisted of extremely vague assurances from Ministers, both here and in another place. We have had a vague assurance that there will be no striptease dancing—and that, I am pretty sure, will disappoint some noble Lords. There will also be no topless go-go dancing. I have no idea what go-go dancing is, but I have a vague idea of what "topless" means. There are many other things like that. Apparently, there will be no pop music; we do not know for sure, but this is what we are vaguely told.

1345
There are other important things which should be included in the guidelines. Let us suppose that the district health officials decide that there should be a fête. That is all right, but there is nothing here to indicate that the Government must insure the fête, otherwise public money may be wasted in organising it. But when fêtes are organised by volunteers, they take that in their stride. It is beyond my capacity, with so many lawyers in this noble House, to explain in detail the legal complexities, but what about all the legal complexities of running fund-raising schemes? We do not want a district health official to be pinched and brought before the courts for having contravened a certain regulation, simply because the Government want him to indulge in fund raising.
I am not joking about this. These questions have to be thought about, and quite clearly the Government have not given thought to this. It is a great idea to start fund-raising to help the health service but it is already being done in a better spirit than it will be done by officials. I am serious about these guidelines. If the clause is passed, then these guidelines must not only be published and made available but they must also be approved by both Houses. They must be made available to every authority before they start so that they know where they stand. If not, there will be plenty of dangerous pitfalls ahead.
The clause refers to encouraging the gift of money or property in trust. How will this be done? Again I am not joking, because this is quite a possibility. One can foresee some enthusiastic official getting posters done and put up in hospitals on these lines:"Have you made a will? Don't forget your hospital". A nice sort of greeting for someone coming in for a major operation! The noble Baroness laughs, but some enthusiastic official might do just that, or something very similar. So that is the sort of thing that we must be careful about.
How will these gifts of money and other property be encouraged? What is in the Government's mind (if anything) and is it really necessary, when already considerable numbers of people and families are doing this by means of their wills and gratitude gifts are not unknown. In fact
1346
they are common, for the saving of a life or the birth of a child. At a maternity unit with which I have had very close connections (my grandson was born there) and which is a very important place to me because I have fought for it over many years the staff are suggesting to people who wish to make a present—always when a baby is born everyone seems to be happy and there are usually boxes of chocolates and so on for the nurses—"If you want to say 'thank you' give us a donation for the new foetal units which we are trying to purchase". These are units which can preserve a baby's life and ensure that it lives a healthy life, even before it is born. A number of people in my area have already donated considerable sums of money towards this end, although I do not know whether it is approved by the department, we are encouraging parents and grandparents of new born babies to give something towards these units.
I really cannot understand this proposal. The point is that this is already going on. Is it not beneath the dignity of the National Health Service for this system of special pleading, officially directed, to be included in Government legislation? I really do not like it. People are willingly responding to voluntary effort, and I am pleased to see it because whatever official direction there is of any Government service, be it the health service, education or anything else, voluntary effort is a very good ally to have, and the health service already has it, as the noble Baroness Lady Macleod of Borve said, in Bethnal Green and in a wealthy area that she knows. The enthusiasm is there: do not negative it by bringing in official schemes when the officials should be otherwise engaged.
Let us face it, official money-raising does not get the same result as voluntary effort. I quote the example of local government lotteries, which are not included in this clause; at least we have had some vague indication although nothing official. But they have been an absolute flop. The clause has many subsections which are not necessary in any case. The use of the health authority land, for instance, for fund raising; that already happens. We had our fete on hospital land last Saturday week. It goes on everywhere—why put it in the Bill? It is absolutely useless. Then there is

1347
property and money held in trust. Good Heavens! That has been going on for years. One of the problems of re-organisation is the passing over of trust funds. Why burden legislation with the useless and the unnecessary?
This clause is wrong in principle; it would be wrong and divisive in practice. It is vague and indefinite; it is completely unnecessary, it is completely useless and should be withdrawn from the Bill.
Lord WINSTANLEY: It may be helpful if, before the noble Baroness the Minister replies, I make it clear that we on these Benches have no very special fears about Clause 5, although I take the point made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, with regard to the possible effects of official action on voluntary activities by friends of hospitals and people of that kind. I share that possible anxiety although I cannot go with him in his fears that the area health authorities might dream up highly imaginative schemes and launch into extreme eccentricities with regard to strip shows, and so on. Indeed, if I had any fears it would be that they would be perhaps too little imaginative rather than too much!
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I did not say that. What I said was that vague assurances had been given in another place that there would be no topless go-go dancing and no striptease shows. I am sorry; the noble Lord might be interested, I am not.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Let me move on. I have risen before the noble Baroness replies merely because there is one point on which I should welcome a reassurance. This is a matter which was raised at Second Reading and it is one on which I think fairly positive reassurances were given. Nevertheless, I believe it would be helpful to your Lordships' Committee if we could be reassured again on one particular point. I should not like to think that there was any possibility whatsoever of a health authority that was particularly successful in raising money by these means later being penalised because consideration of its finances was taken into account by Government in allocating resources of another kind.
1348
It would be helpful if we could have reassurances on that specific point before we dispose of this clause.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I must apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, started to speak. I must tell him that the annunciators in the dining-room were not working and as I was having my first meal of the day I had no means of knowing that he was speaking.
In 1948 when the appointed day came and the Minister brought into being the National Health Service he said quite categorically that no officials of any sort were to help in any way with fund raising. Over the years that prohibition has been relaxed more and more until now the Leagues of Friends—as the noble Lord has said, I have the honour to be national chairman of the 1,080 leagues of friends—nearly all have an official of the hospital on the board. They have a matron, if there is a matron, or otherwise perhaps a No. 10, or they have the Administrator. They have somebody from the official side of the hospital, so inevitably when the subject of fund-raising comes up those people help. From those people down to the nursing staff, they now all help to raise money, as the noble Lord has said.
However, when it comes to the vast sums of money which this Part of the Bill will enable the authorities to ask for, in my view that is a very different thing altogether. For instance, it is within my knowledge that two of my friends happen to be chairmen of very large hospitals which need a great deal of money; so much so that each one of them is attempting to raise £5 million. There is no way in which an ordinary small league of friends, however hard it worked, could possibly provide that shortfall. Therefore I certainly support Clause 5, because it will enable people, whatever size of hospital they support, to be backed up by the authorities in the hospital.
One thing I should like to stress is that, with the network we have built up throughout the country of very good voluntary work, such as has been spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, it would be a thousand pities if the authorities did not consult with, take

1349
notice of and act in co-operation with, the voluntary bodies in their neighbourhood. Of course, I speak primarily for the League of Hospital Friends, because they are specifically for hospitals, but there are many other voluntary organisations within the ambit of the local hospital who would like to come in if the authorities asked them to do so. As we all know, money is not easy to get, but I think that if they work together and never oppose each other then the health service can be enhanced by this clause. I am quite certain that the Minister is right and I would go so far as to say is very imaginative, in my view, in putting this clause in. I think it will be welcomed by everybody, certainly, as I said, on my side, so long as the good will of voluntary people—who work so hard to provide amenities of all sorts, from bedsocks to chapels, from lifts to golf courses, for psychiatric hospitals; everything for their hospitals—is not in any way dampened. I am quite certain it will not be dampened by this clause, and I certainly support it.
Lord PARRY: Before the noble Baroness replies, could she assure us that there will not be competition with existing large charity organisations which fund such activities as those of the Spastics Society and other bodies, and that we shall not see competition on a fairly grand scale for such funds as might be available?
Lord AUCKLAND: I approach this clause with some misgivings, although I think, broadly speaking, bearing in mind that we are living in an inflationary era, nationally and internationally, that the clause is necessary. But in the last analysis it is the voluntary effort, the voluntary contribution, which not only raises the funds but raises the morale. My noble friend, Lady Macleod, mentioned the leagues of hospital friends, of which she is the very distinguished national chairman, and I know from experience what excellent work the leagues of friends do, particularly in the long-stay mental hospitals. They provide teas for long-stay patients and parents and other relatives on Sunday afternoons. In fact my wife and I have in the past helped out in these various functions. So I think it would be a great pity if the voluntary spirit of raising funds was lost. At the same time, as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, very often the matron or
1350
the chief nursing officer is on the committee of the league of friends. This is certainly true of the hospital with which I used to be associated. Indeed the hospital secretary comes along and helps.
So already one has teamwork between what one might call the voluntary side and those who are remunerated. Provided there is this spirit of co-operation, I do not think that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany—who has had, I know, vast experience in this field, and his speech was one of the greatest importance—should really materialise. For example, to take another sphere, again in the hospital with which I was associated and of which my noble friend Lord Grenfell, so revered in this House, was a very respected chairman of the hospital management committee, Queen Mary's Carshalton, there were cricket matches every summer between the patients and the staff and the hospital officials, the hospital boards; there was nearly always a raffle or something. They raised funds and they certainly gave pleasure to all concerned.
We hear a lot of complaints, I think quite rightly, about the entertainment of very important persons at hospital functions which have to be borne at the expense of the hospital and ultimately by the National Health Service. Particularly in the hospitals in the grey areas where there may not be the funds available, where the league of friends with all their efforts perhaps will not be able to raise the money; let there be (and clause 5, as I read it, will enable this) co-operation between the league of friends and other voluntary bodies and the secretary and officials of the hospital, if I may use that rather dogmatic term. This would fulfil the needs of this clause, about which I must say I am not happy, chapter and verse. I think the principle of the clause is right, in that at a time when raising money by voluntary means is far from easy it will enable albeit a relatively small sum of money to be raised in some areas. Provided it is properly supervised, provided it is kept within the ambit of the law, it will help the financially ailing parts of the National Health Service.
Lord SANDYS: We have had a very interesting debate on this important clause. I should like to begin my remarks with a reference to the speech of my noble friend

1351
Lady Young at Second Reading, in which she said that as we originally saw this provision it was one of the more minor ones, important but not as important as other clauses in the Bill. She pointed out that authorities already have power to receive, hold and administer trust funds. This point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. These include unsolicited donations and expressions of good will, and the noble Lord referred to gratitude gifts by patients, the results of the work of Leagues of Friends and similar bodies. Although this income is small in relation to central funds, my noble friend suggested that these contributions have an importance out of all proportion to their relative size. Even small sums or items of equipment can be of great value at local level. Fund raising also brings the local community closer together with its hospital. This point was constantly referred to by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I should like to point out that although the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, ended his remarks by saying that the clause was useless and unnecessary, he paid considerable currency to the value of fund raising in its present context. The Government's contention is this. It is a permissive power, and I think the noble Lord agreed with it. He also agreed that there was no sense expressed in the Bill that local health authorities would be compelled by pressures of one sort or another to make use of it. The Government's contention is that it is supplementary and I think that as such it is a very useful supplement.
The new power is a modest extension of existing ways in which the NHS can draw on voluntary funds. The reaction to this clause—or as we see it, from the Government's point of view the overreaction—of the Party opposite in another place in Standing Committee probably illustrates, better than any other part of the Bill, the differences between us. However, I think that the discussions in your Lordships' House have been of a more fruitful nature. This debate has demonstrated that we all want to see the NHS thrive. The difference between us is the means by which that should be done.
Although the Party opposite remains opposed in principle, noble Lords opposite
1352
have been rather more restrained than some of their more vocal colleagues in another place, remembering of course, that discussions in Standing Committee "G" occupied a considerable part of the procedures. I have spent considerable time examining this matter and I shall refer to one particular passage later.
There are two main reasons why we are giving authorities power under this clause. The first is to enable the NHS to supplement its existing resources; the second is to allow authorities to make better use of the present voluntary funds. I should like to refer to the speech by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place at column 569 of the Official Report for Standing Committee "G" on 13th March. My honourable friend Sir George Young said:
"A main reason for giving authorities a direct say in fund raising is to enable them, if they need, to deflect appeals for ordinary funds away from glamorous appeals for equipment for acute services. But it is not sensible to restrict their discretion to use the power only to assist with any of their functions. That would be cumbersome. We must allow authorities the maximum flexibility".
That is the Government's intention. We believe that in that sense authorities will be able to make better use of funds and to avoid the problem referred to in Standing Committee; namely, the problem of the purchase of white elephants.
I am sure that noble Lords have seen in the Official Report of the Standing Committee the particular examples that were given, and I need not go into that matter any further. At a time when public expenditure is necessarily being curtailed it would be foolish to do otherwise. As my honourable friend the Parlimentary Secretary said in Standing Cornmittee "G" at column 739:
"The demand for health care is infinite and resources are not. No Government ever has been or ever will be able to find all the resources to meet the needs of the Health Service. Voluntary funding is a useful supplement to central resources".
We recognise the reality of all this, and this clause is a modest measure designed to help the NHS close the gap between resources and demand. It in no way undermines our commitment to see the NHS properly funded. On this point I can do no better than once again to quote my honourable friend in Standing Committee when he said, at column 542:

1353
"We hope that substantial sums will be raised, but that in no way undermines our commitment to see the NHS properly funded, any more than the present power to accept and use voluntary contributions has undermined any previous Government's commitment to the NHS".
Nor will the raising of funds under this power be used to reduce centrally allotted funds. Here I come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and I was very glad that he raised the point.
In his closing speech on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne reiterated the categorical assurance given by my honourable friend Sir George Young in another place that money allocated from the centre would not be reduced by amounts raised under this power. I should like to repeat that assurance. The precise reference, for the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is column 710 of the Official Report for Standing Committee "G", where it says:
"I would make it absolutely clear that I, the Minister of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no intention of reducing the amount of money allocated to the Health Service by the amounts raised under this new power".
I feel sure that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
It would clearly be completely counterproductive to make such reductions. There would be no incentive if it were known that for every pound raised by voluntary means a further pound was taken off by the centre. The power is there if local health authorities want to use it: no one, as I said earlier, will compel them to use it. We are merely saying to authorities: if you want to draw directly on local good will then you are free to do so.
Much of the discussion on this clause has centred on the activities in which authorities are likely to engage when they use the power. There was some wild speculation on this matter in another place which I would not dream of dilating or digreesing upon. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to particular aspects which have been raised in your Lordships' House. The question of lotteries was raised, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, would like some guidance on this matter. Perhaps it would be more useful if I were to begin by mentioning that the Government will be issuing guidance to health
1354
authorities regarding the exercise of their fund-raising power. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the assurance that guidelines are currently being prepared and will be made available to the House in due course. I can give noble Lords an indication of the subjects to be covered. The guidelines will explain our intention behind this provision, emphasising our belief that voluntary funds are a valuable supplement to Exchequer funds and we think that health authorities should have power to engage in voluntary fundraising using the usual types of methods adopted by fund raisers.
The guidance will set out very clearly what fund-raising activities are permitted, and that will cover advice on three main types of activity: first, those not included in the type permitted in the clause—that is to say, moneylending, property speculation or trading activities; secondly, those such as large-scale lotteries, bingo evenings and gambling which are barred by other legislation—and I shall come to that aspect in a moment; and thirdly, those which, although they do fall within the general type set out in the Bill, are considered unsuitable for the NHS. Where there are difficulties they are likely to occur in relation to the third category. But whenever an authority is in any doubt about the legality or suitability of any activity, we shall suggest that it consults us or legal colleagues. The Secretary of State's reserve power to prohibit any activity which he considered unsuitable will be explained. I do not know whether your Lordships would like a lengthy explanation on lotteries. I shall certainly give such an explanation if the noble Lord wishes.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord moves to that matter, does he know whether these activities would be subject to all the other restrictions which other people have to undergo; for example, having to pay VAT on tickets for an entertainment? There is also the question of produce. If they are going to sell jams in order to raise money for the hospital, that may be condemned by the public health authorities. But I suppose that that may be one way of stimulating customers in the hospital. The matter is not simple at all. Any of us who indulge in money-raising know that you suddenly run into many different regula-

1355
tions and, indeed, laws. One wonders whether, because this is an official authority, they will be subject to the same problems. Perhaps the noble Lord does not know, but it is a very valid point for anybody trying to raise money.
Lord SANDYS: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has raised these matters because they are very practical and important matters. In general terms there will be no exemptions because, of course, much prior legislation covers the matters which she has raised. A question was specifically asked in your Lordships' House—and I do not have the reference under my hand—in regard to jam, which I think my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne answered a short time ago; he dealt with that important matter.
With regard to lotteries, I think that it would be useful at this point to say this. We shall be considering separately whether to give health authorities power to run "large" lotteries. The main legislation is the 1976 Act, and if health authorities were to have this power, it would be done via amendment to this legislation, the House having the opportunity to consider it in the proper context. The Home Secretary already has the operation of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 under review, following the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which the House debated on 29th October 1979. This is a complex Act, and it seems right that its scope should not be extended while the review is in progress. Health authorities may, of course, benefit from the proceeds of lotteries organised by hospital leagues of friends and other bodies who may register as societies under the 1976 Act. I should like to pause in my argument on lotteries and thank my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for all her remarks on behalf of the league of friends of which she is, of course, the national president.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I am the national chairman.
Lord SANDYS: Of course, I beg my noble friend's pardon. It is very important that all the comments made by the leagues of friends in this regard are taken into account. I should like to turn
1356
to bingo and gaming, because this has been mentioned both here and in another place. The clause would permit bingo and gaming machines only where these were merely a small part of a larger activity or entertainment and not the main attraction. These activities or entertainments are what are defined as "exempt entertainments" in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. One of the main conditions for bingo at exempt entertainments is that it is not the only or only substantial inducement to persons to attend. We can see no objection to bingo in these circumstances.
This Bill does not, therefore, give authorities power to instal fruit machines en masse or permanently to run bingo evenings. Health authorities and statutory authorities can only do that which the legislation allows. The legislation which deals with gaming and bingo requires those who want to do either to form themselves into societies or clubs and then apply for a licence. In other words, it corroborates my earlier remark that the normal restrictions apply.
I have dealt with gambling at some length, and I hope that I have clarified, to a limited extent anyway, the queries raised by noble Lords. We shall also give clear advice on the potential pitfalls in fund-raising; in particular we shall emphasise the unsuitability of any sponsorship of events by companies concerned with cigarette manufacture. Reference was made earlier to strip-tease dancing and go-go topless dancing. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, would like me to say a little more on that subject.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Please do not. It is highly embarrassing. I do not want to be involved with it. I was just pointing out that in another place the Minister gave great assurances, which I am sure will upset some Members, although they will not upset me.
Lord SANDYS: I hope that the assurances were clear. In the case of strip-tease dancing, perhaps I may say that this activity will not be used either directly or indirectly by health authorities or by agents acting on behalf of health authorities as a method of raising funds

1357
or as a method of attracting members of the public to attend fund-raising activities. Perhaps I have said enough in that regard.
The guidelines will deal at length with the question of National Health Service staff involved in fund-raising. I think that that point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who felt that officials might be spending time, either unnecessarily or time which could be better used in other spheres. We shall make clear that while preparation of fundraising events may become part of the normal functions of some staff, no member of staff should be under any obligation to participate in fund-raising activities as such. We shall also advise on the need for tact and discretion in any involvement of patients or their relatives. Activities such as ward collections will not be permitted. There was a reference to that in another place, which I think caused some anxieties, and I should like to give that assurance now.
The guidance will explain in detail the technical provision relating to the raising and administration of funds. It will emphasise the need for the aims of any appeal to be clearly stated at the onset, along with any secondary purposes. This should give a clear indication of the use to be made both of any excess funds raised and of funds raised should the appeal fall short of the amount needed for the main purpose.
I hope that my reply has been sufficiently full. Equally, if it has been too full, I apologise to those whom I have wearied among your Lordships, but in view of the interest expressed in it in another place and in your Lordships' House, I think that it was justified.
Lord PARRY: As the noble Lord is about to sit down, despite the fact that his full reply was very full, may I remind him that he did not give an assurance that the Government had considered the efforts of major fund-raising sources which are already making contributions to the health service. I am sure that the reply he has given has assured my noble friend, Lord Wallace, that his fate will not become a fate worse than death. I should appreciate an answer to my question.
Lord SANDYS: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, I am afraid that I can-
1358
not give him the assurance he seeks because competition will almost inevitably take place between fund-raising activities undertaken by health authorities and other bodies. As he will well know, it is very difficult to co-ordinate both dates and events within a pattern within the existing structure. Very often national charities are concerned with quite different purposes, other than hospitals. I agree with him in the particular case that the need for some local liaison or co-ordination would be highly desirable, but I cannot give him the assurance he seeks.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I should like to press the noble Lord a little further on the point I raised with him and to which I know he referred. In quoting Ministers in another place, I understood him to say that there was no question whatever of funds allocated to the National Health Service being reduced in respect of funds raised in this way. That I fully accept. My question was a rather more specific one. If an individual health authority is unusually successful and raises a large amount of money itself as a result of its own initiative or the generosity of the people who live in the area, is there any question whatsoever that that particular health authority might be penalised in its requests for funds out of the gross allocation to the National Health Service? This is a slightly different and much more specific point.
Lord SANDYS: It is clear that the situation as I have described it is fulfilled. The noble Lord may be referring to the activities of the Resource Allocation Working Party in this particular context. I think I can give him the assurance that money raised in the particular context we are discussing under Clause 5 will be sacrosanct.
Lord PLANT: Could the Minister give us an assurance that very specific guidelines will be issued to hospital management committees and local authorities who are running lotteries that they should not put undue pressure on patients, and in particular patients in emergency wards or out-patients, to purchase tickets and to make subscriptions to these money raising funds?
Lord SANDYS: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Plant, was in your

1359
Lordships' House when I mentioned this particular aspect. I apologise to him if I did not make it sufficiently clear. I am quite sure that the guidelines will be sufficiently specific for his purpose and will express those sentiments.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask my noble friend to specifically tell us that the Minister will also issue guidelines to authorities asking them specifically to consult all the voluntary bodies when they are asking for local money?
Lord SANDYS: The noble Baroness made her case with the adverb "specifically" twice. I will certainly pass on her suggestion to my honourable and right honourable friends and hope that this will give satisfaction.
6.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The only thing I can say about this clause is that in my view it is a most unfortunate one in this particular Bill. I understand it—by that I mean that I understand its inclusion, because it follows and flows from the philosophy of the Government. The philosophy is that if you can get money in order to reduce expenditure, then do so by all means.
I know that the noble Lord has said that his right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place has given an assurance that in no circumstance will any money obtained from any activity that one finds mentioned in the clause be used in such a way as to—shall I say?—cause the Government to give less money to the particular authority. But I must remind the noble Lord that we cannot trust the Government. We cannot trust the Government's word. The Government, before the election, were going to increase child benefit. They were going to do a whole lot of things which they have not done.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry, but that is not true. The Government are going to increase child benefit from next November.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: But we are talking about last November. We are talking about last April.
Baroness YOUNG: If I may return to the question of child benefit, which is rather wide of the Bill, it was increased in the April immediately preceding the time when we came to office in the succeeding May, and the increase in child benefit of 19 per cent. will keep up with the rise in prices.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That was done by a Labour Government. If the noble Baroness will look at some of the election promises, she will find that there was a promise made that it would be increased either last November or last April. That promise was not fulfilled. It was not the only one. If I am a little sceptical about the assurance that has been given by the noble Baroness's right honourable friend in another place, then have every reason.
However, it is not so much that which concerns me. It is that we, on this side of the Committee, believe that this should be the responsibility of the people, as personified by the state. The health service should be provided by the people through the Government. I see in this, if not immediately, an attempt to make local hospitals, not self-supporting—they will never be that—but to some extent contribute eventually towards their own support. It may well be that it is not the intention of the Government to do so immediately, but that is the intention and we shall be moving backwards to the time of the voluntary hospitals, as this country has gone back to the 1930s since we have had this Government. This provision will lend the opportunity to do so.
I want to deal with one or two specific points. First, if health authorities are going to raise money for special types of equipment, who is going to lay down what those special types of equipment should be? We know that a number of local hospitals are raising enormous sums of money to buy scanners. This is perhaps a highly desirable thing to do. But what they forget, or what they do not take into account, is the enormous upkeep of a scanner; the amount of money that has to be found to maintain it and work it in the course of the year. It is not so much buying the initial machine, it is its upkeep. I want to know who is going to lay down what kind of equipment can be bought.

1361
There is a tendency these days for hospitals to want to enter the field of some kind of dramatic surgery. When I was appalled to find how few consultants who are specialists in rheumatology have merit awards, and yet there are probably far more people in this country suffering from one form of rheumatism or another than from any other disease. It is not one of these dramatic things. It is not one of these things which bring you a lot of advertisement. There is no glamour attached to it. I am concerned about who is going to lay down the type of equipment that is bought and who will make those decisions.
I am concerned also about another side of it. I was glad that the noble Lord went at great length into the question of lotteries. He said that there will be no intention of putting in a large number of fruit machines. The implication of that is that the Government will approve of some being put in.
Lord SAN DYS: I wonder whether I could just quote what I said, and put the noble Lord right here. What I said was that this Bill does not therefore give authorities power to install fruit machines en masse or permanently run bingo evenings.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It does not give the health authority power to put in fruit machines en masse, which by implication means it can put in some. There is a serious principle here, and that is the whole question of gambling,with which the Government ought not to be associated. It is one of the worst possible social evils that we have in this country today.
A noble Lord: Bingo!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I did not say bingo; I was talking about gambling and, in particular, fruit machines and the like. It is highly undesirable that the Government should allow themselves to enter that particular field. When they come to consider what they will permit and what they should not permit, they certainly ought not to permit anything which can really come under the term of gambling as it is understood at the
1362
present moment. I am not talking about buying five tickets for a shilling for a bottle of whisky. I am talking about the more serious forms of gambling, with which I do not think the Government ought to be associated.
Another point is this. What if the income from trusts and lands and that kind of thing is so great that it mounts and mounts? Have the Government thought of that? Hospitals may be situated in fairly well-to-do areas, where people may leave a tremendous amount of money on trust to them, and a good deal of property that brings in a fair amount of money which cannot be spent. That situation could well arise and the money accumulates and accumulates. What happens to that? I am not saying that the income will ever exceed the needs of the hospital, but it could provide a colossal sum of money. Are we to understand that the Government will not step in and say, "Well, this was raised on behalf of the National Health Service, albeit for your hospital, but as there is so much money to spare and it will not be needed, then it goes into some central pool?"
I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this clause, because I believe there are more difficulties associated with it than would appear on the surface. I believe there is a very serious and important principle involved here in the Government associating themselves with some forms of what I would call pernicious gambling.
Lord SANDYS: Of the two points the noble Lord has raised, first of all I should like to clear up the question of the administration of trust funds. In my opening remarks, I quoted my noble friend Lady Young in this regard, because in her speech on Second Reading she pointed out that authorities already have power to receive, hold and administer trust funds; so this would be handled in the normal way. In regard to the special types of equipment, I made a specific reference to the problem of unsuitable purchases and I mentioned white elephants. One reason why we are giving power to authorities is because it is they who know whether they can afford the consequences of their purchase. In this context, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, mentioned the cost of maintaining a scanner. As I have said,

1363
this will avoid white elephants, and I think it is an important point that expensive equipment should lie idle, collecting dust. I am very glad the noble Lord raised this matter. We believe that it is catered for. There will be no specified list of equipment. The authority itself will decide what to appeal for, and we believe it will be the best judge of what is needed, what it is best able to look after and how best to adjudicate between conflicting claims in this context.
In reply to the very serious strictures which the noble Lord made in regard to bingo and gaming, I would point out that I said in my remarks that bingo and gaming machines will form merely a small part of a larger activity or entertainment. These gaming machines will form only a part and will not be the main attraction, and I think it is important to mention it in this context. Also in this context, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I said that the existing legislation would apply.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: As I moved the deletion of the clause, I think in common fairness and respect to the Committee I should reply. Noble Lords need not look surprised; that is how I see my duty. We have had a very good debate on this; it has been a very useful debate. We take this very seriously. I will make no reference to another place. They have their own peculiar customs, particularly in Committee stages, as some of the former Members of another place know. I see a former Chairman of Ways and Means facing me at the present time. Now that we have had this debate, I am more convinced than ever that the clause is ridiculous. I would call it a "silly-billy" clause if there were such an expression to use. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, spoke about some large sums being obtained from wealthy people. She said that people were donating large sums of money.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I hope I did not quite say that. What I did say was that chairmen of large hospitals are asking for large sums to keep their hospitals going. They have not been given them yet, but with this Bill they will have the power to do so, which they have not had so far.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: They have the power, and money is still being given. The Bill does not make any difference so far as that is concerned. If there is a wealthy businessman here who wants to give a large sum to a hospital, there is nothing to stop him; so it can be done now. That is my point. All these things that we have been talking about can be done now, except, of course, the provisions for bingo, et cetera. I want to point out to the Government that it is already evident from the ministerial replies that this clause lays a minefield of difficulties and risks for the future. There is no doubt about that. It is proved by the fact, which I welcome, that the Government are to provide guidelines. They will certainly need them, and they will want some very good legal advice in the preparation of those guidelines. I hope the Committee will give them thorough consideration.
One very important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, when he pointed out—and I entirely agree with him—that officials, including senior nursing officers and so on, sit in with leagues of friends now; there is no doubt about it. They spend much of their spare time, such as they have, doing it willingly and happily; so why disturb that? The other point is about the white elephant business. This happens with the friends that I know. Before a league of friends purchases equipment, it consults first of all with the consultants, who are always demanding something extra special, and then with the officials, not only of the hospital but usually of the district health committee as well. They come to a conclusion about what is the best thing to buy with the money they have available. Then it is done, with all the questions of maintenance taken into account.
What worries me today—my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has also stated this—is the possibility of the Government probably taking powers for larger lotteries. The little bit of gambling that goes on at the present time in connection with leagues of friends is nothing, but larger lotteries provide a tremendous problem. In a sense, this is a moral problem. It will offend a lot of decent, progressive people who think that it is wrong that we should introduce gambling in order to safeguard people's lives in a

1365
hospital. They are right in thinking that. I think it is a dangerous thing for the Government to get involved in, especially involving area health authorities, regional health authorities and so on. I believe we have to think again about this; we have got to think about it seriously. This clause was said to be a minor list of things, a minor clause. It is not; it is a major clause of principle. I will not divide the Committee. We have had a very good debate, and it may be that some of us might be able to provide some amendments to the clause at another stage.
In conclusion, I should like to thank all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken on this. The clause is far more important in its moral effects than some people think, and for the sake of the voluntary services I hope that no precipitate action will be taken by officials to upset the spirit of voluntary service that still exists, and must exist. Thank God it does exist, because it has a great effect in the community.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provision of public money for, and financial duties of, health authorities, Health Boards, etc.]:
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 35, at end insert—
("(d) to hospitals which carry special clinical units agreed with the medical profession sums allotted or further allotted by him to those hospitals to enable them to provide those agreed special clinical services in that year.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to introduce into the debate the question of central funding for certain special services. During a recent debate on the NHS I instanced the cost of the haemophilic unit at the Royal Free and said it was absurd that such costs should fall on the North Camden district. I gave that illustration then, but it holds good for most kidney units and organ transplants and for things like bone marrow transplants, and it will hold good if all the suggestions about Interferon turn out to be right.
The Government should accept that certain forms or treatment agreed with the medical profession should be centrally
1366
funded, not through regional, area or district authorities. This would have an advantage from the Government's point of view in that it could be rationalised. My view is that all forms of treatment that are available and known should be available under the NHS. They cannot all be available at district hospital level; certain forms of treatment are specialised and can only be given in specialised units. It is my view that those specialised units should be centrally funded, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I support the amendment because had the National Spinal Unit at Stoke Mandeville been nationally funded, it would not now be in its state of ill-repair and be nationally funded by the voluntary sector. Many people who have worked in and been patients at Stoke Mandeville Hospital's spinal unit—which, after all, has served most of the country and all the services, including many people from overseas—would have benefited had national funding been available. We must consider closely whether we are to have a regional or a national health service. National funding for centres of excellence would save money and, as the noble Lord said, it is too expensive to have a specialised service in every region.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It is quite plain that the ultimate source of the money for the specialised services to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, have referred is with the Secretary of State, and the question is whether it should go directly to a particular specialised unit or come down through the regional authority. The difficulty is that people concerned with a specialised unit have concern that they should get what they consider that unit requires. Local managers and authorities, on the other hand, have pointed to the fact that you can get too many costly specialised units which are difficult to control and which tend possibly to interfere with other priorities; and, accordingly, to get a balance between spending on specialised services and spending on more general services, you must, in our view, have proper local decision-making.

1367
That does not, of course, mean that decisions about individual projects should not be influenced by what takes place at the centre. The important thing is that the money which is allotted from the centre takes account of the balance of the specialised services. Our view is that the present system, from that point of view, is desirable, because the method of calculating regional shares of resources already makes allowance for services serving populations from one or more other regions or for existing specialties. To take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, although ultimately the money comes out of the North Camden district, the money which goes to the North Camden district takes account of the fact that the money will go out from there to the specialised unit, and accordingly our view is that for these practical reasons this is the better system.
There are some what might be looked on as legalistic difficulties about the amendment which perhaps go deeper than mere legalism. Hospitals as such cannot receive funds; they would have to go to some authority. Whether a hospital should establish or continue to house some specialised clinical service is a decision not for the Secretary of State to agree with the medical profession; it is for the health authorities to reach decisions on such matters within agreed national planning machinery. The medical profession—although I think we all recognise what it is—is not a very precise term in this context.
Who is it with whom this agreement is to be made in relation to a specialised unit? We would say that decisions of that kind are better taken by the authorities, of course within a national planning framework, Accordingly, it looks as though the amendment, put into effect, would make it extremely difficult to make the necessary calculations to enable this form of funding to go through, and, indeed, create a special bureaucracy to deal with this aspect. Accordingly, while I entirely understand the concern which has been expressed, our view is that the better system is the one presently proposed, and I invite the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: I regret that the Government are taking a negative
1368
view about this subject and I beg them to think again about it. There would be from the Government's point of view several advantages which they have obviously ignored. The first is the one I mentioned, that of rationalisation. It is not possible to have, say, haemophilic units everywhere in the country, and therefore when such a unit is established it must serve several regions.
I do not think that, if there was central funding, the Secretary of State would be presented with any difficulty in having discussions with representatives of the medical profession, because the Government are frequently in conference with such representatives. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, being a lawyer, sees legal loopholes, but I do not think that he need be so legalistic about this point, bearing in mind what I say about the Government frequently being in conference with representatives of the medical profession. This is common practice.
I always thought that the amendment might need to be more tightly drafted, and I am not too bothered about that. I hope that Members of your Lordships' Committee also will not be too bothered about that. If the amendment needs more careful drafting, I hope that people more capable at drafting than I am will do that. I should like the Government to think again about this question on that score.
I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord about the difficulty of calculating. If it is agreed that the country should have a certain number of units to deal with certain types of illness or to provide a certain type of treatment for a common illness, then it would not be too difficult to decide where these units should be located. In fact, usually such a question solves itself. At this moment, for example, most of the advanced treatments are carried out by hospitals through specialists receiving trust funds. The selection takes place in that way. All that my proposal would entail would be the Government agreeing to take on and fund this role as part of the National Health Service. That is all I am asking for.
I know that in the allocation of funds to regions, areas, and districts the question of special expenditure is taken into

1369
account. But this question of taking into account special expenditure—and in the eyes of those who have to do the job it is not quite being taken into account—has caused some of our problems. Putting aside the question of whether funding regionally and locally is a better method, the central funding of the special projects would be a marked improvement over the present situation and would prevent some of the problems that have arisen so far.
I never intended to divide the Committee on this amendment. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord who replied for the Government would see that they gave it careful study. I am still asking for that. I am not asking for more than that, but I shall return to this question at the Report stage, because I regard it as of the utmost importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.34 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We come to a rather important clause, which deals with the provision of public money for, and the financial duties of, health authorities, health boards, and so on. I wish to confine myself to one aspect of the clause, relating to the Government's intention to impose cash limits on health authorities. If I understand the clause correctly, not only will the Government impose cash limits on health authorities, but the limits will be legally binding. This matter exercises my mind rather more than do some of the other aspects. If the limits are to be legally binding, I would ask the Minister how the requirement will be enforced. How does one set about legally enforcing the cash limit if a health authority overspends? What are the penalties? I am not being facetious about this. I really do not know how this situation is to be dealt with.
It is reasonable to expect the Government to be in control of public expenditure. We may disagree with the Government about how they do that, but we suggest that, if measures need to be taken against a health authority that has overspent, it would be much more acceptable if they were taken in an administrative, rather
1370
than a legal, manner. I am not unaware of the fact that in the past some health authorities have run into financial difficulties, and have overspent. I am also aware, as will be other noble Lords, that the present Secretary of State took what some of us felt was unnecessarily drastic action against one authority when instead he could have used existing powers.
I regard the clause as most unsatisfactory because it suggests a course of action without giving any indication as to how it is to be implemented. It is one thing to look at the scope, function and responsibility of a health authority from the remote situation of the office of a Secretary of State, or an office in the department. On the other hand, it is almost impossible for a health authority to make arrangements in advance to cover every financial crisis, contingency, or emergency likely to arise. There are day-to-day problems on which decisions must be made, involving the spending of money, and one makes such decisions because one thinks that they are right.
I remember that when I was at the department a situation arose relating to the City and East London Area Health Authority, which was likely to be overspent by about, I believe, £600,000. Given its problems, the authority was finding it very difficult to comply with the requirements of its budget. Such a situation is not at all surprising. Many area health authorities have such experiences. On that occasion my right honourable friend Mr. Roland Moyle, the then Minister of State, after much discussion came to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to allow the AHA in question to carry the amount into the next financial year. That was done, and I believe that the matter was satisfactorily resolved.
I can well understand that it may not be possible to take action such as that on every occasion. However, I do not like the recourse to some form of legal action. Surely the Government realise that if we are to have an efficient National Health Service, there must be co-operation and understanding between the theoreticians at the top and those people who are providing the service and coping with the day-to-day issues. I do not think that the kind of sanction proposed in the Bill is likely to foster the kind of relation-

1371
ship which should exist, and which I am sure the Secretary of State himself would want to exist, between him and those doing the day-to-day work.
As I said a short while ago, I think this clause is really very unsatisfactory. In our view it will result in concealed cuts, because you could get a situation where a health authority, fearing that it might run into the red, that it might overspend, will underspend continuously throughout the year in order to avoid overspending and therefore will perhaps finish up with not having spent the money that it was given to spend in the first instance—and, if I may say so, we have had underspending. I think this could affect the services; that we could find it a threat to the services; in other words, that it could result in a cut in medical services.
It would also give rise, I think, to a lack of flexibility, and it is not now possible to run a large concern unless there is a measure of flexibility. So I feel that this threat of some legal action may cause inflexibility; I think it will cause some sort of under-spending; and, of course, it must cause a great deal of uncertainty on the part of those people who are administering the health authority. I do not know whether the noble Baroness the Minister will feel that anything can be done about this. Perhaps I ought to content myself with some kind of explanation as to what is meant by legally enforceable "or" legally binding", and I should be grateful to have that information.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, should feel that this is a very unsatisfactory clause, but I can assure him that in this we are not seeking any new, draconian powers. Health authorities have always been expected to conduct their business within the financial resources allocated to them, and the introduction of cash limits on public expenditure required us to change our methods of financial management. It might be helpful if I explained in a little more detail why the new procedure is necessary.
The vast majority of health authority funds are money voted by Parliament to the DHSS. Like all other Government departments, the DHSS must not exceed
1372
the sums voted by Parliament; and this, obviously, is a basic rule. Under the existing provisions of the 1977 National Health Service Act, the Secretary of State has a duty to advance to health authorities such sums as they need to meet approved expenditure. As the Minister for Health explained in Standing Committee in another place, it is clear that we have a mismatch here. Health authorities are to be judged by how much they expend: the DHSS by how much it advances. As he said, authorities could legitimately build up their stocks or reduce the amount they owe to creditors, and still keep within the approved expenditure ceiling; but the DHSS could, as a result, overspend because, by the letter of the law, it had to advance the cash to finance these transactions.
This situation began to cause problems only when the previous Administration introduced cash limits. Before then, the DHSS could seek supplementary estimates to adjust the relationship between approved expenditure by the NHS and the actual cash requirements on the DHSS that this expenditure would generate. Cash limits, however, placed a ceiling on the amount which could be sought by way of supplementary estimates, and eliminated this sort of adjustment. Noble Lords will therefore see that it is necessary to relieve the Secretary of State of his duty to advance sums needed to meet approved expenditure and replace it with one to make a predetermined quantum of cash advances. This is what is achieved by the new Section 97.
As I have indicated, the old system of approving expenditure involved the submission of estimates for approval. We believe this is now unnecessarily bureaucratic, since the distribution of resources is now guided by the RAWP mechanism. However, the Secretary of State has no formal machinery for ensuring that certain money is spent according to national policy. The Minister quoted joint financing as a example where, as a national policy, we (the Government) earmark part of health authority funds for this purpose. To cover this, we have provided that in place of calling for, approving or modifying estimates, the Secretary of State should have a simple power of direction relating to the application of funds by health authorities in the new Section 97(3).

1373
The noble Lord asked a quite specific question about how a cash limit can be legally enforced, and I would try to explain in this way. If a cash limit is overspent in year 1, the overspending will be taken off in year 2. This happens at present. But if the authority persistently overspends, we must embark on our RAWP powers on the ground that it has not complied with its duty. This is the new duty imposed by this clause.
I hope that this makes it quite clear, but perhaps I should say, further, that if a health authority ask for more money because they have over-committed themselves, the Secretary of State can obviously say only either "No" or"Yes", with the DHSS as a consequence exceeding the estimate voted by Parliament and having to answer to the Public Accounts Committee. To avoid this sort of situation, the new Section 97A places a duty on health authorities so to conduct their business as not to exceed their income. Such a statutory duty on health authorities is rather a blunt instrument. Overspending can occur because of inadequate financial control as well as by deliberate act. The new Section 97A(4) introduces a power of direction relating to this duty. This will enable us to prescribe minimum standards of financial control, budget arrangements, et cetera.
I hope that as a result of this explanation the noble Lord will feel that this is a sensible provision. It is the kind of provision which I think would have become necessary—and he would have recognised it—once cash limits were introduced, as they were, of course, under the previous Administration, when he himself was a member of the Government; and he will perhaps have had experience of the kind of difficulty that might have arisen. It is included in this Bill, not to raise any fundamentally new principles but to enable us to have tighter financial controls because of the cash limits, obviously, as the name implies, on National Health Service spending. I hope I have made the position clear. If, on reflection or on reading anything that I have said, the noble Lord would like any further explanation, I should of course be very happy to write to the noble Lord on it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to press the noble Baroness the Minister tonight; I really want this for my own information. As I understand it, cash limits can be legally enforceable. I merely asked, in what way? The noble Baroness said that if they did it a second year then action could be taken. I want to know what kind of action is possible under the clause. In point of fact, what would that action be, and what would be the penalties? I know this matter is very complicated, and I will not press it tonight. I do not know whether the noble Baroness feels that I could get a specific answer to this by letter before the Report stage, but I should be quite happy about that.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall try to give a more detailed answer, and then, if it is not as full as the noble Lord would like, I will of course write to him further. He is probably thinking how the new powers that we have in this Bill would have avoided the situation last year, when a health authority overspent its money. There is a power for the Secretary of State in the proposed Section 97A(4) to issue directions to ensure that authorities comply with their new duty. We anticipate making general dirctions under these powers. One such direction will specify that area health authorities should submit to regions a profile of their expenditure for the forthcoming year showing how much they expect to spend each month and in total. If the profile submitted is more than the sum allotted plus other income, then, if reason does not prevail, the region can ask the Secretary of State to issue a specific direction to the area health authorities seeking a reduction in forecast expenditure to the required level. Similarly, general directions will provide for actual spending to be reported and compared with the profile. If the trend of actual expenditure exceeds that forecast on the profile, then, failing reasonable explanations, the regional health authority may wish to ask the Secretary of State for a specific direction requiring the rate of expenditure to be reduced.
Once specific directions with time scales have been issued but not complied with, it will be clearly possible for the Secretary of State as a last resort to invoke the default powers in Section 85 of the Act. I should make it quite clear that we hope

1375
it will never be necessary to issue specific directions to authorities. It is quite alien to the tradition of relationships between DHSS and health authorities under successive Governments for recourse to be had to the law. Nevertheless, if we are to discharge our financial duty to Parliament, we believe that this power must be there in the background.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I will not trouble the noble Baroness to write to me. I should like to read this and perhaps raise the matter with her privately if necessary.
Clause 6 agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON Baroness MASHAM of ILTON moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Provision for payment of dependants of doctors for work done in the practice
—(1)The Minister shall make regulations under section 29 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (Regulation of financial arrangements of hospital authorities and other bodies) to provide that payment may be made to—

(a) the wife; and

(b) any dependent

of a doctor or of one of his partners in a general practice for work relating to the medical practice performed on behalf of the doctor.
(2) Claims for payments under subsection (1) above shall be submitted to the Family Practitioner Committee which shall determine, after consultation with the local medical committee where necessary, whether the payments are reasonable having regard to the nature of the work performed.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in that of the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Pitt of Hampstead. During the Second Reading of the Health Service Bill, I brought to the notice of your Lordships the question of the provision for payment of the dependents of doctors for the work done in the practice. Before explaining the present situation and what this amendment sets out to do, I should like to say that it has all-party support. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, told me that he would support this amendment but he cannot be present today; he is in Newcastle being awarded the gold medal of the British Medical Association, one of the Association's
1376
highest honours. The noble Lord has made an outstanding contribution to the improvement of general practice.
At the moment general practitioners are reimbursed for the major part (70 per cent.) of the expense of employing paid ancillary help. It applies only to staff directly employed and paid by the doctor, the partnership or the group. It does not apply to the wife or other dependents living in the residence of the doctor or of his or her partner. A single doctor can employ a secretary or receptionist and be reimbursed. If he marries her, he can still employ her but he is no longer reimbursed. This seems to me to be discriminatory against wives. Doctors and their wives in the rural areas feel very strongly about this injustice. It is important to raise the morale and to give the dependents of doctors the chance to work for the practice as there is now a great deal of frustration. I think that this applies mainly to the practice where the doctor is single-handed or where there are only two partners. I should like to quote from a letter that I received from a doctor in Kent yesterday:
"I practise from my own house in a rural partnership running an appointment system so that my wife is working not only for me but for my partners. I am the only resident doctor in the village where we have lived for over 30 years. The obvious step would appear to be for my wife to resign as secretary-receptionist but it is quite simply impossible to find anyone to take her place. For the appointment system to run efficiently, the telephone is in almost constant use from 8 a.m. to midday and again from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. These are what I would call office hours and are the basic times for which my wife would claim payment".
When a doctor is on call, so is his wife. If he is out on a call and someone telephones or calls with an emergency, it is the wife who in most cases has to take the message or deal with the patients. Primary health is so important that the telephone may ring at any time at night or in the early hours. We do not want to lose the goodwill of doctors' wives; they can make all the difference especially when dealing with distressed and anxious relatives or patients. I understand that doctors can now be reimbursed for employing their wives if they are trained nurses. It can often be more difficult to find good and reliable secretaries, especially in rural areas.
In the second part of the amendment, there is a safeguard should doctors and

1377
their wives try to abuse the system. Payments would be submitted to the family practitioner committee which would determine, after consultation with the local medical committee, where necessary, whether the payments are reasonable having regard to the nature of the work performed. I understand that Members of Parliament as of right (and, in many instances, in practice) employ their wives as their secretaries for parliamentary purposes. Is it not a convenient and sensible thing to do in some cases? To me, this seems to be a similar situation to doctors employing their wives or dependents. I am also told by a right reverend Prelate of this House that Bishops and vicars can take advantage of this, too. I hope that this amendment will be considered with care. I think that it is the first time that this subject has been before your Lordships for a decision. I hope that the Government will accept it and, if not, that your Lordships will support it so that Members have a chance of discussing it in the other place.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Perhaps I may be permitted, before the noble Baroness, replies, to say a few words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who moved this very necessary amendment. Perhaps I may say a few words about the history whereby we have arrived at this absurd, well-nigh Gilbertian situation under which a doctor or a group of doctors or a partnership can employ a receptionist or secretary or nurse and can now gain something like 70 per cent. reimbursement of expenses of that employment from central funds. But if one of the doctors displays an interest in that receptionist beyond a professional one and finally, as the noble Baroness has said, marries her, then suddenly the practice must pay the whole of the cost. That is an absurd situation.
Noble Lords will recall that, going back, we had a situation under which the general practitioners were remunerated out of a pool on a capitation basis and they paid all their own expenses. That necessarily meant that the doctor who gave the best service and employed a receptionist, a secretary, a nurse or whatever, was inevitably worse off than the doctor who provided an inferior service. In order to encourage doctors to employ ancillaries and to provide a better service
1378
for patients, arrangements were made whereby doctors could obtain reimbursement of necessary expenses if they incurred them. But the person left out was the wife. That person is still left out. It really is an absurd situation.
Briefly, we are not talking about arrangements whereby a GP employs his wife to answer the phone at home—an arrangement about which he can persuade the Inland Revenue to accept that she is employed. We are talking about a person doing a full-time active job for which often there is a training course run by the family practitioner committee, a post over which there is ample supervision. This is not for a nominal employment of a wife, but a wife working very long hours doing a very real job. If the receptionist is not the wife of the doctor then he gets reimbursed as to 70 per cent. of the cost. If the receptionist becomes the wife of one of the doctors, then suddenly the practice or the partner has to pay the lot. That is a situation which should end and end quickly.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness. There is a parliamentary precedent for this: Members of another place employing their wives as secretaries get an expense allowance. Apart from that, the case put by the noble Baroness for the rural areas is a strong one. I know there are difficulties, but it is a case that deserves careful consideration and support.
Lord AUCKLAND: This is an important amendment. There are many wives who are first-class secretaries. They can deal with patients who may be nervous about seeing the doctor. The wives can give comfort, help and assurance which often a receptionist—no matter how qualified she may be—may not have the skills to do. She may not be as mature as the wife who may have a family of her own. I never realised—and I do not suppose many Members of the Committee realise—until I saw this amendment, that this anomaly existed. It seems to me—and I, like many Members of the Committee, have a wife who is a fully qualified secretary—that such people could do an excellent job and improve substantially the quality of a doctor's practice and be of enormous help. This is one of the most vaulable amendments to the Bill.
Viscount BARRINGTON: I know very little about this matter. I am not a married man, I am not a doctor, and I am not a politician. With great respect, although I would have voted against many of the previous amendments, if this one is put to the vote I am inclined to vote for it on the grounds that it seems to me unfair that if I had a secretary or assistant to whom I was already married I would not be entitled to financial reimbursement. This would also apply if I later married my receptionist or secretary.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will have arguments against this; but this seems to be a reasonable amendment which could do no harm and could do good. Speaking as a bachelor, a non-doctor and a non-politician, who therefore does not have a wife (who has learned shorthand in order to be of assistance), I am in favour of the principle of this amendment.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I recognise the strength of the feeling of the Committee and it is an issue, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said, which she raised during the Second Reading debate. I say right away that the Government recognise the case which has been put most forcefully this evening that many GPs are assisted in their practice by their relatives, particularly by their wives, and that some are employed in this way on a regular basis. There is no legal impediment to this. The Government are also keenly aware of the strength of feeling among GPs and relatives working with them about their exclusion from the reimbursement arrangements for non-related ancillary staff employed by GPs. This exclusion is of long standing—it goes back to the start of the ancillary staff reimbursement scheme in 1966, which was agreed at that time with the representatives of the medical profession.
Under that scheme, a GP can claim 70 per cent. of the cost of employing ancillary staff on approved duties—these are secretarial, receptionist, clerical, nursing and dispensing duties—up to a maximum of two whole-time equivalents per doctor. It was not thought possible to include reimbursement of salaries paid by GPs to wives or other dependants because, in their case, the need for GPs to meet 30 per cent. of the cost would not be an
1380
adequate restraint on the demand for the payment from public funds—a risk was seen of excessive salaries being paid and that the normal safeguards which ensure that employees work their contracted hours would be less effective. This exclusion of wives and other dependants has been a matter of concern to the profession and to successive Governments since 1966 but no satisfactory way has been discovered of bringing them into the scheme on the same terms as non-related staff.
As an alternative approach, in 1978 an experiment was begun under which single-handed general practitioners in rural areas became eligible for payment of an allowance where they satisfied a visiting team from the family practitioner committee and local medical committee that they employed their wife or other dependant relative on at least a half-time basis. This arrangement—known as the related ancillary staff scheme—has worked reasonably well and has been recently extended for a further two years. More importantly, the Government have also recently announced an agreement with the representatives of the profession that the scheme should be significantly widened so as to bring in any GP where the wife or other dependant relative he employs is a qualified nurse undertaking some nursing duties. They recognise that this will still leave outside the scheme some wives who are doing valuable work in the practice. But I hope the Committee will realise it is a step in the right direction and there are severe financial limitations on the rate of progress the Government can hope to make in this as in other fields where they would like to see much more done. There will be a further review of the position with the profession in 1982, when no doubt the possibility of further extension will be considered.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, mentioned the allowance for Members of Parliament. There is a difference between the allowance which a Member of Parliament receives for his secretary and when he uses his wife as his secretary and what would be allowed for doctors in this situation. The chief difference between a Member's allowance and the ancillary staff scheme is that the Member's allowance has a maximum ceiling on payment,

1381
whereas under the scheme reimbursement is at 70 per cent. of whatever the GP actually pays.
The difference is, of course, that there is a ceiling on the expenditure that is given for allowances to Members' wives, and the difficulty in this situation is that there is not a ceiling on the amount that the general practitioner pays. Therefore, if he is reimbursed at 70 per cent., there is no ceiling on the 30 per cent. that he would have. In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will realise that there is certainly no disagreement between us about the desirability of trying to right what must appear as an injustice to many wives who act as secretaries, and who are not getting the money. I hope that the noble Baroness will see that we have tried to move step by step under successive Governments to meet this particular case.
The difficulty about this amendment— to which I am very sympathetic, as are my colleagues—is that it involves a further expenditure of money. That is the difficulty here. At the moment, we have not the resources to say that we would bring it in. I have given an assurance that we shall be looking at this position again. We hope that we shall be able to do this in 1982 and review the position with the medical profession. I hope very much that when that time comes we shall be able to extend the provisions in the way that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would like. In the meantime I think I have gone as far as I can in trying to explain the position, but I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she explain this to me? She mentioned the possibility of extra cost, and therefore there must be a limitation; but if general practitioners employed secretaries who were not their wives apparently there would be no difficulty in paying the costs. Is that so?
Baroness YOUNG: The difficulty is that at the present time a general practitioner who employs someone who is not his wife is reimbursed by 70 per cent., and there is this 30 per cent. Because of this contractual relationship with somebody outside who is his employee, it is much easier to keep a check on what is
1382
actually happening. It is much more difficult, when it is a relative or a wife, to prevent abuse. That is why there is the possibility of considerably larger amounts of money being spent. This is not an absolutely insoluable problem and it is one that we hope we shall be able to resolve, but the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will recognise that if the scheme is extended it will inevitably involve more public expenditure, and that is the difficulty in this particular case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Before the noble Baroness finally sits down, could I ask what the objection is to the opportunity presented by this Bill of inserting a ceiling? I see no problem whatever except the will.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry if I may not have fully understood the point made by the noble Lord. The problem is that it would involve increased expenditure.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: So the reason is not that there is not a ceiling but that, even if there were, you would have to pay up to that ceiling—is that the problem? In other words, the doctor's wife is not to be paid at all on any basis. I understood the noble Baroness to say that they could not do this because there was no ceiling, whereas with M.P's wives there is a ceiling, quite properly in my view. This seems not to be the case. Would the noble Baroness kindly explain it again?— because I do not understand it, on what has been said.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry: I will try to explain it again. As I understand the position, a GP can employ someone as his secretary and claim 70 per cent. of the cost. What such a person pays for his help will vary inevitably from one part of the country to another. That is quite unlike the M.P's secretarial allowance, which I believe is related to what is, as it were, the going rate in London, which he would have to pay. Therefore, as I say, there would be variations between one part of the country and another. There is no ceiling on this because, clearly, what is required in one part is different from what is required in another part, but it is perfectly possible to keep a check on the total

1383
amount of money that is spent. I am assured that if we were to extend the scheme further than it is now and bring in another group of people it would inevitably involve more public expenditure. At the moment this is not something that we could consider. I am not unsympathetic and I am not trying to put difficulties in the way, because I think we all agree that it is desirable that we should meet what is widely felt to be an injustice to wives who act as secretaries to their husbands in this particular way. But it would mean extra money and, for that reason, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands now.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not want to go on too much about this, but the noble Baroness seems to be saying that the whole argument about a ceiling is entirely irrelevant. The Government are not prepared to pay it, ceiling or no ceiling. I think it was misleading—I know not whether deliberately or not deliberately—that that should have been brought in as an argument.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry: I did not wish in any way to mislead the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, practically suggests that I was "pulling a fast one" to mislead the Committee about this. I was asked why we could not do what is done for M.Ps' wives. In that case there is a ceiling on what can be spent, because the amount of money given is related to secretarial allowances in London. There are two issues here. There is the question of a ceiling and the accountability, because, as I understand it, the amount of money varies from one part of the country to another and it would inevitably involve more expenditure. Therefore the two things are different; but the whole case does not rest on the analogy with M.Ps' wives. In fact, in the case of the scheme that we recently brought in—and it could apply, I think, to the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—under the related ancillary staffs scheme there is a ceiling because there is an allowance system; but we cannot widen that scheme right away for financial reasons. That is ultimately the difficulty about accepting the amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Do I understand from my noble friend that if the doctors do not marry these girls, their secretaries, and so on, the Government will pay happily? In that case, the Government are not really saving money but encouraging the doctors and their girls to live in sin! And they cannot guarantee they will save money because perhaps the doctors may not want to marry their secretaries. So, if I may say so, it is a ridiculous argument.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: I must say to the noble Baroness that there is already a ceiling. The regulations say that you can employ the equivalent of two-full time people. That is a ceiling. The ceiling is there, and whether or not one of them is the doctor'swife is irrelevant. Therefore the argument that there is no ceiling really does not hold water.
Another point I wanted to make is this: the noble Baroness has already sold the pass, so to speak, in terms of this question of control by accepting that if the wife is a nurse she can be so employed. If you cannot control her when she is a secretary you cannot control her when she is a nurse, and if you can control her when she is a nurse then you can control her when she is a secretary. So those arguments really are no good, and I would much rather the Government decided to look at this matter again. What is happening at the moment is that the profession feels there has been discrimination against the wives of doctors who are not nurses. That is a grievance and it is one that should be remedied.
Baroness YOUNG: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that there is a discrimination against wives and that they have a legitimate grievance about it, but, as I understand it, what has happened is that gradually the amount of money that has been allowed for people employed by G.Ps has been increased. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, took us through this step by step. First, certain categories of people were allowed for quite specific elements of help. Then the provisions were extended to allow a wife who is a qualified nurse to receive the benefit. What has not happened—and I quite see that it may sound very odd to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but I think there is a difference—is that the wife who is not a qualified nurse but who helps her

1385
husband in his practice, as many wives do, does not get this payment. No one is pretending that this is either right or perfect. What I am saying to the Committee is that it does involve increased expenditure of money and I think the Committee must recognise that it is for that reason that it is not being extended now.
In view of the strength of feeling that has been expressed on this matter I will certainly take it back and have another look at it, but I must make it clear that it is most unlikely that I can satisfy your Lordships at a later stage because it does involve more Government expenditure. I will take advice on exactly the amounts of money we are talking about, in recognition of the very strong feelings of your Lordships. But I never like to pretend to people that I can deliver something which will be difficult, and this is going to be very difficult as it involves increased Government expenditure.
Lord WINSTANLEY: As the noble Baroness, without any undertaking or commitment, has undertaken to look at this subject again, might I ask her to look at one particular point while she is doing that? She said that efforts are being made to assist in rural areas where a GP is on his own and his wife is the only person he can get to help him. Would she bear in mind that, not only in rural areas but in cities and urban areas, the vast majority of doctors work in groups or partnerships and in such groups or partnerships there is inevitably a very firm discipline exacted by the other members of the group or partnership as to how much is paid to the wife of any particular doctor? This is a discipline which exists and I think it should be borne in mind. In the vast majority of cases, if doctors employ their wives, they are people doing full-time jobs on behalf of a group of doctors. If the person happens to be married to one of the doctors, the whole practice is penalised by not being able to claim reimbursement. Will the noble Baroness look at that factor and bear in mind that a fairly firm control is exerted by the other people in the partnership, who will not allow an individual doctor to overpay his wife merely because she happens to be his wife, when she is just one of a number of employees of that practice?
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: May I, again, say to the noble Baroness that there is a fallacy in this argument about increased expenditure. As things are, every doctor is entitled to employ up to the equivalent of two people. If one of them is his wife, then he employs somebody else. If she is a nurse, that means that he can employ only one other person. If the noble Baroness agrees that if she is a secretary she can be accepted, then he can still employ only one other person. So the argument about increased expenditure is a hollow one.
The Earl of SWINTON: I wonder whether, if my noble friend is taking this matter back, she can consider this at the same time. I have obviously been under a strong personal lobby for the past few weeks about this point, and I still feel, at the end of this debate, that doctors are doing jolly well out of this. I am thinking of rural areas, where there is perhaps a clergyman and a solicitor, who does a lot of work under legal aid. They do not get a 70 per cent. grant for having a secretary. Would it not remove discrimination entirely if we did away altogether with the 70 per cent. grant, and then the wives would be in the same position as everybody else?
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think I am going to follow my noble friend down that line of argument. However, I will take note of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, have made. I will certainly draw it to my right honourable friend's attention and consider this matter between now and the next stage.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like to thank all noble Lords for their support. I am a little worried, because the noble Baroness did not give very great hope that, if she does take it back and look at it again, she will be able to say anything different. I think, in my heart of hearts, I know that the noble Baroness will not be able to give us any more hope at the Report stage. I am a little sad that the Government do not consider that the family practitioner committee and the general practitioners are a highly responsible body of people. We are not dealing with irresponsible people here. We are dealing with very responsible people.

1387
I may not be here at Report stage, because my children are on holiday and I have to look after them. Also, I know that there is so much frustration among the general practitioners' wives in rural areas throughout the country. They have waited for years and years. I think that there is probably enough support in the House, if noble Lords would look very carefully into their minds and ask themselves whether their GPs and
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness YOUNG: I beg t the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
their wives are responsible people. Do they need support and are they helpful to them? With that, I think that I should like to divide on this amendment.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Phillips, B.

Auckland, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Barrington, V.

Hall, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Bessborough, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Blease, L.

Janner, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leonard, L.

Savile, L.

Brockway, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stamp, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Stanlev of Alderley, L.

Caithness, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Swinton, E.

Croft, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweeddale, M.

Diamond, L.

Marley, L.

Underhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Monson, L.

Wade, L.

Dormer, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Mountevans, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Avon, E.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bellwin, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Blake, L.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Harvington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY TARIFFS AGREEMENTS) ORDER 1980
7.32 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of

1389
Treaties) (International Railway Tariffs Agreements) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.
Although the detail of this matter is somewhat complicated, the essentials are fairly straightforward and I shall try to present them as simply as I can. When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973 there was in existence an agreement between the six members of the European Coal and Steel Community, made in 1955, regulating the carriage of coal and steel products by rail within the Community. In addition to this original agreement there were two supplementary amending agreements on points of detail; and the requirements of the 1955 agreement were extended to traffic between the Community and Switzerland and Austria by separate agreements made in 1956 and 1957 respectively. The draft order which is before the House resolves the long-standing difficulty which the United Kingdom has had in conforming with the terms of these agreements.
This difficulty arises because the 1955 agreement assumed the existence of published internal rail tariffs—for which there was (and still is) no requirement in this Kingdom—and because it did not recognise the existence of sea crossings in its provisions relating to the calculation of charges, or indeed in any other way. In the period leading up to accession, Her Majesty's Government were led to believe that a substantial revision of the 1955 agreement was imminent and that the new version would contain provisions designed to accommodate our situation. It was therefore decided that the United Kingdom's inability to comply fully with the original agreement should not be a bar to our accession to the Communities. British Rail at that time carried internationally a very small quantity of steel traffic (only some 3,000 tonnes with the European Coal and Steel Community countries) and no coal.
After our accession it became clear that there was opposition from several members of the Community to any fundamental revision of the 1955 agreement which might result in higher charges for the transport of coal and steel products. For a long time proposals to incorporate in the agreement provisions dealing with our situation made no progress because they
1390
were linked with proposals to increase charges. However, while discussions on the necessary amendments which we required continued, although British Rail were unable to formulate tariffs which met the requirements of the agreement completely, with the aim of complying so far as possible with the spirit of the agreement they introduced, in April 1975, a tariff for the international carriage of steel products. As British Rail did not carry international coal traffic, similar action for coal was not required. The British Rail steel tariff was accepted informally by the other participating railways and the Commission agreed that it met the spirit of the 1955 agreement.
I mentioned at the outset that in 1956 and 1957 the six members of the then Community negotiated agreements with Switzerland and Austria extending the provisions of the 1955 agreement to traffic with those countries. Although those agreements preceded the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community, unlike the 1955 agreement they were not automatically binding upon us when we joined the Community, and it was necessary to negotiate separate protocols providing for the accession of the new member states to the 1956 and 1957 agreements, to which we were committed by Article 4(2) of the Act of Accession. These protocols were eventually concluded in October 1974. They contained a requirement for the member states to notify the Swiss and Austrian Governments that the conditions necessary for their entry into force had been fulfilled in accordance with domestic law. This presented the difficulty for us that, for the reasons which I have explained, the provisions of the 1955 agreement were not wholly compatible with our law and practice relating to international rail traffic. The Government at the time delayed giving the required notification in the hope that a suitable revision of the 1955 agreement would first be negotiated.
However, a position was eventually reached in which it became clear that no further progress could be made towards such revision to meet our position until we had given the necessary notification under the Swiss and Austrian protocols to which we had been a signatory. It was contended that for this purpose reliance could be placed on the fact that the Government had secured substantial compliance

1391
with the requirements of the base agreements through the informal tariff introduced by British Rail in 1975. The British Railways Board in March 1978 gave a formal undertaking to continue to conform to the three agreements (that is, those of 1955, 1956 and 1957) "in the manner currently observed", on the understanding that the 1955 agreement was intended to be revised "to make the agreement compatible with the conditions under which the transport of European Coal and Steel Community goods takes place between the United Kingdom and the Community"; and Her Majesty's Government subsequently gave the required notification later in 1978.
Negotiations for a revision of the 1955 agreement then resumed, and the Fourth Supplementary Agreement, meeting the position of British Rail, was approved and formally signed by the member states of the Community meeting in council on 6th December last. This in effect formally legitimises the practice which British Rail have been following since 1975, by allowing them to calculate charges "by analogy" and by providing for a separate charge by sea crossing.
The British Railways Board, on 19th May, gave a new undertaking to comply with the original agreement as now amended, and the way is thus at last clear for these interrelated post-accession agreements to be specified as Community Treaties under the European Communities Act of 1972, so that their provisions may be relied upon directly by virtue of Section 2(1) of that Act. I hope the order will commend itself to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th June be approved. —(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that helpful explanation. He has elaborated far beyond the Explanatory Note in the order, which is very helpful. From what the noble Lord has said it would appear that the matter is thoroughly satisfactory from the standpoint of British Rail and all we can hope is that as the carriage is of coal and steel it is one way only, and that is exports.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW BUS GRANTS (EXTENSION OF PERIOD AND REDUCTION OF RATE) ORDER 1980
7.41 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the New Bus Grants (Extension of Period and Reduction of Rate) Order 1980 be approved.
New bus grant is currently paid at the rate of 50 per cent. of the approval capital expenditure on a new bus intended wholly or mainly for stage use. The policy on the grant has been largely bipartisan. A Labour Government introduced it in 1968, then at a rate of 25 per cent. and in 1971 the Conservative Government increased the rate to 50 per cent. and extended the period of the grant from seven years to 12. The last Labour Government concluded in their 1977 White Paper on Transport Policy that there was not sufficient justification for maintaining the grant at its present level beyond this financial year and that it should be phased out by 1985. My Lords, to put it simply, we agree—and although we have brought phasing-out forward by one year, it has been left to this Government to implement the decision. This is the purpose of the draft order which is now before the House.
I hope that your Lordships will find the order a simple one. It does two things. The first is to extend the eligibility for grant, which would otherwise expire after 31st August this year, to 31st March 1984. The second is to provide for progressive reductions in the rate of grant payable during this phasing-out period, starting from 1st September this year.
I would like to explain briefly why we think the grant should be gradually run down and ended in 1984. The foremost consideration was not the cutting of public expenditure—nor I think, to be fair, was it our predecessors'. While expenditure constraints obviously make it difficult to argue a case for retaining the grant, there are positive reasons for actually bringing it to an end. First, successive Governments have always regarded this grant as one introduced for temporary and limited objectives. The most important was the rapid introduction of

1393
buses suitable for one-person operation, that is with passenger entrances at the front rather than the rear, as was then more common. Because single manning was probably the most significant contribution to greater cost effectiveness, the grant was intended to encourage operators to equip their fleets quickly with such vehicles even ahead of normal replacement. Other objectives were the modernisation of operators' fleets, the improvement of passenger comfort and a measure of vehicle standardisation.
These objectives have largely been achieved. In the 12 years the grant has been in existence, single manning has increased from levels of around 10–20 per cent. in 1968 to typically 70 per cent. and even 100 per cent. with some operators now. Further advances are dependent more on operational considerations than the availability of suitable vehicles. And by 1984 when the grant ends, most operators will have completely replaced their fleets at least once since the grant was introduced.
This leads to the second main reason for phasing out the grant. It was never envisaged as a permanent subsidy for normal replacement of life-expired vehicles and there is some danger of it becoming just that. Running at a current rate of 50 per cent., it tends to distort judgment about the best balance between capital and maintenance expenditure by making buying new an artificially cheap option.
Of course we accept that there are socially necessary bus services which need financial support to survive. But we want help to be given in the most cost-effective way and where it is most needed. An indiscriminate capital subsidy is not the best way of achieving this. We believe that assistance should be channelled through local authorities because local people are best placed to assess the needs and priorities of their areas. Local authorities have power to make grants to bus operators and their expenditure on revenue support is eligible for transport supplementary grant.
Obviously financial assistance of this order of magnitude—it is currently running at just over £70 million a year—cannot be taken away without its impact being felt. That is why—notwithstanding the need to
1394
reduce public expenditure—we agreed with the last Government that it should be phased out over a period (rather than end on 31st August this year) in order to allow time for the industry to adjust to the changed circumstances. The draft order therefore provides that the eligibility for grant should be extended until 31st March 1984, almost four years.
It is not for me to predict how bus operators will make this adjustment. But we do not accept that the only way is for them to raise fares. While the industry has already made considerable progress towards greater cost-effectiveness through such measures as single-manning, which I have already mentioned, there is still room for improvement. I have in mind such measures as the market analysis project studies currently being undertaken by the National Bus Company, which have already achieved substantial economies by matching bus services more closely to demand. In addition, the relaxation of the road service licensing provisions, now enacted in the new Transport Act, will encourage smaller operators with lower costs to provide alternatives to the services which the large public sector operators can no longer sustain. And, of course, removal of this very high capital subsidy will lead to a more realistic assessment of the economies of refurbishing older vehicles.
This brings me to the second part of the draft order which is concerned with the way in which the grant is to be phased out between now and 1984. The total amount of money available for the grant in the Government's public expenditure plans reduced progressively from this year to the year 1983–84. In line with this reduction, the order provides that the rate of grant, now at 50 per cent., should be reduced to 40 per cent. starting on 1st September this year and then to 30 per cent., 20 per cent., and finally 10 per cent., on 1st April 1981, 1982 and 1983 respectively. This gradual reduction in the rate of grant should mean that every new bus brought into use before 1st April 1984 will get grants, albeit at a reducing rate. Clearly that statement depends on our calculations of what buses operators will buy in the next few years. But out calculations are related to forward figures of bus orders and deliveries provided jointly by bus operators and

1395
manufacturers, so I would suggest to your Lordships that they are well-founded.
I hope your Lordships will accept the twin purposes of this order: to avoid the abrupt termination of new bus grant at the end of next month by extending the period of eligibility to March 1984, and to pave the way for its eventual ending on that date by progressively reducing the rate of grant payable. My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved. —(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
7.51 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, again I would like to thank the noble Lord for his very detailed explanation. Naturally, we on this side of the House welcome the first part of the order, and, as the noble Lord says, it was stated in the Labour Government's own White Paper in 1977 that the bus grant should be phased out by 1985. Naturally, we are very happy with the decision of the Government to ensure that it will continue until 1984. But we are not happy with the second part of the order which is to phase out the whole grant by 1985. Perhaps I should elaborate a little on that.
A great deal has happened since the Labour Government's White Paper of 1977. First of all, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended in 1978 that the bus grants should not be abolished, that they should be continued indefinitely at what was then the current rate, which I think was 50 per cent. In addition, we have had the effect of inflation and increased running costs. The Secretary of State stated in another place as recently as 25th June that fuel and oil costs had increased by 50 per cent. over the previous 12 months.
Noble Lords will have seen reports about the United Counties Bus Company, which is Northampton based; it is a subsidiary of the National Bus Company. It is facing a £1 million deficit, according to the reports. Some 100 workers are likely to be made redundant. From the reports it appears that a total of some 700 drivers and conductors are to ballot on a trade union proposal for a voluntary
1396
£30 a week reduction so as to safeguard the jobs. Apart from the possible loss of 100 jobs in that particular undertaking, which covers a number of counties, if the jobs could not be saved it would be a very serious outlook for the bus services in that area, because undoubtedly the undertaking would have to cut; it would cut the least profitable services, and once again rural areas would find themselves hit very hard. I mention that as an example of what is facing the bus industry in various parts of the country.
In addition, with the pressure by the Government on local councils to reduce expenditure, and cash limits, there will undoubtedly be some tendency by some county councils to reduce the transport grant to operators. If this is to be a growing tendency, and the bus grant is to be gradually phased out, this will place an increasing burden upon bus passenger transport. Inflation means that the cost of replacing buses is increasing, and if the grant towards bus revenues is to be reduced then the future prospect of transport, particularly in rural areas, will become very depressing. As was said in this House in the debates on the Transport Bill, if the networks are to be faced with increased costs and possibly reduced revenue grant, fares will be increased. Undoubtedly some services will be cancelled or restricted. Bear in mind that the Secretary of State also stated on the same date that over the last 12 months bus fares rose by some 28 per cent.
Noble Lords should note that the transport supplementary grant for England for 1980–81, compared with the previous year's, is cut by 5·3 per cent. in real terms based on 1978 prices; with the various categories of acceptable transport expenditure on which the TSG is based it is actually 5·7 per cent. down, even before taking account of inflation. For Wales in real terms the TSG is reduced by 14·7 per cent. So apprehensions of possible lower revenue grant are based on a considerable amount of substance. So, with rising operating costs, possible cut-back in revenue grant, the decrease in the bus grant will be a serious blow to the bus transport industry and also to the travelling public. This will affect all operators of stage bus services.
I have been looking, as no doubt the noble Lord has, at the 1979 accounts of

1397
the National Bus Company. I have them here. This is our important bus network covering England and Wales. The accounts were published on 17th June, only two days before the Transport Bill was to receive Third Reading, and 1 did not receive my copy until just afterwards. In 1979 the National Bus Company purchased 1,394 new buses at a total cost to the company of £52 million, which was 15 per cent. up on the previous year. The new bus grant to the NBC was nearly £24 million in their last year. If this order is approved it will mean that the National Bus Company will lose about £5 million in 1980, approximately £9 million additionally in 1981, £19 million in 1982 and the full £24 million in 1983, with, of course, possible increases due to inflation that may be prevalent during those years. I have been looking also at the Scottish Transport Group, the national bus network for Scotland. That group purchased 458 new vehicles in 1979 and their position is proportionately the same as that of the National Bus Company. Other operators are going to be similarly affected. In 1979–80 the total bus grants paid by the Government to all the operators amounted to £65 million.
While appreciating what has been a policy of both the Conservative Party and the previous Labour Government, I would say that the situation has changed considerably since 1977. For safety reasons, and bearing in mind the facilities required by the public, I think it would be generally agreed that there should not be any slow-down whatever in the replacement of buses. While the noble Lord the Minister refers to the fact that it is undesirable to have these sort of firm revenues going into bus undertakings, I am certain that no one at this stage would suggest any cancellation of the reimbursement of fuel duty costs, which again is a most valuable asset for the bus operators.
For all these reasons we feel that the order is one that should not be approved at the present time. Naturally, it is pointless for us to decide to divide against it, because there are only six noble Lords who know what I am talking about; it would be a sheer waste of time. But I would like to know the views of the noble Lord the Minister on the points I have made, which I believe are constructive,
1398
because with all the consideration of the present position and the change since 1977 it could well be important that the bus grant should be continued. The bus undertakings are going to find this an additional heavy blow. We do not want to get into arguments on the Transport Bill but, whatever else it will do, the Transport Bill will not help the big networks, and the big networks are the people on whom our passenger transport to a great extent relies. It is not only the networks which will suffer as a result of the cancellation of the bus grant, but all operators, in replacing their essential buses.
8 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I am quite so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, this time as I was for his kind words last time. However, I accept that both he and I are not addressing a very wide audience tonight. On the matter of general principle, I do not think that there is much between us. At the end of the day the noble Lord's party and my party want to see a successful bus operation. We differ as regards the method, the means by which to go about achieving that.
The noble Lord asked about the decline in new vehicles, and I think I answered that point in my first statement. I suggest that the question which arises is whether demand should be maintained at a level higher than necessary to meet operational requirements. Stage mileage operated services seem likely to continue to decline in the foreseeable future—I do not say that that is a good thing; I just say that it is a fact—partly because of decline in patronage and partly because of service reviews to match provision more closely to needs. Operators should not be encouraged to purchase more vehicles than they need, or the manufacturing industry to plan for a higher level of demand than can be economically sustained.
We on this side of the House in particular are always very susceptible to any suggestion as regards transport in rural areas. We have traditionally always had a great wish to help rural areas. But I suggest that in effect most grants go to benefit urban areas because that is where

1399
most buses are used. Indeed, it is common sense, because most of our population lives in urban areas. However, the Government are highly alive to the needs of the rural areas—for example, in the last TSG settlement we favoured revenue support in shire counties.
However, support for conventional bus networks is not necessarily the best use of resources in thinly populated areas. Cars, minibuses and sharing schemes can often provide services more effectively. The Transport Act which we have recently passed makes it easier to organise such services, and we shall continue to encourage experiments with help and with advice. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is a very good man. He wants to see the community helped to the best advantage and those people who do not have cars helped to get to the shops and so on. I have the same views as he has on this matter. Believe me, we are trying to do our best. I suggest that noble Lords opposite have tried to do things their way but I do not say that they have had a 100 per cent. success. Let is try now to do things our way. I do not suppose for one second that we shall have a 100 per cent. success, but let us see who has the better balance of the argument.
We are entering a new phase. Let us give the Transport Act a chance to work. This order is mainly something about which both the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—which has just been phased out—and our Government are in agreement. I take his point about the second part not being quite so agreeable to him, but the intention on both sides is to make it workable. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not hinder the passing of this order because, at base, we both want the same thing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 to 8.15 p.m.]

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
8.17 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Repeal of provisions relating to withdrawal of pay beds and dissolution of Board, etc.]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out clause 8 and insert the following new clause:
"Establishment of Health Services Protection Board
(8. —(1) There shall be established a Board to be known as the Health Services Protection Board, which shall consist of a member nominated by the Trades Union Congress, a member nominated by the British Medical Association and an independent chairman with legal qualifications.
(2) The Health Services Protection Board shall have the duty of considering all evidence submitted to it including oral evidence in so far as it relates to an authorisation which could have been granted under Part Ili of the Act of 1976 and report with its recommendations to the Secretary of State and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to the Secretary of State to give effect to the Board's recommendations forthwith.
(3) In reporting to the Secretary of State under this section the Health Services Protection Board shall, in considering each individual application for an authorisation which could have been granted under Part III of the Act of 1976 and in addition to the matters which Part [If of the Act of 1976 authorised the Health Services Board to consider, be under a duty to ensure that health services provided within relevant hospital premises shall not exceed those services as they exist on the commencement date with an addition of a further number of beds with supporting services, employees, accommodation and equipment equivalent to the number of beds in the National Health Service authorised for the use of private resident patients on the commencement date.
(4) It is the duty of the Secretary of State and of any individual or body corporate having ownership or control of any premises within or without the National Health Service to furnish the Health Services Protection Board upon its request with such information as a Board may require or the discharge of its duties under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, which stands in my name. Clause 8 deals with the establishment of a health services protection board and we, on this side, have put down the amendment because we note that the Bill will end the activities of the Health Services Board. We believe that, because of the importance of that Board and the contribution it has made, there should be something to take its place.
I am not unmindful that Clauses 9 and 10 have some relation to Clause 8, inas-

1401
much as they deal with the treatment of private patients in the National Health Service, but I am mainly concerned with the effects of Clause 8. I think it would be helpful if I were to quote from the Notes on Clauses, which admirably set out the intention of Clause 8. I do so by quoting what the Notes on Clauses have to say at page 47 about Clause 8:
"This clause lifts the restriction on the Secretary of State's power to authorise, under sections 65 and 66 of the Act of 1977 and sections 57 and 58 of the Scottish Act of 1978, the use of health service hospital facilities for the treatment privately of patients and repeals the provisions relating to the withdrawal of such authorisations (and consequential matters). It also, together with Schedule 2, abolishes the Health Services Board and its Scottish and Welsh Committees, and transfers the functions of the Board and those Committees to the Secretary of State or to persons appointed by him".
I suggest that this clause really does cause us some concern.
Your Lordships are familiar with our views on the matter of pay beds and private practice: it is a ground that we have been over time and time again. If I restate our views briefly I would say that we wish to see the complete separation of private practice from the health service but the right of the individual to be able to choose. That is important. Secondly, we have expressed ourselves from time to time on the unfair queue jumping, and, thirdly, on the large number of pay beds that are never used.
I move this amendment because the last Government made a genuine and sustained attempt to find a real solution to this problem. I believe that the last Government succeeded. Through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who managed to find a compromise between the medical consultants and the Labour Government, we set up a Health Services Board. The responsibility of the board was to phase out the pay beds from the National Health Service and to regulate the development of private hospitals so that they did not pose a threat to the National Health Service hospitals.
The composition of the board is probably well known to most noble Lords. Its chairman was the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. If anybody ever proved and established that he could be independent, it certainly was the noble
1402
Lord, Lord Wigoder. He served this committee and the department, if I may say so, extremely well. He had on the committee two members nominated from the British Medical Association and two from the trade unions. It has always been a source of amazement to me that he managed to get agreement among all four. So far as I know, there was no difficulty at all. During the time they functioned, the number of private beds in National Health Service hospitals was reduced from 3,444 to 2,553. That does not take into account the 1,000 pay beds which were withdrawn by my right honourable friend David Ennals when he was Secretary of State and had the power to do it before the setting up of the Health Services Board.
A great deal was in fact achieved. What was achieved was done by agreement of the members, which, in itself, was no mean achievement. What was even more important, their decisions were binding on the Secretary of State. I want to emphasise that because I wish to come back to it. Their decisions were binding on the Secretary of State; in other words, the then Secretary of State who agreed to this procedure—in fact suggested it—having done so, left no doubt in people's minds that he himself was not responsible. It had been left to an entirely independent committee. That is important.
Clause 8 of the Bill puts an end to all that. If your Lordships read it you will see what the position is. We regard it as essential that if the Secretary of State is sincere in wanting to preserve a proper balance between the private sector and the public sector of medicine, then the Health Services Board should be allowed to continue its work; work which was done to the great credit of its members. Does it seem fair in the sense of being just, and does it seem right that the Secretary of State—and I refer to the present Secretary of State, wedded, as I think he is, to the private sector—should have the final word on the place of private beds in our National Health Service and the development of the private sector? I am sure that we shall be told that the Secretary of State will appoint some committee or other to advise him on these matters, but the fact remains that he will have the making of the final decision, and the procedure for deciding these

1403
matters was much fairer, in my submission, under the previous Government. I ask the Minister to consider whether the present Secretary of State would not be well advised not to have the final decision, when we all know his views on the private sector.
I believe that the Government have stated that services for private patients should not prejudice services for the National Health Service patients. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will confirm that. I believe that the Secretary of State has in fact come to a six-point agreement with the medical profession on this matter. I have not seen it published; I have not seen it advertised. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will want to tell us about the six-point agreement which the Secretary of State has come to with the medical profession.
I gather that the Government are of the opinion that pay bed authorisations are expected to remain roughly at their present level. I would ask the Minister whether she could say on what basis that statement was made. If the Secretary of State does appoint a committee to advise him, I would expect it to be entirely independent with a broadly based membership. If he agrees—and I do not suppose for one moment that he will—he could do no better than reappoint the Health Services Board, which has shown itself beyond any doubt to be completely impartial and independent.
In considering the private sector I would remind the Minister of the comments of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, and I shall quote from paragraphs 18/28 and 18/37 of their report:
"Private practice does not pay the full share of the costs which are incurred in their sharing National Health Service premises".
This seems to me to be quite disgraceful. If we are going to have, as I am sure we are—and I accept the fact that it is probably inevitable—the private sector working to some extent alongside the public sector, then I feel that there has to be exercised in the future, as in the past, a control of pay beds.
There has to be also a control of private development in terms of private clinics and private hospitals. I think that the records show that the private sector has
1404
developed beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Nevertheless, the Health Services Board was able to control the development because the cardinal principle was that not too many private hospitals should be allowed to be erected near a National Health Service hospital if they were going to prove a threat to the public sector. If they are allowed to develop haphazardly, then they do pose a threat. Obviously they must get their nursing staff locally. They must get a good deal of their other staff locally. So far as the medical staff are concerned they could be by various salary scales and so on seduced from the National Health Service. We are told that the Government want to see an effective National Health Service, able to cope more effectively than at the moment with those who want medical services. I suggest that it is impossible to do this unless there is rigid control.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness the Minister can say what the Secretary of State is prepared to do in this matter. In the Bill there is a reference to his power to appoint a committee or committees. I should like to know quite definitely, because he ought to have made up his mind by now. This Bill has passed through the Commons and it is pretty well half-way through your Lordships' House, and he ought to have made up his mind what sort of set-up he is going to have to advise him about the development of the private sector and pay beds. I would have hoped that it was possible—although I do not think it is possible—to persuade the Secretary of State to give consideration to what we are asking. We feel it is essential to have a health services protection board and my justification for that is the unqualified success of the previous Health Services Board. I beg to move.
8.31 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: Before we move further, I should like to clarify this amendment. There are really two amendments here. One is that Clause 8 stand part, and the other is the amendment the noble Lord has moved. Before I reply I should just like to point this out to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, leave out Clause 8 and insert the following new clause. It is part of this amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder if the Lord Chairman could help us. This is really a procedural point, to know how we should best proceed. We have not yet had the Motion that Clause 8 stand part, and the amendment would be to take out Clause 8 and put a new one in. I think it would be helpful to know how we should proceed on this.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): My only instructions on this are that if Amendment No. 10—that is this one—is agreed to, it is necessary to put the Question that the new clause stand part of the Bill. Therefore, as I understand it, this is a substitution for the existing clause. A decision having been made on that, I then confirm that by inviting the Committee to agree that the new clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord SANDYS: I hope we are in order, and with the assurance of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman I will now proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to the compromise which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, produced on the scheme. My first comment upon the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is this. Of course, it is perfectly true to say that a major achievement in negotiation was achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but in our submission it was in no way true that the compromise was for a neutral consideration. We believe that from the very beginning it was assumed that the board had a particular task to perform and it performed it in the way which he described. I do not think he can claim other than the very excellent performance by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—a claim of impartiality on behalf of the board. Of course, its members performed their task in an exemplary manner.
I should like to begin my remarks by drawing your Lordships' attention to two things. The first amendment would delete the whole of Clause 8 and the second would provide a new body proposed by the noble Lord to deal with applications made under the 1976 Health Services Act for the development of large private hospitals. It was not very clear from what was drafted precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, had in mind,
1406
and I am grateful to him for clarifying the position. However, whatever the precise arrangements would be, one thing is very clear from the second amendment; that is that what is proposed is an overall ceiling on the level of provision of services for private practice. This is a very important policy step on the part of the Opposition. It goes far beyond anything in the present legislation. I shall come back to this in a moment. First, I would like to deal briefly with the provisions of Clause 8 which the noble Lord would have us omit.
Clause 8 serves as an introduction to the following six clauses of Part II—Clauses 9 and 10, which deal with private practice in the NHS, and Clauses 11 to 14, which deal with the private sector developments. It is the foundation for what follows. Under it, the provisions of the 1977 Act, and their Scottish equivalent, which provide for the compulsory phasing out of existing pay beds, are repealed and the restriction on the Secretary of State's power to authorise new pay beds is lifted. Clauses 9 and 10 build on this. Clause 9 tidies up the legislation to make sure there is no duplication of powers to allow private practice in the NHS. It also removes the provisions which allowed for private patients needing specialised treatments to continue to use NHS facilities. With the restoration of the main power to authorise pay beds these are clearly redundant. Clause 10 provides for restrictions on the restored powers. Clause 8 also abolishes the Health Services Board, as the noble Lord himself has mentioned. One of the Board's functions is to propose revocations of pay beds. Its other function is to exercise the powers in Part III of the 1976 Act. The noble Lord quoted from Notes on Clauses, but this is placing the explanation in a slightly different context. Clause 8 transfers these powers to the Secretary of State. Here, too, the clause paves the way for Clauses 11 to 14, which amend the transferred powers. This is a complicated situation but I hope that my explanation has been satisfactory.
I think we should look at Standing Committee G to reassure the noble Lord in regard to the question he put to me over the six principles which were enunciated by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord may know that my honourable friend the Minister for Health, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, sent them to the health authority

1407
chairmen in March of this year. He will be aware that the principles were referred to in Standing Committee G, and perhaps I might be permitted to quote the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's comment on them, because it is very interesting in this context. It comes at column 822. He said this:
"The six principles are designed to ensure the equitable operation of the National Health Service private practice, both as an end in itself and as a way of helping to ensure that the continued presence of private practice does not cause unrest among other staff. The agreement should go a long way to reassuring those who genuinely believe that private patients prejudice NHS patients. The profession's acceptance and public endorsement of the principles is seen by us as clear recognition by the profession that it accepts the pay bed privileges have associated responsibilities.
"These principles are a clear statement of our view that it is totally unacceptable that the treatment of an NHS patient who is seriously ill or who needs urgent medical care should be in any way prejudiced because priority has been given to a private patient in less need".
I could quote further from what was said on that occasion, but I think it would be more valuable to place on record what the six principles are, and at the risk of wearying the Committee, I will enunciate them because I do not think they are on public record.
The six principles are as follows: first, the provision of accommodation and services for private patients should not significantly prejudice non-paying patients; secondly, subject to clinical considerations, earlier private consultation should not lead to earlier NHS admission or to earlier access to NHS diagnostic procedures; thirdly, common waiting lists should be used for urgent and seriously ill patients as at present and for highly specialised diagnosis and treatment. The same criteria should be used for categorising paying and non-paying patients; fourthly, after admission, access by all patients to diagnostic and treatment facilities should be governed by clinical considerations. This principle does not exclude earlier access by private patients to facilities especially arranged for them if these are provided without prejudice to NHS patients and without extra expense to the NHS; fifthly, standards of clinical care and services provided by the hospital should be the same for all patients. This principle does not affect the provision on separate payment of extra amenities,
1408
nor the practice of the day-to-day care of private patients usually being undertaken by the consultant engaged by them; and sixthly, single rooms should not be held vacant for potential private use longer than the usual time between NHS patient admissions.
Those are the six principles about which the noble Lord asked me, and I hope I have satisfied him that they have been in the hands of the health authorities. They were discussed at some length in Standing Committee G, and the noble Lord may have seen references to them in other official documents. As for private sector developments, the proposals for dealing with applications for private sector developments were set out in a letter by the DHSS on 31st January and that was made available to Members of the Standing Committee. It proposed that the Secretary of State would need independent advice to advise him on applications, and I will, with permission, quote paragraph 17 of that letter:
"From time to time, the Secretary of State will need independent advice in dealing with applications for increases in pay beds or for authorisation of private sector facilities. This would be necessary where applications raise unusually difficult or contentious issues which the Department is unable to resolve. It is proposed that an expert panel be appointed, from which individuals could be drawn to advise the Secretary of State as and when necessary; the members of committees to hold public hearings could also be drawn from the panel. The panel would include a range of various types of expertise; covering medical, nursing and other NHS staff, health authorities and the private hospitals. It is felt that a panel of this nature would give a greater measure of flexibility than a permanent committee with a fixed membership, and would enable advice to be readily available".
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is reassured on this matter.
The amendment seeks to overturn the basis of the Government's policy which I have attempted to set out, and of course the policy was stated in our manifesto and was explained to your Lordships' House and to another place and elsewhere on many subsequent occasions. Perhaps one of the best occasions of this was when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, initiated a debate on 19th March this year, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be well aware of that occasion. In that debate, Lord Hunt quoted two very eminent authorities in the medical profession. If Lord Wells-Pestell does not pay much attention to my statements,

1409
here we had the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Douglas Black, being quoted by Lord Hunt, who said:
"The president of another, the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Douglas Black, supports the continuance of a strong private sector which, in his own words, 'makes a most valuable contribution to medical care in this country … it is no kind of threat to NHS standards'".
The noble Lord a little later quoted another eminent authority, no less a person than the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Sir Reginald Murley, who had said:
"The private sector is an encouragement to raise standards of personal service, as well as proper costing and economical use of resources". —(Official Report, 19/3/80, col. 221.)
Those two quotations are of real value because those very eminent medical authorities, widely accepted in this country, stand right outside the political field, and I hope that adds reassurance to the noble Lords that the Government's policy is on the right lines.
Our policy on pay beds is quite simple. We believe it was wrong to phase them out and we shall allow them where they are wanted, subject only to their not interfering with services to NHS patients. I think the six principles make that clear. To ensure this, we have a statutory provision, and the six principles to which I have referred have been agreed with the medical profession; and this we shall no doubt discuss when we come to the amendment to Clause 9 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
Apart from the argument of principle on pay beds, they also are a very useful source of income. No less than £45 million is expected to come from this source in 1980–81. I believe that, as a source of income, it is a growing one, because on 19th March, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to it, he spoke of an income of £30 million. So if the rate of progress from this source of income is possibly to be anticipated, I think it will be a real source of satisfaction to medical provision in this country.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his contribution. I am aware of what is in the Bill and I am familiar with what the clause intends to do in relation to the Secretary of State's statement about the appointment of committees or a panel.
1410
The noble Lord said that the amendment seeks to overturn the Government's intention. That is precisely why it has been put down and is now before your Lordships' Committee. I am not impressed by the quotation from two learned members of the medical profession. That was precisely what I should expect them to say. I should imagine that they are both—no, Sir Douglas Black is a scientist, if I remember rightly, not a member of the medical profession.
Lord SANDYS: Sir Douglas Black is president of the Royal College of Physicians.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should be very surprised if people who make that kind of utterance are not themselves very heavily involved in private practice. I would go so far as to say that if they were Members of your Lordships' House, speaking in your Lordships' Chamber, they would have to declare an interest before they spoke. So I am not at all impressed by that aspect.
I raised the question of the six principles because no mention had at any time been made of them in your Lordships' Chamber; there may not have been an opportunity. I am familiar with them. I have a copy of them in front of me. Since the noble Lord has been good enough to bring them out into the open, so that they will be recorded in Hansard, I hope that noble Lords will read them, and read them very carefully. What worries me about the first principle is that it says that the provision of accommodation and services for private patients should not significantly prejudice non-paying patients—which surely implies that it will, but not very much. What does "significantly prejudice" mean? If it is not going to prejudice, there is no need to say "not significantly". It is obvious that it will do. The Secretary of State, I grant, was being honest. What he was saying in effect was that it will prejudice, but not very much—
Lord SANDYS: Perhaps one should look at the total number of beds in National Health Service hospitals. The noble Lord quoted the reductions, and the Committee will be grateful to him for doing so. The present total of beds in question can surely amount to a proportion that is little more than 1 to 1½per cent. of

1411
the total number of beds in the care of the National Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord misses the point. There is a point of principle here so far as we are concerned. It is not a question of a ratio; it is a question of principle. Let us get back to the principles. The fourth principle states that after admission access by all patients to diagnostic and treatment facilities should be governed by clinical considerations. This principle does not exclude earlier access by private patients to facilities especially arranged for them—I emphasise the phrase "especially arranged for them" —if these are provided without prejudice to National Health Service patients without extra expense. I think that that is contradictory in that it permits for private patients treatment that would not he available to National Health Service patients. What facilities was this clause intended to cover?
Baroness YOUNG: Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? On the first point of the six principles that have been agreed, I believe that we are talking somewhat at cross purposes, because the first is in fact a statutory safeguard. The statutory safeguard in the Bill is that the Bill retains the legislative provision that pay beds will be authorised only where this does not significantly prejudice National Health Service services. That is the reference in the first of the principles, and this is provided under Clause 9, which links the sections in the Act referred to, which provide for authorisation of facilities for private patient use with Section 62, which contains this restriction on the use of the power. We shall discuss this matter under Clause 9. But that is the reference, and it is a legislative one.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, but it does not alter the fact that the word "significantly" is used.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord has twice made this point and perhaps he would like a rendering in regard to the word "significantly". I understand that "significantly" is taken from the noble Lord's own party's 1976 Act in relation to private sector developments and Section 59 treatments. The word is used
1412
in Section 62, which stems from the 1976 Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should have to look at the Act; but, after all, noble Lords opposite have always said that the Labour Party was wrong. I see that there is no point in pursuing these six principles. I think that on the whole there has been something of an achievement, but I do not think that the principles are as good as noble Lords opposite make out. I take the view that the fourth principle suggests that certain facilities are not available to National Health Service patients, and the fifth principle makes it clear that private patients will be able to monopolise the personal time and expertise of their consultant. One point that irritates many of us—and I have spent very long periods in hospitals—is that where there are private beds, the consultant spends an inordinate amount of time looking after the patients in those beds, while his registrar or houseman comes along and looks after me and other National Health Service patients. I am not quarrelling with that situation, because in my experience the consultant popped in occasionally, so that I did not forget him. But the fact remains that this has been one of the complaints of junior doctors—
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be worse if the consultant was functioning in a private hospital, miles away from the National Health Service? In that case he would not even be on National Health Service premises while looking after his private patients, whereas otherwise if there is an emergency in the National Health Service section while he is attending his private patients, then at least he is on the same premises and is therefore more easily available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Baroness is to argue along those lines, I, too, shall argue on the same lines by saying that if there was no private practice, we should have more consultants and doctors in the public sector. But neither argument is of very great value. I do not want to say anything more, other than to add that I move the amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Before the question is put, there is one

1413
point that I should like to address to the Minister. We are talking about private beds, but what is the position about amenity beds? Amenity beds still exist in hospitals and are to some extent different from private beds. Do the Government have amenity beds and private beds in mind in relation to the same purpose in the Bill, or are amenity beds still being kept separate?
Baroness YOUNG: To the best of my knowledge, the amenity beds will remain as they are now within the National Health Service. If I should add something further to that, I shall let the noble Lord know later in the proceedings, or write to him.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Question is that Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?—and if my noble friend Lord Sandys is in doubt about this procedure, I would call his attention to page 13 of the Deputy Speaker's guide.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 9 [General power to make accommodation and services available]:
8.55 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 20, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Section 65 of the Act of 1977 shall be amended by the insertion after the second "and" in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section the words "in particular he shall direct a health authority to admit private resident patients to a health service only if he is satisfied that—

(i) all potential private resident patients have been placed on the same waiting list as comparable National Health Service patients in the care of the same consultant and that the consultant concerned is ensuring that all patients selected by him for admission to such a hospital and all patients on the said waiting list are being so admitted for treatment and moved along the said waiting list in accordance with common criteria;

(ii) in applying such common criteria the consultant concerned is applying social criteria where such criteria are relevant among others to admission to hospital and to progression along the waiting list but not to such an extent as may give either the class of private patients or the class of National Health Service patients
1414
an advantage in terms of the length of time on the waiting list over the other class of patient;

(iii) a potential private patients' place on the waiting list is being determined by the date upon which he was first referred to a hospital outpatients clinic or for a private consultation by the patient's general practitioner;

(iv) the District or Area Health Authority is ensuring that the provisions in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of this section are being properly applied and that statistical monitoring has been instituted by the relevant health authority to ensure that paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) above are being so applied;

(v) sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are being applied to diagnostic and other medical services; and".")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment to Clause 9, which deals with the treatment of private patients in National Health Service hospitals. The amendment seeks to lay down certain stipulations. It is a simple amendment, expressed in very simple language, and we ought not to run into any difficulty about it. It seeks to lay down that all private resident patients in National Health Service hospitals should be placed on the same waiting list as National Health Service patients, and should move along the waiting list in rotation. It will be for the consultants to see that their patients take their turn. This will eliminate queue-jumping, which has been a bone of great contention among the public. The amendment also seeks to make certain that neither class of patient would be at an advantage over the other.
The new sub-paragraph (iii) states that the place on the waiting list, whether private patient or National Health Service patient, shall be determined by the date that the patient was referred to the hospital out-patients' department or, in the case of a private patient, when he or she was referred to the consultant by the patient's GP. The new sub-paragraph (iv) places a responsibility on the District Health Authority or the Area Health Authority to see that these conditions are complied with in regard to reference to the National Health Service for diagnostic and other medical services. The same procedures apply.
This is a sincere attempt to overcome misuse and unfairness by the private sector when using National Health Service hospitals. No one on this side of the Committee would want to deny National

1415
Health Service facilities to the private sector as and when necessary. The National Health Service already provides many facilities, as was recognised by the Royal Commission on the Health Service, and I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that the Government have changed the policy with regard to private patients using National Health Service beds to include capital charges for pay beds. I should also like to ask whether it is the Government's intention to extend that to the other services involving particular equipment where capital costs and maintenance are high. This, I believe, is not being done at the moment. I accept that some contributions that are asked for from the private sector meet certain expenses, but not all expenses take in the overhead expenses. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The effects of this amendment would be to provide for statutory common waiting lists for all National Health Service and private patients, and for local monitoring of the arrangements. The Secretary of State would be required to direct a health authority that private patients could be admitted only if he was satisfied that the authority were operating on this basis. I assume that the amendment is designed to instigate a debate on the whole question of "queue-jumping" and common waiting lists, and the Government's own six principles, which we have already discussed.
The amendment seeks to provide for common waiting lists for all National Health Service and private resident patients. It is argued for on the basis that without it private practice leads to abuses. We do not accept this argument, and therefore we cannot accept this amendment; but perhaps it would be helpful if I reiterated some of the points that we have already made about the way in which we have provided that pay beds do not operate to the disadvantage of other National Health Service patients.
As your Lordships will know, our policy is to encourage private practice, both within the National Health Service and outside. For the National Health Service that means allowing private patient use of facilities. As I have said, we are concerned to ensure that this is not at the
1416
expense of National Health Service patients. We said in the consultative letter which the Minister of State sent out shortly after we came into office that we were concerned that the arrangements for private practice in the National Health Service should operate, and should be seen to operate, fairly, and we have kept that promise.
There are two safeguards, one statutory and one non-statutory. The statutory safeguard, as I have already indicated on the previous amendment, is that the Bill retains the legislative provision that pay beds will he authorised only where this does not significantly prejudice NHS services. This is supplemented by the non-statutory safeguards—that is, the agreement that the Secretary of State has reached with the medical profession on the six principles, which we have already discussed.
The noble Lord asked a question about matters of urgent treatment, and I would say to him that we have extended common waiting lists, where they are needed, to include not only those who are seriously ill and/or those who are in need of urgent treatment but also those requiring highly-specialised diagnostic or treatment facilities. We do not believe, however, that it is objectionable that a patient who has chosen private treatment should be admitted earlier (or later, for that matter) than he otherwise might have been as an NHS patient provided that—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly— he does not thereby prejudice the position of NHS patients who are in need of urgent or highly specialised treatment or diagnosis.
This is the extra provision that we have made about which, I think, the noble Lord was concerned. I hope that that answers the question that he has raised, and has explained our general policy with regard to common waiting lists.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Is the noble Baroness the Minister in a position to give any indications as to how in fact these things are monitored? Who has the responsibility to see that they are in fact properly applied? That, of course, will also go for the six principles when they come into being, if they have not already come into being.
Baroness YOUNG: So far as the question of monitoring is concerned,

1417
there will be no formal monitoring system of the sort provided for in this amendment. I think I must say that. The main check will be by medical colleagues—what has been called the peer group. Health authorities will be asked to ensure that private practice is conducted in accordance with the principles. I hope this explains how we would see this operating.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am bound to say, on what the noble Baroness the Minister has said, that I think it is highly unsatisfactory and open to a good deal of abuse.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Charge on private health hospitals
. The Secretary of State shall require private health hospitals annually to levy a charge upon themselves to be fixed after consultation between the Secretary of State and the hospitals for use as a contribution by the private health hospitals for the education and training of medical, dental, and nursing staff within the National Health Service")
The noble Baroness said: I am aware of the fact that an amendment was moved in the other place at Third Reading attempting to achieve what my Amendment No. 12 is attempting to achieve here. It was moved as a new Clause 8 in another place, and I have chosen to put it in as new Clause 11 because I believe that it follows naturally in the arrangement of the Bill since the preceding clause deals largely with the responsibilities that the NHS has towards the private sector. I am the first to agree that, having private sector medicine in this country as well as the NHS sector, it is very necessary that we co-operate for the benefit of all the patients; but it appears to me that the Bill itself concentrates rather too much on the responsibilities of the NHS towards the private sector rather than the other way round. I was also very concerned at hearing the Minister of Health's recent statement that he foresees the possibility of private medicine growing until it accounts for 25 per cent. of patient care in this country.
1418
Today, private medicine accounts for less than 5 per cent. of patient care, but nevertheless the drain on NHS-trained staff is already appreciable.
In the debate on the preceding amendments, somebody mentioned that the NHS benefit to the tune of £45 million income from private patients. It sounds to be a large sum of money. Can I try to tell your Lordships something of the cost of training staff for the NHS and the private sector?—because the NHS is basically the only training ground for the staff that services private medicine as well as its own. So far as I know, there are only five private hospitals which carry on a limited amount of nurse training. There are one or two voluntary and private hospitals which give training facilities to one or two registrars and senior registrars. Apart from that, on the whole the training for health service personnel, whether private or NHS, is done by the NHS.
To give some idea of the kind of burden that this places on the NHS on its limited budget, I can tell your Lordships that the cost of training undergraduate medical students on the SIFT formula in my region—and I have only one teaching hospital in my region—is £6,069,000. That is the sum required to train 324 medical students and 157 dental students; and that is the cost for one year. The cost to my region of re-training and bringing back into service married women who had left because they have had a family is half a million pounds a year. The cost of training nurses in my region is £3,235,000 per year. The cost of postgraduate training for nurses is £274 million a year, and the cost of postgraduate medical and dental education is £458 million a year. I have not totalled those figures but one can do that on reading Hansard tomorrow. It gives one some idea, if one multiplies the total by the 14 regions in England and Wales, plus whatever happens in Scotland, of the cost of training medical personnel for the use not only of the NHS but also of the private sector.
I have put forward an amendment in quite different terms from the amendment which was put forward in the other place. I have done this deliberately, because I believe that it leaves the possibility of working out on what basis a levy should

1419
be charged to the private sector towards the cost of education. I have talked to many people involved in the provision of private medicine in this country and they are fully aware of the debt that they owe to the NHS. I do not believe that there is any resistance on behalf of the private sector to helping with the cost of education of nurses, doctors and dentists. If we pass an amendment which leaves to the Secretary of State and the representatives of the private hospitals, the working out of the procedure, I believe that we might achieve something worth achieving. I believe that the private sector would feel better about carrying out their responsibilities and that the NHS would benefit enormously. The idea is not a new one. In most industries that deal with both the private and the public sector we have industrial training boards to which everybody pays a levy. I believe that if we did that, the relationship between the private sector and the NHS would be immeasurably improved. I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, can accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I should like to support the noble Baroness. This is an eminently sensible and just amendment. It will be attractive to the Government because it will bring finance into the National Health Service. I am sure that the Government, who are so keen to save money, cannot but accept the amendment. We have been discussing private beds. The noble Baroness is quite right: we train in the National Health Service people who become consultants. I think that I am correct in saying—and I have sat on one or two appointment boards—that we appoint consultants. It is the consultants who, in the main, benefit from private pay beds. There is every element of justice in this. It is an attractive amendment for the Government and they will be throwing money down the drain if they do not accept it.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I, too, should like to support this amendment. It seems only fair that these hospitals which cater for people on insurance schemes pay their contribution to the National Health Service. For example, the long-term sick and disabled are not accepted by insurance schemes. They have no choice. But
1420
when they work they contribute to the National Health Service. They feel that these hospitals which are outside the Health Service should contribute.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: It is very helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, has raised this matter so that we can discuss it fully in the Committee. The question of the private medical sector's contribution to staff training has been discussed both in our House and in another place on a number of occasions in the past months. It was raised during our own debate in March. It was first raised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services during the Second Reading debate last December in another place. The Secretary of State said then that although the State trained many people who then went to work in the private sector—and there was an argument that there was no reason why the private medical sector should make a contribution to training—there was a good case for saying that in the case of health personnel the position was different. Where the NHS was short of qualified staff, and where the training was expensive, then the private sector should help by training more of its staff to meet its own needs. The Secretary of State mentioned that there already was some private sector staff training; the Government thought there could be more and their policy was to help the private sector increase its contribution. This was in effect a challenge to the private sector to do more.
We believe that the private sector has accepted this challenge and the responsibility for doing more to meet a greater proportion of the training costs of its own staff. That was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. She said, quite rightly, that the private sector would like to help in this matter. To help them see what the possibilities are the Department of Health has had a number of meetings both with individual private sector groups and with a sub-group of the joint liaison committee for independent health care. Next week my honourable friend the Minister for Health will be discussing this with the joint liaison committee itself. So far discussions have concentrated almost ex-

1421
clusively on nurse training, but there is no reason why they should not go wider than this at a later stage. I think the Committee will agree, however, that nurse training is the most important area on which to concentrate. I think the noble Baroness made this point herself. Good progress has been made. We now have a much clearer idea of the amount of staff training which already takes place in the private sector. This is often provided in collaboration with the NHS. It takes the form primarily of in-service and developmental training, but there are a number of formal nurse training courses, both basic and specialist, provided in private hospitals.
We have also got a clearer idea of some of the problems in the way of a larger contribution. The cost of setting up a basic nurse training facility in the independent sector would not only be very expensive; but, more important perhaps, there are also problems in finding the necessary teaching and clinical experience. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the private sector, unlike the NHS is made up of a number of very different groups, varying in size, services provided and staffing needs. These differences will affect individual hospitals' degree of involvement in a training programme. Basic nurse training within the private sector is of course not the only area where a contribution can be made. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made this point. In our discussions with the private sector we are looking at other areas where a contribution would be just as valuable.
If I might indicate just briefly some of the possible options, there is a sponsorship of existing NHS basic and post-basic training. This would be done by sponsoring places in nurse training schools both in NHS and independent hospitals. Alternatively, students from independent hospitals might be sponsored or seconded to attend training schools. There is also the question of direct financial contributions which might be made to support and expand existing training facilities, again in both the NHS and the private sectors. There are also a number of universities which are offering nursing degree courses and students on such courses are funded by local education authority grants, as are other undergraduates. These courses
1422
provide graduate nurses of a high calibre for the common pool of nursing staff. Resources might be injected into those courses by the independent sector by the endowment of professorial chairs ch lectureships. These are just some of tht. options we are exploring and I give them only as examples of what might be pos sible. I have mentioned some of tilt: difficulties and particularly the difficulties in the way of more basic nurse training but, as noble Lords will appreciate, these are not things that can, or should, be done overnight. They will take some time.
I hope I have said enough to indicate that there is general agreement between us on the principle of this and that we are looking actively at it. In view of what I have indicated and the discussions which are currently taking place, I may say we have not ruled out completely the idea of a voluntary levy. During the Report stage in another place, when a similar amendment was tabled, the Minister of State said that we did not have a closed mind on the idea of a levy and thought that some form of agreed rate of voluntary contributions to a central pool might be made. We do not think that an amendment to this Bill at this stage which would introduce a compulsory levy would be very desirable in view of the discussions we are having. Before we did introduce a compulsory levy we would have to think it through very carefully indeed. For example, the levy would be imposed in all private hospitals and it would be completely non-selective and there would be implications of this. Would there not be any exemptions?
As this amendment stands, unless the definition of a hospital was carefully drafted, it could embrace such premises as those looking after the terminally ill. It would include voluntary and religious hospitals where many of the patients are admitted without any charge at all. I do not in any way use these arguments as a debating point, but I would say quite simply that it would be difficult to accept the amendment on the levy as it stands, because it needs thinking through. I give the assurance to the Committee that, as a matter of principle, this is something that the Government are looking at.
I hope I have said enough to assure your Lordhips that we are looking at a series of propositions with the private

1423
sector and meetings are currently taking place. If I have any further information available by the time we reach the next stage of this Bill, I will of course give it to your Lordships. In the meantime, I hope that I have given enough reassurance so that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is gratifying to hear the noble Baroness say that her right honourable friend the Minister of State is considering this matter with the private sector, but, bearing in mind that the private sector is going to exist for some years on people who are already trained—that is, nursing staff, medical auxiliaries and doctors—and that they have been trained at the expense of the State, does her right honourable friend the Minister of State rule out the possibility of getting some kind of levy for the staff they have already got?
Baroness YOUNG: No, we do not rule that out as a possibility. I hope I made that clear: this is one of the things that are being discussed.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I thank the noble Baroness very much for her reply and for her open-mindedness on this question. I have some reservations. The noble Baroness said it would be very expensive for the private sector to set up a training programme of their own. I realise that, and that is why there is no hope that this will happen. That is why I have introduced an amendment for some levy to be paid by the private sector.
The noble Baroness also referred to the problems of different hospitals, the size of hospitals, terminal care and all kinds of difficulties that might occur in raising a levy from the private sector. This is exactly the reason why I have left my amendment so wide, and why I say that consultation will take place between the Secretary of State and the private sector. All it says is that, as a basic principle, a levy should be charged. I should be quite happy to accept the result of consultation between the Secretary of State and the private sector, and I hope that this will be kept in mind when the consultation proceeds along the lines that the noble Baroness has suggested.
1424
In view of her statement on the consultation, I am happy to withdraw the amendment today. But I will re-table it on Report, because I do not accept that this is not the time or the Bill in which to introduce it. I believe that this is exactly the Bill in which to introduce it. Having read the report of what has been said in reply today, and after consulting my colleagues, I might easily re-introduce the amendment on Report, but today I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 24 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Amendments of the Act of 1977 and the Scottish Act of 1978 relating to exemptions from charges for certain services and appliances]:
9.27 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 54, line 33, at end insert—
("After paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the National Health Services Act 1977 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"1A. No charge shall be made under section 77(i) above in relation to the supply of any drug, medicine or appliance to any person who is in receipt of Invalidity Benefit.".")
The noble Baroness said: I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Winstanley is not here to move Amendment No. 13, but unfortunately he had to leave in order to catch a train. As your Lordships know, the amendment deals with the exemption from prescription charges for all people in receipt of invalidity benefit. To look at the case for this, we have to look at the figures of those to whom it applies. I believe that at 3rd June 1979 there were 557,000 people in this country who were in receipt of invalidity benefit, and of those about 80,000, or 12 per cent., were exempt from prescription charges, because they were over retirement age or receiving supplementary benefit. Then there are a large number of people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit, and who are

1425
exempt because they have a specified condition. Those conditions include cancer, heart disease, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, mental illness, chest disease and arthritic condition.
In the discussion on this Bill in the other place on 9th June 1980, it was stated by the Under-Secretary of State, Sir George Young, that information was not available for any of the other exemption categories; in other words, the number of people who are exempt under those categories. But there is evidence that many people who would be exempt under those categories do not apply, because either they do not want to go through a means test or they are not aware that they can apply.
The argument of the present Government is that somebody who is in need of repeated prescriptions can get a season ticket, but for somebody who is in receipt of invalidity benefit this can cause quite a lot of hardship. If you are to get the maximum benefit from buying a season ticket, you ought to buy it on a yearly basis—it costs £12 at the moment, and in future it will cost £15—but it will be very difficult for somebody who is caught in the poverty trap (and many of the invalidity beneficiaries are) to have to pay out that sum of money, particularly since they will say to themselves: "I may not be in need of prescriptions for the whole of the year; it may be only in the winter that I shall need a great number of prescriptions".
Neither the Government nor anybody else has been able to tell me how many people are not exempt now. All we know is that 80,000 people are exempt on the grounds of age or because they are receiving supplementary benefit. We do not know how many people are exempt because they suffer from a specific disease. The Government estimate that the cost to the health service if we introduced exemption from prescription charges for invalids would be £21½ million, based on the average prescription per person, and that, taking into account that an invalid would perhaps need more prescriptions than the average person, the maximum cost would be £4 million. These people are already suffering from the abatement of their benefit and from other measures contained in the Social Security (No. 1) Bill and the Social
1426
Security (No. 2) Bill. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to make certain that people in this category are entitled to free prescriptions.
There is one extra point to be made. Very often general practitioners prescribe a drug or a medicine to make the life of an invalid pleasanter and better in some way, although it is not necessary for his physical health. They will refrain from doing this because they will know that the invalid will have to pay the extra prescription charge. The saving to the nation is so small, that I believe this to be one of the meanest things that we are trying to do. Therefore I hope that the Committee will agree to accept this amendment.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I spoke on this point at Second Reading. As old age pensioners and war pensioners are exempt, it seems to me to be reasonable that invalidity pensioners should be exempt if they become yet another category. Already there are six categories. I would not agree if they were to take the place of some of the people in the six categories. I believe that the very severely long-term sick and disabled should be exempt. They include people with muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, continual skin disease like psoriasis, heart disease, chest disease—all sorts of disease.
I have discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is himself war disabled. He tells me that it is quite simple for the medical profession to categorise severely disabled people. Therefore, I implore the Government to look again at this category of severely disabled people. It really does seem appalling that this country cannot help these severely disabled and long-term sick people, some of whom have cancer and who may be going to die. Only last week I heard of somebody who has cancer who has hesitated in taking up her season ticket because she feels that she may not live for a whole year. It really is an appalling situation. In fact, as I meet so many disabled people and I really see them at this level, I feel that the country should do something about this situation. Since Second Reading I have discussed this with many members of the public, and they were appalled because they did

1427
not realise that these very badly disabled people were not exempt.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to prolong this debate, but this is a matter which is causing considerable concern to the people who are working in the field of those who could be described, to a large extent, as being deprived. It has imposed a very severe burden on them. I do not want to go over the same ground as that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, because she has done it in such an excellent manner. What I want to ask the Minister is this. Is it true that the Department of Health and Social Security has already investigated the possibility of granting exemptions to more groups with specified illnesses, but that this was rejected because it was unacceptable to the representatives of the medical profession because of the risk of argument between doctor and patient?
Lord SANDYS: I think we have had a very useful debate on this most important subject, and I am sure that despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has been unable to be with the Committee on this occasion the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has interested the Committee very much. I think it would help the Committee if I were to go over in a little greater detail the present arrangements.
Your Lordships may or may not be aware that the present exemption arrangements are based broadly on medical and financial need. Exemption on medical grounds is based on the fact that all persons suffering from one of the exempt medical conditions are virtually certain to require prolonged continuous medication. This is not necessarily the case with all invalidity recipients, many of whom may not require a lot of prescriptions. Exemption on grounds of financial need is given to recipients of supplementary benefit, family income supplement and to others, whether working or not, whose financial resources are not much above supplementary benefit levels. Invalidity benefit is not a means-tested benefit; therefore many recipients will not be in financial need.
While recipients of invalidity benefit as a whole do not qualify for exemption
1428
from prescription charges, many of them do not in fact have to pay for prescriptions as they qualify for exemption under the present arrangements; that is, because they are suffering from one of the specific medical conditions or because they are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement or because their income falls below a certain level. The qualifying level for low income exemption was raised when prescription charges were increased in July 1979 and on 1 April this year, thus extending entitlement to more people. As was explained in another place, the existing exemption arrangements will continue when the prescription charge increases to £1 on 1st December this year. The low income qualifying levels will again be raised at that time.
The noble Baroness referred to figures in June 1979, and I am a little mystified about them because the figures quoted in another place at col. 90 were 130,000 recipients of invalidity benefit—that is for Great Britain, in 1978—who were known to qualify for free prescription on age grounds or because they were in receipt of supplementary benefit. I regret information is not available for any of the other exemption categories.
In June 1978 recipients of invalidity benefit totalled approximately 708,000. This figure includes those in receipt of contributory invalidity benefits, non-contributory invalidity pension and housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension. I have not been able to reconcile the noble Baroness's figures. I am sure they are very accurately quoted, but I have had insufficient time to reassure myself as to their particular source.
The cost of exempting invalidity benefit recipients would be, for those who are not otherwise exempt from the present 70p prescription charge, in the region of £2·5 million. Apart from the cost there are conflicting claims of the various groups including people who suffer from serious medical conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, glaucoma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, who in terms of prescription needs and numbers would seem to have a much stronger case. Some other examples of people who feel that the exemption categories should be extended to them include people involved

1429
in early retirement, dependent wives of pensioners and widows.
I re-read with interest the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on Second Reading at column 1407. She was of this opinion—I quote her words:
"All I am asking the Government to do now, as prescription charges are going up, is to extend the exemption to some more categories who are severely disabled and need prolonged treatment by the use of any drug, medicine or appliance".
The noble Baroness slightly varied her argument this evening, but I think we can take it the two are not inconsistent with one another.
In the present circumstances I think it would be profitable to take up another point raised by the noble Baroness. She specifically mentioned the problem of a particular case of a sufferer from cancer—and I am sure the House was much moved by it. I think the noble Baroness mentioned that the sufferer did not think it would be worth her while purchasing a season ticket, a certificate for 12 months, at a cost of £12. I would remind the House that there is another option of taking up a four-monthly certificate at a cost of £4.50, which would entitle the holder to obtain as many prescriptions as he or she needs during the four-month period. I think there is a point here. By introducing the four-monthly certificate, to replace the previous six-monthly one, the Government hope to have made it easier for people who have to budget carefully, to find the money to buy a prepayment certificate. A prepayment certificate is currently worthwhile for anyone who needs more than six items on prescription during a period of four months, or more than 17 items during a period of 12 months.
When the prescription charge increases to £1 per item on 1st December 1980 the cost of certificates will also be increased. This increase will be less, proportionately, than the prescription charge increase and thus make the purchase of a prepayment certificate a more attractive proposition. The new prices will be £15 for an annual certificate and £5.50 for one for four months. Certificates issued with a starting date before 1st December will remain valid for their full period. I hope that that information may assist the noble Baroness and I hope that I have answered the questions of noble Lords.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to thank him for what he said about the season ticket which can be paid by four-monthly instalments. There are many people who do not know about it and it would be good if the Government could give it some publicity. That would be very helpful, especially to cancer patients. Having said that, I still think that the very sick and disabled should be exempt.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I am grateful for the reply that has been given, but I am not happy about the answers because I feel that there are such grave doubts about what the Government are trying to save by not allowing this amendment. What worries me is that the noble Lord who replied cannot tell me the number who are already exempt. However, despite that we have a statement saying that if we exempt everybody it will cost £2·5 million, or maybe £4 million. It seems to me to be a very vague statement and that we need more concrete facts.
It also seems to me that someone in the state of physical health which qualifies one for an invalidity benefit is someone who should be entitled to free prescriptions, especially as the saving to the nation is something about which we are not quite certain—the cost might be very much smaller than the amount stated. However, I shall ponder the subject and decide what to do on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 55, line 14, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4.
The noble Baroness said: I seem to be working overtime. I have tabled this amendment to Schedule 5 to leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 55, line 14. I followed with interest the debate that took place in another place when in this schedule the qualifying age for free dental treatment was raised from the age of 16 to 18, whereas previously the exemption age was 21. I realise that there can be an argument for saying that somebody aged 18 now has the right to vote, he or she is an adult human being and there is no reason why we should carry on with this particular benefit.
However, in my view it is absolutely wrong at present to stop treating young people free. The economic situation of this country is such that a mass of our young people are leaving school and not earning any money. They arc in the unemployment queue. I am one of those who believe that it is desperately important that people should look after their teeth up to the age of 21; because if we do not look after the teeth of the young people in this nation, we shall only cause ourselves greater expense looking after them later in life. Healthy teeth have an impact not only on the teeth themselves; they have an impact on the whole health of a person.
We in this country certainly have a rotten record over healthy teeth, which is perhaps only surpassed by the people North of the Border. I happen to have been born in a country where teeth are considered to be important; and we take a pride in keeping our teeth to the age of 70, 80 or 90, or of dying with them. I think that we should have that same principle in this country. I believe that it is very dangerous for a young person who, for the first time probably is on his own, or who leaves his family also to have the added disadvantage of having to pay to go to his dentist. If the treatment were free, we might persuade that young person to get into the habit of going to the dentist every six months to ensure that his teeth are in order. He would have had a year or two before reaching the age of 21 in which to get into the habit. I do not believe that the cost of carrying this out would be enormous, and I believe that it would do an enormous amount of good for the young people of this nation, particularly until this Government, with the last Administration, get down to sorting out who has the ultimate responsibility for putting fluoride into our water supply. This is a problem that has not been solved at all. Until we solve it, at least let us look after the teeth of the young people until they are 21 years of age. I beg to move.
Lord COLWYN: I should like to support this amendment. I am very much aware of the financial problems of the National Health Service and also of the directives from the Treasury. I am also aware that the dental profession has been
1432
successful in already having had Schedule 5 of this Bill amended, changing the age for charging for dental treatment from 16 to 18, and I think that that is a good thing.
Although there is no dental significance attached to the age of 21, it is a fact that between the ages of about 15 and the middle 20s there is a higher incidence and often an onset of many of the aspects of dental disease. My colleagues and I feel that any discouragement to seeking treatment at this age may have far-reaching effects which may ultimately cost the National Health Service much more.
However, I was at the centenary celebration this morning of the British Dental Association, and was delighted to hear my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announce the setting up of a dental strategy review group to look into the future management of dental services and to report as early as the spring of 1981. I was most encouraged to hear that one of the points of reference will be an investigation into the basis of patient contribution towards the cost of dental treatment. It is my hope that the present fixed charges—whether they be payable at the age of 18 or 21—will be reviewed in some way so that the actual charge towards the cost of treatment will bear some relationship to patient co-operation with preventative measures and a commitment to a programme of continued care.
Lord SANDYS: I am sure that the Committee was very glad that when the noble Baroness introduced her amendment she spoke with such feeling from her native country on this interesting subject. The Committee will be grateful that my noble friend Lord Colwyn, a practising dentist himself, was able to add such a weighty contribution to the debate.
The Government, I regret, oppose these amendments which would have the effect of reducing the planned revenue from patients' charges and causing difficulty over the implementation of the proposed extension of the exemption arrangements for appliance charges. May I deal with the revenue point first. Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Schedule 5—which of course this amendment refers to—provide for the upper age limit for exemption from dental treatment charges to be

1433
reduced from 21 to 18 in the case of young people who have left school. It is estimated that this will produce increased revenue from patients' charges of some £7½ million in 1981–82 in Great Britain at Survey 79 prices. The amendment provides, however, for the status quo to continue, with, of course, a consequential loss of planned revenue which the Government would have to make good in some less acceptable way—probably by other increases in NHS charges or by reductions in services. In our view this is undesirable.
In framing Schedule 5, we have endeavoured to ensure that we get the balance of exemptions right. We have had regard, for example, to the arguments put to us that it would have a damaging effect on the dental health of young people to reduce the age limit for exemption below 18 (noble Lords may recall that our original intention, outlined in the latest expenditure White Paper, was to lower the age limit to 16). My noble friend Lord Colwyn referred to this a few moments ago. Similarly, we have provided for full-time students to continue to be exempt until the age of 19. Those patients who cannot afford to pay charges will be able to claim remission on low income grounds, as they can now. The existing arrangements for free dental examination also remain unchanged, as do the exemptions for expectant mothers and those who have borne a child within the previous year. With all these safeguards we do not feel that young people's dental health need suffer as a result of the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 7 of Schedule 5.
Turning now to paragraphs 4 and 8, the definition of qualifying full-time education is required not only for the implementation of paragraphs 3 and 7 but also for paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6. What we are doing in these paragraphs is to remove the anomaly whereby the existing exemption arrangements for dental and optical applicances and for appliances supplied to hospital out-patients are restricted to young people under 16 years of age or receiving "full-time education in a school". It is the phrase "in a school" which creates the anomaly because, as many noble Lords will be aware, the pattern of secondary education in many parts of the country is now such that a considerable number of young people follow A ' level and other comparable courses not in schools but in
1434
colleges of further education or similar institutions which do not fall within the statutory definition of the term "school". As a result, students at these educational institutions are denied the exemption to which their counterparts in schools are entitled.
Schedule 5 removes this anomaly by extending the exemption arrangements so that they include all those under 19 years of age who are pursuing a course of full-time education. The interpretation of "qualifying full-time education" in paragraphs 4 and 8 is a necessary part of this extension of the exemption arrangements. I hope that my reply, if it has not satisfied the noble Baroness, will at least have explained the Government's position.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, replies, may I say that she has a very interesting amendment? My country of birth is Scotland, where I think we have the worst record for teeth. I wonder whether she could tell us what they do in Sweden, which I think is her country of birth. Perhaps we can learn from her.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: That was a very searching question, considering that I have not lived in that country for some time now and 1 am not 100 per cent. up to date on the legislation in that country, but in the days when I was a young person we did get free dental treatment up to the age of 21. But I am not certain, and I should not like to say, that this is so at this moment. I shall have to check up, and I will let the noble Baroness know when I have checked with the Swedish Embassy. What worries me in particular about the noble Lord's reply is that he implied that by levying charges we should receive an income of £7½million.Did I understand that correctly?
Lord SANDYS: Yes.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: That is correct. I presume this is on the assumption—and this is what worries me about the schedule—that all these young people went on and had their six-monthly check and looked after their teeth. What concerns me about it is that I do not believe they will. These are young people who are let out of their family surround-

1435
ings; perhaps their mother and father are no longer there telling them to go to the dentist. If they are short of cash because they are not finding suitable employment, the last thing they are going to spend money on is a visit to their dentist. I believe that it is a short-sighted measure, and I hope the Government will have another look at it before we come to Report stage. But I withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.

WRITTEN ANSWER

  THE KHARTOUM CONFERENCE ON REFUGEES
  Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What were the conclusions of the conference at Khartoum on the maintenance of half a million refugees from neighbouring countries in the Sudan, and what contribution the United Kingdom made.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): The Conference approved a two-part resolution. Part A commends the policy of the Sudanese Government in coping with the influx of refugees and indicates a need for 280 million US dollars to finance necessary projects. Part B appeals to Governments and other organisations to contribute generously through a National Refugee Fund, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or by any other means; it also asks the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to draw international attention to the appeal. The conference secretariat will issue a summary of proceedings in due course, a copy of which I shall be pleased to forward to the noble Lord.
  My honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development represented Her Majesty's Government at the conference and pledged a United Kingdom contribution of £850,000 for the financial year 1980–81. This was the largest contribution announced by any Government. The European Community have pledged a sum equivalent to £1·83 million, of which the United Kingdom's share is £342,000.
  House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.