Sitting of 17 November 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WRITERS TO THE SIGNET DEPENDANTS' ANNUITY FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
BILL PRESENTED
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall call them in the order in which they were received.
BILL PRESENTED
  HIGHLAND REGION (BANAVIE LEVEL CROSSING) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Region (Banavie Level Crossing); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 23 November and to be printed [Bill 14.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin questions, I remind the House that if hon. Members ask more than one supplementary question when they are called they will take up someone else's time.
  Oral Answers to Questions
    SCOTLAND

      Voluntary and Community Organisations
      Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that voluntary and community organisations in Scotland receive sufficient funding from the Government's urban programme.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): This year voluntary sector projects will account for a substantial proportion of the urban programme. Substantial sums are involved—£2 million capital and £3 million current—but I should be happy to see the voluntary sector benefit still further from the programme.
      Mr. Wilson: As the voluntary programme in England receives three times as much in percentage terms of the funds as Scotland, what action does the Minister propose
      260
      to take to persuade recalcitrant local authorities in Scotland, such as Tayside regional council, to take up the 75 per cent. grants that are available for such purposes?
      Mr. Stewart: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Tayside. I hope he will accept that voluntary sector projects have been taking an increasing proportion of the total. The figures that I have given compare with the provision of £1 million in 1980–81. I recognise the need for greater publicity, and officials of the urban renewal unit are working with the Scottish Community Education Council to produce an explanatory pack for voluntary and community groups. I am sure that that will be helpful.
      Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that Levenmouth council of social services has greatly benefited from the substantial contribution under the voluntary initiative scheme? The money has been used in the current year and has made a substantial improvement to the voluntary initiative.
      Mr. Stewarty voluntary projects have benefited substantially from the urban programme.

      Unemployment
      Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to reduce the levels of unemployment in Scotland.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Our economic strategy, which is having considerable success in reducing inflation and interest rates, offers the best hope for creating viable new jobs in productive enterprises, and we have recently announced further measures to assist industry. For those unable to get jobs, we are expanding substantially the programme of special employment and training measures.
      Mr. Maclennan: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State, in dealing with employment at Ravenscraig, to follow the line that he has taken on Linwood, Fort William and Invergordon and agonise on the sidelines until there is a closure or a massive loss of employment in a strategic Scottish industry and then simply discount it and say that it is due to market forces, over which he has no control?
      Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's account of my activities bears no relation to the facts. He will know that I made it clear in my evidence to the Select Committee last week that a proposal to close Ravenscraig would be a serious matter.
      Mr. James Hamilton: We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are reputed to be fighting to save Ravenscraig, but does he realise that there has been a decimation of the steel industry in Lanarkshire? Does he also recognise that one part of the steel industry in my constituency is working two on and one off, that a caterpillar tractor factory is laying off 1,200 workers and that a Honeywell factory is on short-time working? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that?
      Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety over all those matters, but he must realise that in every one of those cases the trouble is that the customers wanting the products made by those factories have gone

      261
      elsewhere for them. The Government are trying to make Scottish industry competitive once more in order to win back those markets and get back the jobs.
      Mr. Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that jobs will be created only if industry works from a stable economic base, and that the lowering of interest rates and the inflation rate are far more likely to achieve that than any of the "live now, pay later" policies of the Opposition?
      Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Everyone in industry has said for a long time that the reduction in interest rates and inflation are by far the most important factors for industry. The CBI made it clear at its conference recently that the last thing that industry wants is yet further borrowing that will take many years to repay and create inflation for industry.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, crucial to reducing unemployment in Scotland, is the preservation of every job in the Scottish steel industry, at Ravenscraig and elsewhere? Is he further aware that my right hon. Friends and myself in the Labour Party in Scotland will fight to preserve every job in the steel industry and will not accept from him any shoddy compromise that brings about further job loss in any part of that industry?
      Mr. Younger: There is no industry in any country that can expect to save every job on every occassion in every plant. The hon. Gentleman makes himself sound incredible when he makes such silly statements.

      Manufacturing Output
      Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of output of manufacturing industry in Scotland.
      Mr. Younger: The latest available index of industrial production for Scotland relates to the first quarter of 1982. In that period manufacturing output in Scotland was 0·6 per cent. higher than in the preceding quarter and was at its highest level since the third quarter of 1980.
      Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State try to help Scotland during discussions in the Cabinet? Is it true that he is peculiar in taking some responsibility for the levels of unemployment and employment in manufacturing industry in Scotland, whereas the Government take credit for controlling the rate of inflation, but take a "hands off' attitude towards the levels of employment and unemployment?
      Mr. Younger: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. I have always made it clear that I regard myself as having an overriding responsibility for the Scottish economy. Perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that I have done my best to fulfil that responsibility.
      The reduction in inflation and in interest rates is critical to the survival of every business in Scotland. I fight in the Cabinet to encourage my colleagues to continue on their present course.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that output can continue only if factories are actually working? Are not unnecessary strikes, coupled with irresponsible wage demands, accounting for more lack of production and of competitive performance by Scottish manufacturing industry than any other factor since the war?
      Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. It is sad that it has taken so long for some employees in factories in Scotland to appreciate that if they strike today they may lose their jobs tomorrow.
      Mr. Buchan: Has the Secretary of State seen the recent announcement from Babcock Power Ltd. of 480 redundancies? Is that not a terrible omen for the future level of manufacturing industry, as that company is one of the main energy providers in Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the orders for new power stations and the refurbishing of existing power stations? Otherwise, that industry will not exist when a Labour Government return and have to pick up the remains of manufacturing industry.
      Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's worry about the situation at Babcock's. As he knows, I have had discussions with representatives from that company. I respectfully disagree with his remedy. The salvation for Babcock's depends upon obtaining orders from overseas. We are doing everything possible to help the company to win such orders. However, Britain has a surplus of capacity at power stations, so it is hardly likely that the company will gain much business there.

      Unemployment Statistics
      Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are registered as unemployed in Scotland at the latest convenient date whose last recorded job was in the construction industry.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: On 13 May 1982, the last date on which an industrial analysis of the unemployment register was undertaken, 46,521 people who had last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Scotland.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that it is crazy to have a policy that combines unacceptably high unemployment in the construction industry with a miserably inadequate building programme? Does he further accept that it is not good enough for him to suggest in a rather frantic and cosmetic manner that there should be an increase in expenditure, at the fag end of the year, under the house improvement programme? That is no substitute unless he is prepared to do something about the revenue implications of an increased capital spending programme.
      Did the Minister hear the Tory leader of the Lothian regional council make that point forcefully on Scottish television and say that he had two brand new old people's homes in Lothian into which he could not put a single person because he could not make the necessary provision from his revenue budget? Will the Minister do something about that?
      Mr. Stewart: The construction industry will benefit substantially from the recent success of the Government's counter-inflation policy in reducing interest rates and the national insurance surcharge. We are defending the capital programme. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is worried, he should take up with his friends in local Labour authorities the fact that the Scottish construction industry has been deprived of more than £50 million of capital spending because of their rate fund contribution policy.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Would it be a sensible, if modest, contribution to the problems of the construction industry, as well as making good conservation sense, for the Government to increase the grant for house insulation for old-age pensioners from 90 to 100 per cent.?
      Mr. Stewart: There are arguments against 100 per cent. grants, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I emphasise what the Government have done about improvement grants. We have lifted the spending limits on improvement grants for the remainder of the financial year. The hon. Member for Garscadden described that as cosmetic, but those who benefit will not see it in the same light.
      Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge him to make all employment tax deductible, so that workers who were formerly employed in the construction industry might obtain a job in personal employment?
      Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. Friend is more than capable of making his own representations to the Chancellor.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Is it not outrageous that the Prime Minister should have given the impression last week that local authorities in Scotland have not chosen to use all of their capital allowance, and that the Minister should seek to add to that confusion today? Will the Minister use his influence to obtain a reasonable capital allowance for local authorities, coupled with the necessary revenue approval, so that jobs can be made available?
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has not followed the Scottish announcements. We have made it clear that the serious underspending problem in England is not paralleled north of the border. We have also brought forward a series of measures on general capital allocation and on non-housing revenue account to assist local authorities to meet the resources made available to them.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the construction industry is always the first to feel the recession and the first to get out of it? Does he accept that the recent announcement by the oil companies at Sullom Voe and St. Fergus, headed by Total Oil, will involve the engagement of 3,000 construction workers during the next year, which will be an added advantage for the construction industry in Scotland?
      Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of oil industry developments for the construction industry in Scotland. I am sure that the Scottish construction industry is well able to meet these challenges.

      Factory Closures and Company Liquidations
      Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many factory closures and company liquidations there have been in Scotland in each of the past three years.
      Mr. Younger: Comprehensive statistics of factory closures are not available.
      Instances of redundancy notified to the MSC involving 10 or more workers and arising in the context of closures
      264
      for 1979, 1980 and 1981 are 86, 258 and 283 firms respectively. The number of instances up to the end of July 1982 is 207.
      The total number of compulsory and creditors' voluntary liquidations—the two types which involve insolvency—recorded in Scotland in 1979, 1980 and 1981 were 238, 379 and 438 respectively. The figure for 1982 up to the end of September is 373.
      Mr. Steel: Do not the figures, especially for the current year, give the lie to Ministers' repeated proclamations about the end of the recession? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in my constituency alone in the past fortnight there have been three substantial lay-offs and one complete factory closure? Is he aware that what really irritates my constituents, as I suspect it does others, is the gap between Ministers' speeches and the actual wreckage of the economy?
      Mr. Younger: That occurs only if those listening to the speeches do not examine the facts for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman may know that 7,000 firms in Scotland went out of business last year. As 8.000 new businesses were created, that does not seem to be a bad balance.
      Mr. Allen Adams: I should like a clear statement from the Secretary of State. Is he still contending, against the background of the past 10 or 15 minutes, that his economic policies are working in Scotland? Does he believe that they are working? My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) instanced the loss of 450 jobs in Renfrew last week. We lost 50 jobs in Paisley yesterday. Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that this morning Chivas Brothers in Paisley announced the loss of another 400 jobs, which means that the Renfrewshire area has lost 1,000 jobs in a week—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask his question.
      Mr. Younger: I shall not attempt to answer all those questions, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are many distressing instances of firms laying people off and having difficulties. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is common throughout the Western world. The reason for almost every closure and difficulty is that potential customers have decided to buy their goods elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should give some thought to that.
      Sir Albert Costain: Is my right hon. Friend able to calculate which of these closures and liquidations were due to strikes which stopped production? Does he agree that the Government's economic policies will not bring recovery unless the manufacturers are allowed to get on with the job of producing goods?
      Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that in many instances a long strike record has led to loss of jobs and the ultimate closure of a factory. I am glad to say, however, that in recent years there has been a great improvement and that the vast majority of workers in Scotland now appreciate that their first priority is to ensure that their company satisfies its customers and that if it does their jobs will be much more secure.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Why does the Secretary of State continue to mislead the House? Will he admit that among the 7,000 closures since he became Secretary of State there

      265
      are the Linwood car plant, with the loss of 3,500 jobs, the Invergordon plant, with the loss of 1,000 jobs, and the Fort William paper mill, with the loss of 1,500 jobs? We are still battling to save Ravenscraig. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the 8,000 new companies to which he referred, taken together, do not make up for even the smallest job loss in the factories that I have mentioned?
      Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has inadvertently made my point for me. The best example of all is the Linwood car plant. People all over Scotland have been buying cars regularly over the past few years, but the fact that they chose not to buy cars made at Linwood meant that the factory closed. The hon. Gentleman has to face the fact that throughout Western Europe there are difficulties for industrial enterprises. None of the cases that he quoted resulted from the lack of Government help. The Government did everything that they could to help in every one of those cases.
      Mr. Fairbairn: From where does Babcock and Wilcox buy its steel—from Ravenscraig, or from somewhere else?
      Mr. Younger: I asked that question when I met representatives of that company. They told me that they buy steel from Scottish steelworks and would regard it as serious if they could no longer do so. That is worth noting.

      Council for Tertiary Education
      Mr. O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the Council for Tertiary Education in Scotland to discuss his response to its report on the structure of tertiary education.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the council. The views received from the large number of bodies which have been consulted on the report are at present being considered.
      Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede that any further delay in meeting the council will prevent it convening at all, because it is the expressed opinion of its chairman that nothing further should be done by the council until a response is made? Given the problems that face tertiary education in Scotland, is it not a disgrace that this issue has been allowed to linger on in the way that it has over the past few months?
      Mr. Fletcher: Many of the questions involving tertiary education are being dealt with by the Scottish Office and by the local authorities in Scotland. Many steps have been taken during the past three and a half years on the specific points of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. More than 80 organisations have been consulted and their replies are now being considered. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement early next year.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the present structure is a dog's breakfast which is causing much confusion among prospective applicants, when exactly does the Secretary of State propose to make the statement, because there is a degree of urgency about the matter?
      Mr. Fletcher: We have recently received the final documents giving the views of the various organisations concerned. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement early next year.
      Mr. Bill Walker: With regard to tertiary education, does my hon. Friend agree that we have to acknowledge
      266
      that we are living in a rapidly changing world, which includes the introduction of the new vocational training scheme? Does he agree that all these matters must be integrated to meet the requirements of the youngsters? That is our main interest.
      Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. A great deal of thought has gone into these matters. Considerable improvements have been made in adapting our education system in Scotland to meet the demands of our young people and the market generally. That is what we are doing.
      Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister remember that the Council for Tertiary Education was established to advise a Scottish Assembly? Would it not be better if it were fulfilling the role for which it was established?
      Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir.

      Indigenous Industries (Recovery)
      Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist the indigenous industries in Scotland affected by the present recession.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In addition to our major contribution towards the marked reduction in the level of inflation, which helps all sectors, there is an extensive range of incentives available for industrial development covering investment, innovation and export. We have mounted an industrial development drive to make these incentives known throughout Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency also provides support to small firms with a range of financial, technical and marketing services.
      Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my hon. Friend has stated in his reply, but is this not unsatisfactory for those areas that have lost their development area status, particularly the Grampian region and my constituency of Aberdeenshire, East, where there is intolerably high unemployment? Will my hon. Friend undertake extensive research into the situation at Fraserburgh and Peterhead with a view to reducing the unemployment that has been created in that area?
      Mr. Fletcher: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings in these matters. The Scottish Development Agency is examining the particular problems of Fraserburgh. A wide range of grants and assistance are available to parts of Scotland that are not assisted areas. These include tax incentives, schemes to back innovation and export, and all the programmes that are available for small businesses and small business start-ups. Despite my hon. Friend's disappointment that his area has lost assisted area status, I am sure that he will help us to ensure that every company in his part of the world is fully aware of the assistance that is available.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the difficulties experienced by indigenous industries, the Government's claim that one of their priorities is to deal with unemployment—which is belied by legislation on privatisation and union-bashing—and the reduction in the Treasury contribution to the Scottish Office, what is the Secretary of State doing to educate the Prime Minister about what is happening in Scotland?
      Mr. Fletcher: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means, because there has been no reduction in

      267
      the Treasury's contribution to the Scottish Office. A great deal is being done by the Government and the European Community to assist the area which the right hon. Gentleman represents.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister concede that the closure of the Falmers factory and the redundancies at the Bata factory are due to imports of cheap footwear and clothes from Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong? Will the Scottish Office support the initiative by the Department of Trade to set up a body to try to limit such imports? Does the Minister agree that that is the best way to help Scotland's industry?
      Mr. Fletcher: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports the Secretary of State for Trade's initiatives.
      Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware that I prefer the word "encouragement" to "assistance", and that I have a fellow feeling with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie)? When will my hon. Friend the Minister encourage indigenous industries, especially small companies in the non-assisted and Tory-supporting areas in Scotland?
      Mr. Fletcher: The support available to the small business sector in Scotland is at its highest level ever. Great efforts are being made to ensure that all business men, particularly those involved in small businesses, are aware of the fiscal support and advice available from Government Departments and the Scottish Development Agency.
      Mr. Maclennan: What is the Scottish Office response to the Arthur D. Little and Scottish Office review of forest products?
      Mr. Fletcher: The report is encouraging. We are involved in discussions with interested parties who may wish to take advantage of the report's recommendations and invest further in Scotland.

      New Town Development Corporation
      Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in improving communications between new town development corporations in Scotland and local residents.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: As a result of the measures taken at my request to improve the presentation of their activities to the public, better communications have been established between the development corporations and local residents.
      Mr. Hogg: I recognise that some progress has been made towards making the new town development corporations more accountable, but does the Minister agree that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State now to advise the corporations to open their doors to the press and the public, as proposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?
      Mr. Fletcher: The development corporations are, largely, commercial organisations. It has been proved beyond doubt by both Labour and Conservative Governments that their development work is of great benefit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that no Government should take any steps to diminish industrial development, which is successfully carried out by the corporations.
      Mr. Lambie: If the Minister is not prepared to take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to instruct the new town development corporations to open their meetings to the public, will he, in the interim, instruct them to make the minutes of board meetings available to the press and the public so that the people in the new towns know why decisions are taken?
      Mr. Fletcher: Matters which are not commercially confidential are revealed to the press by the chairmen of the corporations at the specific request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      Dr. M.S. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best news that he could give the House would be that the new town development corporations are to be wound up and their activities handed over to the people who represent the residents?
      Mr. Fletcher: No, Sir. There is a programme for the eventual winding up of the new town development corporations. The hon. Gentlemen's remarks surprise me, because he represents a new town which has been tremendously successful in attracting industry and jobs to Scotland.

      Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Edinburgh Press)
      Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the total printwork of his Department is placed with the Edinburgh press of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
      Mr. Younger: In 1981–82 the Scottish Office ordered about £900,000 of work, including binding and systems stationery, from HMSO print procurement division. I understand that the division placed about £85.000 of this—about 9½ percent.—with its own press in Edinburgh.
      Mr. Cook: Does the Secretary of State agree that in this instance there is no strike record, that wages have fallen compared with other parts of the printing industry and that the work force has co-operated in productivity agreements? Is he aware that, in spite of that, the workers have been rewarded with less than 10 per cent. of Scottish Office print work? Is it not a clear case of an industrial closure which the Secretary of State and HMSO could avert by ensuring that a reasonable proportion of work from the Scottish Office goes to the Government's one printing press in Scotland?
      Mr. Younger: Printing for the Scottish Office is divided between that which is done within the Scottish Office—an activity which was transferred from HMSO to the Scottish Office recently—and that which is done by HMSO. It up to HMSO, for which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury is responsible, to allocate work between its factory and elsewhere.
      In 1981–82 about £1½ million was spent on Scottish Office printing. About 40 per cent. of that was reprographic work divided between departmental resources in the Scottish Office and HMSO's reprographic unit in Edinburgh. It is up to HMSO whether it puts the work out to private contractors or does the work itself.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to influence HMSO to ensure that a generous proportion of the 40 per cent. of Scottish Office reprographic printing goes to HMSO printing works in Edinburgh?
      Mr. Younger: All that can be done by our own printing resources is done. Almost all Scottish Office printing not done by our own resources is carried out at printing works in Scotland.
      Mr. Ron Brown: The DHSS has said that it is likely to print a series of leaflets for ethnic minority groups. Therefore, will the Secretary of State ensure that the work is done by Edinburgh printers?
      Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who is responsible for that aspect.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: Is it true that the printing of Scottish Office statistics, done in the past by HMSO, now has to be done within the Scottish Office? lf so, is that not disgraceful?
      Mr. Younger: I should have thought that it was rather good. Some HMSO work was transferred to the Scottish Office in Edinburgh, and I think that the Scottish Office welcomed that transfer.

      Hamilton College of Education
      Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the disposal of the former Hamilton college of education buildings.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: As announced on 10 November, agreement has been reached on the sale of the halls of residence complex for £410,000 to Millers Homes (Northern) Ltd., and on the sale of the teaching block and playing fields for £270,000 to Christian Schools (North West) Ltd. Two other offers for the premises were received. These were considered to be unacceptable because of the conditions attached to the offers.
      Mr. Robertson: What conceivable justification can there be for the Government's almost gifting to the private education sector and a property developer 52 acres of land and buildings, constructed 16 years ago for £2 million and now worth over £12 million, for a trivial £680,000, especially since it is clear that the Minister accepted the lowest, not the best, offer? Is that not political incompetence compounded by malice?
      Mr. Fletcher: We accepted the best offer—the one with no strings attached. The strings attached to the other offers were unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman should try to prove that the halls are worth £12 million. I offer him a bargain. I shall sell him the halls for a quarter of that price if he cares to make an offer.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that property is worth only as much as someone will pay for it? A large building in Scotland, whether it is an educational establishment or a commercial building, will attract only the market value, which is what people are prepared to pay.
      Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The market value was well tested by the amount of advertising of the property.
      Mr. O'Neill: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's strictures at the Guildhall recently about the desirability of following the policies of sound domestic financial
      270
      management, does the Minister agree that if he were to sell his own house on that basis, his wife would be upset to see the property sold at a knock-down price in a depressed market?
      Mr. Fletcher: We accepted the best unconditional offer that was made to us. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about financial prudence, now that the property has been sold, the saving in the current year will be more than £500,000, and in future years more than £1 million will be saved as a result.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and of the grotesque offer that the Minister has made to me, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      Housing Waiting Lists
      Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present total figures for those on housing waiting lists in the district and island authorities of Scotland.
      Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on housing waiting lists.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: The information available to me about numbers on local authority waiting lists is neither complete nor prepared on a uniform basis. I must therefore refer the hon. Gentleman directly to the local authorities in which they are interested. They will no doubt bear in mind that applicants, including existing tenants, can put their names down with more than one authority.
      Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that thousands of young, old and handicapped people who are seeking local authority houses in Scotland will find that answer complacent in the extreme? Is he further aware that local authorities need money from the Government to start building houses again?
      Mr. Stewart: There are now about 29,000 vacant houses in the public sector in Scotland. Glasgow forfeited £17 million of its capital allocation this year because of its rate fund contribution decision. That money could have been spent on improving houses in Glasgow.
      Mr. Home Robertson: It will not have gone unnoticed that the Minister refused even to attempt to answer the question: how many homeless people are awaiting council houses in Scotland? Is he aware that there are a number in his constituency? Is he further aware that there are at least 50,000 jobless construction workers in Scotland? As he will not tell us about his failure to have a proper housing policy, will he at least say how he explains to his constituents his abject failure to provide for the housing and job needs of Scottish construction workers?
      Mr. Stewart: As far as I know, my constituents are reasonably satisfied with their Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is confused. He equates need with waiting lists. Assessing need is a professional calculation, on which detailed guidance was given by the Labour Government. That was recently emphasised by SDD memorandum 27/1982. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy for his perusal and edification.
      Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend mentioned the number of empty houses in Scotland. Does he agree that the

      271
      quickest, simplest and most effective way to reduce waiting lists is to encourage the rehabilitation and reuse of those houses?
      Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. Many local authorities are using receipts from the sale of council houses, which have been higher than forecast because of the success of the Government's policy, to improve their housing stock.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the 25,000 houses that are available for letting are inadequate and inferior and need to be considerably renovated? Is not the absence of national statistics about housing shortages and needs a crying scandal and something that the Government should improve?
      Mr. Stewart: The assessment of housing needs is conducted on a professional basis. If the right hon. Gentleman wants any information about his own local authority, I shall be happy to provide it. Local housing authorities in Scotland can use their receipts from sales and their net allocations to improve their housing stocks, and they are doing so. If they are more successful in selling council houses, they will have more money available to improve the existing housing stock.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister recall that in answering my earlier question today he urged Labour local authorities not to underspend, saying that that would help the Scottish construction industry? Within minutes, when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke), he said that his Department had never suggested that there was a serious underspend in Scotland. What is the true position? How does he explain that remarkable agility?
      Mr. Stewart: I can explain it easily. In answer to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke), I was referring to the general capital allocation and the non-HRA allocation, under which repair and improvement grants come. The RFC contribution relates to the general housing account.

      Confederation of British Industry
      Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends next to meet the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss industrial regeneration.
      Mr. Younger: I frequently meet the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland both formally and informally to discuss industrial issues.
      Mr. Ancram: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the operation of Locate in Scotland, particularly its recent success in bringing Wang to Stirling, and inward investment that it could achieve in future? Will he also discuss with the chairman the need to instil into Scottish industry the confidence that is reflected in the forward surge of support for the Conservative Party in Scotland recorded in the opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald this morning?
      Mr. Younger: I noted that with interest in today's paper. I agree with my hon. Friend about the attitude of the CBI to Locate in Scotland. The CBI made it clear at its recent conference that it broadly supports the
      272
      Government's strategy and considers that the proposed strategy of the official Opposition would be disastrous for industry and jobs.
      Mr. David Steel: In an earlier answer to me this afternoon, the Secretary of State referred to 7,000 businesses in Scotland that had closed and to 8,000 new businesses that had started up. Will he give us the comparative figures for employment in the 8,000 businesses that have opened as against the 7,000 that have closed?
      Mr. Younger: That is an interesting idea, although I think that it would be difficult to find the precise figures. Nevertheless, the position is clear. There is a net balance in favour of more businesses opening than closing, which surely must be welcomed even by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is not surprising that the chairman of the CBI in Scotland supports the Government? After all, he is the treasurer of the Tory Party in Scotland. He is also the chairman of the constituency party of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), and he is reasonably satisfied with his Member of Parliament.
      Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by the statement that he made in the United States on 25 September, that the conditions that he had created in Scotland for inward investment would make profits quickly, keep those profits out of the hands of the tax man, and enable them to be exported at will? Is that the attraction for inward investment?
      Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has written that himself. That was not what I said. I said—it was true, and it is still true—that we are able to tell companies overseas which are thinking of setting up in Scotland that if they come to Scotland they will be able to make good profits and keep those profits. That, in my opinion, is a good thing for them to want to do, and I hope that I can encourage as many of them as possible to do so.
      Mr. Ewing: May I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that if I send him his own press release he will publicly apologise for denying what he said in the United States?
      Mr. Younger: If I can get a copy of my own press release, I shall read it again with great interest. The fact remains that Scotland is a good place to which overseas industries should come, and, if they come, they will make good profits, which they can keep. That is good news.

      Cottage Hospitals
      Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change the role of cottage hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I have no plans to change the role of cottage hospitals. It is for health boards, taking account of the needs of the service, to consider the functions of all their hospitals, including cottage hospitals.
      Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that cottage hospitals have an important role in local communities, especially in the Highlands, in providing employment as well as medical care? Does he

      273
      accept that that should be considered in any changes that are contemplated? Cottage hospitals are like the churches and schools; without them the Highlands would become depopulated.
      Mr. MacKay: I appreciate the strong feelings of the local communities that are threatened with the loss of a facility such as a cottage hospital. These strong feelings have been made clear to me by my hon. Friend and by others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the Tayside area. However, health boards have a duty to manage the resources available to them and to provide the best levels of treatment and care for the population within their areas.

    SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

      Departmental Staffing Levels
      Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has made any estimate of the impact on staffing levels in his Department if the procurator fiscal service becomes responsible for a public defender system in Scotland.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No, Sir.
      Mr. Hogg: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking of introducing such a far-reaching change in legal representation in the courts, will he consider issuing a draft document for consideration by the professions before embarking on any experimental scheme?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Any proposal to introduce a public defender system in Scotland will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Royal Commission on legal services in Scotland recommended that there should be an experimental approach. I understand that that is being considered in negotiations with the Law Society.
      Mr. Dewar: I want adequate consultation not only with the Law Society but with the House, including hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that important issues, such as confidentiality and duty to a client, will arise if fiscals take over the representation of defence interests in criminal courts? Therefore, is it not essential that a consultative document should be issued and full consultation should take place before any such experiment is introduced?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I must emphasise that there is no proposal that fiscals should be involved in a public defender system in Scotland. No decision in principle has been taken. Discussions are taking place with the Law Society. Any further decision will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, doubtless in consultation with hon. Members.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Who is to do the precognition on behalf of the clients whom the public defender defends? Will the police have to precognosce witnesses to defeat the purpose of their colleagues in prosecuting?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I repeat, my right hon. Friend's officials are entering into discussions with the Law Society of Scotland. All that is taking place at
      274
      present is an examination of the proposal of the Royal Commission that there should be an experimental public defender system in Scotland.

      Salmon Poaching
      Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether his office has issued any instructions to procurators fiscal regarding prosecution for salmon poaching.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My noble sand learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his predecessors in office have had instructions issued to procurators fiscal from time to time regarding salmon fisheries legislation. In addition, procurators fiscal have been notified of opinions of the High Court of Justiciary issued in cases involving salmon poaching.
      Mr. Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the disturbing aspects of poaching in recent times has been not the local poachers but the villains—the hardened criminals? That, coupled with the netting of salmon on the coast and in river mouths, is causing great problems in Scottish rivers. Does he accept that something must be done?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I think that the somewhat old-fashioned and romantic idea that a little poaching does no one any harm must now be ignored. Poaching has become a commercial business. We know from the number of recent convictions that many of those who are involved in poaching are also involved in serious crime. The sentences recently imposed by the Scottish courts shows that they, too, take the matter seriously.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate the attempt by Scottish landlords to make salmon poaching one of the most serious crimes in the calendar? Will he ensure that fishery protection vessels, which should be watching the fleets of foreign vessels cleaning up our fisheries, are not used, as they appear to be at times, for picking up an odd salmon net here and there?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency interest in tourism apart from anything else, seems to think that we should not regard seriously the damage that is done to existing salmon stocks when an extensive amount of poison is placed in our rivers. Such damage means that the tourist potential of his constituency and other parts of Scotland will suffer seriously.
      Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that although prosecutions for fish poaching are important, it is more important that prosecutions should be instituted for river pollution? In my constituency the rivers Girvan, Doon and Lugar are being seriously polluted. Will he consult the purification board and the regional council about the need to take action on this serious menace?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall be glad at any time to take up with the hon. Gentleman the matter of prosecutions for river pollution.

      Prosecutions on Indictment
      Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether, in view of the final disposal of the

      275
      Glasgow rape case, he will now make a statement about the organisation of the Crown Office and the procedures in his Department for dealing with prosecutions on indictment.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been two recent changes to existing procedures. First, in all cases where murder or rape was the original charge on petition and where it is later thought that a lesser charge or no charge might be appropriate, there must be a reference to my noble and learned Friend, who takes the final decision, as the House has already been advised. Secondly, procurators fiscal have been instructed that they should, in general, inform persons who have alleged that they have been the victims of crimes and who have been precognosced if it is eventually decided not to proceed with the charge.
      Mr. Dewar: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern about the way in which his Department has been operating? This is based not only on the failure to prosecute in the Glasgow rape case but on many recent instances when multiple prosecutions for murder have been mounted when there has not appeared to be any reasonable prospect of even going to the jury with a murder charge? This is bad for the administration of justice and grossly unfair to the accused. Will he institute a detailed and careful consideration of the procedures within his Department and thereafter make a statement to the House?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The case to which the hon. Gentleman has carefully referred is still under appeal. Therefore, I shall make no specific reference to it. I understand that the criticism of the Crown Office in recent months has been that the discretion not to prosecute has been used too widely. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be suggesting that we are not exercising that discretion sufficiently. Clearly a balance must be established. If he wishes to talk to me about a particular case at an appropriate stage, I shall be happy to make myself available.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now tell us whether the resignation forced upon his predecessor over the Glasgow rape case was a recognition of his failure to handle the matter properly, or was he made the scapegoat for the mistakes of others?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that I am the least appropriate person to answer that question.
      Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. and learned Friend has reaffirmed that the right to prosecute or not to prosecute
      276
      will be ensured by exercising the safeguard of referring such matters to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Does he agree that if someone is charged with murder or rape and the advocate depute who is prosecuting is unable to take a decision whether to accept a plea there is a vast injustice to those involved in the case and an enormous waste of public funds as a result?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As my hon. and learned Friend has said, there is a discretion to be exercised. The advocate depute who is conducting the trial often has to take difficult decisions during the course of the trial. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already advised the House that in serious cases involving murder or rape, decisions to drop or reduce the charges must be referred to him.

      Life Imprisonment (Release on Licence)
      Mr. McQuarrieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been commenced by the Crown Office in each of the past 10 years against persons who had previously been sentenced to life imprisonment and who were released on licence.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No figures are available for the number of prosecutions of persons released on licence having been sentenced to life imprisonment. All convictions of such persons are, however, automatically reported to the parole board to consider whether such persons should be recalled to prison. In the past 10 years, 20 licensees who have been convicted for offences committed while on licence have been recalled to prison.
      Mr. McQuarrieI am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he accept that many of those who are released on licence, after having been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, commit a second such crime and are further sentenced to life imprisonment? As the House, in its wisdom or otherwise, has decided against capital punishment for murder, will my hon. and learned Friend bring in legislation which imposes life imprisonment for life when a murder is committed?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that the extent of a life sentence is a matter that causes a great deal of feeling. However, I remind my hon. Friend that during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act that matter—and the Emslie report—was considered. During the past 12 years in Scotland only one person, having been convicted of murder and released on licence, has committed murder again.

Britoil (Share Offer)
3.30 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Prime Minister to direct that the families and family trusts of Ministers of the Crown should not tender for shares in Britoil when the offer opens on Friday 19 November."
The principle at stake will apply also in other cases where national assets owned by the taxpayer are sold off in circumstances where a profit could be made from their initial purchase and subsequent resale. The recent example of Amersham International shows that easy profits can be made by those with information not available to the general public.
The matter is important for three reasons. First, the House of Commons in this century has concerned itself with the standards of Ministers' conduct in public life. When the matter was first debated in the House in 1913 during the Marconi scandal the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, said:
"no Minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a Minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends."
I emphasise these latter words
"or for that of his friends",
who must be taken to include the families of Ministers.
There is now a new consideration to be taken into account which was not available in 1913. We are now embarked on a new process of selling off national assets owned by the British people whose interests Parliament exists to safeguard. The existing rules do not cover the new position. I submit that the standards of conduct as applied to Ministers should, in the special circumstances of such sales, be applied to the families and family trusts of
Ministers.
Secondly, the matter is important because Ministers may possess, or be thought to possess, information not in the prospectus which could influence a decision whether to tender for shares. That matter was also alluded to by Mr. Asquith in 1913 when he said:
"Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities as to which, from their position and their special means of early or confidential information, they have or may have an advantage over other people in anticipating market changes."—[Official Report, 19 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c.557.]
In 1913 Mr. Asquith recognised the possibility that Ministers, their family and friends might benefit from such information. Our Prime Minister does not. In a letter that I have received from her today she states that
"it is a legal requirement that the prospectus for a sale should give all information material to a decision whether or not to apply for shares. Ministers and their families will therefore be in no more advantageous a position than members of the public who read the prospectus."
I do not accept that statement as correct in the circumstances of this sale, for two reasons. First, we know that Ministers have confidential information. The Secretary of State for Energy refused to reveal some of that to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr.
278
Rees) during questions on his statement on 27 October. It was clear that such information was not to be revealed to the House. Therefore, a fortiori, it is not to be revealed in the prospectus.
Secondly, Ministers' families could be in a more advantageous position than the ordinary public. The principle is well understood by ordinary people who are used to competitions organised by newspapers and manufacturers of breakfast cereals, where the families of those setting the competition are excluded from taking part. The organisers are well aware that to allow them to take part would be seen to be grossly unfair and improper. Surely that principle is understood wherever breakfast cereals are sold, even in grocers' shops.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if I were to grant his application. I have been tolerant and I have allowed him to go a great deal of the way.
Mr. Deakins: My third point relates to why the matter is important. I must prove that to you, Mr. Speaker, as you have to make a decision. May I refer to the age-old saying of Julius Caesar, attributed to him by Plutarch, that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion? Surely the families and spouses of the little Caesars on the Government Front Bench should also be above suspicion. This is not a case where, in the words of the Good Book,
"The race is not to the swift."
However, in the case of Britoil it certainly is to those who have inside information.
I submit that the matter is urgent because shares in Britoil will be open for application on Friday. I raised the matter at the first possible opportunity when the Secretary of State for Energy made his statement on 27 October. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 28 October and it has taken over two and a half weeks to get a reply. That reply, from which I have quoted, is wholly unsatisfactory. It is essential that the House should have a chance to express its views on the matter before Friday. It will be too late thereafter. The Ministers' families and family trusts will, by then, have been able to tender for the shares and, if appropriate, dispose of them at a profit. If we fail to discuss the matter now and there is any subsequent impropriety, we shall all bear a heavy responsibility.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Prime Minister to direct that the families and family trusts of Ministers of the Crown should not tender for shares in Britoil when the offer opens on Friday 19 November."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
3.37 pm

Cruise Missiles
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the rights of protest against the installation of cruise missiles".
The matter is specific. Sixteen women from Greenham Common peace camp have been imprisoned for 14 days after occupying a sentry box at Greenham Common base. They have not been accused of any crime and no violence was involved, yet because they refused to be bound over they have been imprisoned in a harsh and vindictive way by magistrates acting as willing lackeys imposing repressive Government policies.
There is also the serious specific issue of turning the non-criminal act of trespass into a criminal charge by that method. Men and women have a right to protest against the installation of those missiles and the use of a power dating back to 1361 to curb that right is a matter of great concern.
The matter is important. It is ironic that magistrates are seeking to bind the women over to keep the peace when that is just what the women are dedicated to do. they rightly fear that the installation of nuclear cruise missiles under American control, without any right of veto as to their use by the Government, will take Britain a step further towards nuclear war and the massive destruction of life that this and future generations will face if such a war is invoked. There can be no more important issue before humanity today.
Urgent consideration should be given to this issue, because of the outrageous way in which these peaceful protesters have been treated and because the majority of our people deeply oppose the idea of their country being turned into a base for nuclear weapons, either British or, as in this case, American owned. No Government have the right to threaten mass extermination as a means of conducting—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the question why I should grant an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
Mr. Cryer: I am dealing with why this matter should be given urgent consideration. One of those considerations, which I hope will weigh heavily with you, Mr. Speaker, is that the original decision to install cruise missiles was not debated by Parliament. That should be urgently remedied so that the case so heroically supported for more than 15 months by the women of Greenham Common peace camp may be debated in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the rights of protest against the installation of cruise missiles."
As the House knows, I decide not whether this matter should be discussed but merely whether it should be discussed tonight or tomorrow night as a matter of urgency. The House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am instructed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
280
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Cruise Missiles

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 3 DECEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Norman Buchan

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

  Mr. Dennis Walters

  BILLS PRESENTED
    POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
    Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Secretary Nott, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Patrick Mayhew, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to the powers and duties of the police, criminal evidence and complaints against the police; to provide for arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing and for a rank of deputy chief constable; to amend the law relating to the Police Federations and Police Forces and Police Cadets in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
    COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    Mr. Neil Marten, supported by Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to authorise the making of loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation by the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund and to impose new limits on sums borrowed by, or guaranteed by, the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Kenneth Baker and Dr. Gerard Vaughan, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment of a Director General of Telecommunications and to confer functions on the Director General so appointed; to abolish the exclusive privilege with respect to telecommunications conferred on British Telecommunications by section 12 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 and to make new provision with respect to the provision of telecommunication services; to make provision, in substitution for the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1916, for the matters there dealt with and related matters; to provide for the vesting of all property, rights and liabilities of British Telecommunications in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and the subsequent dissolution of British Telecommunications; to make provision with respect to the finances of that company; to amend the Wireless

    281
    Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 and to make further provision for facilitating enforcement of those Acts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Orders of the Day

  British Shipbuilders Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to make it possible to introduce private investment into subsidiaries of British Shipbuilders. It is also intended to make it easier for the board of British Shipbuilders to take decisions that are in the best commercial interests of the corporation.
  The House well knows the Government's policy towards the public sector and their desire, wherever possible, to encourage privatisation. British Shipbuilders should be no exception, but existing legislation prevents even a modest element of privatisation. The Bill, by removing the impediments, is the first step in that direction.
  Hon. Members will be aware that under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 British Shipbuilders was given a statutory duty to build and repair ships and slow-speed diesel engines. The 1977 Act imposed a series of conditions under which the corporation had to carry out that duty. The Act is a straitjacket for the corporation. It prevents it from entering into joint ventures with the private sector, and it makes it difficult for the corporation to get out of particular activities. In the Government's view, this is far too restrictive for a corporation whose five main divisions—merchant shipbuilding, warship building, engineering, offshore work and ship repair—are so different and diverse. Indeed, the statutory duties that are imposed by the legislation do not even apply to all its activities. Therefore, there is a case for rationalising on these grounds alone. We want to give commercial freedom to the corporation, in line with our conviction that private enterprise has a major role to play.
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. Lamont: I shall give way later.
  The powers proposed in the Bill will be familiar to the House, because they are closely modelled on the Iron and Steel Act 1981, which clarified the British Steel Corporation's power to enter into joint ventures. As a result of the 1981 Act, a number of joint ventures between the BSC and the private sector have come into existence. However, although they are closely modelled on that Bill, it may help if I briefly describe the Bill's main provisions.
  Clause 1 repeals section 2 of the 1977 Act, which imposes statutory duties on British Shipbuilders to promote the production and repair of ships and certain marine engines. It replaces those statutory duties with powers. Therefore, British Shipbuilders will be free to choose whether to engage in activities that it is at present obliged, by statute, to undertake.
  Section 2 of the 1977 Act imposes several subsidiary duties on the corporation. The requirement to carry out those subsidiary duties is also repealed by clause 1.
  We are taking this opportunity to clarify British Shipbuilders' position on national defence requirements. The Ministry of Defence is British Shipbuilders most

  283
  important single customer and British Shipbuilders will, of course, continue to pay full regard to its requirements. Under the Bill, the defence implications of British Shipbuilders' activities and other matters relating to the national interest will be the Secretary of State's responsibility. That seems to be a logical approach. National defence is first and foremost the responsibility of Government.
  The statutory duty for British Shipbuilders to promote industrial democracy is also repealed. The form that employee involvement takes will, of course, remain the responsibility of the BS board. Following the amendment to the Companies Act 1967 introduced last month into the Employment Act, the corporation's subsidiaries will report each year on the progress made.
  Clause 1(3) gives BS permissive powers to undertake the activities previously covered by duties. It also makes it clear that BS may promote the carrying out of these activities by others, whether or not those others are wholly owned subsidiaries. That provision will allow British Shipbuilders to undertake joint ventures with the private sector.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister said that one reason for the Bill was to remove inflexible controls over the management of BS, including such things as the duty to have regard to national defence and industrial democracy. How many requests has he received from the corporation to make those changes? What changes has BS asked him to make?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall come shortly to the corporation's attitude. The Government believe that the corporation should determine its areas of business solely on commercial grounds and that defence requirements should be judged by the Government.
  Clause 2 introduces important new powers for the Secretary of State. He will be able to direct BS to dispose of assets and parts of its undertaking and to limit or cease activities. These powers will be subject to a negative resolution in either House.
  The power to direct BS to limit or cease any activity will, among other things, help to prevent unfair competition. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there has been deep concern among the private sector ship repairers about unfair competition from BS almost since the corporation's inception. Private sector engine builders have for a long time complained about unfair competition from British Shipbuilders.
  It seems to us that in dealing with any future problems of unfair competition the Government's position will be stronger with these powers of direction. We shall, of course, consult the board and the trade unions and we hope that we shall be able to act in agreement with BS, both on unfair competition and disposals. However, reluctance by nationalised industries' boards to surrender part of their empires is not unknown.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: How will the Bill deal with the unfair competition that British Shipbuilders faces from overseas companies building subsidised ships?
  Mr. Lamont: We constantly address ourselves to that question, and I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the intervention fund gives direct assistance with almost every order that BS gains. That instrument of subsidy has
  284
  been designed specifically to help our industry compete with firms in the Far East and elsewhere. I shall say more about that aspect later.
  Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that he is under great pressure from private ship repair yards which want no further competition? What would be the Government's attitude to a workers' co-operative that wanted to buy a defunct BS yard? Would the Government allow a workers' co-op to negotiate with BS to take over a yard and to compete against the private interests that are putting so much pressure on the Minister?
  Mr. Lamont: Of course we would take a favourable view of that. We would have no objection to people employed in a BS repair yard negotiating with British Shipbuilders to buy the yard and to establish it as an independent unit in fair competition with the private sector and BS. That is a good idea and a favourable development. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he puts such a proposition to me I will ensure that it is favourably considered by BS.
  Clause 2 of the Bill contains important safeguards to prevent British shipbuilders from making changes in its organisation that would be incompatible with the introduction of private capital. They will also prevent activities that are important for our defence interests from coming under foreign control. In addition, by providing powers to direct the setting up of employees' share schemes, the Bill will allow us to honour our commitment to give employees the opportunity to buy shares.
  Following the precedent of the Iron and Steel Act 1981, clause 2 imposes a duty on British Shipbuilders to organise itself so that its activities are carried out in the most efficient manner.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Will the Minister of State confirm that the Bill empowers the Government and the Secretary of State to direct that part or all of a subsidiary formed under the new arrangements could be sold to the private sector? Would not those in the private sector be unlikely to buy such a subsidiary or take a stake in it unless the guaranteed profits of warship building were available?
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's comments about the powers in the Bill are broadly right. I shall deal specifically with warship builders.
  We believe that the changes are desirable, because at present BS can be prevented by existing legislation from acting in its own best interests. It is plainly absurd that it could be prevented from forming joint companies with the private sector even if it wished to do so. I particularly address that point to the representatives of the SDP who have said that they support partnership between the public and the private sectors and new ways of financing the public sector. Existing legislation is an obstacle to that. The Bill removes those obstacles, and if the SDP were consistent it would support the change.
  Surely the idea of joint companies between the public and private sectors is sensible. If the SDP votes against such a modest proposal, it will show that its reactions are as Pavlovian and as knee jerk as those that it attributes to other parties. It will show that the SDP's view is neither pragmatic nor principled but simply calculated to be different from the views of others.

  285
  Views about ownership may differ, but that does not mean that the boundary between the public and private sectors should be fixed by legislation for all time. That is the way to the museum economy.
  I can understand Labour or SDP Members opposing steps that might be taken under the powers of direction in the Bill, but that would mean opposing those steps when they are taken. To vote against enabling legislation is to be dogmatic, which seems an immoderate stance for those who call themselves the moderates of the centre.
  It must be in the interests of an industry if it can get away from the clutches of the Treasury, from having its investment decisions reviewed by Ministers and questioned in the House and from its hard-pressed management having to put in time before Select Committees. All those requirements are the inevitable and proper obligations placed on State industry. They are proper when the Government are the bankers and the owners, but that is no way to run a business and I am sure that all the managers of nationalised industries agree with that.
  Separate businesses within BS will do better if they are freed from the legal straitjacket. Joint ventures will allow them to draw on the managerial and financial resources of the private sector. White Papers on nationalised industries, cash limits, financial targets and efficiency audits are no substitute for commercial freedom. British Shipbuilders' most powerful competitors all have commercial freedom, and only commercial success will halt the loss of employment in BS.
  It is absurd to pin hopes of preserving employment on an ever-growing combination of public ownership and subsidies. The taxpayer has financed over £540 million of losses in BS, but that has not solved the problems. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), draw attention to unfair competition and subsidies elsewhere, but the one thing that cannot be subsidised is delivery dates, and that is where our competitors have sometimes had the edge recently.
  Those are the reasons why we want to see an injection of private resources into British Shipbuilders' activities. However, I stress that the Bill does no more than enable that to happen. Some of the corporation's most important activities will remain in public ownership for the foreseeable future. Merchant shipbuilding is unprofitable and in present conditions would obviously not be attractive to a private investor. The Government will have to continue to support merchant shipbuilding for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Derek Foster: How can the Minister talk about commercial freedom while the EEC is putting pressure on all its members to phase out State aid at a time when the Japanese have developed a powerful cartel? Is not that the commercial freedom of the madhouse? We are the only people in favour of commercial freedom and we are in the most vulnerable position of any shipbuilding nation. Others are garnering their strength. How is that commercial freedom?
  Mr. Lamont: I disagree with the hon. Member. The European Community regulates State aid within Europe and there is no reason to believe that Britain's support to its industry is less than that of other European countries. As to the Japanese, the hon. Gentleman used the phrase
  286
  "forming a cartel", but all the evidence shows that the Japanese Government's support for its industry is less than ours. We should be deceiving ourselves if we believed that the secret of Japanese competitiveness was simply Government support. Japanese shipbuilders have many advantages and they are much more competitive than many European organisations.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle and Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) mentioned warship building. Warship building is profitable and is one area of the corporation's activities that could attract private sector investment. However, I should emphasise one point. The Bill will prevent defence interests, such as warship yards, from falling into unfriendly hands. Nevertheless, the view of Opposition Members and of the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) is that, because the Ministry of Defence has been British Shipbuilders' main customer, it should remain in public ownership. That misses the point. We must return to a position where the Ministry of Defence is not its main customer. Before nationalisation, exports accounted for 50 per cent. of its business.
  As the chairman of British Shipbuilders said, many jobs depend on regaining lost markets overseas. I was extremely surprised when the right hon. Member for Stockton supported the public ownership argument the other day. I know what Labour Members believe, but it is surprising that the SDP should believe that, for example, if the National Health Service is the major customer of the pharmaceutical industry, that industry should be nationalised. There is no reason why a company that is a main supplier to the Government should not be in private hands. What is important in this case is the ability of the warship builders to compete as successfully in world markets as they used to do.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The argument is simple. The shipbuilding industry is nationalised and the Ministry of Defence is the largest customer of its shipbuilding section. The shipbuilding section is often successful in obtaining foreign orders. If that is so, how will a privately owned warship building sector be more able to attract the orders that it does not attract at present?
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman's facts are not up to date. The industry has not attracted export orders and has achieved nothing like the success that it had before nationalisation.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: That was 10 years ago.
  Mr. Lamont: Whether one talks about shipbuilding, aircraft or any industry that supplies the Government, there is no reason why it should be publicly owned.
  A second reason for the Bill is that it is anomalous that, even if British Shipbuilders decided that it wished to get out of one activity, it could not do so. If, for example, the corporation decided that it did not wish to remain in ship repair—and I think that there are strong reasons why it should not—its statutory duties could prevent it from following its commercial instincts.
  The board of British Shipbuilders has, of course, been consulted on our intention to change the framework within which it operates. The board is in favour of privatisation and the injection of private capital into the industry, but it is opposed to fragmentation of the corporation. It believes that the piecemeal disposal of mainstream activities could damage future viability. I should

  287
  emphasise to the House that the Government would exercise the powers in the Bill only after taking into account the views of the board and the effects on the rest of the industry. We intend to build on the industry's strengths. Warship building is the only part of British Shipbuilders to make substantial profits since nationalisation. It would be wrong if those companies were starved of investment because of losses in the rest of the corporation. In the past, capital expenditure has suffered because of the demands for extra cash to meet unexpected trading deficits. Privatisation could open new sources of finance and help with investment.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Warship building guarantees profits because it is underwritten and the contract price is fixed at the beginning of the job. Does the Minister believe seriously that if British warship building is privatised we can sustain a merchant shipbuilding industry in Britain?
  Mr. Lamont: We should not maintain warship building in public ownership in order to maintain our merchant shipbuilding capacity. The two should stand separately. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) said why he believes that warship yards make profits, but we must deal with more than domestic sales. We wish to see the same export sales that existed before nationalisation.
  A shipbuilding industry need not be totally publicly owned to survive. Among British Shipbuilders' competitors, the French industry is a mix of public and private ownership and the German industry is mostly private. I need hardly remind the House that the most successful shipbuilders, in the Far East, are privately owned.
  However, Sweden began to move shipbuilding into public ownership in 1975, since when more than one out of every two jobs in its merchant shipbuilding industry has disappeared. In British Shipbuilders, more than one quarter of jobs have disappeared since nationalisation. Time and again experience has shown, in this and in other industries, that nationalisation cannot protect jobs.
  The Bill is another example of the Government's determination to strengthen the industry. Since we came to office, we have provided the crorporation with more than £600 million. Cash requirements have been halved, and capital expenditure, which when we came to office was running below the needs of the corporation, has been increased. We approved the substantial project for the modernisation of Vickers. Throughout a long and difficult period, the Government have supported the industry and they will continue to support the merchant shipbuilders.
  Labour Members talk about investment, but they should know that investment by itself is not enough. What matters is not the quantity of investment but its quality and the use to which it is put. A problem of the industry is that the massive investment in the 1970s did not produce a significant increase in productivity, which has not yet passed the level reached before nationalisation. There have been achievements, especially under the present chairman, Mr. Atkinson. In previous debates I paid tribute to him, to his management teams and to his work force for their effort, but we still have a long way to go to catch our competitors. The Bill will be an additional spur to even greater efforts.
  The House should know that we are examining British Shipbuilders' new corporate plan. I told the House in April
  288
  that it would be wrong to place great reliance on the forecast in the previous corporate plan of a continuing improvement in real prices. Unfortunately, our doubts on that have been more than justified and British Shipbuilders and the shipping industry once again face a severe recession.
  We cannot isolate British Shipbuilders from those severe conditions. They will mean that the corporation will not be able to achieve its loss target for this year, which is £10 million after intervention fund assistance. We shall have to consider British Shipbuilders' new corporate plan and financial support for British Shipbuilders in the context of the massive overcapacity that exists world-wide. We must recognise—this relates to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford—the dangers of being drawn into a subsidy race. It would be against the interests of British shipbuilding to add to existing overcapacity. The Government do not intend to go down the road taken by the previous Labour Government who authorised the disastrous Polish shipbuilding deal. When we have completed consideration of the corporate plan, I shall report to the House.
  The industry faces difficult market conditions. I know from my visits to the yards the great efforts being made to win orders. Those difficult conditions are no reason for failing to give the industry the chance to attract private capital and entrepreneurial and managerial skills. That should be a challenge and an opportunity, and not something to be feared, as apparently the Opposition do.
  We are taking powers in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to direct the board on disposals and to limit or cease activities where that is in the industry's best interests. The other day a right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter as being only a question of theology. I dispute the word "only". But it is not a matter of theology. There is nothing theological about helping the shipbuilding industry to improve its ability to compete and survive. It is only by harnessing public and private resources that the battle for orders and jobs will be won.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The Bill is not relevant to the problems facing the shipbuilding industry. If the Minister is to divide warship building from the building of the merchant fleet, that will mean the end of merchant shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. We shall be giving up, after all the sacrifices made by both the people in the industry and British taxpayers, if we take the soft option of giving warship building to the private sector. It will make a profit and that profit will be at the expense of British taxpayers.
  In effect, the Bill contains only two clauses. It does nothing to further the industry. Many of my right hon and hon. Friends have great experience of the industry in the areas they represent and will be able to speak with real authority. There is no evidence that the board of British Shipbuilders wants privatisation. Of course it says "Yes" when the Government hold a pistol to its head. If one looks at the submissions made to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, British Shipbuilders does not advocate privatisation. It advocated the improvement of the shipbuilding industry by different forms of investment. It did not say that the answer to the problem was privatisation.

  289
  The industry was taken into public ownership and saved in 1977 because of the failure of the private sector. We would have had no shipbuilding industry if we had not taken it into public ownership and supported it with Government finance and reorganisation. A substantial price has been paid by those who work in the industry, quite apart from the investment made by the British taxpayer.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: The point about the separation of merchant shipbuilding from warship building is that at the moment merchant shipbuilding is unfortunately in trouble. We hope that it will improve. The warship building yards are still doing well. If they are left together there is a danger that the warship building yards will be in trouble because they will be starved of investment. There will be then two industries in trouble and not one.
  Mr. Orme: Those are not the facts that have been put to me by the people in the industry. Since public ownership about 20,700 jobs have been lost from the shipbuilding industry, leaving about 65,000 people directly involved. With the transfer of a number of yards from merchant to offshore and naval building, merchant shipbuilding and engineering are now carried out in 15 yards compared with 27 in 1977, in 28 berths compared with 66 in 1977, in two marine engine building companies compared with five in 1977. Those reductions were carried out without any major industrial relations confrontation. The recent dispute at the Robb Caledon yard has been the only serious industrial dispute within British Shipbuilders. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will confirm that.
  There has been a considerable improvement in performance. A loss of £110 million in 1979–80 was reduced to £20 million in 1981–82 in a severely depressed market. That is the background against which British Shipbuilders is having to work.
  The Bill relates to the powers and duties of British Shipbuilders. It is not, as the Minister said, a strictly privatisation measure similar to the British Aerospace Act 1980. It allows the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to transfer assets into a specially formed subsidiary company or companies and to sell those companies if the Secretary of State so directs. It is an enabling Act that gives wide powers to the Secretary of State. Some of my hon. Friends are well aware of the arguments about enabling Acts. For instance, within the Labour movement we have the Militant Tendency. My word, the Government can show it a thing or two. The Government are taking powers without further parliamentary control. In my opinion, that is against the principle of parliamentary democracy. The Government are playing fast and loose with the House of Commons.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: If we are not careful, the shipbuilding industry will become like the steel industry, which was brought into public ownership for good reasons at the outset and then turned into a political football and kicked backwards and forwards by the Labour and Conservative Governments until it was almost destroyed.
  Mr. Orme: We do not want to kick it about. We want it to remain within the public sector because we believe
  290
  that that is the correct place for it. The hon. Gentleman voted for the measure at the time and I am encouraged to know that he will vote against the Government this evening. He is consistent on this issue.
  Can the board refuse to comply with the directions of the Secretary of State if in its opinion such directions are against the interests of British Shipbuilders? Could there be confrontation? The question arises from the Bill. The division between the board's powers and the Government's wishes has not been clearly defined. The Minister mentioned in detail the changes, which will give the Secretary of State wide powers.
  I understand tht some claims for compensation from the 1977 nationalisation that went before the European Commission of Human Rights are still outstanding. Can the Minister tell us the up-to-date position and say how that situation relates to the changes? The Government cry crocodile tears, but we should have an answer.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: What is the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's question about compensation before the European Court? Does he believe that the nationalisation terms were unfair?
  Mr. Orme: We just want to know the Government's attitude. They have been in office three years and have done nothing about it.
  Mr. Don Dixon: When British Shipbuilders was nationalised in 1977 the three warship yards received about £25 million compensation based on 1974 figures. They claimed £75 million. The Tories said that they would rectify the position when they came to power.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has great experience in the matter and I thank him for what he says.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) mentioned the breaking up of the yards and the division between merchant shipbuilding and warship building. That would be the death knell of British shipbuilding as we know it. If the yards are split, will the Government give preference to private yards? Will they favour those in which private money has been invested? The buyers will tell the Government that they have bought the yards and want the invesment, whether in warships or whatever.
  What is the Government's policy on warship orders? The Minister talked about the lack of overseas orders. Prior to nationalisation, for virtually a decade, there were no overseas sales. In the 1950s we built about 40 per cent. of the world market.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Fifty per cent.
  Mr. Orme: Now it is down to 4 per cent. During the decline, when Japan, Korea and other European countries went into merchant and warship building, our industry was in private hands and no investment was made. Our share of the market virtually disappeared.
  The Minister might at least have paid tribute to the work of British Shipbuilders during the Falklands dispute—to the turnround of ships and the skill called upon in the interests of the nation. We would have been in a sorry state had we had no basic shipbuilding capacity and had had to rely on foreign imports.
  How will defence orders be decided on? They come 100 per cent. from the public sector.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Guaranteed profits.
  Mr. Orme: At present the orders come from the public sector and go to the public sector. If part of British Shipbuilders goes to the private sector, it will be the public sector versus the private sector.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: I made the same point to the Minister. The only guaranteed profitable part of British Shipbuilders is naval shipbuilding. The Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who is secretary of the Tory industry group and who has an interest in pharmaceuticals, both mentioned the pharmaceutical industry. They said that, to follow our argument, because the NHS is the biggest customer of the industry the industry should be nationalised. If NHS custom was withdrawn, what chance would the industry have of surviving? That is the exact analogy with naval shipbuilding being hived off from British Shipbuilders.
  Mr. Orme: That underlines my point. The Ministry of Defence is a publicly owned body. Its orders should go to the public sector.
  Warship building is profitable and has helped to reduce British Shipbuilders' deficit. The Minister dismissed the argument that one sector should help another. All shipbuilding countries are having difficulties. It is outrageous that the warship building sector should be sold off so that the private sector can make profits out of the public sector.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: What is the difference between warship builders and any other defence contractors? The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe that defence contractors have guaranteed profits. Does he believe that Racal, Marconi, GEC, Plessey and all the other defence contractors should be publicly owned?
  Mr. Orme: We are talking about 100 per cent. direct involvement. One argument for nationalising the airframe and aircraft industry was that it involved 90 per cent. public money. My hon. Friends may later wish to take up the Minister's argument.
  The difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry include the severe workload gap for 1983–84, the poor market and the fact that the future of warship ordering is unclear. We do not know what proposals there will be in the Defence Review. The outlook for merchant shipping is even more serious. Because of the oil glut, demand for offshore development has declined considerably.
  British Shipbuilders told the Select Committee that
  "the UK needs a proper maritime policy for both merchant and naval fleets—and fishing too for that matter. Once the capability in shipbuilding and ship repair has been disposed of, it will not be recoverable. BS want the ships lost in the Falklands dispute to be replaced in addition to normal fleet replacement. Shipbuilding, like shipping, is a national strategic asset—and should be treated as such by government. It is perfectly reasonable to be able to ask that there should be government support. 'If you want to have a navy you have to have one every day, not just sometimes.'"
  That is what the chairman of British Shipbuilders said in evidence to the Select Committee. There is no reference there to privatisation or denationalisation. He was asking for an overall plan. It was an all-party Select Committee. It recommended that
  "iii. the Government should set up a high-level interdepartmental working group to consider the full implications of a maritime policy for the UK embracing both shipbuilding and shipping;
  iv. the Government should press the European Community to co-ordinate its policies for
  292
  shipbuilding and shipping both internally within the Community and in its relations with countries outside the Community;
  v. the Government should remind all public authorities of the desirability of buying British materials and components and also ships built in British yards;"
  The Minister referred to the Polish order. Without it, merchant shipping development would have been in great jeopardy. If, in the face of great Government opposition, we had not reordered the "Atlantic Conveyor", many shipyards in the Northern region would have been in jeopardy. The P & 0 liner order going to Finland was a national disgrace. Those are some of the facts. Against that background, we must consider what British Shipbuilders has pressed the Government to do. I shall again quote from the evidence that the deputy chairman of British Shipbuilders gave to the Select Committee:
  "BS's Deputy Chairman stressed that the last few years had been traumatic for the industry and for the workforce, largely located in areas of already high unemployment. It seems clear that for the most part there had been an extraordinary level of realism and degree of co-operation between management and workforce. While there have been difficulties recently we found the approach of witnesses from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and from the Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association most constructive."
  In other words, people involved in the industry want it to survive and have been co-ordinating and co-operating to that end.
  There is great skill in the industry. There are great spin-offs into other industries such as steel, components, engine building and fitting out. That is why the Opposition maintain that we should buy British. That is why the Bill is irrelevant to the problems that face the nation.
  Britain faces the threat of Korea. That country keeps its tenders 5 per cent. below the lowest tender in the United Kingdom because the industry there receives massive Government support. That makes nonsense of any claim that British Shipbuilders should compete in the free market. The Government should recognise that point.
  Mr. Dixon: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read this months edition of Shipbuilding News but in it the chairman of British Shipbuilders, when referring to international competition, said that
  "there is no future in boxing by Queensberry rules if your opponents are engaged in all in wrestling."
  That is what we are talking about with regard to international competition.
  Mr. Orme: Once again my hon. Friend has underlined the Bill's uselessness and the damage that it will do. We have no hesitation in opposing it. The Minister has not made out a case for it. It is a short Bill. It chiefly consists of two clauses. They will cause havoc in the industry and will not help in any way. Not only will the Opposition vote against it, but if the Government are foolish enough to enact it before the next general election we shall reverse the proposals when we return to office. Repealing the Bill will be part of our campaign to create and recreate an industrial base—of which shipbuilding is a vital part—that we can build upon to produce full employment and get the manufacturing sector moving again. The Bill aims directly at the manufacturing sector. It will make us dependent on foreign imports rather than on British-built ships. It is irrelevant and I ask the House to oppose it.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: There have been many debates on the shipbuilding industry since I was elected in 1974, and all of them have taken place against a background of depression and uncertainty about its future. I am afraid that will continue to be so for many years for reasons beyond our shores. We are talking about an industry that, perhaps more than any other, faces international competition. Nothing is more international than the shipping industry and the shipyards that supply it.
  Before discussing the future I shoud like to pay tribute to the past and especially the immediate past. It is right that we should pay tribute to the work force for the way in which it responded to the sudden calls as a result of the Falklands campaign. I shall confine my examples to Tyneside. HMS "Illustrious", a complicated carrier and one of the finest ships in the Navy, was made ready for service three months early. That required 19 weeks' work to be completed in eight weeks. That remarkable achievement deserves to be praised and recorded.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish in any way to detract from the splendid work that was performed by shipyards during the Falklands campaign, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also pay tribute to the work forces in other shipyards who have done so much to keep the industry going during these difficult years.
  Mr. Trotter: I should like to pay tribute to many who work in the shipyards, but one cannot give blanket coverage as there have been some unfortunate occurrences where the same dedication has not been apparent. Those who have been unwise enough to follow that path are those who are most likely to suffer in future.
  One cannot divorce the discussion of shipbuilding in Britain or elsewhere from the shipowning scene, the circumstances of which are grim. The world recession led to a fall in the volume of world trade at the same time as the very large scale development of shipbuilding in Japan and the developing countries of the Far East led to a flood of ships pouring on to the seas of the world.
  The Japanese went in for shipbuilding in a very big way 10 years ago—and these new yards started producing a great volume of ships just at the time that the world recession began because of the increase in oil prices.
  The first ships to be affected were tankers. The Japanese thought that they would collar the world tanker market. They constructed tanker building yards all over the island. Practically every coastal town of any size had such a yard with the latest equipment and a hard working oriental work force. They produced so many tankers that now about half of the world tanker fleet is surplus. Many are tied up in Norwegian fjords or the bays of Brunei. Moreover, many are steaming at half speed not only to save fuel but so as not to arrive too soon with oil supplies to the market. It is incredible that half the world's tanker tonnage is now surplus and ships that are only a few years old are being scrapped.
  When the market for tankers collapsed, the oriental yards turned to bulk carrier construction and diligently produced a large number of such vessels to carry grain and minerals. Now the same thing is happening again. Work cannot be found for this flood of ships, and the number of vessels laid up is frighteningly high. About 1,000 ships throughout the world are laid up. In 1980, 10 million tonnes of shipping were laid up. Last year, the figure was 27 million tonnes. It is now 76 million tonnes.
  294
  Changes have occurred in world trade. Oil now comes from the North Sea. In rough terms, according to what I am told by friends in the shipping industry, for every million tonnes of oil produced in the North Sea, one fewer large crude carrier is needed. At the moment, oil production amounts to about 90 million tonnes a year, and the need for perhaps 90 large tankers has thus been removed from the world merchant fleet.
  I have referred to over-capacity in the bulk trade. Some figures I was given recently showed that the income obtained from the charter of a standard-sized bulk carrier able to go through the Panama canal was $2,850 a day. The cost of paying the crew amounted to over $3,000 a day. The income was therefore insufficient to meet the crew costs, let alone other running costs which amounted to over $2,000. This allowed nothing for depreciation of the cost of the ship or interest on the loan taken out to buy the ship and nothing towards investment in a new ship. With such losses from operating there is now hardly any demand for merchant ships of most types. Many types can hardly be given away. With owners selling to reduce their losses, an almost new second-hand ship can be bought for a fraction of the price of a new one. Against that background, who will order a new ship?
  I pay tribute to the management of British Shipbuilders, which has done well in the past year in gloomy and difficult marketing conditions. The chairman has already been mentioned. There are many who could be praised. I single out Mr. John Parker, the deputy chief executive. I know of no one in the shipbuilding industry who has worked harder in recent years. He has slaved away, travelling from one end of the world to the other to obtain orders. We have done relatively well in a very bad situation.
  No hon. Member can fail to agree that there is a defence implication for our Merchant Navy and our merchant ship building capacity. The size of the Merchant Navy has fallen from 1,600 ships of 50 million tonnes in 1975 to fewer than 1,000 ships and about half that tonnage. There must be some level below which it will not be possible to react to a crisis such as the Falklands campaign. There is a national need to maintain both the Merchant Navy and a shipbuilding capacity to enable us to continue to operate ships in future.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister make the important statement—probably the most important in the debate—that the merchant ship building yards would not only remain in public ownership but would continue to receive public support. No one can say that the Government have not helped the industry. This aid amounts to about £600 million since 1979, expressed in pounds of historical value. If translated into pounds of current value, the figure is £700 million. A vast sum has gone into the industry.
  I cannot understand the argument that the introduction of private capital is harmful to the warship building industry. Last year's accounts show that the warship building division made a profit of£32 million and the merchant ship building division a loss of £l36 million. What happened was that the profits made by the warship builders were siphoned off to keep the merchant ship builders going. That cannot lead to the capital investment and improved productivity that is needed in the warship building yards. The managements of the warship building

  295
  yards say that they have not been receiving adequate investment for that reason. I see such investment coming from outside the industry. I see nothing wrong in it.
  The future size of the warship building industry must depend mainly upon the ordering rate for the Royal Navy. I make no secret of the fact that I should like to see more warships built. A larger warship building industry is possible only if we obtain our share of foreign export orders. All over Western Europe complex naval ships are being built and sold.
  In considering the future of the industry I say now as I have said before that two factors that must be borne in mind are the fierce competition from merchant builders in Korea and other Eastern countries and the need for deeper inquiry into the reasons why we are no longer obtaining orders from foreign countries for major warships. It is 10 or 12 years since this country obtained a major warship export order.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman and I share a common interest in Swan Hunter. I accept his general argument about the warship yards and warship building. Does he accept that if all the pressure were to give warship orders to yards that had been privatised in order to maintain their profitability and private investment, the naval orders that have enabled Swan Hunter to remain viable for the past five years would no longer be available?
  Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman refers to Swan Hunter. It is a matter dear to both our hearts. I thought that at one stage the Ministry of Defence had stated that each of the mixed builders—Swan Hunter is the main such builder, part warship and part merchant—would in future issue figures separately for their two divisions. I understood that undertaking to have been given in reply to the Select Committee, but I note that there is no division in the current set of accounts so we do not know how the results are split between naval and merchant work.
  I do not see the threat envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that Swan Hunter will be an export yard except for large ships, such as carriers. If the Australians decided to order a carrier in this country, I would expect the order to go to Swan Hunter. For a long time export orders for frigates and destroyers have been handled at Vosper Thornycroft and Yarrow.
  Mr. Thomas: The type 24 frigate can be built in a number of places. If the pressure were to put orders for those frigates into yards that had been privatised in order to maintain agreements about the profitability of those yards, would not jobs in Swan Hunter in my constituency and at Wallsend be placed under severe threat? My firm judgment is that this threat would arise. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have answered the point.
  Mr. Trotter: If there were a political decision to send the orders to one town and not the other, it would, of course, mean jobs going to one place and not to the other. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman suggests will happen. I think he meant to refer to the type 23 frigate. The type 24 was designed but got no further than the drawing board, so the point about details does not matter. The issue is whether British warship orders will in future be given to Swan Hunter. I am convinced that they will be from all my knowledge of the Navy and its plans for the future, and I have no doubt at all that there will be substantial naval work for the Tyne.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and myself have a deep interest in Swan Hunter. However, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is not following the point. If the naval shipbuilding capacity of this country is privatised, there is no way that privatised naval shipbuilding yards will give their guaranteed profits to Swan Hunter. Therefore, the future of Swan Hunter must be in grave jeopardy if naval shipbuilding is privatised.
  Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentlemen are going rather far in supposition. Is the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) suggesting that warship yards are to be sold? If that is what he is suggesting—
  Mr. Brown: The Minister suggested it.
  Mr. Trotter: My understanding is that private capital will be invested in the warship yards.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Ask the Minister.
  Mr. Trotter: I have no doubt that the point will be cleared up in the wind-up speech, as it always is.
  Mr. Brown: Why does the Minister not reply?
  Mr. Trotter: The main class of ship to be built for the Royal Navy at Swan Hunter in the years ahead is being designed at Swan Hunter now. It is being designed not at Yarrow or Vosper Thornycroft, but on the Tyne. This is a phoney and spurious argument. There is a class of large ships of the Royal Navy, as Opposition Members should know, upon which design work is being carried out at Swan Hunter now. The question of design is being rethought in the light of the Falklands experience.
  Sir David Price: I am concerned with Vosper Thornycroft. Will my hon. Friend forgive me for pointing out that most of the design teams for the type 42, the type 22 and, we hope, the type 23, which will come eventually, are either at Yarrow or Vosper Thorny croft. They carry the overheads of maintaining the design teams, irrespective of the order book. The real argument is not one of public or private ownership, but where the teams are being maintained, and that is in those two yards. My hon. Friend is right in saying that if we go back to very large vessels Swan Hunter would play a part. However, as I understand it, Swan Hunter is not in the design at the moment. The main design for frigate replacement is done at Vosper Thornycroft and Yarrow.
  Mr. Trotter: As it always has been.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) clearly, and perhaps genuinely, misunderstands the import of a particular part of the Bill. should not the Minister enlighten his hon. Friend?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am sorry. but I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the Minister whether he intervenes.
  Mr. Trotter: My mind goes back to the largest class of frigate built since the war—the successful Leander class. Such frigates were built in yards all over the country. It is 20 years since the design came out. I do not remember which yard was the lead yard in designing them,

  297
  but I do know that the 10 or 12 yards that built them were privately owned, yet the design was used by all. The argument is a spurious one.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Trotter: No, I shall not give way. We have discussed the matter sufficiently.
  The third repeated question in any discussion on the industry is that of the financing of orders in the merchant shipbuilding yards. The problem of obtaining orders is not just one of the cost or the delivery time, but very much the length of time over which one can pay for the ship. International agreements among the shipbuilding countries are definite and open as to the interest rate and the period of payment. However, one constantly hears of clandestine methods of evading those agreements being used in the shipbuilding countries. Shipowners tell me that the period of repayment and the interest rate are in many cases as important to them as the price. It can be the main factor in deciding the country where the order is placed. We need to look very closely at how we can help the shipbuilding industry in this respect.
  Mr. Derek Kimber is a leading figure in the industry who has worked extremely hard on the export side with great success. With his knowledge gained from talking to shipbuilders all over the world, he believes there is a need for flexible repayment terms so that the shipowner can have the balance of his loan carried forward and the main part of the repayment effected when trade turns up, as it must do. The equilibrium will be between critical supply and demand and the upturn in orders should come again in the next four or five years. Freight rates can vary enormously by a factor of three within a period of 18 months. When they have gone up again, owners will be better able to meet the cost of servicing and repaying a loan. This is something that the Minister might take on board as a means of financing ships.
  Whoever owns the industry and however we discuss its organisation, it will have a difficult future. The degree of success, the size of the industry and the prospects for future employment will depend, first, on continued Government support for the merchant ship building side, which I was delighted to hear the Minister pledge tonight, and, secondly, on the skills and the productivity of those who work in the industry. We cannot get away from the fact that, as in every other industry, the future is in the hands of those people rather than in the hands of the House.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), as we both represent parts of the North-East. He will no doubt agree with me that in form the Bill is objectionable and unsatisfactory. In substance, depending on how it is treated, it can be either a triviality that is alien to present circumstances, or a serious threat to the industry. From what the Minister has said, it seems more likely to be the latter.
  The Minister's Back Benchers, however, seem to be less than enthusiastic about the Bill and the hon. Member for Tynemouth was more obscure than enthusiastic. During the Debate on the Address, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke about the Bill. He
  298
  appeared to take the view that it is frivolous, and said that privatisation was a very long shot and that we cannot privatise British Shipbuilders simply by selling off the warship yards, and then expecting a fairy godmother to take up the merchant ship building yards.
  There have been virtually no export orders for naval work for a long time. We are thus concerned with contracts for the Ministry of Defence, which are worked out between BS and the Ministry of Defence. If, because of the orders that may arise out of the Falklands war, these warship yards are made privately profitable, that would be no less than obscene.
  Nearly all the merchant shipbuilding yards are in the North-East. There is only Govan outside. Sunderland Shipbuilders would not expect a fairy godmother. Court Line, which made considerable investment before nationalisation, went bust. Austin and Pickersgill would not expect a fairy godmother. The accounts of British Shipbuilders show the money that it needs for support.
  Indeed, merchant ship building has no immediate future unless, as the Minister conceded, there is public support comparable to that received by the shipbuilding industries in other countries. The Minister referred to delivery dates. I must tell him that he is out of date. Delivery dates are now an embarrassment—ships are being delayed because their owners do not want delivery. The industry is unattractive to private investment and, if the Government begin privatisation, the yards will be written off. It will be claimed that investment will not give an adequate return.
  It is agreed that British Shipbuilders has a good record. It has an efficient and effective management. John Parker was previously with Austin and Pickersgill. He, with many others, has made a substantial contribution to British Shipbuilders. Labour relations have been transformed. But in spite of that, there have been heavy and continuing losses in manpower. This is continuous. Since April 500 jobs have been lost in the yards on the Wear, and consequently almost twice as many outside the yards. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will no doubt point out that the Tyne has suffered a catastrophic collapse in ship repair work.
  Merchant ship building must have a certain capacity in order to exist. Its present capacity is the minimum for Britain. The industry is under threat. There has been a dearth of orders, with order books down £100 million compared with 12 months ago. The British fleet is declining at an alarming rate—more than one-quarter of the fleet has disappeared during the past 18 months and the position is rapidly deteriorating. Only recently we were accustomed to talk about things being all right after the early 1980s. Now we talk about the mid-1980s. We must give more support and assistance to British shipbuilding.
  I have been unique in always taking the view that it is more important to concentrate on shipping than shipbuilding, even though I represent a shipbuilding constituency. We must look to Japan to see how it developed shipbuilding and then shipping. Years ago, as a young man, I wrote a plan for shipbuilding. I said that there would be between 40,000 and 80,000 redundancies. I was regarded by many of my colleagues as ridiculous in anticipating substantial redundancies. I was right. Indeed, my figures were a gross underestimation of what eventually happened. I saw the beginning of world competition. I argued then that we would have to provide reserve capacity, which demanded from the Government a new location of industry policy. We needed to provide

  299
  alternative comparable work in shipbuilding areas. I remember the feat performed by Sunderland when war broke out and the yards were manned by people who had been unemployed for many years. If we are concerned with the national interest, we must provide for such eventualities. We should have altered our approach.
  I emphasise again the importance of shipping. I have always said that the nationalisation of shipbuilding would do nothing to stabilise the demand for ships. To concentrate on shipbuilding alone was unwise—the top priority should have been shipping. I recommended aids and controls and a reorganisation commission and we have made a great deal of progress since then. There has been the Geddes report and also that of Booz-Allen, which was far too much neglected.
  However, I also recommended that there should be a fact-finding committee, drawn from both sides of the two industries, supported by people with industrial and public experience. That would have created an awareness of our national responsibility for the two historic industries—shipbuilding and shipping. I envisaged that from such a committee we would obtain a maritime policy.
  It is significant that when the Select Committee met British Shipbuilders and listened to Mr. Atkinson, it recommended that there should be an interdepartmental working group to formulate maritime policies. In reply, all that the Government do is talk about the free market and the introduction of the Bill. I am trying to be non-controversial. We should study how, for instance, Japan has organised shipbuilding and shipping. It is a great pity that the recommendation was not accepted by the Government. I am trying to convince the Government to accept something that will give those concerned on both sides of both industries an opportunity to formulate maritime policy.
  During recent months Japan has gained three-quarters of the world's shipbuilding orders. North Korea is offering ships at ridiculous prices. We cannot tolerate this. I agree with Mr. Atkinson's views about Europe, and we must deal with Europe. It is nonsense to talk about free trade in such circumstances, or about Britain's interests. We have no particular interest in the development of shipbuilding and shipping in Japan and the Far East.
  I am told that scrap and build has not been discussed in the EEC for three years and that there was considerable scepticism when it was discussed. I am concerned not with that, but with it being discussed again. The shipping fleet is in a far worse condition than it was three years ago. There has been a considerable amount of breaking up in the merchant fleet. We have heard about what has happened to the British fleet. We need to investigate scrap and build again. It might be an attractive proposition.
  It is agreed that the merchant fleet had an important part to play in the Falklands battles. If that is so, we should now be thinking about a sensible investment policy for the British merchant fleet. We should also be thinking about a strategic shipping reserve. It might be an official part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. That would mean ships being equipped with defence features. We should consider the conversion and part use of the present fleet for that purpose or, alternatively, the construction of ships with those features. They would be built in British yards. There is nothing to stop us from doing that. We could work out with British shipowners suitable assistance terms.
  I have no wish to be critical about the machinery of credit and aid to which reference has already been made.
  300
  We recently negotiated cover for two ships from Ethiopia, which were desperately needed in Sunderland. I have a great respect for the Department of Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, but something more can be done. I have been told repeatedly by Mr. Kimber that we need to improve and expedite the present procedures, but we also need flexible financial packages and special terms when buyers are from less-developed countries. The Minister should not look surprised because it can be done and it is done. It is done by the Japanese, the Germans and, not surprisingly, the French.
  We have taken advantage of aid. Sunderland yards benefited through orders from India a long time ago. More can be done and more must be done. We must sit down and think out some form of inducement for British owners to place orders in British yards. We shall not get anywhere by discussing privatisation, which can only distract and upset those working in the yards. We want the capacity to build a Navy and the merchant shipping that is required, and to sustain them.
  Mr. Urwin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am deeply interested in his point about the negotiations for the building of two ships for Ethiopia by Sunderland Shipbuilders. He will recall, as I do, the problems with which Sunderland Shipbuilders was confronted because of what appeared to be an unnecessarily long hold-up by the Department of Trade in releasing the resources available through ECGD.
  Is there not a lesson to be learnt there? British Shipbuilders at Sunderland was at its last gasp to maintain employment, largely, presumably, as a result of the unnecessary delays in releasing the capital resources to which it was entitled through ECGD. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a lesson to be learnt about coordination between those two Departments?
  Mr. Willey: I agree with my right hon. Friend I have great respect for ECGD. It has done a good job and has responded in the past to appeals made by British shipbuilding. Nevertheless I agree with my hon. Friend that we must learn from these experiences and learn quickly.
  We need a national interest in British shipbuilding. I use those words not in the cynical way in which they appear in the Bill but in a real sense. British shipbuilding and British shipping are two historic industries on which we greatly depend, particularly if we should ever be involved in war, as we found in the Falklands. We must stand by these industries. They are making a great effort to recover in difficult circumstances. They want our confidence and they do not want to be distracted by the matters contained in the Bill.
  5.15 pm
  Sir David Price: I agree very much with the important point made time and again by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but there is no point examining shipbuilding unless we also examine the state of shipping. Unless there are orders for ships, there is no reason to have a shipbuliding industry. The right hon. Gentleman also confessed to having been consistently right in his pronouncements on British shipping and shipping policy in general. I say to him "Welcome aboard", but he will not find himself popular because, as he knows, the most unpopular thing that a politician can ever do is to be consistently right.

  301
  We heard from the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and from my hon. Friend the Minister of State what one might call characteristic speeches in which they were both consistent with their previous form. I, too, wish to be consistent. In shipping matters I always declare a personal and a constituency interest.
  It is clear from the background to the Bill that the House wishes to discuss, first, the state of British shipbuilding and, secondly, the state of British shipping—being, we hope, the major source of orders for our industry. There is general agreement that world shipbuilding, into which we fit, is in a poor state at the moment. In that context, I hope that the House realises how poor is the state of European shipbuilding. Although shipbuilding as a whole in the world is down, in some parts of the world it has its tail up, particularly in Korea and Taiwan.
  The percentage share of the world order book is interesting. I have before me the figures to June 1982. They show that the general total, although down, is not as significantly down as one would think from the depressed state of the European industry. The order books of the three major Far Eastern countries—Japan, Taiwan and Korea—accounted for more than 50 per cent. of the identifiable world order book. Compared with 10 years ago, the Japanese share was down but the Korean and Taiwanese shares were up substantially. Ten years ago Korea and Taiwan contributed virtually nothing to world shipbuilding capacity.
  An examination of the three leading European shipbuliding countries—Britain, Sweden and Germany—shows that as of June 1982 the current orders in the yards of those three countries was only 7·9 per cent. That is a pretty desperate state. That is the consideration that should be engaging the House.
  British Shipbuilders, to which tributes have already been paid, has been holding on but, as we know from examining its annual report, it is not bullish for the future. The section of the annual report headed "Business Outlook" states:
  "Market prospects for 1982/83 do not look encouraging, with few signs of sustained recovery in the world economy and a severe recession in the shipping market."
  It is worth the House recognising that, when shipping is depressed, one cannot expect shipowners—whether Government of private—to place orders for many new ships unless it can be shown that the order for a new ship and the investment in it will reduce operating costs.
  Ten years ago one could make such a case because ships were faster. There has been a big increase in bunkering costs and the advantage of speed has been reduced by the heavy increase in the percentage of the total running costs taken by bunkering. There has been a decline in the number of ships flying the British flag and the flags of some other European countries, but the ships have not disappeared from the world shipping scene. They appear under other flags, trading in the same waters and seeking the same businesses, but with lower operating costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) gave figures showing the reduction in our merchant marine. In the six years between the end of 1975 and the end of 1981 our merchant marine diminished from nearly 50 million tonnes deadweight to nearly 29 million tonnes deadweight. The figure continues to fall. Some of these ships were foreign-owned but were registered in the
  302
  British register. In this sense the Red Ensign was a flag of convenience. Even discounting that, the reduction in British registered ships is alarming.
  This is not the occasion to rehearse the various arguments advanced by the British shipping industry as to how this downward trend could be reversed. To do that I should have to go into taxation and many other matters. However, the arguments must be recognised. We shall not find the solution to the problems of British shipbuiling, whether publicly or privately owned, until we cope with the problems of British shipping. To that extent, the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North was right, as was British Shipbuilders and the Select Committee. We must consider the problem as a whole, not in bits and pieces.
  It follows that the House must take a view about the minimum size and the mix of the British merchant marine. The recent experiences of the British merchant marine in support of the Royal Navy in the South Atlantic brought that point vividly to our attention.
  The second and obvious function of British shipbuilding is building for the Royal Navy. I stick to the old view that unless one builds ships for one's own Navy there is little chance of selling naval ships abroad. Uniquely, Vosper Thornycroft designed ships and sold abroad before it built for the Royal Navy. That was years ago and should be regarded as normal. The selling of naval ships does not involve a straight commercial contract. It requires Government support in different capacities.
  I am not in a critical mood tonight, but I could be a little critical of Ministry of Defence support in the past for the sale of naval vessels and equipment. The Dutch are extremely successful in that respect. When they have not succeeded in selling a whole ship they have sold parts of ships and the equipment because their naval ships have flown their commercial flag throughout the world. The problems of selling abroad cannot be tackled in compartments. They must be seen as a whole.
  We must get a move on with orders for the naval yards. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and I were happy to be present at the launching of HMS "Gloucester" but what new order will go into its berth? We need the normal ordering from the Royal Navy that one would expect to come up each year as well as replacement orders for the Falklands casualities.
  Hon. Members rightly fly the flag for Swan Hunter and other North-East yards, but Yarrow and Vosper Thornycroft are specialist naval yards. They carry higher overheads on their naval design teams that have to be sustained year in and year out. If we were to lose those teams we could never expect to get designs of the quality produced by those two yards ever again. That must be borne in mind in discussing the comparative costs of different yards.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not wish to sidetrack the hon. Gentleman, but he may be able to help me. The hon. Gentleman listened with care to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) when he gave his impressions of the Bill and its likely consequences. Some of my hon. Friends believe that there is a possibility that major naval yards will be sold. The hon. Member for Tynemouth pooh-poohed that and said that it was not in the Government's mind. What is the hon. Gentleman's view?
  Sir David Price: I shall come to that. I wish to make my speech in logical sequence. I was talking about the

  303
  need for orders from the merchant navy and the urgent need for orders from the Royal Navy. The House is agreed about that. There is a link between the two. There must be more support for the merchant navy in its defence role. I could detain the House by listing the features that should be built into the various classes of merchant ship to make them more suitable to support the Royal Navy, whether in a combat role as with "Canberra" or in a supply role, as with many of the ships in the South Atlantic task force. The House will agree about that.
  There is an urgency. If one leaves the matter too long the expertise will disappear. There is always a danger among the admirals, admirable though they are, of making the best the enemy of the better. As a result, they argue so long about design that costs escalate enormously and the Treasury turns them down. If they would settle for something a little less than one best—and now—they might get it.
  We must consider the Bill in the context of what really matters for the future of British Shipbuilders. With respect to the Minister of State, I do not think that the Bill gets down to the fundamentals. However, it is helpful in two important respects. The Bill is only an enabling measure. It provides the opportunity to introduce private finance into British Shipbuilders. I do not believe that there will be sell-offs. I see a partnership. I can imagine how the partnership would work on a specialist order. For instance, building ferries for a ferry operator, equipment for oil rigs and ships for foreign Governments might be financed in joint ventures. It would make sense to set up a joint company to build a particular ship and to inject capital into the company. That would be helpful.
  I envisage opportunities to increase sources of finance for British Shipbuilders. In the present state of British shipping and shipbuilding, I cannot envisage people queuing up to buy British Shipbuilders as a whole. Anybody who thinks that that will happen lives in an unrealistic world. However, if one can find additional sources of finance for any nationalised industry one reduces the industry's dependence on the Treasury. We all have great respect for the Treasury, but as an industrial and commercial man I prefer other taskmasters.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the specific question put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The Minister appears to be in favour of selling off warship building yards. Is the hon. Gentleman is favour of that?
  Sir David Price: The Bill is only an enabling measure. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is possible, but I am not aware of any such proposition at the moment and I should be surprised if there were. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to sell, but I should like to know who the buyers would be, given the state of the market.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is not naive, but clearly it is the Minister's intention, and that of the Government, to sell off the whole package of naval shipbuilding. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe, bearing in mind that the profits from naval shipbuilding have virtually offset the losses in merchant shipbuilding of British Shipbuilders, that any private interest will take a shipyard part of which builds warships and part of which builds merchant ships?
  Sir David Price: With respect to the hon. Member, I am not prepared to get involved in a speculative argument, because I have not put forward the proposition. Certainly I defend propositions that I put forward. However, I am prepared to entertain the proposition of mixed financing, because I see great advantages in that. Opposition Members should direct their question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is his Bill, not mine. I was merely saying that I do not regard the Bill in quite the satanic terms that Labour Members do. Equally, I do not view it with quite the same enthusiasm as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am decently agnostic in these matters.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: The Bill is totally irrelevant to the problems of the shipbuilding industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr Orme) rightly said, it is the death knell of merchant shipping in this country. The social consequences of that will be borne by many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies with high unemployment where employment depends greatly on shipbuilding.
  In view of the consequences of the Bill and the devastating effects that it will have, it is an insult to the House that the Secretary of State for Industry did not present it to the House today. Moreover, the Minister of State gave no reason for that. The Bill carries out the Government's basic philosophy: if it's in the black, flog it back; if it's in the red, leave it dead. That is the Government's attitude to our nationalised industries. Anyone who knows anything about the shipbuilding industry knows that if it is to remain viable it has to remain one unit, and that selling off part of it will destroy the whole of this great British industry.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West talked about the three naval warship yards, Vospers, Yarrow and Vickers, which protested against the compensation that they received when they were nationalised in 1977. I believe that they went to the European Court. The Conservative Opposition at the time said that when they came to power they would rectify the matter. It was suggested, in I believe an early-day motion, to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that compensation should be more realistic. This Bill, in which the yards are to be given back to the owners, is a rectification of the compensation that they did not get when nationalisation took place.
  The Government cannot break up British Shipbuilders without destroying one of our most skilled possessions. Under State ownership, British Shipbuilders is in better shape than it has been for years, in spite of what one or two Conservative Members say. Compared with world shipbuilding, it has greatly improved its position. Losses have been reduced from £110 million two years ago to only £19 million this year—at a time when world shipbuilding is in the doldrums. That is a tribute to nationalisation and to the Labour Government who nationalised and thereby saved our shipbuilding industry. It is also a tribute to the co-operation, hard work and self-sacrifice of the trade unionists and those who work in British Shipbuilders. Two years ago, shipbuilding workers were third in the wages table; today they are down to nineteenth. The unions accepted the loss of many jobs in an effort to make the industry efficient. Does anyone believe that if the industry is sold the co-operation, hard work and self-sacrifice of the unions will still be available?

  305
  To sell off the naval warship yards will cause great social problems. It will simply hand over money that has been collected from taxpayers to finance naval contracts which will benefit a minority of shareholders who will buy the yards. Moreover, there will be confrontation with the same unions which have co-operated with the Government since the industry was nationalised. I am talking not just about manual unions, but about staff and management unions. Alec Ferry, the general secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, representing 1½ million workers, said at the boilermakers' conference this year:
  "The confederation has already warned the Government we will oppose any such moves for which there is no logical justification. We in the unions have proved we do not want confrontation. But if we are faced with unnecessary problems created by blind political dogma, we can only react accordingly … We have not worked our guts out and faced all that aggro since 1976 in what was then a bankrupt industry, only to see it return to the same people who created all that problem in the first place. We have not sacrificed 22,000 jobs of members and accepted a cut in the standard of living for the remaining 65,000 for the purpose of creating the possibility of commercial viability, for it to be taken advantage of by private investors".
  The selling off of the naval warship yards will have devastating effects, in spite of what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said about mixed shipyards at Swan Hunter on the river Tyne. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) and Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) know the consequences that the lack of naval work at Swan Hunter would have on the river Tyne. Incidentally, Swan Hunter has the highest productivity in naval work in this country.
  The Minister talked about late finishing dates. I do not know whether he read the Falklands war honours list. Ron Watson, a director of Swan Hunter, was awarded an OBE on behalf of the work force of 2,000 whose efforts produced HMS "Illustrious" three months ahead of schedule. The Minister talked of late finishing dates, although many of the men who worked at Swan Hunter, who had been sacked 12 months earlier and were brought back during the Falklands campaign to get HMS "Illustrious" finished, were working 12-hour shifts. That is the reward that they got.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: Will my hon. Friend stress the fact that they were craftsmen who had been out of work for more than 12 months, and that if such craftsmen are left unemployed much longer there will be no craftsmen left to do future emergency work?
  Mr. Dixon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Falklands crisis had occurred in two years' time, the result might have been very different. We are talking not just about a few jobs lost in shipbuilding but about whole communities which rely on shipbuilding for their social and economic health.
  Shipbuilding and the connected industries have formed an important base in the North-East for many years. I shall give one or two examples. A survey was carried out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend, and 62 per cent. of the work force employed there lived either in Wallsend or in adjacent towns.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, a survey was taken of the work force at Austin and Pickersgill's Southwick yard. It revealed that 37 per cent. of the work force lived within
  306
  one mile of the yard, and that only 1·5 per cent. lived more than five miles from it. These figures give us some idea of what would happen if the yard were to close. It is a highly skilled labour force and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend says, if its members are out of work for a long time we shall not be able to recruit them again.
  In the North-East nearly 8 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry is in shipbuilding, ship repairing or marine engineering. In the rest of the United Kingdom such activity provides only 2·5 per cent. of employment. In certain areas in the North-East it is more concentrated. For example, on the Wear 20 per cent. of employment depends on shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. On the Tyne it is 17 per cent.
  There exists within the North-East an integrated shipbuilding and ship repairing industry that is supplied mainly by services within the region. The work that is done within a shipyard amounts to only 40 per cent. of the cost of a ship. This means that the services of contractors and the cost of materials amount to 60 per cent. of the cost. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North talked about the consequences of the Bill and said that one in every so many members of the shipbuilding industry's work force would be put out of work. The Bill will also have consequences for those outside the industry. It could mean that two men in every so many members of the ancillary industries will be put out of work.
  Within the region which I represent in part there are many organisations connected with shipbuilding and ship repairing. Newcastle university has the largest and the foremost naval architecture department of all universities in Britain. The South Shields technical college has an internationally known marine college. The British Ship Research Association has its headquarters in Wallsend. British Shipbuilders has its headquarters in Newcastle. British Ship Repairers has its headquarters in South Shields. If the Government destroy the shipbuilding industry, there will be serious consequences in the North-East, including the Tyne and the Wear.
  In October the Tyne and Wear county council published a paper in which it listed the firms that announced redundancies between June and August. The following major job losses were reported in the press: Tyne Ship Repairers, South Shields, 1,000; Comings, Sunderland, 440; William Press, South Shields, 330; H. K. Porter Ltd., Newburn, 86; Lack-Johnson, Washington, 70; Caterpillar Tractors, Birtley, 60; Crompton Parkinson, South Shields, 60; and Ronson, North Shields, 50. The list is almost endless. The purpose of the Bill is to sell off the naval warship yards, and if it is enacted it will destroy the British shipbuilding industry. That will put another 200,000 in the Northern region on the dole, workers who rely on shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering.
  It is nonsense to talk about saving public expenditure when it costs £5,000 a year to put a shipbuilding worker on the dole. Jarrow is known as the town that was murdered in the 1930s. It already has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Britain. The last ship repairing yard in my constituency, Mercantile Dry Dock, is being closed this year. The last pit in my consituency, Bolden colliery, is being closed this year. The last steel plant in my constituenccy is under threat. The South Tyneside metropolitan district council, which embraces the

  307
  constitueny of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), recently commissioned a survey. It revealed pockets of over 50 per cent. male unemployment.
  The Mercantile Dry Dock, Bolden colliery and other work places worked throughout the Second World War despite Hitler's bombs, but they cannot continue under the policies introduced by the Government. Their policies are having more effect on my constituency than the German bombers.
  The result of the survey that was undertaken by the North-East Centre for Community Studies in part of the South Tyneside district showed that 22 per cent. of heads of households were unemployed. It showed also that 53 per cent. of the respondents to the survey relied on help towards rent, rates and mortgage repayments, that 28 per cent. had difficulty in paying their rent, that 37 per cent. had difficulty in paying heating bills and that 14 per cent. could not pay heating bills. Other studies that have been carried out on Tyneside have drawn links between longterm unemployment and health problems, suicide, marriage break-downs, heavy demand on social services and a variety of other social consequences.
  During her famous speech in Swansea the Prime Minister said that the unemployed should be mobile. No doubt she was referring to the young and active. When those who are young and active leave the areas to which I have referred they do not take with them the community centres, hospitals, old people's homes or parks. These facilities remain and the older population has to pay for them.
  It is criminal to talk about putting British Shipbuilders back into the hands of private owners. The industry would have been finished if it had not been nationalised in 1977. Private ownership virtually bankrupted the industry. The Minister talked about massive investment in the 1970s. I do no know the source of his facts, but a survey that was undertaken in the early 1970s showed that the assets of the British shipbuilding industry amounted to £825 for every worker. In West Germany the assets were valued at £1,000, in Italy at £1,200, in Sweden at £1,800 and in Japan at £2,800.
  A survey that was undertaken later in the 1970s showed that in the British shipbuilding industry an extra £80 had been invested per man whereas West Germany had invested a further £162 per worker, Japan had invested an additional £409 per worker and Sweden had invested an extra £554 per worker. In September 1981 Lloyd's List reported that the seven largest shipbuilding yards in Japan had earmarked £626 million for investment in plant and equipment.
  It was lack of investment in British shipbuilding that put it in the state in which the Labour Government found it in 1977. There was a lack of investment on the part of the private entrepreneurs about which we hear so much. The Geddes report of 1966 made a similar statement. The Booz-Allen report also referred to lack of investment in the industry. The case for nationalisation was proved by that report.
  The industry requires a national policy. The Government should take the advice of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, which suggests the setting up of a high level interdepartmental working party to consider the full implications of maritime policy for the United Kingdom, which embraces shipbuilding and shipping generally. We cannot isolate shipbuilding from shipping. Instead of introducing a Bill that will destroy
  308
  shipbuilding the Government should have produced a measure that embraced the suggestions that have been made on numerous occasions by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including an effective scrap and build scheme. We have talked about such a scheme for years and we know that it is being blocked by certain European countries.
  We should provide more attractive credit terms for prospective buyers and ensure that British shipping companies build in this country. There is not a shipbuilding company in Japan that builds outside Japan. It is about time that we adopted a similar national policy for supplying British shipowners. We should bring forward defence programme orders and, for example, orders that stem from North Sea oil production programmes. We should ask harbour authorities and other such bodies to bring forward their vessel replacement programmes. We should press the EEC to increase the amount available from the intervention fund.
  Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate. Many of them already have far too high a level of unemployment in their constituencies and cannot accept any more. We in the Northern region have been quiet for far too long and have accepted unemployment far to easily. Unemployed people over the age of 45 who live in the North-East are finished. They have no chance of getting another job. Furthermore, there are young people leaving school who have no chance of a job.
  I finish by repeating what I said in my maiden speech. It is about time that the Government took heed of some of the warnings that Labour Members have given them. The young people of today are not so steeped in democracy that they will accept the solutions of the 1930s for the problems of the 1980s. The sooner Ministers get that in their heads the better.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Grylls: I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). Nobody would dispute the sincerity and importance of his general remarks about unemployment in the North-East. However, in other respects he is a little off beam. If one compares British Shipbuilders over the past three years under this Government with the previous two years of the Labour Government, it will be seen that the Government have given it twice as much money by way of National Loans Fund money, public dividend capital money or grants under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. That is on the record.
  That being the fact, for the hon. Gentleman to deduce that the Government are doing their best to destroy the shipbuilding industry is nothing short of ridiculous. He must know that that is not true. He is not doing his region any good by pretending that under this Government the shipbuilding industry is under threat.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said at the beginning of his speech that over the past three years British Shipbuilders' position has improved. Losses have been reduced and productivity improved. Delivery dates are better than they were. To say that the Government are damaging the industry when they are providing such massive support is Alice in Wonderland language. He is not doing any good to his constituents or anybody else in the shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misconstrued what my hon. Friend the Member for

  309
  Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was trying to say. He was not critical of the grants and allowances that have been made by the Government. He was anticipating what will happen when the proposed legislation is passed. The hon. Gentleman has accepted that it is Government investment which has allowed the industry to reduce its deficit, improve its efficiency and meet the challenges that have existed up to now.
  Mr. Grylls: That is correct. The Bill will allow the introduction of private capital into British Shipbuilders.
  In the debate so far my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have spoken with one objective in view—the good of British shipbuilding as an industry. Their knowledge has allowed them to speak sincerely on that. Throughout the debate there has been a degree of unanimity. We are all concerned with the good of British shipbuilding in general.
  I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member for Jarrow, but I got the impression that he was trying to cast doubts on the Government's sincerity in wishing to see a healthy shipbuilding industry.
  The debate is not about the generality of British shipbuilding. There is almost a bipartisan policy on that. The Government have increased grants to British Shipbuilders and have made various statements about continuing financial support. The debate is about whether there is any room for private capital for the good of any part of the British shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the crux of the matter is the introduction of private capital into British Shipbuilders, why is it necessary to take powers in the Bill which impair and undermine the industry's structure? That is what is at stake. That is the division between us. If people wished to invest private capital, it would not be necessary to take such powers. Those Conservative Members who support the Bill must explain why the Government are doing it in this way.
  Mr. Grylls: The hon. Gentleman is right regarding what the Bill is about but he is probably wrong on the legal point. He may remember that I have been one of those who have pressed the Government to come forward with measures to allow the investment of private capital for the good of the warship building industry. That has not happened. One reason for that is that the powers were not there under the old Act. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but he did not have watertight legal powers to direct British Shipbuilders to allow the introduction of private capital. Therefore, the Bill is directed to that purpose. It is a clarification which allows the introduction of private capital. The central argument is whether private capital is good or bad. We should be clear about that.
  Mr. Dewar: The Bill does clarify the position and makes it possible to introduce private capital. However, there is a fear among Labour Members that the machinery created by the Bill will also allow the sale of substantial assets, such as individual yards, or parts of the warship division. As an expert in the Conservative Party on the industry does the hon. Gentleman think, first, that that would be undesirable, and, secondly, that that is not the intention of the Bill?
  Mr. Grylls: To talk of selling a company or an asset is not the right way to look at the matter. The real issue is whether to bring in private capital. British Aerospace has greatly prospered since it was able to go to the City and raise private capital. If one wants to be emotive about it one can say that it has been flogged off. It is better to say that it has had an opportunity to attract private capital.
  An article in The Engineer last week quotes John Lyons, the general secretary of the Engineering Managers' Association, as saying:
  "It is clear the Government is acting on grounds of political dogma or, if not that, to cut a dash with its more ideological followers."
  We must refute that view. The Government are not acting on grounds of political dogma. The important point is not so much ownership, although the Conservative Party prefers private ownership because it is more efficient generally—as the record shows—but what is for the good of the industry; what will make it most efficient. Ownership is not an end in itself. If all nationalised industries were efficient and returned good dividends to the taxpayer and the Treasury, there might be less pressure to privatise them. It is only because they are such a drain on the Exchequer that people, rightly, want to privatise them and to enable them to gain capital on the market.
  Another important factor, which is linked to the question of efficiency, is investment. I shall demonstrate why some of the warship building yards have been starved of investment since nationalisation. That is very damaging. As I said, I think to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—who is unfortunately not in the Chamber now—one side of the industry is still in trouble, although things are improving, while the other side—the warship yards—is making a profit. If the two sides remain married together there is a danger that they will both fall. If there is not enough investment in the warship yards, they will not be modernised and will be unable to attract overseas orders or properly service orders from the Ministry of Defence.
  The critical factor is investment. Those who work in the warship building yards would be wise to take a leaf out of British Aerospace's book, or indeed out of the book of any of the companies that have been privatised and that need heavy investment. They would be wise to ask what has happened to those companies since their return to the private sector. They should ask whether those companies have done any better and whether they have attracted capital for investment and modernisation and thereby secured jobs. Whatever the percentage of equity—whether it is 49–51 or 50–50—if the warship yards are allowed to attract money from the private sector jobs will become more secure. Clearly the money will not come from BS.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman must produce a better argument in support of his belief that privatisation will attract private capital. He has mentioned British Aerospace twice. If what he says is true, why is British Aerospace knocking on the Department of Industry's door saying that unless it has Government support and taxpayers' money it will not have any chance of taking part in the A320 airbus project or of going ahead with the P110, which is now called the agile combat aircraft? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Grylls: It is perfectly explicable. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, prior to nationalisation in 1977 the privately owned aircraft firms relied for part of their

  311
  investment capital on "launching aid" from the Government. That has always been the case. We are saying the same thing now. The greater part of investment comes from the private sector. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) should not turn away when I am telling him the answer. I do not wish to be impertinent, but it is the answer. The company is asking for a little topping up, but most of its investment has come, and will come, from the private sector.
  Opposition Members ask how Britian can exist without a warship building industry. We all agree about its importance, but they suggest that the industry could not exist without nationalisation. However, Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar without relying on the nationalised warship industry. Beatty and Jellicoe won the Battle of Jutland and the Battle of the Atlantic was also won without a nationalised warship industry. Indeed, I imagine that most of the warships—if not all—that went to the Falkland Islands were produced by the privately owned warship building industry. Therefore, that case cannot be made.
  The argument is not so much about ownership but about investment. How best can we get investment in our warship yards? We at least agree about the desperate need to return the merchant yards to profit, and to make them successful so that they can win and deliver orders all over the world. We should all agree that the same applies to the warship yards. We are arguing only about the best way of achieving that. Since nationalisation, the warship yards have been starved of investment. I shall not weary the House with figures, but I should like to give one set of figures for a yard mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. I refer to Vosper Thornycroft UK, the nationalised warship yard in Southampton and Portsmouth. In the five years since nationalisation Vosper Thornycroft UK has paid from its profits £48 million in dividends. In the three years prior to nationalisation it paid only £700,000 in dividends. Therefore, the money has been siphoned out of Vosper Thornycroft UK. The same applies to Yarrow and Vickers, the other two main yards. The money has gone into propping up the merchant shipbuilding yards. That is a bad policy because it ends up with two problem children instead of one.
  The important point is that the merchant shipbuilding yards are almost in profit. In a year's time they may almost be running profitably and they will not need that support. Therefore, we should allow the warship yards to stand on their own and to plough their profits into investment and modernisation so that they can attract orders from all over the world. The Government must make up their mind about how they intend to attract private capital if the Bill is enacted.
  I am sure that the Minister realises that the former owners of the three main warship yards—Yarrow's, Vickers and Vosper Thornycroft—did not receive proper compensation for their assets when the yards were nationalised in 1977. They can hardly be expected to buy them back in 1982. If I buy a house worth £50,000 from the hon. Member for Whitehaven for £5,000 and then offer to sell it back to him for £50,000, he will ask for the original £50,000 before perhaps offering to buy it back. That is the analogy. Therefore, the Government have a problem if they want the former owners to buy back the yards. Alternatively, a joint corporation could be made of the warship yards and shares could be traded on the market and offered to the public. That would be a satisfactory way of ensuring a good warship building industry.
  Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely confused. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the sale was not a starter and that we were looking at joint ventures and possibly an injection of capital. He is now talking about the former owners buying back the yards. That is very different and much more sinister. What is the hon. Gentleman's position?
  Mr. Grylls: I am saying exactly the same thing. Who will put private capital into the warship yards? In theory, the former owners could do so, but they do not have the money because they have not been properly compensated. Is the hon. Gentleman with me?
  Mr. Dewar: Yes.
  Mr. Grylls: That is the problem. The former owners can speak for themselves, but I doubt whether they would buy back the yards. Private capital is more likely to be obtained by floating off part of British Shipbuilders into a separate Companies Act company on the Stock Exchange. BS could maintain 49 per cent. of the shares, or whatever percentage is thought proper, and the public could subscribe for the rest of the shares. In that way private capital could be attracted and the yards would prosper.
  So far, the Government have not elaborated on how private capital is to be obtained. Nevertheless, I congratulate them on the principle of the Bill. If we want Britain to maintain an international warship building capability, we must ensure that the industry is modernised. The only way to do that is by allowing the introduction of private capital. Both sides of the House should agree about that.
  I hope that the Bill is enacted and I shall certainly support it in the Lobby tonight.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: Many tributes have been paid to the management and workers of British Shipbuilders, but they are sick to death of tributes and are more concerned about their jobs. At the weekend, I met full-time union officials and employees in my constituency and I found that the mood of despondency and gloom had deepened to a level that I have not known for many years.
  The management is puzzled and punch drunk and the work force is demoralised. Since nationalisation management-worker relations have improved considerably. Many of us remember the years of bitter conflict between men and management under private enterprise. Strikes went on for months because of private management's attitude, its failure to understand the needs and aspirations of the work force and its inability to motivate the workers into feeling that they were part of an industry which mattered.
  None of us should forget the major role that private enterprise played in the demise of the British shipbuilding industry. It is on the record and it is a piece of social and industrial history which should be a lesson to us all.
  It is a mystery to the work force, though not to me, why the Government should upset the existing arrangements under which, in spite of world difficulties, the industry was striving to get back on to an even keel. The position will worsen if the Bill goes through.
  We have had a sombre debate so far and it has been part of a pattern of debates about the industry over many years, even since nationalisation. I wish that people would leave

  313
  the industry alone so that it can get on with the task of meeting the nation's defence needs in peace and war and preparing itself for the time when the commercial markets improve. The British people will face a challenge if they are given encouragement. We should be securing the base of our industry so that it can meet the challenge of fair competition.
  The present unfair competition cannot be allowed to continue. It may stick in the gullets of some hardline Conservative Members, not many of whom are present, but there must be a change in the Government's thinking. If we do not get the necessary changes, including import controls on shipbuilding, the British public will force the changes on the Government.
  I cannot understand why we are so insistent that we must build warships for export. We should build sufficient ships and equipment for the defence of our country, but I have the uneasy feeling that when we sell ships to other countries we are selling our know-how.
  When we sell ships to countries that are friendly at the time of the sale we may be storing up trouble, because those countries could become unfriendly in future. Argentina is a classic example. If the Argentine navy had not been so incompetent and unable to manage ships as well as our Navy managed them, some of our ships might have been sunk by the superior fire power of ships that we had sold to Argentina.
  I strongly disagree with the Minister of State's claim that it is not illogical for the private sector to be involved in defence work. He mentioned a number of private companies that had defence contracts, but every hon. Member has received letters from such companies asking for Government intervention so that a defence contract can be made profitable. There should be more State intervention in companies to which defence contracts are awarded. Plessey, Ferranti and Marconi have all been in trouble from time to time and all have been bailed out by defence contracts which, by their nature, involve public expenditure. I want more State intervention in such cases, but the Government advance a contrary view.
  I have to confess to an enormous error of judgment. If my constituents were assembled here, I would apologise to them for having said that the privatisation of shipbuilding would be low on the Government's agenda for the rest of this Parliament. I was wrong; the Government have put it high on their agenda. There are many more urgent matters for the House to debate and decide. I wish that the Bill had not been introduced in this Parliament. More rational thought should have been given to the matter.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) raised the important question of the market with which we are concerned. The hon. Gentleman mentioned defence work, which is relevant to our discussion, as was the comment of my hon. Friend about Vosper Thornycroft and merchant ship building.
  I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is an enabling measure. It may give the Opposition sport to speculate how the Bill will be carried through, but we do not know what the Government will bring forward. Opposition
  314
  Members are at liberty to say what they would not like to see happen, and they have been doing that in spades, and I shall outline what I should like to see happen.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Wallsend about defence were important. The Falklands conflict raised one-off issues and we shall have to think carefully about the future role of the Royal Navy and the degree to which it is relevant, practical and feasible to think in terms of retaining a capability for that sort of activity. We shall also have to think about the lessons that were learnt about the conduct of warfare. Many feel that the age of the submarine is being enhanced by those lessons. The practical approach to missile carriers is important and would necessitate entirely new designs and perhaps different yards. It would be dangerous merely to take a traditional view of the lessons to be learnt from the Falklands conflict. If we do not recognise that, we shall be misled.
  I disagree with the opinion of the hon. Member for Wallsend that we are unwise to seek foreign sales. Our long tradition of selling abroad has underpinned Vosper Thornycroft, for which some of my constituents work.
  The hon. Gentleman does not make sense when he argues that a country should not hand over weapons that may be used to its disadvantage. I see it the other way round. We were better prepared because we had know-how about the equipment used by the Argentine navy and other forces. Our foreign sales policy meant that we also had control over Argentine spares.
  If we are concerned about our entire defence industry—several Labour Members have actively supported the industry, despite the internal debate in their party—we must be committed internationally. That international outlook towards sales is a lesson that can be learnt from the Falklands conflict and from an examination of the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) provided one of the best straight-faced comedy routines that I have ever seen when he asked about the Government's intentions to satisfy customers who were dissatisfied because of the Labour Government's 1977 legislation. Speaking from experience, I can say that the compensation paid was narrowly drawn and created a feeling of unfairness. It was extremely difficult to pay such compensation in a practical way. Had the right hon. Gentleman's arguments been employed at that time by his party, the position today would be more simple.
  I pay tribute to the Government for carrying out the legislation that was passed in the House. It is almost inconceivable that many former shipbuilding company owners will wish to invest in that part of the industry.
  The Bill is enabling legislation that reflects the Government's interest in and enthusiasm for privatisation, the principles of which are being made increasingly clear. I support the extension of those principles. The 50–50 mix that was applied to British Aerospace and to Cable and Wireless for the provision of private capital makes good sense. I am disappointed that the SDP is unwilling to consider the provision of private capital on a case-by-case basis. We should consider the obvious advantages of the 50–50 approach. It is a genuine attempt to depoliticise the necessary funding and to distance ourselves from the suggestion that the industry would be used as a political football.
  I regret that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East gave us his reflex reaction in saying that his party

  315
  would return to public ownership anything that might be taken over in that way. The 50–50 scheme would enable the State to retain a substantial stake in the company. It is entirely proper for the House and the Government to examine the way in which public responsibility is exercised by companies that have a public shareholding. It represents a distinction between the classical nationalised industry and the private industry. The Government have evolved the format, which deserves serious consideration.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and I served for a considerable period on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. We agree about several matters, such as the 50–50 scheme. However, he is not speaking for his Front Bench. When I outlined my fears to the Minister, not about the 50–50 scheme but about the sell-off of profitable parts, the Minister refused to say that that was not in his mind. I should be happy if the Minister told us that he agreed with the hon. Member for Arundel, but I suspect that he does not. It would be the triumph of hope over experience.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is taking upon himself much wider responsibility than my hon. Friend the Minister, who did not suggest that. We were told that there was an opportunity to attract private capital. Just as in other privatisation measures, I expect the 50–50 pattern to follow. The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of his former links when he talks about a sell-off.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: That is what the Minister meant. Why did he not say it?
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman uses emotive words, but it will not be a total sale and the House will have plenty of time to consider the matter. Private capital is needed in some areas. The main attraction of privatisation is the opportunity for employee shareholding, as British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless and the National Freight Corporation have shown. The increasing commitment to an industry becomes self-evident when one visits the shop floor at British Aerospace.
  Some of my hon. Friends mentioned the fact that warship builders have invested the fruits of their efforts in other parts of British Shipbuilders. That is not a fair or businesslike way to run a corporation. We must return to the fundamentals by which British Shipbuilders was created. The five divisions—shipbuilding, ship repair, warships, merchant ships and slow diesel ships—were the usual hotch-potch of companies created without obvious logic. It has created some anomalies, one of which can be found in the ship repair industry that falls into both the public and the private sectors. Private ship repair companies face unfair competition from the British Shipbuilders repair companies, which need not fear the financial discipline of bankruptcy and which have been able to survive within a large corporation.
  The equity argument demands that wherever there is an opportunity to remove State control it should be grasped. Ship repair is an obvious area. Warship building is a problem because the profits from those companies flow into British Shipbuilders' coffers and their structure means that they have been locked into British Shipbuilders. The most important part of the Bill gives us the opportunity to consider ways in which the companies can be disentangled and private capital drawn in.
  316
  I welcome the recent success of Vosper Thornycroft and British Aerospace in obtaining the contract for the modernisation of part of the Chinese navy, because I, too, am worried about Vosper Thornycroft, and that is the best news that we have had for some time. It points the way towards a more effective international marketing drive, but only if private capital is injected. We must get away from the Westminster and Whitehall mix that is inevitable in major nationalised corporations. The greater freedom of movement at British Aerospace helped to secure that contract. Such initiatives could be accelerated and developed in the way that I described.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) emphasised many times the importance of Vosper Thornycroft's design team. That design team has for many years been regarded as the front runner for the British shipbuilding industry in going for overseas contracts. However, it is regarded as an overhead within a much larger corporation which over recent years has taken substantial amounts of its earnings for disbursement throughout that corporation. Now that Vosper Thornycroft is being squeezed and its order book is being reduced, the maintenance of its design team is regarded as an overhead charge. I believe that the design team still has opportunities to obtain overseas sales not only for itself but for other British warship builders.
  I urge early moves on the 50–50 approach towards warship builders and to some extent the ship repair industry. It would allow movement away from the highly complex intermix of merchant shipping support and the way in which the Treasury views the amounts of money that go to British Shipbuilders. The industry is having to change and move into areas of high technology. and it needs to be able to make those changes rapidly.
  I understand some of the Opposition's arguments about enabling measures. I am sure that all parliamentarians will put forward their arguments on that matter. When internationally competitive manufacturing industries have been nationalised special problems have been created for United Kingdom industry. The difficulty is that the Government, Civil Service and parliamentary interface with industry has locked management and the work force into a position where they find it difficult to compete in the world. That is the case with major parts of British Shipbuilders.
  I join in the tributes that have been paid about the progress that has been made. However, it cannot be argued that nationalisation was a job-saving exercise. I do not take any pleasure in saying that. Large numbers of redundancies and rationalisation were part of the difficult task that had to be faced. I pay tribute also to the efforts of those people who enabled the task force to be despatched to the Falklands within four days. It did not involve just British Shipbuilders; it involved the whole merchant marine. It included all the necessary adaptations and the speeding up of the delivery of HMS "Illustrious". It is unfortunate, but it takes a national emergency to bring British skills to the boil.
  British Shipbuilders still faces major problems. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that it was a disgrace that P&0 had bought from Finland. He should have reminded the House that the problem was that British Shipbuilders could offer only a three-year delivery whereas the Finns won the order with a two-year delivery.

  317
  We have to overcome that sort of problem. Hon. Members who know British Shipbuilders know that there is a great deal that needs to be done to improve productivity.
  One must recognise that this discussion about merchant shipbuilding must be related to the way in which world shipping markets and shipping industries have changed dramatically. We face new and powerful competitors. There is a great deal of force in the argument of those who say that we should look closer at the way in which we view competition and the way in which other countries subsidise their industries. The Government have shown themselves willing to help in every way possible within Europe and our traditional markets. However, the subsidy war is not one that we can win. The balance of world shipbuilding power has changed dramatically, and it does not help to hope for the return of the halcyon days when we dominated the world.
  I believe that there is a case for maintaining warship building for identifiable domestic needs and for the sale of warships around the world as we have done in the past and can do again. I believe that we should maintain the British merchant shipbuilding industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh was right, and I take the same view, when he said that it might be better to consider whether the money would be better spent in encouraging British shipowners to buy British. Opposition Members who have criticised the Government about the "Atlantic Conveyor" should recognise that Cunard was encouraged to agree terms for the purchase of its replacement. I believe that that was the sort of action that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh had in mind.
  I do not believe that there will be opportunities for early or hasty action under the Bill when one recognises the present state of world shipping, the shipping market and British Shipbuilders' order book. I believe that those issues and the issues on the future of British Telecom, the next 50–50 public-private measures, and employee shareholdings will be considered when we have the general election. If those issues are argued electorally, I have every confidence in the outcome.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I should thank the Minister for spending five minutes attacking the Social Democrats. I am flattered. The more he spoke, the more he convinced me that I am right to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should vote against the Bill. It is a bad Bill as drafted. The first argument against it is a constitutional one. It is an example of a new breed of Bills, similar to the Iron and Steel Bill 1981, known as enabling Bills. They give the Minister and therefore the Executive much greater powers vis-a-vis Parliament. The Bill gives the Minister the power to do virtually anything with little parliamentary accountability—the negative, not the affirmative, procedure. He can do virtually anything without coming back to the House, except perhaps for a one and a half hour debate after 10 o'clock.
  It is not, as the Minister tried to make out, a Bill to enable British Shipbuilders to do various things that it cannot do now. I should have had some Sympathy with that. It is a Bill to enable the Minister to instruct British Shipbuilders to do certain things. I suspect that this Bill and the Iron and Steel Bill 1981 grew out of an argument
  318
  between the Minister and Sir Denis Rooke of the British Gas Corporation when he challenged the Minister's right to give directions.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: He is a maniac.
  Mr. Mitchell: One of the textbooks that I was forced to read when I was a student was written in 1929 by Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice. It was called "The New Despotism"—I am sure that hon. Members have read it—and it attacked the tendency to move towards delegated legislation. It argued that parliamentary power was being reduced and that ministerial executive power was being increased. I do not know what the noble Lord would say if he were alive today to rewrite his book. More and more enabling legislation is being introduced to give Ministers unlimited powers.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was right to say that the proposal smacks of the Militant Tendency. I believe that there must have been a mole in the Cabinet. It would be interesting to work out who he is.
  I remember the boring resolution moved at meeting after meeting when I was in the Labour Party that the meeting called upon the next Labour Government immediately to pass an enabling Act to take into public ownership any of the 250 monopolies that it wished. This measure is confined to one industry, but it enables the Minister to privatise and to instruct British Shipbuilders to privatise in any way that he thinks fit, whether or not it agrees.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman has twice said that the Bill gives the Minister power to instruct British Shipbuilders and the Minister has twice indicated dissent. Will he invite the Minister clearly to state whether the Bill will give him power to instruct British Shipbuilders to take actions with which it may not agree?
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that one of the Ministers will deal with the point.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I spent time referring to the SDP because in a previous debate SDP Members said that they were in favour of co-operation between the public and private sectors. I hoped that they would see the Bill for what it is. It is difficult to have that co-operation unless we alter the statutory position, which is what the Bill does.
  If the hon. Gentleman fears that we shall act in a doctrinaire way that is opposed by British Shipbuilders, it is open to the House, through the negative procedure, to challenge us. When he casts his vote he must consider whether he is totally against the introduction of private capital even when it is agreed by British Shipbuilders. He has every safeguard when it is not agreed.
  Mr. Mitchell: The Minister still has not answered the question.
  I agree with 50–50 experiments and with private capital being brought in if British Shipbuilders wants it. If the Bill were drafted to give British Shipbuilders the ability only to opt for that, I should urge my hon. Friends to vote for it, but it goes much wider. It gives the Minister power to direct British Shipbuilders, for example, to sell an individual yard. I do not trust the Minister not to do that. I believe that is the intention in the Government's mind. That is why we shall vote against the Bill.

  319
  I wish that the Government would drop the fictional phrase "in the national interest". It merely means what the Minister thinks at that moment.
  The Bill is a prelude to privatisation, so we should consider the state of the industry when it was in private hands. If one had to pick an industry that was the greatest failure under private enterprise, it would be shipbuilding. In the late 1940s only Britain, the United States and Sweden were building ships. Our industry was doing well and making substantial profits, but the money was not reinvested in the industry. The profits were distributed, and a lot of money was made. Our industry was therefore not in a position to meet the competition from Germany and Japan with their modern shipyards.
  Soon after I was elected to the House I went with a shipbuilding group led by Lord Shinwell to visit a number of shipyards. We closely examined shipyards on the Clyde, the Tyne and elsewhere. We looked at the structure of the boards, particularly the old family ones. Probably grandfather was a great shipbuilder, but the grandson knew little about the business. On the board was uncle Bill, auntie Nellie and cousin Willie.
  I wish that the Fairfield experiment had been allowed to continue instead of being amalgamated in the wretched business of bigger is better. It was a treat to visit Fairfield. I was met at the door by six people in white coats; three management and three shop stewards. There was no way to tell which was which. Each knew as much about the industry as the other.
  I also visited John Brown, the great yard that built the "Queens". As we left the management office after a cup of coffee to visit the shipyard, our hosts picked up their bowler hats. We were told that they needed them in case nuts and bolts fell on them, or they banged their heads on a plank when climbing a ladder, and so on. The real reason was to mark the distinction between management and labour.
  Such examples of bad management led to bad labour relations, but there were also faults on the union side. We probably still have too many unions in the industry. A Hamburg shipyard manager once told me that he had to deal with only one union, whereas we have about 16. There were also too many demarcation disputes. We all remember the one in Cammell Laird about the porthole. It went on for several months.
  Mr. Field: What year was that?
  Mr. Mitchell: In the 1960s, I believe.
  Under private enterprise the industry had bad management and bad industrial relations. Consequently, our proportion of the world shipbuilding trade fell dramatically—from nearly 50 per cent. to about 4 per cent. at the time of nationalisation.
  Since British Shipbuilders was set up there has been a 70 per cent. drop in the number of days lost through industrial disputes and increased efficiency and cooperation with the trade unions. That has been achieved with little help and perhaps even hindrance from the present Government. Our shipyards are still not as efficient as they should be and there is a long way to go.
  My main criticism of British shipbuilding is that there has been an over-centralisation of management. I gave that same warning when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 was going through the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr.
  320
  Grylls) that there is a case for letting individual yards have more power and influence. It would be wrong if we took the profits of warship building yards—they are the profitable ones—away to invest them somewhere else. It would be wrong to starve them of their profits and to invest them exclusively in other parts of the shipbuilding industry. We must strike a balance.
  The country needs a maritime strategy. There is no sign that the Government have accepted that need. We must get shipbuilders, shipowners, trade unions and the three relevant Departments—Trade, Industry and Defence—and the Royal Navy together and sort out Britain's future maritime policy.
  There has been a dramatic drop in shipping tonnage under the British flag in the past few years. I asked the Minister about the matter this week. Since 1 January 1980, 3½ million tonnes of British shipping has left the British flag either to be sold or to go to foreign flags of convenience. What is more, that figure does not include BP's selling of 18 tankers. If we go on like that, Britain will not have a merchant navy. If that is some, there will be no Falklands operations of any description. We must examine those problems together.
  It is absurd that in the past, under Governments of both major parties, shipowners have been given incentives to have their ships built abroad. They have sometimes gained financially by doing that. Whenever possible, British ships should be built in British yards. It should not be necessary to have the sort of argument that there was about the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor". We should not have to involve the Prime Minister to ensure that a British ship is built in a British yard. There should be co-operation between the two industries and the Government to ensure that it is more favourable to build British ships in British yards.
  It is interesting to read the Select Committee report and the comments of British Shipbuilders on warship building. The Industry and Trade Committee report states:
  "None of the evidence we received was so trenchantly expressed as that of BS in protesting that HMG should 'suddenly withdraw orders, cancel orders, keep limiting us with financial constraints, do not tell us what orders we are going to get and do not help us to sell our ships overseas'. We are not surprised that this should be the 'subject of very strong protestation from British Shipbuilders to both MoD and the Navy'. We strongly sympathise with Mr. Atkinson's cri de coeur 'you cannot turn a tap on and off in warship building because of the very great national skills involved'."
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said that.
  The Government must make up their mind about the warship building pogramme. I mean not just the warship building programme to replace what was lost in the Falklands, but the programme that would have existed if the Falklands campaign had never taken place. Unless some shipyards, including Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency, receive orders soon, they will be in trouble.
  I thought that the Minister showed ignorance of the shipbuilding industry when he seemed to imply that a warship building yard could exist purely on export orders. That may have been so once, but it is no longer true. The first question a shipbuilder is asked when he tries to sell his ships to a foreign navy is "How many of those ships are the British Navy buying?" That happens repeatedly. The two go together. One cannot expect a warship building yard to exist solely on export orders.

  321
  I am worried about the attitude of the two major parties to public ownership. Using public industry as a political football was one description. That is damaging to the economy.
  I was sad to hear the right hon. Member for Salford, West make the conventional assertion that if a Labour Government are returned they will immediately reverse the Bill's provisions. It is impossible to say at this stage when that will be. It may be next year, in 10 years time, or may be never.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: It will probably be never.
  Mr. Mitchell: That is the problem. The Labour Party's policy seems to be "If it moves, nationalise it"; the Conservative Party's policy seems to be "If it makes a profit, privatise it." Neither policy will create one job or do anything to improve our economy. Nor will the Bill. Indeed, it may damage the economy by creating even more uncertainty.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The Bill provides for a mixture of public and private finance in British Shipbuilders. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that.
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall come to that point later.
  The Government's attitude to the public sector is odd. Gas prices are an example. The Minister instructs the gas corporation to increase prices against its will and then the Prime Minister makes a speech complaining about the high prices charged by nationalised industries. The Government sell off profitable parts of publicly owned industries, and then complain that what is left makes a loss. They constantly—the Minister did it today—ask publicly owned industries to act commercially, and the Treasury interferes and makes it impossible for them to do SO.
  Private and public industries can work together and co-operate. I have no objection to the joint ventures that have been mentioned today. Nor have I any objection to British Shipbuilders receiving an injection of private capital if the industry wants it. It would be possible to draw up a Bill to enable that alone to happen. However, I strongly object to selling off the profitable parts of British Shipbuilders and leaving the rest. I strongly object to selling off the warship building yards. As many hon. Members have said, if the profitable parts of British Shipbuilders are sold off, no civil shipbuilding industry will be left. That cannot be in the national interest. It cannot even be the Minister's interpretation of the national interest.
  For those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). If it had been possible for me to accompany the hon. Gentleman to Fairfields, I would have drawn precisely the same conclusion about those who were wearing bowler hats. There is no doubt that many of the problems of our shipbuilding industry stem from poor industrial relations. The feeling of "them and us" has been overcome successfully by Japan, which has for many years been one of our main shipbuilding competitors.
  I am also pleased that the hon. Gentleman should conclude that bigger is not necessarily better. This could
  322
  certainly be applied to British Shipbuilders, which has become far too over-centralised. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) remarked that the top brass of British Shipbuilders, on the recent visit to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, had not suggested that denationalisation would be a good idea. That is hardly surprising. The number of its top executives within the £20,000 to £40,000 salary bracket had doubled since 1980–81, from 31 to 64. They have a vested interest in staying in the public sector.
  I welcome the Bill. Its enactment will enable the Government to fulfil yet another Conservative manifesto pledge
  "to sell back to private ownership the recently-nationalised aerospace and shipbuilding concerns, giving their employees the opportunity to purchase shares."
  I am pleased that British Aerospace has been denationalised so successfully. Many of my constituents are now shareholders. I hope that the manifesto undertaking to enable workers to take a stake in their company will be honoured when methods for denationalising part or the whole of British Shipbuilders are examined.
  The Bill comes late in the life of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Secretary of State for Industry, said about denationalisation soon after the general election that
  "in the light of the particular problems of the industry and the consequent difficulty of predicting its future size … this is not the right time."—[Official Report, 23 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 30.]
  That was back in July 1979. The time may still not be ripe for actual privatisation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who expressed doubts about the timing. However, there is no need to delay the measure to enable British Shipbuilders to be privatised as and when its performance and the market permit.
  Although adverse world conditions and the peculiar problems of the British shipbuilding industry applied before nationalisation, there is no doubt that the Labour Party's ill-conceived nationalisation plans and the long period of indecision that ensued had a damaging effect upon the industry's competitiveness. When the Conservative Government were elected, there was little that they could do about British Shipbuilders except to buy it breathing space to get its house in order. I believe that that breathing space is now coming to an end.
  For years, our shipbuilding industry has been struggling against the tide. Two trends have been working against the industry. First, there has been a dramatic collapse of world demand for shipping and shipbuilding, with over 70 million tonnes now laid up, mostly bulk carriers. Secondly, there has been a decline in European and especially British competitiveness. The figures tell their own story. In 1955 the EEC built 70 per cent. of the world's ships. In 1976 it produced only 22 per cent. In 1950, 42 per cent. of the world's new ships were built in British yards. In 1978, the British share of world order books was 4½ per cent., and it is now less than 3 per cent.
  One of the main reasons for the decline in our competitiveness has been poor productivity. At a time when output per person employed in British manufacturing industry as a whole was rising, the productivity of British shipbuilding was falling, especially during the 1974–77 period of the Labour Government when great uncertainty was caused by the threat of nationalisation hanging over

  323
  the industry. The Labour Government were obsessed with the idea of extending State ownership, hooked, as the Labour Party still is, on clause four of the party constitution—the State ownership clause that the late Hugh Gaitskell fought so hard to repeal. It now hangs round the neck of the Labour Party like an albatross and is a constant reminder to all Labour voters that the party is out of touch not only with the country but also with most of its rank and file supporters.
  Mr. John Garrett: We shall see.
  Mr. Colvin: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) laughs, but opinion surveys, especially recent ones, show that the British people reject the idea of nationalisation. Even during the heady days of the debate on the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, when it was thought by some that their jobs would be made more secure, many workers voted against the nationalisation of their firms. During that debate, Labour Ministers were at pains to point out that there was nothing they could do to guarantee jobs in the shipbuilding industry or anywhere else. For once, they were right. British Shipbuilders has not simply lost money; it has also lost jobs.
  In July 1977, upon nationalisation, British Shipbuilders employed 87,000 people. By September 1979, the figure was down to 79,000. By March this year, it had declined to 66,000. Over 20,000 workers have left the industry at a cost in redundancy money of £55 million. It may be inevitable. But it proves once and for all that nationalisation has nothing to do with saving jobs. What rationalisation may do is to make the jobs of those left in the industry more secure. That will happen only if the industry and the firms within it survive.
  I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the Booz-Allen report and the Geddes report. It is some time since I read those documents. I do not recall finding anything in either of them that recommended nationalisation as a solution for the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry problems. They recommended rationalisation. That is very different.
  Our shipbuilding industry had to operate in the 1974–77 period in the dreadful economic climate that the Labour Government created. This was one reason for the Labour Party's nationalisation policy—sheer economic incompetence. The other was political dogma. Its rationale for nationalisation appears to be to create the economic and political climate in which no one has the confidence to invest and then to step in, ostensibly to protect jobs, with nationalisation as a cure for a disease that the party's policy itself has created. Sooner or later, the day of reckoning has to come. The price for so-called job protection has to be paid. That price can sometimes be the total collapse of the enterprise.
  At this very difficult time, we nearly face not the collapse of British Shipbuilders—because it is secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer stays behind it—but the collapse of the free enterprise firms, particularly the ship repairers in the industry, with which British Shipbuilders competes unfairly.
  Since nationalisation, British Shipbuilders has lost £322 million. That has meant that British Shipbuilders has been under-quoting to obtain orders, cushioned as it is from bankruptcy by the £700 million it has received from the Exchequer.
  324
  Much has been said about unfair competition from overseas because other countries offer more favourable subsidies to their shipbuilding industries than those of the United Kingdom. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Industry and Trade Select Committee report on British Shipbuilders in the 1982–83 Session. It included a table showing that the United Kingdom is in the middle of the range for Government and other subsidies.
  When one takes the direct production aid to shipbuilding and adds to it home credit schemes and grants to shipowners, the combined subsidy for the United Kingdom is about 37 per cent. That compares not unfavourably with Denmark, which has a subsidy of 34 per cent., West Germany with 32½ per cent. and the Netherlands with 38 per cent.
  It is notable that the two countries that have been successful in shipbuilding hitherto are Japan, with a subsidy of 5 per cent. and, though with a much smaller industry, Norway with a subsidy of only 9 per cent. These figures do not take into account Government financing of the shipbuilding industries which occurs in a number of countries, the £346 million that British Shipbuilders received of public dividend capital that is unremunerated, or the payment of £55 million redundancy money available for the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme.
  One cannot blame unfair competition from overseas, particularly unfair competition from Japan where subsidies hardly exist, for the problems of the British shipbuilding industry. One must look elsewhere for the reasons for the problems. They arise much more from our low productivity, bad industrial relations, too many unions—which leads to demarcation disputes—and bad delivery dates. That is one of the main reasons why shipowners are reluctant to place orders in British yards.
  It is not only the Labour Party that is to blame for the dogmatic nationalisation of our shipbuilding industry. Had it not been for the Lib-Lab pact of 1977, the hard-fought Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act would never have received Royal Assent. I trust that today Liberal Members, who have been conspicuously absent from the debate, will join the Conservatives in the Aye Lobby for the vote, thereby helping to undo some of the damage that they have done to the industry.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What does the hon. Gentleman think the strength of the shipbuilding industry would have been today had it not been for nationalisation in 1977?
  Mr. Colvin: That is the type of hypothetical question that it is extremely difficult for anyone to answer. However, had the industry not been nationalised in 1977, it would still have suffered the problems inflicted by the Labour Government's economic policies in the last two years of their period in office. Once the Conservatives were returned to power in 1979, a new economic climate began. That in no way would have stopped the shake-out of surplus labour in the industry, or the improved productivity.
  Until recently, five men have been doing four men's work in British industry, overall. If we wish to regain international competitiveness—that is what we are talking about—we must face up to the fact that the fifth man will have to go. Had that happened in Britain, with a labour force of 22½ million, the unemployment figure in this country would be 4½ million, not 3½ million. That seems to show that there has been considerable regeneration with

  325
  new jobs in industry. The shake-out is cruel, hard and tough, but it is inevitable. If one tries to avoid it, one is living in a fool's paradise.
  Clause 1 will remove the legal straitjacket that prevents British Shipbuilders from organising its own affairs in the light of its own commercial judgment. At the moment, it cannot form joint companies with the private sector, set up saleable subsidiaries or sell shares to the public. Those are three possible ways of beginning the privatising of the shipbuilding industry. The Bill will enable British Shipbuilders to do any of those things.
  While giving BS that additional freedom, the Bill will leave the responsibility for national defence implications with the Government, which is where they should be. Clause 1 imposes on the Secretary of State a requirement that before giving a general direction to British Shipbuilders he must be satisfied that it will "further the national interest." The national interest and national defence implications of the Bill are important.
  A report in the Financial Times yesterday said that, as long as ship owners are losing money, there will be no hope for shipyards. That is true. Unfortunately, the number of ships in our merchant fleet has been falling fast. In the past seven years, the number of ships flying the "red duster" has fallen from 1,614 to 943. Every week, there are three fewer British ships. We used to have the world's biggest fleet. Now we have been overtaken by Liberia, Greece, Japan, Norway and Panama. As an island trading nation, we need a merchant fleet for both economic and defence reasons.
  In the recent events in the South Atlantic 54 of our merchant ships were involved in the task force that recaptured the Falklands. Eleven of those ships were supplied by British Petroleum, and yet only the other day this company, which is half owned by the British Government, decided to get rid of 16 of its ships, over one third of its fleet.
  Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend talks about the need for a merchant fleet for defence purposes and he has rightly drawn attention to the way in which the merchant marine, particularly the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, came to the assistance of the Royal Navy in the South Atlantic. Will he also acknowledge that in the future, with a diminishing amount of money available for defence purposes, we are more likely to see the use of merchant ships with clip-on armaments and other fittings that could be turned into effective war machines in the case of a conflict? That is an additional reason for the survival of our merchant fleet.
  Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has echoed the thoughts of a number of other hon. Members who have spoken today. I went to Southampton to see both the "Canberra" and the "QE2" on their return. I have no doubt that they could have been into action a little quicker if their original design had incorporated those features that would have enabled them to be converted quickly—for example, the strengthening of decks so that helicopters could land on them. With the development of modern technology, we could containerise many of the weapons used on the ships. In my constituency, where part of the Sea Wolf missile is manufactured, there are plans to containerise the whole of the Sea Wolf system. If the Government had reached a decision more quickly, and had we put that missile—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are interesting, but they do not have much relevance to the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was drawn to a favourite hobby horse.
  Our merchant ships should have the ability to be converted to military use at short notice. Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse would agree with that. As commander of the Falklands task force, he said about the British merchant fleet:
  "I cannot say too often or too clearly how important has been the Merchant Navy's contribution to our efforts. Without the ships taken up from trade—"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must try to relate his remarks, important though they are, to the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: I stand corrected once more. With respect, I must point out that if we do not have a healthy merchant navy, we will not have a healthy shipbuilding industry. Without a successful shipbuilding industry and a successful merchant navy, our defences will be sorely weakened. We must accept that in this, the Maritime Heritage Year, the British merchant fleet—our fourth arm of defence—has nearly sunk to rock bottom.
  At the present rate of loss, our already weakened merchant navy will be non-existent by 1988. Where will that leave us if we have to face another General Galtieri? As the Prime Minister said, the country owes a great debt to the merchant navy. I trust that when the White Paper on the military lessons to be learnt from the Falklands campaign is published it will reinforce the argument for stringent strengthening of our merchant fleet, without which there would have been no campaign.
  The Government have already done much to help improve the political and economic climate in which British shipbuilders operate. We now have lower inflation, lower interest rates and a lower national insurance surcharge. Managers are encouraged to manage and employees are more realistic in their demands. The Bill, which will enable British shipbuilders to operate as the market demands, and therefore to take the best advantage of the market, is, happily, another nail in the coffin of nationalisation. Nationalisation has not served this country or this industry well.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science once said that when the State owns, no one owns, and when no one owns, no one cares. We are then in trouble, because if no one cares, no one works. No one works anywhere as hard as they would in a free enterprise company—[Interruption.] That is one fact of life that Opposition Members must face. Our shipbuilding and ship repairing companies, when freed from the shackles of nationalisation and the unfair competition that arises from State handouts to the nationalised sector, will begin to regain lost custom. To think otherwise is negative. To put one's trust in nationalisation is defeatist—worse, it is unrealistic at a time when the British people, even if not Opposition Members, are beginning to demonstrate how realistic Britain must be to survive. We must survive, and we will. With this Bill, our shipbuilding and ship repairing industries will survive.
  With those thoughts in mind, I give the Bill my wholehearted support.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the House will forgive me if I bring the debate back to the Bill and follow the contributions of some of my hon. Friends who told the House of the atmosphere in the shipyards. When I visit Cammell Laird there are humour and wit written on people's lips, but in their eyes there is despair and fear. They ask me what more must they do to enable our shipyards to survive.
  When the shop stewards and the men read the debate, they will no doubt pick on the point agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that if the shipbuilding industry is to prosper it needs to increase productivity. Their question—and I direct it to the Minister—is: how can they improve productivity if the orders—not only the orders from the private sector, but the orders that they expected to receive long ago from the public sector—are running out? It is a sad reflection that we are debating the Bill now, and not reinforcing the achievements of the shipbuilding industry during the past few years.
  The most interesting point in the Minister's opening speech was not what he said, but how he said it. The House is used to the Minister giving an effective performance in presenting his brief. But the longer he spoke—especially when he tried to explain the clauses and their effects—the more uneasy he became. I was reminded of one of the passages from Zeffirelli's film "A Man for All Seasons". Perhaps the title is appropriate. In the film Rich gives testimony against Moore, and Moore approaches Rich and picks up his seal of office and asks Rich what it is. Rich proudly replies that it means that he is Chancellor of Wales. Moore replies "To lose one's soul for the world, Rich, but for Wales?" The Minister's seal of office is intact, but just as Rich's statement led to the death of Moore, so, in the most important part of the Minister's speech, we saw a glimpse that the Bill is about the demise of merchant shipbuilding.
  If one tried to measure the most irrelevant Bill that could be brought before the House to support the shipbuilding industry, it would be hard to produce anything other than the Bill before us.
  Unlike some hon. Members, I shall be brief. The Bill is brief. When the Minister replies, I want him to answer four questions so that we all fully understand what the Bill is about before we complete Second Reading.
  First, is the measure about selling yards or selling shares in some of the yards? The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who always brings a considerable knowledge and distinction to our debates, thinks that the Bill is about selling shares in some of the yards. If so, I hope that the Minister will explain why clause 2 gives powers to
  "discontinue or restrict any of its activities or to dispose of any of its property …
  to secure the discontinuance or restriction of any of the activities of a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders".
  Why are those words in the Bill if it is about selling shares rather than selling complete yards? Please let us know before 10 o'clock what the measure is about. Is it about introducing private capital by way of floating shares or is it about trying to sell off the profitable parts?
  My second questions stems from the first. If it is about selling off parts of our assets, not just introducing private capital, will the Minister, when he replies, tell us more about what his powers will be? The hon. Member for
  328
  Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) invited the Minister to clear up this point earlier. The Minister intervened, but did not answer the point.
  I am not a shorthand writer, but I noted that the Minister, in his opening comments, used the key phrase:
  "The Bill will allow British Shipbuilders to take decisions which are in the best interests of the industry."
  We want to know not only whether the Bill is about selling yards or introducing shares but whether British Shipbuilders will make that decision, or whether it can be overruled by the Minister. That is the second question to which I should like an answer.
  My third question follows the same theme. How will this measure help the industry's performance? We have not had an answer so far from the Government. Given the present state of the world market for shipbuilding orders, what is the special chemistry which will come from introducing private capital into some of our shipyards? What is the mechanism by which the profit motive will somehow secure orders which have not been secured so far and which, as part of the Government's defence of their policy on British Shipbuilders, hon. Members have said are not there? If the orders are not there, how will the introduction of private capital have this magic effect on the order books?
  My fourth question has been posed by Opposition Members, although I dare say it has been in the minds of Conservative Members. How will selling off, if selling off it is, be in the national interest? How can it possibly be in the national interest—if we interpret the Minister correctly—if such a policy leads not only to the demise of part but to the final collapse of our ability to produce merchant ships?
  Those are my four questions on this short Bill.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. There is no mystery about what the Bill does. The hon. Gentleman can read. It is crystal clear. We are taking powers to enable private capital to be introduced, and there is also a power of direction relating to disposals. Both are in the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have devoted time to talking about introducing private capital into subsidiaries if I did not think that was desirable and a solution to which we are attracted. Both are there. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been taken on these matters.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and answer. The argument is developing as the debate goes on, as indeed it should.
  I conclude by describing the type of Bill that I should have liked to see introduced instead of the three-clause Bill before the House today.
  The first clause of that alternative Bill would have registered our thanks to the industry for the success that it has achieved over the past few years—a success which is due both to the management and to the men. I thought the Minister's comments on the industry's performance were less than generous, given the background against which the industry has been performing. I wish to underline the success of the management and the men in bringing about the changes that we have seen.
  We have heard much about the investment of taxpayers' money—our money—in the industry, but it is also important to record the input of the work force into the industry over the past few years. We have heard about the loss of almost 21,000 jobs, which has been the real

  329
  sacrifice of many of our constituents. There has been a form of wage restraint in the industry over the past few years, which many of us would not have thought possible, and, as the chairman of the shop stewards at Cammell Laird brilliantly describes, there has been a recognition that some protective practices in the industry have slipped into restrictive practices, Those restrictive practices need to be abolished. Clause 1 of an alternative Bill would have thanked the industry for those achievements.
  The second clause of such a Bill would have provided the Government with powers—whatever the European Community thought or wished to do—to introduce a scrap and build policy. Should we have such a measure from the Government, I doubt whether it would be long before our European competitors started to introduce similar measures.
  The third clause of the alternative measure would have laid down a timetable by which we could expect the placing of public orders. If one examines the answers that hon. Members receive from Ministers at the Departments of Defence and Industry on the placing of public orders in the shipyards, one finds that they are answered carefully. Usually the questions ask "How many orders have been placed since the general election of 1979?" The answers usually give the number of public orders in the shipyards at present, but do not distinguish between those which were placed before and after the general election. When we have pressed Ministers on the matter in the past, we have been told that the reason for such a large number of orders from the Labour Government was that an election year was approaching. Perhaps one of the good things for the shipbuilding industry is that we are again approaching an election year.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He has been admirably brief and unless I am carried away I, too, shall try to be reasonably brief. The hon. Gentleman directed a number of questions at the Minister. I was interested in the replies, which were implicit in the speech with which he opened the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the progress that had been made in British Shipbuilders since nationalisation. I would agree that progress has been made and that credit should go to those responsible. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. I welcome it as part of a line of measures which return, where appropriate, assets to the private sector which are presently in the public sector. Such measures have predictably sparked off hostility on the Opposition Benches.
  The tenor of Opposition speeches has been either that the Bill is irrelevant or that it will do immense harm. We have also heard the suggestion that there is an element of dogma in it. Here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). I believe that what the Minister said, and the Bill he has introduced, does go with his ideological grain, if by ideology Labour Members mean that there is a presumption on the Conservative Benches, which the Minister reflects, that businesses are likely to be better run and provide more stable employment if they operate within the disciplines
  330
  of the market and look to their shareholders for cash and that if they do not—they know this—retribution will quickly follow from the market.
  In this sense Opposition speeches also had their ideological flavour. We do not need to be ashamed of the fact that this is a matter of principle and a matter of deep difference in approach between the two parties. It is better that it should be highlighted in the debate than that we should pretend that it does not exist. The Opposition are determined to believe—in my view, against all the available evidence—that industries are much more likely to flourish if they are in public ownership and much more likely to wither and die if they are not. The public, I am happy to say, do not agree with them.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the suggestion or threat of privatisation or private capital was a poor reward and a poor recompense for the splendid response of the shipbuilding industry to the demands of the Falklands campaign. That is not how private capital is regarded by the warship builders in my constituency. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that the Bill will distract and upset all British Shipbuilders' employees. I cannot speak for them all, but in my constituency I believe that the Bill will concentrate minds and encourage warship building employees.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that if the Labour Party returned to power it would repeal the Bill. He did not say under what arrangements it would be repealed. Different suggestions or threats have been made to those who might consider buying shares or putting their money into any part of British Shipbuilders. One suggestion is that there should be no compensation. "Labour's Programme 1982" suggests that investors should get back precisely what they put in—no more and no less—and I presume with no allowance for inflation. At the last Labour Party conference it was suggested that there should be compensation only where there is proven need.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) will explain the Labour Party's policy. If it involves proven need, what does "proven need" mean? Will that need be proven only if pension fund or trade union money has been invested, or will it be according to the type of investor or the size of the investment?
  I believe that the Labour Party's threats will not put potential investors off. They will judge whether the Labour Party is likely to return to power. The threats are further evidence of the Labour Party's hostility to private participation and its appeal to the electorate will be reduced as a result.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said. Some of his conclusions are drawn from the experience of the warship builder to which I refer. I saw the force of what he said when he argued that the Bill was an enabling measure, making privatisation and reorganisation possible. He said that there may not be sufficient time or opportunity to debate the possibilities when the Government have finished their consideration.
  The Minister has explained that no decisions have been taken. When the decisions are made, some could be important and far reaching. The House should have the opportunity to examine them carefully. If private money is to be injected into warship builders, whether in minority or majority shareholdings, Swan Hunter will represent a

  331
  problem. We should like to debate in detail how the Government intend to overcome that problem. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give some reassurance.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Is he saying, as I did, that one and a half hours late at night is not sufficient to debate the fundamental issues that may arise from the Bill?
  Mr. Lloyd: For a minor change, one and a half hours late at night is sufficient. For a major change it is insufficient. The Minister of State nods his head so I believe him to be of the same opinion. We can, therefore, be satisfied about that.
  Mr. Field: The crucial point is who decides what is major and what is minor. I am reminded of the tale of Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Webb. They said that their marriage was successful because one answered all the questions that were important and the other decided which questions were important. The Government will decide whether the change should be regarded as important. Once they have made that decision it is difficult for the House to overthrow it and have a proper debate.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. It remains a mystery to me how business and the time allotted to it is decided. I understand magic consultation takes place behind the Chair. To both sides of the House, it is apparent which measures are important. If the Government decide to make a large change that they are pleased with, they will not want to pretend that it is small and unimportant. I am less worried than the hon. Member for Birkenhead that it will be difficult to distinguish between the important and the unimportant. Perhaps I am naive but I have sufficient faith in the normal processes to be assured that the Opposition would not allow the Government an easy ride if they under-estimated the importance of a change.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Itchen said, but I wish to press him with some questions. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for his party and the Liberal Party. My impression is that they are opposed to privatisation or denationalisation, if not root and branch, at least by and large. I thought that he said that they would take up private cash in this case, but not change the ownership or control.
  My impression is that the SDP and Liberals would leave what is nationalised in public hands and what is still in the private sector in private hands. Does that mean that they think that the divide between public and private is exactly where it should be and that there is no need to change? If that is their view, I do not agree. The general public would not agree.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Itchen is saying that there is no difference between public and private, give or take an employee's representative council and profit-sharing. If he says that, he misses a fundamental point which creates the dispute between most of my hon. Friends and the official Opposition. The Opposition have different views, but they understand the large implications and differences about where ownership lies. Perhaps the hon. Member believes that there is not much difference.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My party's belief is that ownership is stressed too much by both main parties. Problems in industry remain the same whether they are in
  332
  public or private hands. The case for privatisation or for nationalisation should be considered on its merits and not according to dogma.
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand what the hon. Member for Itchen is saying, and in my view he is wrong. Ownership does not make any difference to the problems that one is facing at any time, but it affects the way in which the industry, company, firm or shareholder reacts to those problems. I support the Bill because I believe that the healthiest way is to have ownership well diluted within the community. A firm should look to its customers and shareholders for its livelihood, not to the Government. Although, as I say, I understand the hon. Gentleman's view, it is a superficial one. It is not the position that one would expect of a party that was planning to break the mould; rather, it is the position of one that plans to keep it intact.
  The Minister rightly says that this Bill does not seek to denationalise anything. What worries me is that it does not say what will be done. That is why we shall need to debate the matter. It is an enabling Bill that opens up options. British Shipbuilders is already made up of divisions, and it is therefore possible to consider each sector on its merits.
  There is an overwhelming case for Ship Repairers to be returned to the market. That sector makes losses each year. Therefore, it is an expense to the public purse. More important, it is a source of unfair competition to repairers in the private sector. It will mean, in the end, that jobs in the public sector are safe at the expense of jobs in the private sector. If jobs have to go—it will be accepted on all sides that jobs have had to go, and it is an open question how many more will have to go—they should go in those parts which are the least efficient and the most costly to maintain. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look carefully at the position of Ship Repairers and act accordingly.
  I doubt very much whether the time is ripe for the same approach to be taken to the merchant shipyards. That sector has successfully undergone reorganisation and rationalisation, which would have had to take place if it had not come to the public sector. That is done more slowly and more expensively through the process of nationalisation, or more quickly and less expensively under, for example, Sir Kenneth Cork. One way or another, rationalisation had to take place. Although it is more comfortable when such things are done slowly, one could argue that it would have been better if it had been done before we were in the depths of the present recession. So the answer to the question that was posed earlier "What would have happened if there had been no nationalisation?" is that there would have been a sharp rationalisation, which I hope will be the result, reached over a much longer time, of the nationalisation method. The rationalisation now taking place in the merchant ship building is making progress now, but it has not reached the point at which it could reattract sufficient capital and private funds to help either British Shipbuilders or to relieve the burden on the taxpayer. Thus, it still needs support from the Exchequer and the Government.
  I hope to get the Minister's agreement, even if it is only in the form of a nod, to the proposition that the support which has been notable under the Government so far should continue, where necessary. I hope he will agree that the possibility that private funds may be introduced into the warship builders, or the privatisation of the Ship

  333
  Repairers, will not affect the support that merchant ship builders enjoy. The support that they enjoy should be based on their prospects.
  Mr. Dewar: If we assume that the two divisions, merchant and naval, stand on their own—I think that that was the Minister's phrase—clearly the support needed by the merchant side, unless it is drastically cut back, will be much increased because it does not have the surplus from the naval section.
  Mr. Lloyd: I agree that the support needed will be increased—by how much remains to be seen. If British Shipbuilders remains a major shareholder in the warship builders, it will have that proportion of the profits. We do not know whether it will have a majority or minority shareholding, or none. If it has a shareholding, which I imagine is likely, it will have those resources. It is much more healthy—certainly for warship builders and, I believe, for the way in which industries are funded—for public support, if it is needed by the merchant shipbuilders, to be straight from the Exchequer, and not siphoned off from the warship builders, leaving them under-capitalised.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that he does.
  For that reason, the time is overdue for private capital in the warship builders. Warship building is a discrete activity within British Shipbuilders. We have mentioned the problem of Swan Hunter, and there are others. There is no difficulty in separating the warship builders from the rest of British Shipbuilders, and as the warship builders are profitable I am sure that there will be no lack of interest from investors.
  I am convinced that in the case of Vosper Thornycroft, the warship builders, which I share with the hon. Member for Itchen, there will be solid support at all levels for the introduction of private capital and a return to the private sector, if that is sensibly and carefully thought through, as I am sure will happen if we have a thorough debate on the matter.
  During my first months in Parliament I received delegations comprising employees from Vosper Thornycroft. They were worried that it appeared that their expectations of being taken out of British Shipbuilders by the Conservative Government would not be fulfilled. A succession of Thornycroft employees, both past and present, tell me that since nationalisation there has been a growth of bureaucracy, red tape and frustration. They know that the capital resources that they could use profitably are not available because they are siphoned elsewhere. That is to be expected. When one joins a profitable group of shipbuilders, as the warship builders are, to the loss-making merchant shipbuilders, the overall problem of management is the loss-making side. So it uses profits, not necessarily for the further development of the profitable elements, but to try to staunch the problems on the other side. Nationalisation and being part of British Shipbuilders have brought no benefit to the warship builders.
  Export performance has nose-dived since nationalisation. Certainly there has been no new frigate order. It would be wrong to put that down entirely to
  334
  nationalisation, because of the state of the world market. However, nationalisation has provided no help or improvement in that respect. Where warship builders need to look to Government they can do so effectively and usefully, whether they are in public ownership or not.
  The Government could most usefully ensure that their orders for naval ships through the Ministry of Defence are placed regularly and not with irregularity, and intermittently, so that it is impossible to plan. I am not arguing that the Government should necessarily place orders for more ships than they can afford, nor that they should be different ships from those that the Navy requires just to meet the possibility of exports, though I hope that they will bear those two factors very much in mind. The Government should behave not like a general manager but as a sensible customer who wants to get the best from his suppliers. During public ownership—no doubt this was the position before nationalisation—there has been less coordination than there might be between defence sales, the Foreign Office and the ECGD to clinch orders that are available from abroad. There has been also the lack of an all-embracing, broad financial package when it has been needed.
  There are many other suggestions to be made and many of them were in the report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. Some of the suggestions are more useful and practical than others and I shall not pursue them now. I suspect that more progress might be made if warship builders are in the private sector. They will be freer to make their own arrangements, raise their own finance and lobby directly on their own behalf, which they find it difficult to do now.
  There is still outstanding the matter of compensation for the previous owners, which dates from the 1977 Act. The Government, in their previous existence as the Opposition, agreed that the terms offered by the Labour Government were virtually daylight robbery. I do not think that the then Conservative Opposition promised that they would rectify those terms when they took office but I am open to correction. They certainly left the impression that they would turn every stone and make every endeavour to rectify the terms of the Labour Government.
  The compensation paid to Vosper Thornycroft, the shipbuilding company which I know best, was less than the cash that was in the bank on vesting day. The Government have been saying during their three years in office that the damage cannot be undone because the shares of the parent company have changed hands on the terms of the 1977 Act and that to introduce new terms would be unjust to those who have sold. I do not share that view. The shares changed hands in the knowledge that compensation was disputed. The buyers and sellers were both able to make a judgment about the eventual outcome along with all the other judgments that traders in shares have to make on these imponderable matters.
  I realise that the Government can say nothing definite on the issue at this moment. The matter is now before the European Court of Human Rights. I know that Ministers do not like crossing bridges before they come to them. However, I hope that they, and the Department generally, are bending their minds to the manner in which they will deal with the matter. I hope that they are coming to decisions on how they will deal with the privatisation if the judgment goes against them and they need to have as a result second thoughts about the decision that they made earlier in the lifetime of this Parliament.

  335
  I do not believe that it would be right, even if it were possible, for the former owners to be offered shares in, for example, the warship building companies at a cheap rate, or at no rate at all, to make up the difference between what they had and what they should have had. I suspect that that would not be possible without a change in legislation. We need a proper and above-board resolution of the problem. If that means cash for the former owners, so be it. If shares are to be sold in the majority or minority shareholding, they should be sold at the proper market price at the time of sale.
  I welcome this enabling measure if it is to be used sensibly to return to the private sector the parts of the industry that are able to prosper. If that happens, I believe that a great service will have been done to the economy generally and to the parts of British Shipbuilders that are involved. In the longer run, which I think will be a considerable time, I hope that it will be possible for the merchant shipbuilders to be returned to the market in the same way. If that can be achieved, the merchant shipbuilders will have been restored to profitability. There is no more certain or sounder basis for the stability of the jobs within that sector than that.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: When I became a by-election candidate in my present constituency in 1978 there was a common assumption that by-election candidates would be photographed against the background of the cranes, covered berths and sheddings of the Clydeside shipyards. That was appropriate because shipbuilding was the great traditional industry on the upper Clyde.
  There have been considerable changes, but shipbuilding is still an enormously important industry in my constituency and to those who live in the surrounding area. Within the boundaries of my constituency is the Yarrow yard, which has been referred to frequently during the debate. It employs about 5,500 in an area which has been devastated by the recession. There are few signs of the much-vaunted economic recovery about which Scottish Office Ministers tend to talk. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), is to reply to the debate. The health and future of the Yarrow yard is, by any standards, of prime importance to the west of Glasgow.
  It is easy to talk about the traditional importance of shipbuilding. The fact that it has been paramount in the industrial structure of the area that I represent does not mean that it has any right to survive as such and that there is not a case for continuing change. However, I pay tribute to what has happened in the industry in difficult times against the background of world recession and slump over the past year or two years.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, drew attention to some simple statistics. He referred to the losses of British Shipbuilders after crediting the intervention fund payments. We have seen them come down from £110 million to £40 million to £20 million. It was hoped that they would fall to about £10 million. However, that will not be so for reasons which are well understood by those who take an interest in the industry. However, the figures show a solid achievement over a period.
  336
  I think that everyone who has participated in the debate has read the report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by the unions and management of British Shipbuilders as well as by Ministers.
  It is accepted that there has been an enormous improvement in productivity. Reference has been made to improvements of 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. a year. These improvements have been achieved against the background of massive, wounding and traumatic redundancies. There has been a loss of about 25,000 jobs since 1977. None the less, the industry has survived. That may seem a modest claim, but it is remarkable when we consider the difficulties that it has faced.
  Skills have been preserved. Many in the industry thought that it was beginning to move towards a rational and settled structure within which they could continue the fight for it. However, it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that the industry was moving towards a secure place in the market, because of the uncertainties.
  The Government have introduced a wretched measure that will breed insecurity. I am sure that many in the industry will be disappointed that an extra hazard will have to be met by the industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West claimed that that was irrelevant to the industry's problems and in one sense I agree. However, that might be too optimistic an assumption. If the Minister takes one of the many ill-defined options that this sweeping enabling legislation allows, the consequences for the industry could be very far-reaching.
  This is a peculiar debate, because no hon. Members really know what they are talking about. I say that in a simplistic sense. I am not talking about the lack of information or sophistication in the debate. We have not known what we have been talking about because the Minister has, on the whole, sat sphinx-like throughout and, when pressed, has merely said that there is a whole range of options and that no decisions have been taken. He has said that in future the naval yards may be sold off. If so, they may be hived off entirely into the private sector, or perhaps a minority or a majority shareholding will be retained. Nothing is clear at all, other than that we are putting into the hands of Ministers, whose attitude to the industry is fundamentally unsound, power which it is unwise for the House to grant them, given the difficulties facing the industry.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) came forward with the optimistic and too charitable assumption that there will be only a minor adjustment in an attempt to introduce a little extra private capital into certain sections of BS—nothing more dangerous than that. Who could object to a few joint venture projects? That would be fair enough if he were the Minister, but he is not.
  We know that the Government are ideologically committed. I am not being abusive. They are proud of it. The Prime Minister is constantly proclaiming her ideological commitment. When the Minister opened the debate, he used an interesting phrase. He said that the Bill was more than just theology. Some hon. Members might think that in Conservative hands that theology might turn into bigotry with considerable dangers for the industry.
  If British Shipbuilders is plundered—if those parts that are making money are ripped out—it is not just a nice political argument as to whether it is theoretically desirable. It is not even an argument about what happens to the parts that are taken away. We must be concerned

  337
  about what happens to what is left behind. The impact upon the rump of British industry, which, because of market conditions and recession in world shipping, cannot reasonably be expected to be profitable could be little short of catastrophic.
  It is common ground that the obvious candidates for privatisation—if that is what the Government ultimately do, and that is certainly one of their options—are the naval yards which, in the latest report on British Shipbuilders, showed profits of —39 million on a turnover of about —430 million. Why should such parts be sold off? Why should there be the threat of instability which is bred by the possibility of their being hived off? What is the point of it? What price will the rest of industry and the taxpayers have to pay?
  I should be glad to retreat, truncate and alter my remarks if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would stand up now and say that, as far as he is concerned, there is no question of a straight sale of any parts of the naval division. If that were the position, we could have a different, interesting and important debate. However, that is a door that he will not shut. He knows that we must take account of that possibility when we come to our conclusions on the value of the measure before us.
  I shall consider briefly the arguments in terms of Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. and the Clyde where I live. The arguments against the sale of a yard such as Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. are strong and persuasive. It is a prosperous yard, which is entirely dependent on public sector orders—for example, the type 22, the new generation of type 23 and the Hunter class mine hunters. All those are British naval orders, and there is no reasonable prospect of significant export orders in the pipeline.
  Like others of my hon. Friends, I am puzzled that the Minister should talk about returning to the days when the order book was 50 per cent. full of work for foreign navies or owners. There is no prospect of that. It is not constructive to suggest that the sales forces of, for example, Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd., Vosper Shiprepairers Ltd. or Vickers Shipbuilding Group Ltd. are lacking in skill, tenacity, enthusiasm and verve for their work, and that, if only they were privatised, they would suddenly be galvanised into action and the sheiks of the Gulf States and the naval Ministers of South America would be queueing up and saying "Thank goodness Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd., Vosper Shiprepairers Ltd. or the Vickers Shipbuilding Group Ltd. has been privatised. Now we shall come and sign the contracts." That is nonsense.
  The market is tough. Skilled people have struggled with it, and will continue to do so. There is no sudden escape hatch. There is no magic in a transfer into the private sector, as some hon. Members seem to think.
  Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. makes money because of the MoD contracts. It is an efficient yard not only because of its work force, but because of investments. Walking round Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. and looking at the glass reinforced plastic complex, the new covered berths, and listening to the plans for the proposed new module hall, one realises that it represents literally tens of millions of pounds of public investment. It would be difficult to price.
  338
  It would be difficult to sell at a fair figure on the private market, even if it were believed that an arm's length transaction was in the public interest.
  Such a yard is an inappropriate candidate—I use the word as neutrally as possible—for the hiving off of the kind that some Conservative Members seem to envisage. That is the positive argument against the sale.
  The negative argument concerns the effect upon the rest of British Shipbuilders. The Minister, said that naval and merchant ship building should stand separately. Another Conservative Member said that naval yards should be on their own. What sense does that make at the end of the day? We all know that the industry has problems. We know that if the industry is run as an integrated whole, keeping within its framework those parts of the industry that can make money, the management will have the manoeuvrability, interchangeability and financial flexibility which any large firm in the private sector would use and appreciate.
  Why should the industry be stripped of those advantages in order to put the naval division on its own? Why should we, as it has been described, float it off into the private sector? Why should we talk about the old owners taking it back? I do not object on moral grounds—although I might do. I merely say that it will put the management into a straitjacket which, at the end of the day, is not in the taxpayers' interests. That is a good point that I made to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) earlier.
  If the £38 million profit in 1981–82 is moved out of British Shipbuilders' budget, and if the Minister is genuine—let us give him credit for that—when he says that he will support the merchant ship building side, it merely means that more money will have to be found from the taxpayers' budget to make up for the gap that is created in British Shipbuilders' finances. That is in no one's interests. Research and development, sales expertise and management structure will suffer as a result of that exercise.
  There is no case for such action. On the Clyde, the case is graphically illustrated. Only 25,500 people work in the merchant yards of British Shipbuilders, but many other jobs are dependent upon them. Specific areas of Britain would be seriously affected by the loss of such jobs.
  We all know that there are problems in the lower Clyde. Anyone who has looked at the British Shipbuilders report will know that Scott Lithgow Ltd. has problems. What would happen to Greenock and Port Glasgow, if Scott Lithgow Ltd. were to go to the wall? No doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North would be on the sidelines wringing his hands. However, the disaster would be real and sharp. Last year, Scott Lithgow Ltd. lost £14·9 million, Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. lost £6·2 million and Yarrow contributed £8½ million.
  Will the men in Govan or Scott Lithgow have a feeling of security if they see Yarrow sold off? From my contacts I know that interchangeability—even in terms of labour and skills in the yards on the Clyde—has proved to be an important element in keeping down the temperature. Understandably, that temperature has often risen as men looked at the problems facing them and at the numbers of their colleagues being asked to go down the road.
  To rip Yarrow out of that pattern on the Clyde, which is one of our great traditional shipbuilding areas, would be stupid and maladroit in the extreme. It will sap confidence at every level in the industry. Some Conservative Members believe that privatisation is a popular theme and

  339
  that the Bill can be justified not on its merits, but because it is part of a continuing policy embracing Britoil, British Airways, and so on. This time it is the turn of BS. Indeed, that theme has been hinted at in our debates.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, comes from the lower Clyde, although he now lives in a very different part of Scotland. If he returns to his roots and talks to those who know the industry, he will discover that privatisation is not popular. It engenders great bitterness and sometimes a feeling of despair and betrayal. The shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, in the North-East and in every other part of the country has experienced recession and rationalisation of the most unpleasant and wounding variety. To give it this final dose of insecurity—that is what it is, because of the Government's failure to clarify their intentions—is to betray those who have done much to save themselves and who have no reason to feel any gratitude for the way in which they are now being treated.
  This is a case of playing politics with jobs in areas in which jobs are precious and are becoming increasingly scarce. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will at least do something to redeem his reputation by making it clear that there is no question of selling off Yarrow or any other important unit in the Scottish shipbuilding industry. If such parts of the industry were sold off, the hon. Gentleman would never be forgiven. The people of Scotland would have another deep wound to carry against the devastation wrought by the Government throughout the length and breadth of our area.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Fortunately, I come from the Greenock area, which is much nearer to many of the shipyards that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which are referred to in the Bill. He spoke of companies such as Scotts of Greenock, Lithgow of Port Glasgow, Hamilton Brothers of Port Glasgow, the Greenock Dockyard Company, Lamonts of Greenock, Govan Shipbuilders, John G. Kincaid and Company, Hall Russell of Aberdeen, Yarrow Shipbuilders, Fairfields of Glasgow and Fergusons of Port Glasgow, but they are all shipyards that have, in my lifetime, been in private and successful ownership. They were nationalised by the Labour Government in their programme of nationalisation.
  The Bill is committed to promoting the private ownership of shipbuilding. It will remove the present statutory obstacles to the introduction of private capital and will provide enabling powers for the Secretary of State for Industry to direct BS to dispose of particular assets of those subsidiaries. It will be recalled that BS was established under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—now known as the 1977 Act—on 1 July 1977. It was formed from 27 companies in shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering.
  It must not be forgotten that shipbuilding in Europe suffered a continuous decline in the 1950s and 1960s. In the United Kingdom, employment in the industry fell from 130,000 employees in 1955 to 69,000 employees in 1973. From 1974, the threat of nationalisation by the Labour Government hung over the industry. In addition, the industry had to operate from 1974 to 1977 in the dreadful economic climate created in that industry by the Labour
  340
  Government. World demand continued to decline and, not surprisingly, the industry faced serious financial problems. Since nationalisation, the industry has received more than £700 million in subsidies. Had it remained in the private sector, assistance would have been needed, but the industry would have faced up to the need for rationalisation much sooner and, as a result, the cost to the Exchequer might well have been much less.
  Under the 1977 Act, the corporation's borrowing limit was £500 million. In November 1981 that amount was increased to £600 million. Under the Shipbuilding Act 1982, the overall limit was increased to £700 million, with the Secretary of State being given additional powers to extend the sum to £800 million. That is an astronomic figure to spend on subsidising losses in that industry.
  Clause 1 lays down the functions of BS. Under the 1977 Act, BS has a legal duty to promote
  "the efficient and economic design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of ships and slow speed diesel marine engines, and research into matters relating thereto."
  Other legal duties are also imposed by the Act. For example, BS is required to carry out its activities with full regard to the requirements of national defence and the need to benefit from the knowledge and experience of its work force and to promote industrial democracy.
  Such legal requirements would obviously be inconsistent with operation as a private sector company. Thus the first step in privatisation is to remove them. The Bill therefore seeks to repeal these sections of the 1977 Act, while ensuring that BS retains the legal capacity to carry on its existing activities and other activities approved by the Secretary of State. Removal of the legal straitjacket will enable BS to organise its affairs in the light of its own commercial judgment. Responsibility for the implications for national defence is put where it properly belongs, on the Government.
  Mr. John Garrett: Who wrote the hon. Gentleman's speech? Did the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland write it?
  Mr. McQuarrie: I wrote it.
  Under the 1977 Act the Secretary of State was required to have regard to several specific factors before giving a general direction to BS. They were: the need to co-ordinate the operations of BS with those of the British Shipping industry; the Shipbuilding policies of any international organisations to which the United Kingdom belonged; BS's ability to compete in world markets on equal terms with overseas competitors; and the implications for regional employment. The Bill seeks to replace them with the requirement that before giving a general direction to BS the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will further the national interest. The above factors will obviously be embraced by that requirement, and other factors might be involved.
  Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to direct British Shipbuilders, by order, to discontinue or restrict any of its activities or those of its wholly owned subsidiaries and to dispose of all or any of its properties, rights or liabilities or those of its wholly owned subsidiaries if that is in the national interest. It is envisaged that the power will be used to deal with unfair competition with the private sector and to direct the sale of some or all of the shares in British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries.
  The Secretary of State will also be empowered, when directing disposals, to direct BS to form a company to

  341
  which the property can be transferred. He will be able to prohibit such a company from straying outside the activities specified in his direction.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is obviously taking a considerable interest in the Bill. Will he say something about the machinery to which he is referring? What use does he expect to be made of the hiving-off possibilities, particularly in Scotland?
  Mr. McQuarrie: The Secretary of State will take whatever decisions are in the best interests of the industry.
  The Secretary of State will be able to maintain control over the nature and use of the assets of the company. It would initially be a wholly owned BS subsidiary and the restrictions to which I referred would end if it ceased to be wholly owned.
  Those provisions would enable activities to be concentrated in separate, wholly owned subsidiaries to ensure transparency. That might be necessary in its own right or as a prelude to disposal. The Bill would also enable the Secretary of State to direct that an employees' share scheme be established to allow the employees to benefit from a disposal.
  When the Secretary of State directs or consents to a disposal, he will be able to require British Shipbuilders to amend its articles of association to include restrictions on matters such as the size of foreign shareholdings and the nationality of directors. That should be a concern of Scottish Members, particularly the SNP Members.
  The Secretary of State will also be empowered to require the creation of special rights preference shares to be held by him or his nominee. The consent of those shareholders would be needed for any change in the relevant articles.
  Mr. Dewar: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman trusts the Secretary of State and says that anything that the right hon. Gentleman does is right, but he must have a personal view which he will urge on the Secretary of State. What part of British Shipbuilders does the hon. Gentleman favour hiving off into the private sector?
  Mr. McQuarrie: I favour the hiving off, to use the expression favoured by the hon. Gentleman, of those parts of British Shipbuilders that could be put into private ownership and make a profit but which, at present, are costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds in productivity losses. I wish to see them put into private enterprise, with employee shareholdings, so that there is a working in partnership—something which we have not had in Scotland for many years. I remember the days of my youth when we had productivity, profit and a happy work force in places such as Scotts. The men went home every Friday evening with a respectable and satisfactory wage packet. They have not had such wage packets while they have been a part of British Shipbuilders, because the corporation has made losses. Under private management Scotts was a profit-making venture.
  Hall Russell is another example. The Government have given the firm the opportunity, and the firm has produced profits. That is the sort of company that we want to hive off. Yarrow was a profit-making concern. Why do we not hive it off and let it live on its own? Why should unprofitable sections of the industry depend on bread from
  342
  Yarrow to feed them? Let them create their own productivity and profitability. Yarrow was well known for making profits. I am glad to see that the manager of the company has gone back to the family name of Yarrow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), who has left the Chamber for the moment, mentioned the 1977 compensation terms. In Opposition, the Conservative Party was against the terms of compensation for the owners of firms nationalised under the 1977 Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) reaffirmed the view that the terms were grossly unfair. Total compensation paid for the 25 private companies vested in British Shipbuilders was £725 million. Many of the companies have settled but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has said, nine separate applications are before the European Commission of Human Rights. The Government believe that, however unjust the original arrangements were, it would be unjust to amend the terms now because people have sold their shares under the terms of the 1977 Act.
  On BBC Radio 4 on 27 April 1982, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry said:
  "We believe that jobs are going to be best preserved and orders most easily won under private ownership".
  Privatisation brings many benefits. Companies are removed from the artificial guarantees provided by the State, where there are few commercial disciplines and no need to persuade investors to invest in the business. Managers who must lead the work force and who know most about the business are freed from Treasury control and can raise money in fair competition with other borrowers. Greater efficency within companies is produced when investment projects compete for capital. Employees can identify more closely with their companies by taking a stake in them. Thanks to the Government, about 90,000 employees have already taken such a stake.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Redundancy men.
  Mr. McQuarrie: Redundancy men have not taken a stake in their companies. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would pay attention to what is happening in Scotland, he would notice that the National Freight Corporation has been taken over by its management and employees and is now being run as a profitable concern. The reason was not redundancy but privatisation of that corporation. As a member of the Scottish National Party, the hon. Gentleman should welcome the benefit that that privatisation has brought to the Scottish people. By no stretch of the imagination are they redundant.
  When it is linked with liberalisation, consumers benefit from the effect of competition on efficiency and prices. Individuals can buy shares and smaller investors especially are often given preferential access as they were in Britoil, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy mentioned in his statement to the House the other day.
  The real rate of return on the £90 billion employed in the nationalised industries in 1980 was minus 1 per cent., and that poor performance was not untypical of recent years. The burden on the nation must be reduced. Therefore, progress must be made on privatisation and liberalisation. The Government have made substantial progress in reversing the Socialist ratchet. For the first time since the Second World War, the size of the publicly owned sector of industry is being significantly reduced.

  343
  "Labours's Programme 1982" states:
  "We have to demonstrate the practical benefits of common ownership, showing how public enterprises can be a spearhead for innovation and new investment, making clear the benefits to both workers and consumers, and exploring the best forms of organisation and different forms of common ownership".
  At least the Labour Party can understand that the practical benefits of common ownership are not apparent, although 30 years have passed since the Labour Party's nationalisation programme got under way.
  The programme also promises
  "A radical improvement in the services which these industries provide to the people who own them".
  At least the present shortcomings are appreciated. However, the Labour Party plans to renationalise the businesses that the Government have returned to the private sector, to undo everything that has been achieved in liberalising the State monopolies and to extend nationalisation to each important sector of industry.
  The terms of renationalisation have been disputed within the Labour Party. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told the House:
  "Both at the TUC Congress and the Labour Party conference last year … we … called for the reacquisition of public assets without compensation."—[Official Report, 10 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 499.]
  However, hon. Members on the Right of the Labour Party appear to have succeeded in moderating that statement. "Labour's Programme 1982" states that
  "shareholders should be repaid precisely the amounts which were paid for the assets at the time they were denationalised."
  A different form of words emerged from the previous Labour Party conference, where the motion passed said that compensation would be paid only "on proven need." That ensures that the recipients will not gain from their investment.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was quoted in the Financial Times of 20 October 1982 as saying:
  "We will make sure that those who have bought into British Shipbuilding will make no gain from their act of piracy."
  He promised that the Labour Party would renationalise without delay any part of the British shipbuilding industry that is privatised by the Government.
  That is the Labour Party's answer to privatisation. The Government are determined to privatise such industries as they believe will benefit the nation. This enabling Bill, far from forcing people out of work, will create employment because it will create incentive within companies. Those companies can no longer obtain finance from the Government but must obtain it by increased productivity and profitability. In the past, privatisation has proved satisfactory and the companies that survive the recession will prove it in the years ahead. The Government have taken steps to ensure that we have less nationalisation and more privatisation.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I shall not be tempted to follow the rather remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). I shall leave that to the Hansard reporters.
  Hon. Members who are involved in the shipbuilding industry, either because they have shipbuilding companies in their constituencies or because they are Members sponsored by a union that is heavily involved in the industry, have seen the Government's failure to understand an industry. Apart from their obsession with
  344
  privatising all areas of the public sector, the Government have been marked by their failure in three and a half years to bring forward a plan for the shipbuilding industry. This Bill does not attempt to resolve the problems facing the industry and does not recognise the efforts that have been made by the management and workers to improve British Shipbuilders.
  Even the Minister must accept that, since nationalisation in 1977, little short of a miracle has been worked during a deep recession. in 1977, five merchant ship building companies were in such a perilous state that they could not have operated commercially. Other problems included interference by the European Community, high inflation and an overvalued pound as against the currencies of our major competitors. However, since the Government took office, they have been determined not to allow the industry to plan in the way that it did under the Labour Government. The warship yards, which have been consistently profitable, have relied almost entirely in recent years on Ministry of Defence contracts.
  Although British Shipbuilders submitted its corporate plan in May last year, the Government gave no early warning of what they intended to do. The chairman, Mr. Robert Atkinson, said that a mid-term goal was required to overcome some of the short-term difficulties that were faced. While the corporation was waiting for a reply from the Government, the Ministry of Defence review took place and the bombshell exploded. There were to be cuts in the Royal Navy budget, no further orders for type 42 frigates, a reduction in the number of destroyers and frigates committed to NATO and fewer type 23 frigates to replace type 22 frigates.
  The suddenness of that decision, which was taken without consultation, put many thousands of jobs at risk, and they still are. That is one example of the Government's failure to adopt a co-ordinated approach towards shipbuilding. After listening to some of today's comments, it seems that we shall have to rely on the Argentines to ensure that we have a viable industry There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that there is an alternative.
  The proposals in the Bill are a slap in the face for British Shipbuilders' management and work force. Many of my hon. Friends are aware of the sacrifices that have been made in the industry. Over 20,000 jobs have disappeared and many yards have closed. Both sides of industry agree, and I am sure the Minister will when he replies, that there has been a determination by management and the work force to improve industrial relations through the shipyard negotiating committee and to get rid of any practices that threaten the industry. It was agreed at the yard in my city that the arrangements for the transfer of labour and removal of restrictive practices were the best in the industry and yet the yard closed.
  The Bill kicks out the need for the industry to retain industrial democracy, which we encouraged and which permitted 20,000 jobs to be lost and yards to be closed without threatening the industry. As an hon. Member sponsored by the AUEW-TASS, which represents naval architects, engineers and designers in British shipbuilding, following nationalisation I supported the building up of specialised teams. There has been no commitment by the Minister to keep those specialised teams, and if they are lost as a result of privatisation the industry will go down the drain. The Government's intentions are criminal. Instead of recognising British Shipbuilders as a nationally important strategic industry and examining how the

  345
  industry, which has achieved so much with so little help, can be stimulated and encouraged, the Government have decided to reward it by hiving it off to their political friends. They are selling another of Great Britain's assets.
  The Bill is not needed. It does not make industrial or economic logic. It asks hon. Members to accept something that none of us would accept unless we were regarded as missing some of the vital faculties in our upper regions. No one believes that there will be private investment in the merchant yards, and the naval yards of Yarrow, Vickers and Vosper Thornycroft will be sold. If we are to retain a merchant shipbuilding industry, it will need massive Government support.
  The Bill sets out to fulfil one Tory election pledge. I challenge the Minister to tell us how privatisation will help the industry. Neither the workers nor the management support the Bill. The designers and other members of the specialised team who belong to my union have a different concept of the industry from the Conservatives. In a pamphlet about the future of British shipbuilding published two years ago, Robert Atkinson, the chairman of British Shipbuilders, states that we need a co-ordinated approach to maritime affairs. A senior Cabinet Minister should be appointed to the task with staff seconded from Departments that have major maritime interests, including the Ministry of Defence, the Departments of Trade, Industry and Transport and the Home Office. British shipbuilding would be central to such a strategy. The Minister has not suggested that the Bill will produce that co-ordinated approach.
  We also argue for a scrap and build programme to correct the imbalance between demand and supply. Even with the relatively low programme targets suggested by the international maritime industries, it would help to even out the trough in new building. We have not had a single cheep from the Minister about that. The Government are bankrupt of ideas for British shipbuilding.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Rubbish.
  Mr. Ross: All that we hear them repeat is the dogma that dictates the squandering of national assets paid for by the taxpayer and the hard work and sacrifice of the workers in the industry. They believe that by ending nationalisation they will improve the industry's efficiency and viability and our future as a maritime nation. The Minister can produce no evidence to suggest that this or any other measure that the Government have brought forward will improve the situation.
  We shall oppose the Bill tonight and in Committee. The workers and the management in the industry will also oppose it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) will tell the Government that when we come to power shipbuilding is one industry that we shall quickly and properly take back into public ownership.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) would not expect me to agree with much of what he said, but I felt that he made a thoughtful speech and I found parts of it interesting. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on working hard for jobs in Dundee. I hope that he remembers that when the Robb Caledon yard closed we were both
  346
  delighted that a private company took over the yard and provided jobs. We are both interested in jobs; it does not matter whether they come from the public or private sector. We differ about where the best road for the future lies. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's integrity in striving to retain jobs and obtain new jobs for Dundee. I hope that he does not doubt mine in working to get jobs for Tayside.
  We should not forget the example of Robb Caledon. British Shipbuilders saw no future for the yard but a private company took it over. My hon. Friend the Minister of State helped to tie the deal together. I recall speaking to the Minister late at night and activities that helped to close the deal going on throughout the night. It looked at one stage as though it would go foul.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the yard was capable of building ships on the edge of technology. Everyone accepted that. That was despite the utter lack of investment by the previous owners. It had a reserve of skills and provided between 40 and 50 apprenticeships for young people that now no longer exist. Those skills were transferred to a completely new industry—Kestrel Marine—and were not available to help British Shipbuilders, which needed them to build up its operations.
  Mr. Walker: That was an interesting intervention. We can all go through life saying "This could have been and that could have been if …" We are dealing with just one event. There is no question that at that time British Shipbuilders decided that there was no future for shipbuilding on the Tay. We had to find an alternative.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Dundee, West about scrap and build are well worth pursuing. In the present Parliament's lifetime or in the next one, there will be opportunities to pursue that matter positively and constructively.
  The Conservative Party differs from the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition in that we are looking for new ways to deal with the problem. We do not believe that things must be done in a given way simply because that is how they have been done in the past. We are trying to find ways of stimulating additional business, improving productivity and increasing job prospects.
  The Government came to office on a pledge to promote private ownership. I have never apologised for holding that view. I favour private ownership both in industry and in householding. The Bill will do much to improve the circumstances surrounding British shipyards. We must welcome that. We cannot insist that, just because something is publicly owned, there and for ever it will remain. That is nonsense. Equally, I accept that, just because a concern is owned privately today, it need not always be so. To think otherwise is the attitude of the dodo.
  Hon. Members must face up to the fact that even British shipowners are not ordering sufficient new ships or exploration rigs for the North Sea to maintain the present number of jobs in the industry. Since nationalisation, more than £700 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in the industry. I do not doubt that, if yards had remained in the private sector, some public money would have been required because of present world conditions. There is no way in which Britain could have avoided the problem of the recession on its own. However, I doubt whether we

  347
  should have had to inject so much money. Indeed, I suspect that considerably less would have been required. But would the changes in management, working practices and rationalisation have taken place earlier if shipbuilding firms had been privately owned? I believe that they would because the impetus to do so would have existed. I do not hesitate—I never have—to say that I favour private as opposed to public ownership.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
  Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. There is not much time left before the winding-up speeches.
  We cannot return to the circumstances that obtained in the shipyards before the last war. No one wants that. Management practices left much to be desired. Nor can we allow the shipyards to develop into a public sector monster that, year after year, consumes increasing amounts of public money. What we need is a new dawn where the workpeople can have a stake in the company for which they work. There must be more incentives to encourage individuals to do better and to work together. Workpeople must be able to relate more clearly with their company. I see greater competition taking place between different yards in the same sector of the industry. This can only help us in world markets. The more competitive we become, the better we shall fare in world markets.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), I was disappointed that the Government were unable to find a means of compensating previous owners who were robbed under the nationalisation Act. I have in mind especially Yarrow's, a fine shipyard which was worth much more than the amount paid for it. The private owners did not receive adequate compensation upon nationalisation. No hon. Member can be proud of such a situation. It does not seem to me to be justice. In the same way that we wish to give justice to individuals, we should give justice to owners, whoever they are, when the State moves in.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Andy McMahon: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. It would have been a tragedy if, in a debate on shipbuilding, the voice of Govan had not been heard. The Bill is a recipe for tragedy and for disaster. Some hon. Members who have spoken in this debate do not know what it is like to be in a double bottom or a gunnell staging. They are concerned about only one matter—pacifying and placating their friends, the rip-off merchants in the Stock Exchange, and trying to curry favour for the general election.
  In 1972 the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) attempted to close the Govan yard under the pretext that it was a lame duck. That lame duck got off its back and became a fighting eagle. It brought about the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry not only on the Clyde but throughout the United Kingdom. As a result, workers gained better training and re-tooling in shipyards which for years, under private ownership, had been falling apart because of the medieval tools in use. Any attempt to interfere with the structure of British Shipbuilders, as suggested in the Bill, will be fought by the workers on the Clyde. I bring the message "Hands off the British shipyards"
  9.3 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I declare an interest. I am sponsored by the General and Municipal Workers Union, one of the major unions in the shipbuilding industry.
  We have been discussing a Bill about privatisation. We have heard what amounts to two different arguments from the Government side. On the one hand, Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), have assured the House that there is nothing in the Bill that should worry us or the workers in the shipyards. On the other hand, other Conservative Members have described the Bill as a full-blooded Conservative commitment to the selling-off of the naval yards. In the middle, the Minister says that the Government are taking powers but making no decisions about how, when or where the powers may be used.
  No one on the Government side has given any assurances about the future viability or the long term prospects for the merchant ship building yards. Those yards play a massive part in employment on Tyneside, Wearside, Teesside and the lower Clyde. If those yards were to close, tens of thousands of people would be put on the dole overnight. They would be people working not only in the shipbuilding industry, which is an assembling industry, but in engineering companies in the private sector, which depend so much on the future of British shipbuilding for their orders and for the employment that it provides.
  As has been said by a number of my hon. Friends, privatisation offers no solution to the problem facing the British shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. Colvin rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way—certainly not at this stage in my speech.
  Privatisation will do nothing to arrest the decline in world orders for ships or to safeguard the major gains that have been made in productivity, wage bargaining and union co-operation that has played such a vital part in the steady improvements that have taken place since vesting day in British Shipbuilders.
  Mr. McQuarrie: What about the losses?
  Dr. Cunningham: As the debate developed, it became clear to my hon. Friends that an ideological smokescreen was being thrown up by Government supporters to hide the proposal to decimate the British shipbuilding industry by this measure. "Privatisation" is a word for an ugly process. The Government are really concerned with national asset stripping when they talk about privatisation. We have seen this in other industries—British Aerospace and Britoil—and we are to see it in British Telecom. At every stage we see massive public assets with investment going back for decades being offered for sale for no purpose other than to satisfy the ideology of the Conservative Party. There is no shred of any proposed new strategies, initiatives or developments for those industries that are to be privatised. It is dogma for dogma's sake.
  Mr. Colvin rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am not giving way. I shall certainly not give way to hon. Members who have made long and boring speeches about the Falklands war in the middle of a debate about shipbuilding.

  349
  The introduction of the Bill at this time, in the midst of the worst recession the industry has faced in living memory, will inevitably cause massive uncertainty, regardless of the soothing assurances of Ministers and Tory Back Benchers. It presents a real prospect of unemployment to many shipyard workers. It proposes privatisation at some unspecified future date. This will prolong doubt and uncertainty about what will happen to shipyards throughout the United Kingdom. It will cause loss of confidence not only among shipyard workers but among customers of British shipbuilders at home and abroad. Who is likely to consider placing orders with yards whose future is in doubt and clouded by the type of uncertainty introduced by a measure of this kind? It is demotivating for those who work in the industry—the managers, the workers and the board.
  It is noticeable that when I asked the Minister of State earlier whether anyone in the industry had asked for the measures in the Bill to be introduced, he failed to answer. He knows that no one in British Shipbuilders has asked for these proposals. From the board down, had anyone had the opportunity honestly and openly to speak in public, I am sure that the overwhelming majority would have said "No".
  Apart from the Government and a few of their Right-wing supporters, no one has asked for the Bill—certainly not the Select Committee that recently considered the shipbuilding industry, nor the informed and technical press that writes about British shipbuilding. Some people have said that it is the worst possible time to introduce such a measure. The arguments for introducing the Bill at this time are few. They have been weakly argued tonight. They are thin, and the debate has done nothing to convince us that it is other than a threat to the present configuration and capacity of British Shipbuilders.
  There has been some argument whether the proposal will simply mean the introduction of equity capital into parts of the corporation. What is the purpose of such a proposal? It will not change the demand for ships. It will not bring new orders to British Shipbuilders. If that is the measure of what the Government intend, do they think that there will be a rush of private capital in that direction? Of course not, and no one believes there will be.
  The recession has meant that world output of ships has fallen from 33·9 million gross registered tonnes in 1976 to almost exactly half that total, 16·9 million gross registered tonnes, last year. Against that fall in shipbuilding, there have been increases in capacity in the Far East, Korea and elsewhere. Even now the Japanese and others are complaining about the world position. In common with other Japanese shipbuilders, Mitsui is being hit by shrinking demand for new buildings as most shipping markets continue to be depressed. The position in the Far East yards exactly mirrors what is happening in Britain. Against that background, we are told that there is likely to be a demand for private capital to invest in shipyards. Frankly, we do not believe that.
  Nor is it true to say that market forces will help. Those hon. Members who have spent time considering shipbuilding both in Britain and internationally know that there are hardly any market forces at work. Japanese shipbuilding industry officials are claiming that the Koreans are quoting prices 30 per cent. lower than their prices. We are told that the Japanese are efficient,
  350
  successful and highly productive. That gives the lie to the argument that if only we could have privatisation or private capital the prospects for British shipbuilding would be massively improved. That is not borne out by events.
  Arguments rage across Europe about the levels of support and subsidy for the industry. It is clear from evidence given to the Select Committee that, unless we continue to support our industry, there will no industry at all. That is the reality of the problem.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that he carries me some considerable way with him in his arguments. However, he is coming rather close to losing me. Why is equity participation such a bad thing? I agree that it may be difficult to achieve, but it is not bad. Why does he need to go into circumlocution? Will he explain why such equity capital or privatisation will involve renationalisation without compensation should there be another Labour Government?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) says that I am in danger of losing him. We believed that we had already lost him, and we were happy about that.
  Mr. Thomas: Answer the question.
  Dr. Cunningham: I wish to quote from British Shipbuilders report and accounts for 1981–82.
  Mr. Thomas rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: The report states:
  "Britain as an island nation is, and always has been, a strong maritime nation needing seapower, and by necessity this must continue to be the case. Shipbuilding plays a vital part in our nation's prosperity and in its protection. We have a capability that needs to be sustained and recognised as a national asset because a shipbuilding capability is not something that can be used intermittently; to be available when required."
  Those are the words of the chairman of the corporation—a man from the private sector who was appointed by this Administration and who, I believe, is opposed to the proposals.
  In addition to this cataclysmic decline in orders, the laying up of vessels is gathering momentum. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) rightly said that more than 1,000 merchant vessels are now laid up around the world. That total is increasing, literally day by day.
  Against such a background, how can Conservative Members believe that some change of ownership will revolutionise the prospects for the industry? The more we examine their arguments, the more we see that there is nothing behind them other than the desire, for the sake of dogma, to sell off these public assets.
  The tremendous uncertainty over naval orders following the Defence Review and the decision to run down the Navy's conventional surface ships has also damaged the prospects for shipbuilding. That matter is purely and simply in the hands of the Government. Those decisions will not be affected by a change of ownership. Only one naval order has been confirmed this year.
  In 1981 more than £400 million of business was available to British Shipbuilders. In the context of privatisation, it may be that the Government are deliberately holding back naval orders. It is widely reported that they have orders up their sleeve for naval vessels worth £500 million. It would be an outrage if they were to load those orders into yards simply to make them attractive for privatisation. It is no wonder—
  Mr. Norman Lamont: The attitude of British Shipbuilders and of its chairman is exactly as I stated it earlier. The chairman is in favour of the introduction of private capital into British Shipbuilders. If that is his view, is the hon. Gentleman still against it?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I am, but I am not altogether convinced that the Minister, who is a member of the Government who are holding a pistol against the head of British Shipbuilders at the moment, is being altogether candid with the House.
  No wonder there is anger in British shipyards at present. No wonder there is frustration and disbelief about this measure being introduced at what, by common consent, must be the worst possible time—and, incidentally, the worst possible time for those people who may be invited to put their money into the industry.
  Sir Frederick Burden: Why make the change?
  Dr. Cunningham: Why make the change at all? Is the taking of duties away from British Shipbuilders and the granting of more powers of direction to the Government and Whitehall the new industrial management we are to see from the Government? Is the new attitude to be that Whitehall and Ministers know best? Are we to experience the second guessing of corporate strategies and plans so carefully worked out by professional managers in the industry?
  Whatever Conservative Members may think, the Bill will give the Secretary of State power to overrule decisions and processes at the whim of a Government Committee or the Cabinet. No advantages or improvements in the industry's prospects will result from taking such a power. Some hon. Members argue that the Bill will improve prospects. At best, they deceive themselves; at worst, they attempt to mislead workers in the industry.
  Several hon. Members have talked about the need for competition in shipbuilding. Will there be any competition to build naval warships? Will we invite foreign yards to tender against Yarrow, or will Yarrow automatically get the orders? Will we invite foreign yards to tender for Trident nuclear submarines, or will Vickers get the orders? There will be no competition. The naval yards will be guaranteed orders paid for by the taxpayer. Any advantage from building ships for the Navy with taxpayers' money should accrue to the taxpayer and the nation, not to private enterprise.
  That is our view, so we do not hesitate to respond to the Minister of State and say "Yes, we are against privatisation, particularly of the naval yards." Public money will guarantee the work. Competition will play almost no part in the placing of orders and contracts.
  When Conservative Members talk about productivity, do they mean that it will be possible to improve productivity if orders are placed here and there? If a run of frigates is to be built, surely the yards will quote a price only on the basis of there being a run of orders. If so, will that not enable them to undercut the mixed yards which would be left if privatisation takes place? It is clear to everybody on Tyneside, to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and to British Shipbuilders that Swan Hunter will never be able to survive the major mixed yard. Swan Hunter has the only yard capable of building large vessels such as "Illustrious" and "Ark Royal". Such yards cannot survive the privatisation of naval yards. They cannot survive with the
  352
  range of skills and labour force involved in the outfitting trades that they provide today. That will be damaging because Swan Hunter has our major large shipbuilding yard as well.
  We are in no doubt about the real threat posed by the proposal to Swan Hunter in particular and to Austin and Pickersgill, Sunderland Shipbuilders and yards at Birkenhead, on the Tees and on the lower Clyde.
  In defence of the Bill it is argued that more investment will follow privatisation. No one has said from where they expect the investment to come. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said that British Aerospace is still knocking on the Department of Industry's door for money for the A320 and the agile combat aircraft. Far from solving the problem of investment, British Aerospace has come back to the Governments door. The chairman, appointed by this Government, in his annual report says that without the support and assistance that other airframe manufacturers receive from their Governments, British Aerospace cannot continue. That is the reality of privatisation in British Aerospace. Privatisation offers not the slightest guarantee that more investment will be forthcoming.
  There has been much argument about support for British Shipbuilders by this Government, and how much greater that support has been than under the Labour Government. So it should be. This Government have been in charge of the corporation for much longer. What has not been increased, and what has damaged the prospects of British Shipbuilders, has been the intervention fund. That fund was £85 million a year under the Labour Administration and it could be used for 30 per cent. of the cost of a vessel. Last year, it was down to £45 million—about 18 per cent. of the cost of a vessel. So, in terms of using Government support to win orders and business and safeguard jobs, it is not true to say that support from the intervention fund has increased. It has been progressively reduced by this Government at a time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) rightly said, when others are playing the game and supporting their industries according to an entirely different set of rules.
  Many of my hon. Friends have compared what has happened in the five years since the creation of the corporation with the industry's previous record. Conservative Members argue that under private ownership there would be a magical return to better and more effective work, more investment, new techniques, new equipment, and so on. That argument beggars belief. The record of the private management of the shipbuilding industry could not be worse. If we were to look for the most signal failure of any management of any industry in the country, we would look first to the shipbuilding industry. We see its failure to invest. Instead of being dominant in the world, we see a massive and consistent decline in its market share, a failure to train, a failure to introduce new skills, new technologies and new ideas, and a failure for more than a decade to win an export order for a naval vessel worth the name. That is the record of private management of the shipbuilding industry before nationalisation. No one who looks at that record could be confident about private enterprise improving the present state of the British shipbuilding industry.
  We come back to our conclusion that ideology, not any thought for a new initiative or strategy, has dominated the introduction of the Bill. The Minister, in opening, said

  353
  almost nothing about the future prospects for British Shipbuilders. I hope that his hon. Friend, in winding up, will have more to say on that subject. The industry, which has been in public ownership for only five years, has made major advances in industrial relations and wage bargaining.
  The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions played a key role in the reorganisation of the industry and its separation into the various divisions of naval and merchant ship building. I do not understand hon. Gentlemen who have argued that separation of the functions of the corporation will improve the position. The functions are already separate. There are at present five separate divisions of British Shipbuilders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and others said, if those divisions are forced apart into different ownership, some will survive—the naval building division, certainly—and others, just as certainly, will go to the wall.
  Division, selling off and privatisation offer no prospect of a co-ordinated and planned approach to the future of British shipbuilding. These moves are likely to break up and destroy the commitment of the unions to the industry and end, once and for all, any attempt rationally to discuss its problems.
  The Government's proposals will cause dismay. They will be met with disbelief in areas of already far too high unemployment. If enacted, they will place in jeopardy major shipbuilding capacity in the North, in Scotland, and on Merseyside. Outside the yards, where two or three jobs exist for every job inside the yards, great anxiety will result. It is not so long ago that the British Marine Equipment Manufacturing Council, which is entirely in private hands, said to the Government that it, too, was opposed to moves to privatise British Shipbuilders.
  There is widespread opposition to what is proposed and widespread concern about the effect of dismemberment of the corporation. The proposed break-up of the corporation is a political, industrial and economic obscenity. It is based on dogma. It is understandable that it has already caused massive concern among those engaged in the industry at all levels, and it may well lead to industrial unrest. It has caused potential customers to reconsider their positions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said, the proposal to sell profitable yards is the death knell of merchant shipping in Britain. The introduction of the Bill is the signal to send British Shipbuilders to the breaker's yard. We shall oppose it at every stage.
  9.32 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) spoilt what was a perfectly respectable speech in the last few moments, with his doom-laden prophecies of what will happen in the industry if any private capital is introduced, that being the Bill's modest purpose. I do not believe that there will be the industrial unrest that he prophesied because of sensible decisions taken by the board of British Shipbuilders in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Nor do I believe that customers will scurry away from an industry that, with a contribution from the private sector, will have an opportunity to make itself more efficient in future.
  354
  The hon. Member for Whitehaven talked gloomily about the future of merchant yards, a matter of importance to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry said at the beginning of the debate that the merchant yards would continue to be supported. He said that they would have to be supported and that support would continue for them as they are likely to remain in public ownership for some time to come.
  Privatisation, the word that the hon. Gentleman used, will not improve the market place. I agree that it will not. It will not bring more orders to British Shipbuilders but it will improve the industry's ability to obtain a greater share of world markets. The market itself will not expand as a result, but privatisation will improve the industry's ability to obtain more orders, and that means more secure jobs.
  Mr. Robert C. BrownHow?
  Mr. Fletcher: I shall be happy to elaborate on that later. I think that the reasons are obvious and have already been mentioned in the debate. I shall explain why I believe that British Shipbuilders will benefit from the injection of private capital. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, British Shipbuilders will welcome the introduction of private capital. It, like others, can see great benefit in that. As I have already said, the benefits are obvious. Not only will it make more funds available for investment—important as that is—but it will also help to increase confidence at all levels in the industry. Individuals and institutions will show their confidence by making funds and private capital available to the industry.
  Whatever may happen in Japan or Korea, our responsibility to improve British Shipbuilders' commercial performance is not lessened in any way. We fully appreciate the difficulties that British Shipbuilders and other European yards face in competition with the Far East. Even the Japanese are now complaining about the effect of the Koreans on their shipbuilding. However difficult international problems might be, we must do everything in our power to improve the competitiveness of British industry.
  It has been suggested that we are holding back naval orders from the Ministry of Defence so that there can be a flurry of orders on the introduction of any sort of private capital into the industry. In 1981–82 £400 million-worth of defence orders were placed with British Shipbuilders. This year, the Government are placing naval orders worth more than £500 million in real terms over and above those placed by the Labour Government in 1978–79. That is a significant contribution by the Ministry of Defence to British naval shipbuilders.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. McMahon) entertained us to a spirited speech. In saying that, I am not diminishing in any way the sincerity of his remarks. However, the House may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman represents both the public and the private sector of the shipbuilding industry in his constituency. All I shall say about that is that he defends both in his dealings with the Scottish Office, and why should he not? He will know better than most that those of his constituents who are employed in private sector ship repair are competitive and anxious to ensure that orders are secured by their own efforts in their yards.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, in opening the debate for the Opposition, that the

  355
  separation of warship building from merchant ship building means the end of merchant ship building. I have already repeated my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks that, on the contrary, the Government accept a continuing obligation to support the merchant yards. What would end would be a cross-subsidy from the warship yards to the merchant ship building yards. That could only strengthen the warship yards. It would strengthen both their investment and their ability to export, simply because the profits of warship building would not be drained off to support merchant ship building. That would be of great significance to the warship yards.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: In view of what the Minister has just said, and bearing in mind my fears and those of my constituents that under the Bill naval shipbuilding will be directly sold off, leaving merchant ship building to stand on its own feet, will he give those of my constituents who depend on Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd. for their livelihood a guarantee as to their future?
  Mr. Fletcher: It is impossible to give any British workers a guarantee about the future, particularly if they work in an industry that competes world-wide. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's point is hypothetical. He assumes that the warship yards will be sold off. However, the Bill's purpose is to enable private capital to be introduced into British Shipbuilders. It has been said several times that the form that that will take has not, in any way, been decided. It will depend on the circumstances at the time. Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept—whether or not he agrees with any of the Government's actions—that any decisions that we make will be made in the best interests of the shipbuilding industry and of the country as a whole.
  Mr. Dewar: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. The whole tenor of them was that profits made in the naval yards will not be available to help the rest of British Shipbuilders. Two results follow: first, BS's merchant ship building division will be left in considerable trouble; second, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. Neither of those is an attractive option.
  Mr. Fletcher: If that were so, and the warship yards were operating privately and independently, the board of the warship yards or yard could make its own decisions about how to dispose of its profits. It would strenghten the warship yards' ability to compete and to provide a better service to the Ministry of Defence. We have said several times today that the Government will continue to support merchant ship building in the United Kingdom. It would be a responsibility no longer of the successful warship builders but rightly of Government
  Mr. Bill Walker: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, although the Labour Party intends to fight the Bill, there are only 20 Labour Members present?
  Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Far be it for me to suggest that the Labour Party is losing its heart to fight such proposals.
  Many defence orders are already met by the private sector. I refer, for example, to aircraft, aircraft equipment, tanks, missiles and communications equipment. A whole host of private sector companies give a first-class service to our Armed Forces in providing defence equipment.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Yes, but they are not one-product companies like the naval yards.
  Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps BS should diversify. The enabling legislation before us will, for the first time, enable it to do just that. I may have misled the right hon. Member for Salford, West and the hon. Member for Whitehaven when I spoke of the figure of more than £500 million in real terms. That was on naval expenditure. However, I shall write to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen if that figure proves to be incorrect. My hon. Friend the Member for F'areham (Mr. Lloyd) rightly pointed out that, contrary to what Labour Members say—and I also have some experience of this—not all the workers in BS oppose the introduction of private capital. My hon. Friend speaks with great experience and authority and it would do Opposition Members good to pay some attention to the wishes of their constituents instead of to the cliques and groups who seem to dominate their constituency associations.
  Mr. Mike Thomas rose—
  Mr. Fletcher: In a few moments I shall turn my attention to the Social Democratic Party.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that to save the merchant ship building side of BS it was important to become involved in the Polish contract. BS estimates that the total cost to the taxpayer of that Polish contract amounts to more than £72 million. I do not know how that can be described as being helpful to Britain's economic problems. The deal was a disaster, not only to the British taxpayer, but to the British shipping industry, because we built subsidised ships in our yards to compete with British ships sailing the oceans of the world. The right hon. Member for Salford, West should not boast about that deal.
  Mr. Orme: How much would it have cost the British taxpayer if we had not taken those orders and British Shipbuilders had folded? What would have been the cost to the nation? Those orders helped to keep British Shipbuilders afloat and we believe that the money was well spent.
  Mr. Fletcher: Those orders did not help British Shipbuilders compete in the real world and they used taxpayers' funds which would have been better used in investment. It would have been better to invest £72 million in improving the facilities of British Shipbuilders than to give a present of £72 million to the Polish Government, which was what the Labour Government did.
  I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) should oppose the Bill, because he has personal experience of how the introduction of private capital can save jobs in a nationalised industry. The nationalised organisation decided to run down and close Robb Caledon and a private sector company, Kestrel Marine, came into the yard, is competing for work in the North Sea and employs more people in the yard than were employed there by British Shipbuilders.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made the important point that the Bill does not withdraw public support from the industry, particularly merchant shipbuilders, for the simple reason that ownership of the industry does not decide the level of Government support or subsidy that may be required from time to time. Equally, no industry can be protected from the delivery performance of its competitors and in the

  357
  international marketplace delivery and cost are paramount, whatever the Labour Party may say about a Labour Government's ability to support the industry.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the industry is under threat, but the threat is from overseas competition. The question facing the industry and the Government is what sort of organisation would enable the industry to meet that competition more effectively. That is the central question that should be occupying the minds of hon. Members.
  If we can agree on anything it is surely that the answer to improved efficiency and competition is not continued nationalisation. We believe that the Bill will provide the commercial flexibility that our shipbuilding industry needs to survive the threat to which the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) mentioned a maritime policy. The Bill deals with the introduction of private capital and a more commercial attitude into the industry. The Government already have a maritime policy designed to promote the interests of the shipbuilding and the shipping industries, but we oppose any change in that policy that would increase aid to shipbuilding at the expense of the shipping industry. The Government's view on a maritime policy was set out fully in our response to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade earlier this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) was right to emphasise the enabling powers in the Bill, which permit British Shipbuilders to participate in joint ventures with the private sector, to dispose of assets to the private sector and generally to act in a fully commercial manner. Speed and flexibility of response to market conditions are not exactly the hallmark of our nationalised industries. That feeling is bad enough when those industries are monopoly suppliers to the domestic market but internationally it is essential that they should be able to compete with the best shipbuilders in the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) mentioned productivity. Since nationalisation, British Shipbuilders and the unions have made great efforts to improve productivity. Incentive schemes have been introduced to almost all British shipbuilding companies. Recently the board set up a new department for performance improvement and productivity and it appointed consultants to advise on the introduction of advanced production planning techniques. As a result of all those efforts, British Shipbuilders and the work force have substantially raised their productivity performance since 1979. Despite the improvement, productivity levels have still to pass pre-nationalisation levels.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) spoke on behalf of the SDP and perhaps the Liberal Party, although we are not sure. He understood that the Bill alters the statutory position of British Shipbuilders. The Bill enables an effective public-private partnership to be operated in shipbuilding. Tonight's vote provides the SDP with an opportunity to support its policies, yet the party of the centre—the party of consensus—is running away from the opportunity. I am reminded of a quotation from Marshal Foch in 1916 that typifies the SDP's attitude to the Bill:
  "My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat, situation excellent,"
  358
  "We shall not vote," says the SDP.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his colleagues who are opposed to private capital going into British Shipbuilders should talk to shop stewards in platform, ship repair and shipbuilding yards. The shop stewards and workers to whom I speak in the yards know that they must compete in order to survive and they are doing so, but they are far from pleased when public sector nationalised companies in competition with them offer prices that they believe are lower than the market price. The workers tell me "We put our jobs at stake in competing here. If the public sector should win the contract because it offers a lower price, we must meet the loss incurred in losing the contract out of the taxes that we pay from our wages." It is not a minority of the yard workers that takes that view.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) spoke about some of the Scottish yards. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Garscadden should be so afraid of private sector capital in the successful warship building yard in his constituency. He wonders why private capital should be necessary. Surely he remembers that when the yard was a private sector company, it was not just a one-customer company dependent on the Ministry of Defence for its orders as it is now. It could attract orders from other parts of the world. If private capital is reintroduced, there is no reason why it should not do that again.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fletcher: I do not have time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] I wish to move on to Govan Shipbuilders—
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It is obvious that the Minister is not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Fletcher: During the past few years, Govan Shipbuilders has considerably improved its performance, but it still has a long way to go before a private sector offer for the yard is made, either as a capital contribution or anything else.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the annual meeting of British Shipbuilders, at which the chairman said that, to survive, Scott Lithgow must drastically improve its productivity performance. The sooner that that happens the happier we shall be in the Scottish Office and elsewhere about jobs being maintained on the lower Clyde.
  Another successful yard is a former nationalised company that is now in private hands. At UIE on Clydebank the work force is performing extremely well. If the hon. Member for Garscadden were to speak to some of those workers, it would ease his difficulties. In smaller Scottish yards, such as Hall Russell, there has been welcome private sector participation in both structure and operation. In the past such yards were successful in the private sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire made it clear that the Bill is about the introduction of private capital into British Shipbuilders. It does not concern many of the matters debated by hon.

  359
  Members today. The introduction of private capital is of great importance to the future, not only of British Shipbuilders but to its management and workers, who will feel more secure in obtaining new orders and improving competitiveness.
  With the support of the Government, British Shipbuilders has been radically restructured and its performance has improved in the face of difficult market conditions. The time has come to strengthen the industry further by removing the financial and bureaucratic constraints that have hampered the performance of parts of the industry.
  The 1977 Act, which has underpinned British Shipbuilders' performance, is a legal straitjacket. The Bill, by amending the 1977 Act, will provide a more flexible framework within which the corporation can operate. Hon. Members will know that the Government came to office with a manifesto commitment to encourage the introduction of private capital into State-owned industries. That is what we are doing because it is expected of us. The Bill will enable us to take the first steps to achieve that in the shipbuilding industry.
  We cannot afford to wait until the entire corporation is profitable before we introduce private capital. The industry is suffering from the world recession. Competition is fierce and becoming fiercer, but jobs will not be saved by clinging to the dogma of public ownership. The industry must be competitive and must draw on every resource available in Britain, including capital and expertise from the private sector. It must attract private sector managers, technicians and researchers who will wish to contribute to a thriving and successful organisation. All that will drive people away is the threat of nationalisation that was repeated today by the hon. Member for Garscadden and his hon. Friends. The industry needs to he competitive and draw on all available resources if it is to win the orders that it needs to survive the threat that it faces and provide more secure jobs.
  For those reasons, the Government commend the Bill with enthusiasm. We believe that it is in the best interests of the British shipbuilding industry.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 231.

  Division No. 11]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Ancram, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Brotherton, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Buck, Antony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Budgen, Nick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Best, Keith

  Butcher, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blackburn, John

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )

  Blaker, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Body, Richard

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  360

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Knox, David

  Crouch, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Latham, Michael

  Dover, Denshore

  Lawrence, Ivan

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lee, John

  Durant, Tony

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Farr, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  MacGregor, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Major, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Marcus

  Marlow, Antony

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gray, Hamish

  Moore, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Morgan, Geraint

  Grieve, Percy

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Grist, Ian

  Murphy, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Myles, David

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hawksley, Warren

  Osborn, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Heddle, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Henderson, Barry

  Parris, Matthew

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hooson, Tom

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  361

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Trippier, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rossi, Hugh

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rost, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Wakeham, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walters, Dennis

  Shepherd, Richard

  Ward, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sims, Roger

  Watson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Dudley

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wheeler, John

  Speller, Tony

  Whitney, Raymond

  Spence, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Stainton, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Stokes, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  Adams, Allen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allaun, Frank

  Davidson, Arthur

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Deakins, Eric

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Beith, A. J.

  Dewar, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Dixon, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dobson, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Douglas, Dick

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Campbell, Ian

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Cartwright, John

  Ewing, Harry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge,

  Field, Frank

  A'rie)

  Fitch, Alan

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Forrester, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foulkes, George

  Cook, Robin F.

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Cryer, Bob

  Freud, Clement

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  362

  George, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Golding, John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Graham, Ted

  Palmer, Arthur

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Park, George

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Parker, John

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

  Penhaligon, David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Race, Reg

  Haynes, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Jo

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Homewood, William

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hooley, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Horam, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Howells, Geraint

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Roper, John

  Huckfield, Les

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ryman, John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Sever, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sheerman, Barry

  John, Brynmor

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Snape, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Soley, Clive

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kinnock, Neil

  Speller, John Francis (B'ham)

  Lambie, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lamond, James

  Stallard, A. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Stoddart, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  McKelvey, William

  Tilley, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  McMahon, Andrew

  Torney, Tom

  McNamara, Kevin

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  McTaggart, Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McWilliam, John

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wardell, Gareth

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkins, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Weetch, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Welsh, Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  White, Frank R.

  Meacher, Michael

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Whitlock, William

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  (Crosby)

  Morton, George

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Newens, Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Woodall, Alec

  Ogden, Eric

  Wright, Sheila

  363

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Mr. Hugh McCartney and

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  Supplementary Benefit (Housing)
  10.12 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements) consequential Amendment Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  Those hon. Members who were present when the first set of housing benefit regulations and consequential amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations were brought before the House a few months ago will remember that I referred to the complexity of those regulations and to the possibility of teething troubles. I fear that tonight we are proving the accuracy of my prophesies on both counts.
  I apologise to the House for taking up what I hope will be only a short time with the regulations. Their purpose is solely to correct a technical or drafting defect in the original regulations to avoid double provision for the payment of assistance with heating costs for some of the people who are affected by the transition to housing benefit.
  I shall gladly offer further explanation if required to do so, but I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Opposition if I were to speak only briefly. Therefore, I shall simply commend this technical amendment with those words.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John: The Opposition understand that the regulations remove anomalies that are consequent upon the new housing benefit regulations. When the Under-Secretary referred to teething troubles, he was understanding the massive problems that are now coming to light. If he believes that they are teething troubles, he will discover that they are as nothing to what will descend on us soon.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are receiving complaints from all over the country about the effects of the regulations. When I referred to a shambles last week, I was not exaggerating. I should like a promise from the Minister that he will come to the House next Wednesday, following the commencement of the regulations, to report on the benefits. Many complaints are being received by hon. Members about issues such as the rent-free weeks, the losers under the regulations, and also publicity which seems to have been wholly inadequate. Many local authorities seem to have been caught totally unprepared.
  A certain category of householder is removed from supplementary benefit and put into the housing benefit where the infamous Rossi price index operates. Despite what the Prime Minister says, a genuine pensioner price index would be rising more than the RPI every year. It would be running 1 or 2 per cent. above the RPI at the moment. According to a parliamentary reply, there has been a rise of 0·3 or 0·4 per cent. above the RPI in the last quarter. The basis upon which this supplementary benefit is being constructed is therefore inadequate.
  These are matters to which the Opposition will need to return. I apprehend that it is not appropriate to argue the main points on a set of regulations such as those now before the House. I give the Minister fair warning that we shall return to the regulations and that we shall expect a

  365
  statement about the operation of the housing benefit so that any necessary corrections can be made before too much harm is caused to people entitled to 100 per cent. benefit.
  The 100 per cent. cases were supposed to be the easiest. With the problem that the Minister has experienced, what does he expect will happen next April with the introduction of the partial cases involving the complex calculations that have to be made? The manner in which the benefit regulations have been laid show that the Government have not thought out their position. I hope that they will do so. We shall argue the general principle on a more germane set of regulations.
  Mr. Newton: In view of the range of the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), I shall take note of what he says and recognise the force of his arguments rather than attempt to discuss all the points he has raised in detail. I have visited a substantial number of social security offices in the past few weeks. I have spoken in the past two months to well over 100 managers of our local offices. It is fair to say that many of the anxieties expressed about the partial start have diminished rather than increased in the approach to next week's start. The process of moving into the partial start in DHSS offices in general—I do not say that this applies to every one—has been smoother than many people had expected. There remain many anxieties about the move to the full start in the spring of next year. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise—
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I hope that the Minister does not under-estimate the problems that are cropping up in some parts of the country in regard to the rent-free weeks. There is clear evidence in my constituency of supplementary benefit claimants losing £15 or perhaps £20, depending upon the calculation one makes, in terms of a rent-free fortnight at Christmas. This penalty on people drawing supplementary benefit at Christmas cannot be satisfactory. What approaches has the Minister received on the rent-free problem? Has he offered any solution to the local authorities which will be implementing the scheme?
  Mr. Newton: A number of approaches about the problem of rent-free weeks have been received. We issued formal guidance to local authorities two or three weeks ago saying that this was a matter for them to resolve in relation to their rent collection policy. A number of local authorities have responded by bringing forward their rent-free weeks—this course was open to them—before the partial start. As this is a matter for local authorities, I cannot say how many have taken this action or what has influenced those which have decided not to do so. That was open to them, and some of them have done it.
  Mr. John Golding: Would this be possible in places such as Newcastle-under-Lyme where valuable rent-free weeks are being given not only at Christmas but at holiday times?
  Mr. Newton: It is possible for local authorities to decide when to have rent-free weeks in accordance with what they wish as a matter of policy. The hon. Gentleman has touched on one of the difficulties.
  In areas where rent-free weeks occur before the partial start, and certainly if they occur exclusively before the
  366
  partial start, tenants will gain rather than lose. It is only in those cases where rent-free weeks occur exclusively after the partial start that tenants will lose, and where local authorities have particular problems to face, some of which have been tackled. Even in those areas I hope that the House will bear in mind that the savings arising from that post partial start rent-free week problem have gone to deal with the problem of some tenants who might have lost out at the changeover by having a period during which their rent was effectively not covered at all. We shall plough back the savings so that many tenants will have their rent paid more than once for part of the week of the partial start. In other words, there are significant gainers in the package as a whole, even though some tenants in some authorities may lose as a result of the rent-free week problem.
  I accept that this is a complex matter that has led to difficult problems. They are in line with problems associated with the introduction of housing benefit, which, as the Government have always openly recognised, involves some gainers and some losers. Nevertheless, the way that we have tackled it has protected the most needy and improved the position for them, in particular for about 1 million pensioners. On balance, it make good social sense as a package.
  Dr. David Owen: In cities such as Plymouth, which is refusing to make any change in the system, will the Minister consider instructing social security offices to use some of the savings to give rather greater latitude in dealing with cases of hardship and to discriminate positively in favour of those who are finding it difficult to make ends meet during the transition period? This would alleviate some of the problems that I foresee in Plymouth and elsewhere.
  Mr. Newton: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, it is not our business to instruct local authorities on matters within their decision-making capacity.
  There are two senses in which the word "saving" is being used here. Government savings have all been ploughed back into the package, as I showed. Local authorities have a degree of discretion not to apply our savings for their purposes, but to apply additional resources if they choose to do so in certain circumstances. That is a matter for local authorities; it is not for the Government to dictate.
  Dr. Owen: What about social security offices?
  Mr. Newton: To talk in terms of social security offices is to talk in terms of Government savings. Social security offices cannot spend individually the savings that we have already spent by ploughing them back into other parts of the package. Any discretionary flexibility that remains is a matter for local authorities. It is not for me as a Minister to tell local authorities what to do.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Minister saying that these savings accrue in an arbitrary and unfair way?
  Mr. Newton: The problem of rent-free weeks was touched on, and it was recognised that there would be some difficulties according to where rent-free weeks fell during the year. One of the difficulties is that there are some gainers as well as possible losers, depending on where the rent-free weeks fall. The administrative

  367
  complexities of attempting to remove all possibility of things moving either way would have been enormous because of the way in which rent-free weeks work. Tenants pay above the rent in the non-rent-free weeks to finance the rent-free weeks. Thus the rent-free weeks are not truly rent-free weeks—they are financed by paying additional rent in the other 48 weeks of the year. To adjust the whole system to cope with that on the basis of one forty-eighth or one fifty-second of the rent for those people through the year would have been an administrative nightmare.
  Mr. Thomas: That is not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is suggesting. He is suggesting that the Minister uses his power to make sure that social security offices dealing with areas where he knows now that this problem, arbitrary and unreasonable as it is, happens to arise should be given extra budgetary authority to be rather more generous in discretionary payment than they might otherwise be. That is a perfectly simple thing. It is nothing to do with administrative complexities. It is within his power to do that.
  Mr. Newton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my reading of the regulations is that that discretion simply does not exist. All the savings in this package that could be applied to providing additional help have already been applied, including the provision at the changeover point that will be significantly beneficial to a large number of tenants affected by the partial start.
  Discretion to deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman rests, if it rests anywhere, with local authorities—and that is where it should rest.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped not to intervene in this short debate. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking either to make a statement next week after the scheme has come into operation, or to arrange a debate. He argued that the fears expressed by Opposition Members were ill founded and that there would be no problem. I suspect that there will be no problem with the supplementary benefit offices—the problem will be with the housing departments. On the whole, supplementary offices will do well as they will pass on the major problems to the housing departments.
  There will be many problems. It is difficult tonight to go into detail, although we have done fairly well. The Minister should give a guarantee that he will make a statement to the House either next Wednesday, or at some other time within the next fortnight, so that there can be a proper debate on the problems of the introduction of the scheme. There is a great deal of resentment about the rent-free weeks. Some authorities have solved the problem, but others have not. Once the scheme has come into force local authorities cannot do anything about the rent-free weeks.
  There is a great deal of concern that during the next two weeks individuals will lose a great deal of flexibility in their budgets. It would be helpful if the Department gave instructions to local offices to be flexible. If people have lost their rent money. It will be a substantial amount out of their budget.
  Hon. Members will receive many representations during the next fortnight. We must have an opportunity to debate the matter. The Minister must make a statement so that we can question him, or arrange a proper debate. It is not good procedure for us to amend the regulations at
  368
  this stage. It is a major change that will affect a large number of people and there must be an opportunity to discuss it in the House. We shall then know whether he is correct in his belief that it will be introduced without major problems, or whether the Opposition are correct in their belief that there will be great problems.
  Mr. Newton: It might be sensible if I were to treat the hon. Gentleman's remarks as a speech and returned to them later.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Reg Race: I wish to back my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in his remarks about the problems of introducing the scheme. From conversations with social security offices in my borough, it is clear that there will be substantial transitional problems in its introduction. People in Tottenham and Wood Green will face difficulties—for example, unemployed people will not receive their Giro payments on time and order books will not be sent out.
  Although the problems will be transitional, I have no doubt that other major problems will occur. The Under-Secretary replied to two parliamentary questions on 10 and 16 November about people on fuel direct and their relationship to the housing benefit scheme when they run out of supplementary benefit and do not have enough to continue with the fuel direct payment.
  At one social security office alone, the Tottenham office, 1,300 people are on fuel direct. Many of them will be shifted over to housing benefit. Many of them will not have enough supplementary benefit still in payment to maintain themselves with the electricity and gas boards. I appreciate what the Minister has said in reply to my parliamentary questions, but I fear—many of my hon. Friends agree with this point—if there is a problem with the electricity and gas boards, and many problems with the implementation of the scheme.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to make a statement about the implementation of the scheme and about the way in which we can make progress.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and for Wood Green (Mr. Race) will recognise that it is not for me to commit the Government to the making of a statement, but I shall make a note of what has been said and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note their points. The other issues range widely beyond the subjects that properly fall within the regulations. We have well ventilated a fair range of issues, but it may be sensible to wait until we are able to have a somewhat wider debate.
  We are asking for urgent reports on the partial start which should be available for analysis fairly shortly after the partial start occurs next week. Quite apart from the question whether a statement will be made, we shall consider in what form we can sensibly report to the House. I would not want the hon. Member for Stockport, North or anyone else to think me so complacent as to say that I do not think that there are, or will be, any problems but, from my experience of supplementary benefit and social security offices in recent weeks, the problems have proved rather smaller than he feared some months ago. I draw some encouragement from that, but we shall be keeping a careful eye on what happens.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 21st October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Employment Subsidies
  10.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to set up, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978, a Scheme (the expected cost of which will be more than £10 million in the year commencing 3rd January 1983) for making payments to employers who split jobs to give employment to persons who are or who might otherwise become unemployed.
  This motion authorises the Secretary of State for Employment to set up the job-splitting scheme announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 July. Further details were announced on 7 October. The Employment Subsidies Act 1978 empowers the Secretary of State to set up schemes to give financial assistance to help employers to retain workers who would, or might otherwise, become unemployed, and to take on new employees. This is the aim of the new scheme.
  As the scheme is expected to cost more than £10 million, a short statement explaining the proposal was laid before the House on 3 November as a preliminary to seeking authorisation by this motion. A similar scheme will be run in Northern Ireland.
  The Queen's Speech underlined the Government's awareness of the hardship, anxieties and distress caused by unemployment. That awareness is matched by our determination to pursue broad economic policies which will secure the growth in output needed to achieve a lasting reduction in the numbers unemployed. The key lies in a continuing fall in the rate of inflation, and our policies to secure this end are already showing some signs of success. At the same time, however, we remain committed to supporting a range of special employment measures to alleviate unemployment. The job-splitting scheme is another weapon in this armoury. It is not a panacea. It is an experiment full of potential which, if realised, could play a vital part in increasing the job opportunities available to the unemployed.
  The idea of job splitting is, of course, not new. For several years now there has been an increasing demand for more flexible working arrangements capable of being tailored to individual circumstances. More recently, several organisations have developed the idea of job sharing as a way of forestalling redundancies or recruiting more unemployed young people. It is this theme that we are now seeking to develop.
  The job-splitting scheme is a specific type of work sharing aimed at unemployment, as the Chancellor made clear in announcing the scheme. The basic concept rests on giving employers an incentive to split existing full-time jobs in a way which will give work to someone who would otherwise be unemployed and dependent on benefit. As the Chancellor also made clear, there should be no net cost in terms of total public expenditure, since we have designed the scheme to ensure that no more is paid in grants than is saved on benefits.
  Some sceptics may well question the attractiveness of a job-splitting scheme to employers and to those taking part-time jobs. My answer would be to refer them to employers—such as GEC who have pioneered job-sharing schemes—and their employees. Their success and the favourable reaction of organisations such as the CBI which have seriously considered the idea is encouraging.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: What is the conceptual difference between job sharing and job splitting?
  Mr. Alison: There is no conceptual difference.
  For employers, job splitting offers a number of potential long-term benefits. These include higher productivity, particularly—though not exclusively—in routine work, more flexible use of working time, improved job satisfaction, lower staff turnover and absence, and cover for holidays and sickness. It also offers employers an opportunity to build up a pool of trained labour, some of whom might be available for full-time employment when the company expands.
  For full-time employees, the scheme may have other attractions. Not everyone necessarily wants a full-time job and this scheme provides scope to tailor part-time jobs to individual needs. Many people, for example, would like to spend more time with their families, and older workers may welcome a gentler and less abrupt approach to retirement. Of course, part-time work means part-time pay, but for many people the savings in travel-to-work costs and the gain in terms of personal time will more than compensate.
  For the unemployed, the scheme would offer part-time jobs in the same way as full-time jobs. Clearly, such jobs will pay less than a full-time job, but for many people will compare very favourably with unemployment or supplementary benefit. They will also offer valuable work experience and training, which could prove of lasting benefit. But for the majority of the unemployed, I am sure I do not have to spell out the most obvious and important advantage of all—that some work, albeit part-time is intrinsically better than no work at all.
  The choice for employers and employees, both actual and potential, will be to weigh the advantages in each circumstance. The agreement of all participants will be needed before any grant can be paid. Employers will look at the benefits for their organisation; individuals will need to assess carefully the financial and social implications. Guidance on employment and benefit rights will be given to everyone intending to participate in the scheme, but I emphasise that the scheme itself will not affect any existing arrangements applying to existing part-time work.
  We envisage that where an employer recognises a union for the grades concerned in the split it should be normal practice for him to inform the union. At the end of the day, however, we are talking about choice, both for the employer and the person taking the part-time job. Our aim is to enable that freedom of choice to be exercised.
  The scheme will be open to employers in both the public and the private sectors, except that special consideration is still being given to the position of the Civil Service. Employers will be offered a flat-rate grant of £750, paid in four instalments, to offset the costs incurred in splitting an existing full-time job into two part-time jobs. The first payment of £300 recognises the initial costs involved in splitting a job. Subsequent payments of £150 will be made at three, six and 12-month intervals. The main extra costs will be in recruitment and training.
  Employers, for their part, must undertake to keep the job split for a full year and filled with eligible recruits. Any existing job can be split, provided that it has been filled already by full-time employees for three months. It will be for the employer to decide how a job will be split in particular circumstances within a framework of broad
  372
  criteria laid down by my Department. Those criteria will be framed so as to allow the employer the maximum flexibility consistent with any overall objective that he may have to ensure that a full-time job is split into two comparable part-time jobs. The split jobs must therefore be comparable in terms of hours and duties with those of the originating full-time job; the pattern of work should be such that it could be done by a single full-time worker; and, to ensure that two reasonably substantial jobs are offered, each part-time job must contain at least 30 hours in any two consecutive weeks.
  As for recruitment to the scheme, the aim will be to ensure that at least one unemployed person drawing benefit, or one person who would otherwise be made redundant and in consequence would draw benefit, is provided with an opportunity. The jobs created or vacated can be filled by employees facing redundancy, employees wishing to switch to part-time work, and employed people in receipt of benefit.
  Mr. John Golding: The Minister says that the jobs can be filled by people facing redundancy. Who demonstrates whether it is a genuine redundancy?
  Mr. Alison: It would be up to the employer who is applying for the grant to participate in the scheme.
  The scheme will open for applications covering existing full-time jobs split on and after 3 January 1983 but not before that date. Estimates of take-up are tentative at this stage, but we are planning on the basis of 50,000 full-time jobs being split in the year ending 31 December 1983. This should rise to 62,500 by 31 March 1984, when the scheme is at present due to close for applications. The operation of the scheme will, however, be carefully reviewed throughout the next year, and a decision taken in due course about its future.
  I commend this scheme to the House as an important experiment which would substantially increase the job opportunities available to the unemployed.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Harold Walker: When the Government took office in May 1979 there were regrettably approximately 1,250,000 people unemployed. Today that figure is 3,300,000. For the Minister to have the gall to talk, as he did, about the hardships, anxieties and despair caused by unemployment when the Government, by their policies, have deliberately made over 2 million people unemployed is—I almost used an unparliamentary word, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you could tell me a substitute for "hypocrisy", I would use it. It is a bit much for the Government to say that this scheme will mitigate those hardships, anxieties and despair. It is a bit much even from the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Minister might have acknowledged, as did the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 July, that the scheme had its origin in proposals made by a Select Committee in another place. When the Government responded to its proposals, I thought that some consolation had been offered. That was because the Government had started, it seemed, to listen to someone other than the Friedman association or the Institute of Directors. When the Government somewhat coyly and hesitantly showed their hand, my inclination, despite the absence of consultation—there is no evidence that they consulted

  373
  anyone—and having been given only a flimsy outline, which is all that we have had tonight, was to give the scheme a fair wind.
  Since 27 July I have taken the opportunity more closely to examine the scheme and to discuss it with those engaged in industry. Even the half cheer that I was initially disposed to accord it has now become muted. The more that I have studied the scheme and consulted others, the more I have become convinced that it is a shabby device that is intended to obscure the extent of the growth that is bound to occur in unemployment because of the Government's policies. Furthermore, it will jeopardise the hard-won rights of many thousands of workers.
  The Minister said that 50,000 to 65,000 workers will be covered by the scheme. I think that they will find themselves disadvantaged by it, not benefiting from it. The scheme will not and is not designed to create extra employment. The Minister has made that abundantly clear. By cutting the take-home pay of job-splitters, the volume of spending power in the economy is likely to diminish. That will tend further to increase the real level of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head in disbelief, but he has told the House that one of the conditions of the scheme is that there should be no net additional cost to public spending. It follows that there will be no extra purchasing power in the economy and, as a result, no extra jobs. However, it is even worse than that—
  Mr. Alison: That may be true of public expenditure, but what employers pay two part-time workers will be up to them. They may pay more to the two halves than they were paying to the one employee. That may be the position after a year or six months.
  Mr. Walker: I repeat what was said sotto voce by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—"Who are you kidding?"
  What I have said so far illustrates that the Minister of State's views are consistent with the reported views of the Secretary of State, who I understand has been participating this week in what the media have described as the consideration of unemployment in the member States by the jumbo Council of EC Ministers. On 16 November The Times reported:
  "In the social affairs meeting Mr. Norman Tebbit, the Employment Minister, said that Britain was showing the way to tackle the unemployment problem".
  God help the unemployed if the Government and the Secretary of State are showing the way to tackle unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was doing so
  "with its youth training".
  For years the engineering industry required an annual intake of 20,000 to 25,000 apprentices. This year it has had an intake of 9,000, and only 7,000 have been taken on by employers. Apparently the Government are
  "showing the way to tackle the unemployment problem with its youth training and job splitting schemes."
  The Government's answer to unemployment is their youth training proposals and job-splitting schemes. He was much less interested in job creation schemes which had no obvious long-term value.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me that that is wrong. If it is not, God help the unemployed. However, assuming that such comments are correctly reported—we
  374
  have all had experience of maltreatment by the press—I hope that we shall be told more about the thinking underlying the scheme than we have so far had in the flimsy outline of both the published and verbal presentations to the House.
  Let me try to be a little more specific about some of the criticisms that have been levelled against the scheme from a variety of sources. It is not only the TUC that draws attention to the fact that people who work for less than 16 hours a week are immediately disqualified from a whole range of statutory employment protections, such as protection from unfair dismissal and the right to redundancy pay. For all the representations that must have been made to him the Minister of State has remained silent on that point.
  In the outline laid before the House there is no reference to 15 hours per week. However, in the more formalised publication for the benefit and guidance of employers it is made clear that employers can opt for a job split that will involve the workers in working a 15-hour week. Why did the Secretary of State not mention that in his publication or to the House? It is specifically put into the Department's official notification to employers document, as though it is an open guidance to them.
  Mr. Golding: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Minister tried to mislead the House by referring to 30 hours a fortnight? That was a typical sleight of hand by which he tried to avoid making it clear that they were going to give a miserly 15 hours.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase that. He must not accuse the Minister of trying to mislead the House.
  Mr. Golding: I certainly withdraw it. The Minister acted according to his normal standards by informing the House that it was 30 hours.
  Mr. Walker: If "sleight of hand" is an unparliamentary expression, perhaps I may suggest the substitution of "a sleight of tongue". That is what we have had. It is what we regularly get from the Minister and, more particularly, the Secretary of State.
  With regard to the denial of the statutory protections afforded by Parliament to people who work less than 16 hours a day, Mr. Keith Harper, the respected industrial correspondent of The Guardian, referred to a confidential document circulated by the Confederation of British Industry. It being confidential I have not had access to it, but Mr. Harper has. He says that the scheme is a way of reducing the unemployment statistics—not unemployment—by 150,000 people in what will probably be election year.
  According to Mr. Harper, the same memorandum goes on to tell the employers who are affiliated to that organisation how to use the scheme to deprive workers of their statutory employment rights. The article, in common with many others on the subject, goes on to point out that far from the Government being prepared to spend money on helping the unemployed, this scheme is actually saving money for the Government, the amount on offer to employers being more than offset by savings in benefit payments that would otherwise be paid.
  I apologise for mentioning press reports, but the press seems to have been given much more information about the scheme then Members of Parliament. Perhaps the

  375
  Minister will comment on the report that appeared in the Financial Times on 1 November. It states that because of a poor response to the scheme so far, the Government want not only to start the scheme in the Civil Service but to do so with a preference for male participants. I understand that the Equal Opportunities Commission has addressed some angry words to the Secretary of State on that general point. Perhaps the Minister will comment. The article then suggests that Government Departments might even be compelled to take part in the scheme. In the document before us, there is no suggestion anywhere that trade unions should be consulted when the relevant employer intends to introduce the scheme in his establishment. We have evidence of yet another retreat from the Government's commitment—if they ever had one—to collective bargaining.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has enormous experience and will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that in the special measures introduced so far there has always been a requirement that the trade unions should be consulted. We are now witnessing a serious departure from that practice. It should be stipulated somewhere in the scheme that before introducing the scheme, employers should consult, and secure the agreement of the recognised trade unions.
  Mr. Craigen: Is not my right hon. Friend somewhat concerned that it is not made clear that an employee will be consulted? He may simply be told about his job being split.
  Mr. Walker: To be fair to the Minister, he said that the agreement of those employees affected should be sought. However, that is not in the document or in any of the published items. The Minister should not tell us about what should happen in industry. Those in industry are not avid readers of Hansard. They do not pick it up immediately after looking at page three in The Sun or the Daily Star. He should be talking to the employers, employees and trade unions and making it clear that all this should depend on agreement, not only between employers and employees, but with the unions and their representatives.
  I confess that I have not consulted the statute, but I think that it says something about an obligation on the Government, when such schemes are introduced, to consult the TUC. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Government have consulted. If the Minister is nodding his head to say that they have consulted, I accept that.
  Mr. Golding: That provision exists because the Opposition at the time asked us to include it. They stressed the importance of taking great care to consult and to take into account the interests of employers and trade unions.
  Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has been heavily involved in such matters and may have a better recollection of them than me. I have spoken for longer than I originally intended. However, I believe and hope that the Minister received a document that I received this morning. It came from an organisation called New Ways to Work, Job Sharing Project. I have mentioned some reservations about the scheme, but that organisation elaborates further. I assume that it is not affiliated to a party. I do not know of any political party that it is identified with. Its title implies that it has some professional knowledge and understanding of the subject. Therefore, we ought to treat its views with respect. It says:
  376
  "Job splitting could leave workers with families worse off than on the dole".
  Those workers will not be covered by family income supplement or supplementary benefit. The organisation also makes the point that I raised about employment protection. The document continues:
  "Unemployed people could be forced to accept split jobs or risk having their benefit withdrawn for refusing work."
  That is an important point. Suppose an employer says "Look chaps, we have 50 employees and only 40 jobs. We shall have to split some." If the workers do not agree to job-splitting, might they be considered to have rendered themselves unemployed and, therefore, to have disqualified themselves from entitlement to unemployment benefit? We need an answer to that question.
  The document says:
  "Most unemployed married women will not be eligible for split jobs as they are not registered unemployed, although they may genuinely want part time work."
  I understand that those women will not be eligible anyway. No provision is made for those seeking employment. Another important point made by the organisation is:
  "No provision is made to protect the pensions of people nearing retirement—another group who might voluntarily wish to split jobs. People whose pensions are determined by final year's service are thus effectively excluded."
  The House needs to know whether that is so. Will participants in the scheme have their pensions prejudiced? Will they be informed of the possible effect on their pensions? If there is to be no adverse effect on pensions, that should be clearly spelt out. The document concludes:
  "The arbitrary nature of the scheme will prejudice employers who might otherwise have instituted voluntary job sharing schemes."
  The Minister of State referred to GEC and there may be other employers who, with the agreement and support of their work forces, might wish to introduce voluntary job-sharing schemes, tailored to their own circumstances, which might not conform with the Government's proposed scheme.
  I have posed a number of questions to which we must have answers. They are important to those who will be affected by the scheme and to hon. Members, who must be satisfied that the scheme makes sense in current industrial and economic circumstances. I hope that I have shown that I regard the scheme as shoddy, ill-thought out and hastily prepared. I shall not ask the Opposition to oppose it, but we shall carefully monitor the application and development of the scheme and we may wish to return to the matter in the light of experience.
  11.3 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is a lovely fellow and we all have the highest opinion of him, but he is not capable of the great imaginative leap. However, he posed legitimate questions and expressed anxieties, many of which I share, which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will go a long way towards easing.
  The scheme strikes me as being one of far-reaching significance and I sometimes wonder whther my right hon. Friend the Minister fully understands the implications of what he is proposing. We are moving rapidly towards a society in which it will not be considered sensible for people to spend 40 or 50 hours a week turning wrenches, operating assembly lines or doing other unthinking work. It would be far more sensible for people to spend 20 hours a week on such work, earn a reasonable standard of living

  377
  and have time off for more worthwhile acitivities. If the earnings that they receive from such part-time work are topped up by the Government, we shall move towards a much more sensible society.
  It is a mistake to consider the proposals only in the light of the work and pay to be shared. If people work only a few hours a week normally, they will more readily accept the idea of working those hours at unsocial times. That will provide better utilisation of our capital resources and will open the way towards a society in which people work only 20 or 30 hours a week, but where the factory or plant is operated for more than 100 hours a week. That is a recipe for getting much more from our economy at a lower cost to the work force than any present scheme does.
  For those reasons, I welcome what the Government are doing and I hope that they will continue down this path. I recognise the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Member for Doncaster. They must be resolved, and I await with interest my right hon. Friend's reply.
  11.5 pm
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Like the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), I approach the Government's proposal with an open mind. I believe, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) implied, that job sharing could contribute to a more flexible and open society. It will meet the needs of some employees who must work more flexible or shorter hours than the normal working week. I welcome the idea of discussing all the ways in which we can try to match the jobs available to those wo are seeking work. I examined the scheme closely and it raised in my mind several questions and doubts that I mention genuinely without trying to grind a party axe.
  I am worried, as is the right hon. Member for Doncaster, about the fact that the scheme is clearly directed at the registered unemployed. It is not available to the many married women, as was pointed out in a debate in another place yesterday, who are not registered but who would be especially appropriate people to take part in a job-sharing experiment. The Minister will recognise that previous job-sharing experiments have been mainly in areas such as teaching, where two married women could share one job. However, this scheme is not available to them.
  I also considered the poverty trap to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster referred. Perhaps I could give the House a few examples that go some way towards meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Flint, West in giving the benefit of the doubt to the Government. The average wage is about £165. If one accepts the effects of contributions and tax deductions, the average wage earner who splits his job must earn £91·37 a week in order to make it worthwhile. However, the great majority of employees who are now unemployed earn below the average wage and 3 million people earn less than two-thirds of the average wage. All my remarks refer to male employees. The average wage for women is just below £100 a week, so for women my figure is generous. In order to make job sharing worth while for women, they would need to earn less than they would receive now, if they were the head of the household, from supplementary or unemployment benefit.
  378
  Supplementary benefit for an average wage earner with two children aged between 11 and 15, after allowing for rent and rate rebates, is £89 a week. The family man on an average wage would benefit by £2·37 a week on the job-sharing scheme. That is to give the benefit of every possible doubt to the Government. We are taking male workers on an average wage who have a couple of children. However, most workers will be outside that category. They will be earning less than the average wage and will have more dependants. It would be disadvantageous for those people to join the scheme.
  We have to assume that the Government have two categories in mind for the scheme—that it is intended largely for single employees and for those who are high wage earners. High-earning single employees do not form a substantial group within our society. The Government are heading straight into the poverty trap in its most acute form. It seems to me—I hope that the Minister will assure us otherwise—that job splitting and accepting half a wage would not be in the interests of millions of workers who are in the greatest need.
  I echo the question of the right hon. Member for Doncaster. Is it possible that people who refuse to split jobs, even if it is not to their benefit economically, will be denied unemployment or supplementary benefit? If so, that would be extremely serious. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that that would not be the position.
  The second point I want to raise takes a stage further what the right hon. Member for Doncaster said about the elderly. There is no doubt that the idea of job sharing or splitting is an attractive and humane one for many people who are approaching retirement age. Hon. Members feel that it gives scope for creating many more jobs. Many people who are more than 55 or 60 years of age do not want to give up work completely, but they would be interested in taking a reduced-hour week to allow part of that time to be given to somebody who was currently on the dole.
  As the CBI pointed out in its study "Work for All", 90 per cent. of occupational pension schemes are based on the final three years' salary. Therefore, anybody who accepted a job split within the last three years of their working life would put their pension at risk. I should have much more respect for the Government if I believed that they had tackled the pension regulations. Without that, their scheme is bound to look fundamentally cosmetic.
  I want to consider where job sharing started and where it makes a good deal of sense. It started with GEC and it was directed originally at young workers. The idea was that young workers would spend half their time in a real job—not an invented one—and the other half in training. It was an excellent, imaginative and far-sighted idea that could have gone a long way to meeting the problem of the young person leaving school who wanted a real job, but who was also willing to train.
  The trouble is that the scheme is not directed towards those young workers. Those who started the scheme do not come within its scope because anybody who starts a scheme before 3 January 1983 will not be included. Is there any thought in the Government's mind of meeting the training costs of the other half of the week if the scheme is directed towards young workers, or of paying half the present YOP training allowance to those firms willing to split jobs between young workers and make up the balance in training?

  379
  I am not trying to grind the party axe, because we may be able to do something for youngsters if we allow them to take half a real job and half training, but as I understand it the scheme would not cover that.
  The Minister has allowed an overlap of five hours between two part-time jobs. That is reasonable for a job on the assembly line or one that allows a direct split between the jobs. It is not reasonable for people operating a computer or a wage account or for public service jobs such as tax collection. The overlap must be a whole day. Would not a one-day overlap make more sense for such jobs?
  The Minister must know that the average cost of two-day-a-week training is a great deal more than £15 a week, where the employer engages in real training. I have made inquiries with local education authorities. Few will provide training for less than £15 a week even for one day, let alone two days. Would the Department consider increasing the allowance if the money is to go for training for the other half of the time?
  I repeat the question of the right hon. Member for Doncaster. Can the Minister assure us that where jobs are split on a 15 hour/15 hour basis over two weeks, the Employment Protection Act 1975 provisons will be extended to employees, even though the present regulations lay down a minimum of 16 hours?
  Will the Minister also take action about the three-year basis, for pension to avoid the possibility of the scheme falling to the ground for elderly workers? Will there be an allowance for training without which the scheme will fall to the ground for many young workers? Will the Department consider making a payment for supplementary or employment benefit of for family income supplement for workers caught in the poverty trap so that they can benefit from the scheme?
  If the Minister can satisfactorily reply to my questions and those of the right hon. Member for Doncaster, I shall welcome the scheme and believe that the Government intend to alleviate the present disastrous unemployment. If he cannot, I shall believe that the scheme is purely cosmetic. Tomorrow the Secretary of State is to brief his right hon. and hon. Friends on the impact on the unemployment statistics of two measures—the decision no longer to count people who cannot register for benefit, and this scheme. The Government can take 200,000 people off the dole by juggling the figures, but can they do that by giving them real jobs, training or an opportunity to retire early? If they can, they deserve our support. If they cannot, the House should condemn the Government for producing a scheme that is not directed to reducing unemployment.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I believe that the measure will come to be known as the "half-a-job scheme". As the Minister said, half a job is better than none, but it is much worse than having a full job, if that is what a person wants.
  In a recent Radio Stoke programme a lady asked me whether we would accept two Members of Parliament in each constituency, each doing half the job. The Minister smiles. But that may be the choice facing workers. He would not like half of his job taken from him—although I should like to take it from him! It would be better done. Half his money, status and car would go.
  380
  The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) underlined a serious anxiety. The scheme may become compulsory. There is a place for voluntary half-job schemes not only for the young and the old, but for the disabled. There are many categories of worker for whom a voluntary half-job scheme, with sufficient safeguards, would be beneficial.
  We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water that has been dined by the Government's introduction of the scheme. Such a scheme could be beneficial, but what is proposed will not because of the conditions attached to it.
  The scheme will not go down well, because many people believe that the Government are using special measures to introduce lower pay. They also believe that the Government are trying to use special measures to undermine employment protection. Workers will react strongly and angrily to any special measure that they regard as a wage-cutting exercise. If that happens, the House and the country will have lost a great deal, because we need special measures to help the unemployed.
  The Government are wrong to set out on a wage-cutting policy. They would be right to pursue an increased productivity policy. Britain's salvation lies not in reducing pay, but in increasing productivity so that people can earn high wages. The Government are destroying the morale and attitude of workers in one sector after another by introducing such a scheme as this. I strongly oppose a scheme that workers will regard as compulsory.
  I was disturbed to hear the Minister say that the scheme could be introduced and grants given if, on the word of an employer, the need for redundancies was declared. He should reconsider that aspect. Is he really saying that if an employer suddenly declares that a given number of people are to be made redundant, he can inform them that they are to go on to half-jobs and he need only inform the trade unions involved? If so, the Minister is giving employers complete freedom to change the terms and conditions of their employees for the worse.
  Is this the best possible subsidy that can be introduced now? I frequently argue for more assistance for the long-term unemployed. More than 1 million people have been unemployed for a year or more. They face intense misery. Their lives have been destroyed. We told the Secretary of State that more ought to be done and that grants should be paid. There should be a benefit to assist the long-term unemployed, but we are told that the country cannot afford it. Apparently we cannot afford a subsidy of £750 to persuade employers to recruit from the long-term unemployed, but we can afford £750 for a half-a-job scheme which will provide jobs for people newly unemployed or about to become unemployed. Has the Minister weighed up the social cost effectiveness of introducing the scheme while continuing to ignore the real burden on hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people?
  There is a place for job sharing, but this scheme has been badly thought out. It is a gimmick. It is a gesture. I do not believe that it will be successful. Worst of all, it will prejudice the real support that should be given to genuine job-splitting schemes which are needed. especially to provide equal opportunity in employment for women. The scheme will set back the pressure that should exist for job sharing. I am disappointed that it should have been introduced by the Department in this form.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I should like to see more opportunities for part-time employment but not at the expense of full-time employment. I agree to a great extent with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) about a shorter working week. That is not, however, the option before the House. The Government, who have put the country on a part-time basis, now seek to make it official. The scheme owes more to the Government's wish to reduce the official unemployment statistics than to the creation of more employment.
  Is it necessary to induce employers with £750 to do what, in many instances, is happening anyway? About one worker in five is now in a part-time job. Part-time employment has been growing almost as quickly as full-time employment has been shrinking over the past few years. Do we need to pay employers to split jobs? Nearly 50 per cent. of all part-time workers in the European Community are in the United Kingdom. Ironically, the Brussels directive on non-discrimination over the status and conditions of part-time workers, which I believe is to come into force on 1 January 1984, is effectively pushing Whitehall along the road of employment protection at a time when the Department of Employment seems determined to retreat on the issue.
  Will the Minister comment on another potentional European Commission directive giving preference to part-time workers who seek full-time employment within their company? It is suggested that there will be support for giving preference to part-time workers within a company when vacancies arise. About one-fifth of those in part-time employment are near or above retirement age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) referred to the problem, of pensions and superannuation. This will be a brake on the extent to which the Government's scheme with regard to older workers gets off the ground.
  The Minister touched briefly on training, but as I understand it, the order does not state that the £750 is conditional on a training element for part-time workers. Those who have had experience in personnel management know that few part-timers have opportunities for promotion in their companies. Their conditions of service will be altered substantially as a result of these proposals.
  The parts of the economy where the order will be most effective are unlikely to be the parts with the most rapid decline in employment. It will not make a significant dent in manufacturing. Most part-time jobs are in the distributive, banking or financial sectors. These industries, which, over the next few years will be the most vulnerable to new technologies, already have reduced in working hours.
  The talk of "two jobs for the price of one" ignores the problem of income maintenance. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) spoke about average wages. However, the people with the top jobs and salaries will be the least likely to split their jobs. Often they have a second job on the side. Those in below average, low-paid jobs, with large family commitments, will be asked to share their jobs and to give away 50 per cent. of their pay. That is what makes the scheme unacceptable to the majority of the people that we represent. We are effectively asking them to take a reduction in their wage or salary.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Flint, West, who was absent when I said that he made the valuable point that we
  382
  have to move to a shorter working week. However, this order will not bring that about. It will create more confusion and uncertainty over the existing system of social security.
  Mention has already been made of the problems that face some disabled people. For example, the Multiple Sclerosis Society has advanced the case for those who can do a part-time job, as long as it is flexible and not too demanding. However, those people may come up against the problem of forfeiting their social security benefits.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby spoke about the GEC scheme that was designed for young workers. The Government want to deny social security benefits to young people who spend more than 21 hours a week studying. That is nonsense. The Government are at sixes and sevens about the operation of this policy on part-time employment and its effect on the social security system.
  Job splitting—frankly, that is what we are talking about—by the Thatcher Administration is taking over where the three-day week under the Heath Administration left off. I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends—that the Government should think out the logic of their approach. Otherwise, they will be paying out money for precious little return, when, with a little more imagination, they could create employment by directing the subsidies elsewhere.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) made helpful contributions to the debate. However, they were far too generous, and gave far too much credit to the Minister and the Government. We must all face the relevant and important problems of job sharing and increased leisure time. The right hon. and hon. Member were generous in raising those important issues on what is clearly a shoddy expedient to reduce the unemployment statistics. The right hon. Lady and others dwelt on that matter. It arrogates to the Government far too much importance to enter into a relevant and important discussion on this shoddy measure. The right hon. Lady mentioned the change in the presentation of statistics. It is a deliberate attempt, not to reduce the number of unemployed, but the number of those registered as such and who appear in the statistics.
  I listened carefully to the various speeches, and I learnt a great deal. I was not aware of some of the details of the scheme. I tried to imagine what jobs could be shared. When the Minister replies, rather than talking about the regulations, the statistics, the £750, the date of payment and other bureaucratic aspects, will he tell us which industries and jobs are involved? I have nearly 4,000 miners in my constituency. I tried to imagine job sharing for them. The men will go to the mines, change, go to the pit bottom, walk two miles to the pit face, set up the machinery and, when they have done that, it will be time to go back to let the next half go down. It does not make sense. Perhaps one day one group will go down the pit and the next day another group. That would create tremendous problems in the mining industry. I have many farm workers in my constituency who live on the farms. Will they share their farm cottages and jobs on the land? What of the fishermen? When the boat is halfway to the fishing grounds it will have to return to let the next group go half way. They will not catch many fish.

  383
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) is an old sparring partner of mine in Committee. I can imagine him saying that my remarks are exaggerations—examples chosen to ridicule the scheme. They may be, but I could mention instance after instance, job after job, and show the difficulties that will be created by the scheme.
  What about the lower-paid workers? We recently debated the National Health Service dispute. I saw pay slips for trained people working in hospitals, showing payments of under £60 or even £50 a week. Someone in charge of the stores for five hospitals received only £45 a week take-home pay. How do we split that? Will two people receive only £22·50 a week? The right hon. Member for Crosby, in her excellent analysis, raised that point.
  Conservative Members are not talking about stock-brokers sharing their jobs, nor lawyers, nor even doctors. It is appalling tht 1,500 qualified doctors cannot find a job under the Tory Government. They are talking about ordinary working people having to give up some of their income so that they can alter the statistics to make them appear more attractive. I cannot think of any areas where there will be real opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has already said that where part-time working is possible, it has already been introduced. there is far too much short-time working in many of the manufacturing industries.
  Like many of my hon. Friends, I had written down dozens of questions about the scheme. The right hon. Member for Crosby gave the Government far too much benefit of the doubt on the scheme. I am worried about its effect on family income supplement and supplementary benefit. There may also be implications for mortgages. I am worried about its effect on rent and rate rebates, the entitlement to pensions, superannuation and what happens at the end of the year if there are no full-time jobs. Question after question arises.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby said that she would not support the Government if those questions remained unanswered but that if the Minister was able to answer the questions—she was being optimistic—she would go ahead and support the Government. If the Minister could have answered the questions, why are those answers not in the document? Why could he not answer them during his introduction? The truth is—we shall hear it in a moment—he cannot answer the questions because it is a botched-up, cobbled-up scheme. It represents an admission of defeat by the Government. They have tried all sorts of schemes and special measures to cover up the unemployment statistics because they cannot, or will not, create jobs.
  I believe that they will not create jobs because part of the Government's policy is to use unemployment to put the unions under their thumb. The scheme is an admission of defeat by the Government. The unemployment level is rising. They can do nothing to help to provide real jobs, which is why they want to cover it up.
  I should like to have an opportunity to vote against the motion but I realise that we shall not have it. My hon. Friends have expressed their total opposition to the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that we will keep it under review. I am sure that we shall be proved right. It is a shoddy scheme and it will have no future in the employment regime.
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) was incapable of taking the imaginative leap that was necessary in considering the scheme. My right hon. Friend is quite right not to take the imaginative leap into the dark that the Government are inviting us to make. If we did that, we would have to have complete faith in the Government. Unfortunately, the Government have forfeited all the faith that the Opposition might have ever considered giving them a few months after May 1979.
  The Government tell us how much they regret mass unemployment, how it gives them sleepless nights and how they weep their crocodile tears into their gin and tonics every moment of the day. They tell us ad nauseam how much they are worried about the problem. Unfortunately, they do not ever give us any evidence of their concern. All we have is the wind and water—the symptoms of flatulence—rather than the genuine concern of those who are trying to devise schemes to solve problems.
  The scheme before the House shows all the symptoms. The Government have bent over backwards to devise a scheme which will be beneficial to employers and to provide bits of cosmetic which appear to have certain benefits for employees. The benefits to employees are meagre.
  The hon. Member for Flint, West excited us with his description of a brave new world where everyone had more leisure time and people flitted from one job to another. Perhaps people will have four or five jobs, doing five hours here and five hours there, 20 hours here and 20 hours there. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be talking about part-time directors collecting £4,000 here and £4,000 there. He fails to explain that the people who will be sharing jobs will not have the money to spend on increased leisure time. It would be a brave new world for people with an abundance of money to take part in exciting activities such as travelling, but for people on low incomes it does not look so inviting.
  In my constituency one man in two is out of work. We are not talking about 16 per cent. unemployment, or even 30 per cent. unemployment. In some estates in my constituency, in West Auckland, Campden and Woodhouse close, one man in every two does not have a job. Estates are stricken with despair. There is no hope because the people in work have low paid jobs and lose their jobs more frequently than people in most other jobs. When they lose their jobs, they are unemployed for longer. We are talking about a different world. I wish that some hon. Members would take the trouble to go to the North and experience the deprivation and suffering of our people.
  Is it surprising that my right hon. and hon. Friends look upon the measure as a pathetic little response, ingenious as it seems to hon. Members who can contemplate it from lives of ease and luxury?
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman talks as if I represent an area where there is no unemployment. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) knows that North Wales has a level of unemployment which is as appalling as anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is why I take part in the debate and welcome any action which will help to bring down that appalling level of unemployment.
  Mr. Foster: I withdraw anything that I said which gave the impression that the hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of unemployment. I had the impression that he had no knowledge of employment when I listened to him.
  The measure is a pathetic, cosmetic attempt to massage the unemployment statistics, just as voluntary registration is expected to remove about 100,000, perhaps 500,000, people from the unemployment register to make it look as though a serious attempt is being made to address the problem.
  The scheme does not deserve our support. I shall be guided by my right hon. and hon. Friends and will not divide against the measure, but many serious questions have been asked by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and my right hon. and hon. Friends which deserve detailed answers. I hope that the Minister will give them.
  11.49 pm
  Mr. Alison: I shall do my best to satisfy the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
  To set the tone, and in an attempt to reflect the general atmosphere of the debate, I start by reminding the House that there are 4 million part-time jobs in Britain at present. Therefore, part-time work is not necessarily unpopular.
  We are not taking a negative or undersirable step in advancing as an experimental scheme with subsidy an opportunity that will enable more people to join the large body of people doing part-time work, and to do so direct from the unemployment register. That is a positive step. Although criticism and doubt were expressed, I detected at least some understanding of the worthwhile nature of that step.
  I shall try to answer the queries and anxieties, first, about employee rights, the 15-hour week point, and second, about redundancy. I shall then deal with one or two specific questions about the voluntary basis of the scheme, and so on. I shall answer any further queries if I can, but time is limited.
  I start with the anxiety expressed by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) that the 15-hour minimum of the scheme may lead to abuse. I disagree. In my view, it is right to give employers the maximum flexibility in working out patterns for part-time work, for example, in dividing the hours unevenly between two part-timers. It is also right to encourage employers to take on new, untried workers from the unemployment register. We shall, of course, monitor carefully what happens. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the minimum number of hours worked, for example, to qualify for family income supplement is 30 hours. Therefore, that is the definition of a full-time job in that context. A full-time job for job release scheme purposes is 30 hours. It is not unreasonable to have as a minimum for a part-time job exactly half of the minimum that is already prescribed in legislation for full-time work.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) thought that I was guilty of unparliamentary practice in referring to the 30 hours in two consecutive weeks. I assure him that I was not trying to trick the House. There is no point in trying to do that with sharp-eyed sheriffs like him on the Opposition Benches, ready to draw a gun and shoot me if I try to be too clever. I mentioned 30 hours in two consecutive weeks because I thought that it might help both employers and employees to allow a pattern of one week on and one week off. That
  386
  option may be attractive. It would certainly allow workers to work 30 hours in one week, followed by a free week. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had rather a good cachet for the scheme—if I may borrow it from him. He called it a "half-a-job" scheme. That is a good description. In many cases, that is precisely what will happen. The employer will divide the full-time job into half, both jobs with more than 16 hours. So the worries that were expressed about employment protection legislation will not apply. That is the philosophy. We hope that an employer will split the existing number of hours of a job into two. We are prescribing only a minimum. I think that a lot of part-time jobs will score more than the minimum.
  Mr. Craigen: If the employer did not, would the Government say "You are not getting your £750"?
  Mr. Alison: If the employer did not do what?
  Mr. Craigen: Provide more than 16 hours' work.
  Mr. Alison: We are merely laying down a minimum. We are not prescribing the alternative or the various mutations or permutations of hours worked which may be suitable in a situation, because only the employer and participants can judge.
  I am not sure whether it was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) who said that the idea of the scheme was to try to reduce wages.
  It has been suggested that the idea behind the scheme is to reduce wage levels. That is not remotely part of the scheme. We want employers and employees who are involved in the scheme to work out what suits them and to implement it by agreement. The idea of a £750 subsidy is to enable an employer to meet all the extra costs that are involved in job splitting and retraining—there may, for example, be extra clerical work—without having to say to those involved "As it is costing us something to split the job, you will have to take a little less pay". We are providing a subsidy to offset that response. It is not the scheme's aim unnaturally to force down wage levels. It is up to employers and those who voluntarily enter the scheme to arrive at an arrangement that suits them best by means of collective bargaining.
  A leaflet is being prepared that is designed to draw the attention of all likely participants in the scheme to the potential effect on their legislative rights if they find themselves being offered 15 hours a week only. They will need to sign a declaration that they are accepting a part-time job and acknowledge reciept of the leaflet that will warn them accordingly. They will definitely have the opportuity of seeing what the hazards are.
  Mr. Harold Walker rose—
  Mr. Alison: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me. My time is running very short and I must try to do justice to the various issues that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme interrupted my opening speech with a question on redundancy. We shall accept as eligible workers in the same firm who are under formal notice of redundancy. The employer will have to be prepared to provide appropriate evidence on request.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked whether a refusal of an offer of a split job and subsequent redundancy would render the individual who had been made redundant subject to a loss of benefit. It is not our intention that

  387
  individuals should lose benefit in such a way in any circumstances. That is not the idea of the scheme and we are not trying to open up a trap for the unsuspecting. The intention is to provide an alternative to redundancy. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that I have not picked up all that he raised on this issue, I shall write to him.
  It is our intention that participation in the scheme should be voluntary. It is not our intention to launch a campaign of sanctions against those who refuse a part-time job under the scheme. The normal availability arrangements will be taken into account under the scheme. It is not thought that someone who is unsuitable for a part-time vacancy will be put forward. Consideration of suitability would include the claimant's wishes and a comparison of his income in and out of work if he raises the issue himself. I hope that those remarks will reassure the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) about the scheme's genuine voluntariness. No pressure will be brought to bear on individuals.
  It is true that the scheme is directed at the registered unemployed. I concede that it is no interest to those who are not registered. This is an acknowledged limitation. The aim of the scheme is to break even financially, and I make no apology for that. This means that more Government money will be available to be spent on other schemes. The right hon. Member for Crosby cited several individual cases and their relative position in the light of the likely hours that a person might be offered, the relevant rates and the likely entitlement to supplementary or unemployment benefit.
  The essential point that the right hon. Lady noted correctly is that the scheme will be most attractive to the single unemployed person on the register. As 60 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are single, it is particularly relevant to such people, who are the most vulnerable and who should be offered the biggest and most immediate opportunity for taking work.
  To select a case at random, a single non-householder who works for three days a week—or the equivalent number of hours spread over two weeks—and who takes home £45, will be £15 a week better off than if he were drawing supplementary benefit. Therefore, the scheme has some attraction to the single unemployed non-householder, the most vulnerable group among the long-term unemployed.
  388
  There is no doubt, and we make no apology in acknowledging it, that an unemployed person who takes a part-time job under the scheme is unlikely to continue to receive any unemployment or supplementary benefit in general. However, it is difficult to be certain that one has covered every case. Broadly, the earnings of participants in the scheme will be too high for them to get unemployment benefit on days when they are working. They will not normally be eligible for benefit on the days when they are not working because of the rules about availability and about a person not being able to obtain benefit in any week when the normal amount of work is done.
  It is likely that most participants will not be eligible for supplementary benefit because they will be earning more than their supplementary benefit requirements level. Those participants with income less than their requirements level will be eligible for supplementary benefit only if, again, they satisfy the rules about availability for full-time work.
  As we know, the decision on a specific participant's entitlement to unemployment or supplementary benefit is always a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities and I should not like to say specifically what will happen in any one case.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster also mentioned pension rights. Again, it is difficult to be specific, because it depends to some extent on how many hours an individual is working whether he comes within the limit of £29·50 a week which means that he pays no contributions under the national insurance scheme. It depends entirely upon the individual's position. It would be rash for me to generalise on employers' occupational pension schemes. However, we shall be advising—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House authorises the Secretary of State to set up, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978, a Scheme (the expected cost of which will be more than £10 million in the year commencing 3rd January 1983) for making payments to employers who split jobs to give employment to persons who are or who might otherwise become unemployed.

  Gliding (Portmoak)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  12.4 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who is a most considerate man, should have been asked to stand in tonight. Nothing that I say will be a reflection on him as an individual or Minister.
  The Civil Aviation Authority's proposal to turn an advisory route between Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen into an airway has caused concern to all those involved in light aviation in Scotland, and considerable concern to every glider pilot and gliding club in the United Kingdom. The manner in which this matter emerged and became public knowledge also gave rise to concern. In the absence of an independent appeals procedure, the British Gliding Association, on behalf of glider pilots, and the Scottish Gliding Union—the owners of the airfield at Portmoak—have brought the matter to the attention of the House. That is why I applied to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  More than 200 hon. Members have been approached by glider pilots in the United Kingdom. As the parliamentary spokesman for the British Gliding Association, I have had meetings with the Minister responsible for civil aviation, to whom I have written on this subject. I also tabled early-day motion 47, which has been signed by more than 60 hon. Members from all parties representing every area of the country.
  I have raised the issue in an Adjournment debate because I wish to put the facts on record and to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to explain to the House and country the reasons for the airway, why it must be located only in the area defined and why the CAA has behaved in the way that it has done. He might also explain to the House why it was considered necessary for the Department of Trade to inform the media that the proposed airway will still permit 90 per cent. of gliding conducted at Portmoak to continue.
  I should explain that I have experience of gliding at Portmoak and have been a gliding instructor for more than 30 years. I spent some years as a full-time instructor with the Royal Air Force. Consequently, I know from my knowledge of the conditions at Portmoak that this claim is complete nonsense, and cannot be left unchallenged. Without considerable safeguards and modifications, the most optimistic figure would be 70 per cent. of present operations. The most likely figure—I stress that point—would be nearer 30 or 40 per cent.
  I am saddened that I have been compelled to introduce this debate and table early-day motion 47. Other hon. Members, including Ministers, have implied in letters and conversations that they support me in my efforts to find an acceptable solution to the problem. Let no one be in any doubt. If the Scottish airway is introduced in the form proposed by the CAA, the unique gliding and soaring site at Portmoak will be sentenced to a slow, lingering death. The best way to describe the way in which the CAA has behaved is to call it dictatorial and a distributor of misleading information.
  Ministerial letters based on CAA information have either been a deliberate attempt to mislead hon. Members about the true situation or just plain incompetence.
  390
  Something is wrong and action should be taken to alter this state of affairs. The individuals responsible for this situation and who are accountable should be disciplined most severely. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who is responsible for aviation issues, I detailed the areas in which errors of fact had been included in ministerial letters to hon. Members. To date, I have not received a reply to that letter. Further, the story being put out by the CAA and the Department of Trade to the effect that the matter had been resolved and that 90 per cent. of gliding at Portmoak would continue shows complete ignorance of what happens during ridge and wave soaring at Portmoak.
  The whole matter should be investigated by an independent body and the facts made public. All options, including the route to the east of Portmoak and to the west of RAF Leuchars via Dundee should be debated publicly. In the absence of an independent appeals procedure, the Secretary of State should intervene to stop the present proposals. Alternatively, the CAA and the National Air Traffic Services should present in writing the safeguards that NATS is prepared to offer gliders from Portmoak so that glider pilots from all over Britain and Europe can participate in the unique combination of site location and weather conditions which make Portmoak the finest ridge and wave soaring airfield in Europe.
  Finding another site, with two hill ranges offering ridge lift throughout the northern wind directions and wave lift conditions making it possible to climb vertically to heights of well over 20,000 ft and making possible flights of over 500 miles, would be costly, and finding such a site near large urban conurbations would probably be impossible. The cost of the exercise has been estimated at about £9 million.
  The site at Portmoak was selected after many years of searching. For 40 years it has been progressively developed. Gliders were flying at Portmoak using the Bishop and Bunarty hills long before the airlines started flying the advisory traffic routes. The full potential of the site has not been realised. Many famous glider pilots fly there, including the present world gliding champion Squadron Leader George Lee of the Royal Air Force. Squadron Leader Lee is one of this country's few world champions. More important, he is one of the few who have successfully defended their championship. He has been world champion on three successive occasions.
  The efforts of the Scottish Gliding Union and the British Gliding Association to prevent their death are supported by the Perth and Kinross district council, the Tayside regional council and the Fife regional council, which has its own glider and instructors, based at Portmoak, who train schoolchildren, under the control of the education authority.
  The SGU and the BGA also have the support of the Scottish Sports Council, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, 203 right hon. and hon. Members, the Royal Aero Club and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who represents the club's views in the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) asked me to mention that he supports the gliding groups, and they are also supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), Winchester (Mr. Browne), Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and Hastings (Mr. Warren), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn),

  391
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).
  Glider pilots throughout Britain have sadly concluded that the CAA and its offspring National Air Traffic Services are merely splendid old-boy closed shops, with all the ghastly restrictive practices that exist in places where such self-perpetuating and inward-looking bodies are permitted to flourish. I believe that that view is shared by private pilots, light aircraft operators and parachute clubs.
  The two bodies concerned with restrictions on the use of airspace are the CAA and the Ministry of Defence's Air Force department It is interesting that the controller of NATS is a serving RAF air marshal and the man in charge of the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee is a serving RAF air commodore. I often defend the interests of the RAF, but it is a strange body on which all the voices speak to themselves.
  The only appeal against decisions made by the CAA and NATS is to the chairman of the CAA. In other words, an appeal is made to the chap in charge of those taking the decisions. The views of the Air Force department of the Ministry on the introduction of airways cannot be challenged, particularly by other interested parties.
  It is interesting to note that an escape route window from RAF Leuchars to Lossiemouth cuts across the airway. I do not argue with that, because it is sensible and proper, but it proves that the airway, as shown to Ministers and the media, is not quite what it seems. That is important.
  The time scale of events causes especial concern. NATS claims that it held discussions with the BGA between October 1980 and August 1982. However, only outline plans were available and they were for information only. During that period, in-house discussions between the civil and military interests took place, and the following dates are significant. Details of the proposals were eventually extracted from NATS on 9 August. The meetings to discuss the proposals, held at the BGA's request, were on 13 and 17 September. The British Gliding Association requested a working party to be set up, and that was conceded by NATS after 24 hours. The working party met on 21 and 24 September and 24 October. NATS would not delay the implementation date to allow detailed debate on the matter. Indeed, it would not allow any debate on whether an airway was necessary.
  The National Air Traffic Services, as a branch of the Civil Aviation Authority, is, to all intents and purposes, autonomous. Its direct responsibility is to the Air Traffic Control Board which, through an independent chairman, answers to both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade. Air space design criteria place undue importance on the expediency and economic operations of commercial traffic. New or extended air space requirements are resolved between the military and civil commercial interests within NATS and presented mostly as a fait accompli to all other air space users. It is only when we have a unique site, such as Portmoak, that we can see that another avenue of debate is needed.
  In the circumstances, one would expect there to be a proper appeals procedure, but, sadly, the only appeal is to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. On 26 October 1982 he wrote to the chairman of the British Gliding Association:
  392
  "In these circumstances, I really do not think that the Authority would be justified in taking the matter before the Air Traffic Control Board in an attempt to explore further the 'East Coast Option'".
  That is yet another reason why Ministers must intervene to show that democracy works.
  A letter shows that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Trade advised Ministers incorrectly. It is a fairly common letter, but the one that I have is dated 23 September 1982 and was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). On the proposal that NATS had been discussing with the BGA and the SGU for 18 months, the
  Minister said that the BGA was informed in October 1980, at which time its concern was made known. However, there was no difference between the proposals that emerged 20 months later, except a higher airway base of 4,000 ft. instead of 2,500 ft. It took 20 months for NATS to reach agreement with Ministry of Defence.
  The letter says that
  "NATS … is in frequent contact with these bodies"—
  the BGA and the Scottish Gliding Union—
  "in order to try and reach a compromise."
  The only word to describe that is "rubbish". The only contact was regular calls to NATS by the director of operations of the BGA to check on the progress of the Ministry of Defence discussions. The letter continues:
  "In fact, at a meeting on 19 August with the BGA, NATS agreed to set up a working group".
  That is not true. The BGA requested the working group and NATS took 24 hours to reply. The letter states that the working group had to report by mid-October. In fact, the working group completed its work on 4 October, having met three times. The working group's terms of reference excluded discussion of the need for an airway, and the Ministry of Defence would not consider any line further east than the advisory route via Perth. That shows clearly that there was little to discuss and that it was a fait accompli.
  The BGA was misled into believing that a route over Leuchars would be possible if Leuchars had secondary surveillance radar. That is not the case, although Leuchars would be happy with that.
  The letter continues:
  "I am afraid that there is little that this Department can do to resolve the conflict of interest. It would be wrong for Ministers to question NATS' professional competence in this matter. They are the experts on airspace management. … We would not want to disagree with their professional opinion."
  I can imagine what the reaction would be if it were designing a roadway rather than an airway. If that were the case something would have to be done. The letter contains more inaccuracies.
  I look to the Minister to confirm that the proposed airway will not be introduced until full and proper consideration has been given to the alternative proposals contained in my letter. Otherwise I expect him to confirm that the British Gliding Association and the Scottish Gliding Union will be given the opportunity to discuss the safeguards for gliding proposed by Air Marshal Pedder to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and myself. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding the safeguards would need to be in writing.
  Sir Hector Monro: As a pilot with over 40 years' experience, of which a significant amount was in central Scotland, I should like to say that everything that my hon. Friend has said is correct. We look to the

  393
  Government to support the unique position at Portmoak and to take a stand against commercialism, which is supposedly is the interests of air safety.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are many other hon. Members who take the same view as my hon. Friend and myself. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that in the absence of an independent appeals procedure it is up to the Secretary of State to protect the interests of glider pilots and to heed the views of so many hon. Members.
  If the Minister cannot give me sufficient assurances, the matter will not go away. There are about 200 hon. Members who have an interest in the matter and they will continue to press the responsible Minister. Flight safety is paramount in all flying. I believe that that can best be achieved by spending more time investigating the alternative options.
  12.21 am
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I appreciated the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). I understand why he has brought the matter before the House. He has great experience in aviation and, as he has told us, he is a gliding enthusiast. It is helpful to have someone with his background and technical expertise to raise such a matter. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has taken a direct part in this matter, is abroad on Government business. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces also is not in a position to respond to the debate.
  I have genuine sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire has said. I regard gliding as an extremely enjoyable, highly skilled recreation that we should support. I undertake to bring the various points that he has raised to the notice of the Under-Secretary and to discuss them with him to ensure that he understands fully what has been said.
  I am advised that what we are discussing is a clear conflict between four different needs. These are the needs of gliding and the need for a civil air service to Aberdeen. That service has increased considerably as a result of the oil industry traffic and includes not only flights by airliners but a considerable number of flights by helicopters. Then there are the needs of the Royal Air Force at Leuchars and the need for basic air safety. As my hon. Friend said, that is the professional advice of National Air Traffic Services and the joint Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation Authority. It is on grounds of safety, and difficult to argue against.
  It is suggested not that gliding should stop but that the air route be diverted so that it is not directly over Portmoak, which is the main gliding area, and that there should be three major zones for gliding—a virtually unlimited zone with total freedom; one with total freedom in clear visual conditions, free from cloud; and the actual airway that gliders can cross but again only in clear visual conditions. The proposal is purely to achieve reasonable safety and to allow gliding to continue.
  My hon. Friend said that he had not had a reply to his October letter. That surprises me. I understood that he had
  394
  had two recent meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been looking into the complaints carefully and who I know will wish to come back to my hon. Friend on the matter, if necessary.
  It does not appear that there has been a lack of consultation. The National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee was first advised in December 1979 that National Air Traffic Services was considering upgrading the Scottish advisory routes. Discussions between NATS staff and the British Gliding Association began in October 1980 and a working group was set up by NATS. This is more the province of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, but I should mention that the British Gliding Association visited RAF Leuchars and discussed the problem with the station commander.
  The second strand in my hon. Friend's case is doubt about whether the proposed airways to Aberdeen are necessary. The facts are clear. The traffic increase began in 1977 and rapidly rose to 400 movements a week. The situation has not changed significantly over the past four years. One advisory route lies directly over Portmoak and public transport aircraft are flying through areas of fairly intensive gliding. I shall be interested to know whether my hon. Friend disagrees. Safety must be the prime consideration. The professional advice is clear: the present situation should not continue.
  The third strand of my hon. Friend's case is that the compromise proposal is unacceptable. He would like to see the airway routed to the east over Dundee or along the east coast. Both options would adversely affect the activities of RAF Leuchars, which would place at risk air defence aircraft, as well as creating a general air hazard.
  There is no doubt about the importance of the Portmoak gliding facility. It is a unique location. But I am advised that the NATS proposal will enable the greater part of the gliding activity to continue. As my hon. Friend argued that that was not the case, we must look into the matter.
  There will also be the advantage that airliners will no longer fly over Portmoak. It is accepted that gliders should not fly in the path of airliners in cloud. That arrangement will mean that our airliners must fly a less direct route to Aberdeen. I have the figures and I can assure my hon. Friend that that would increase their costs considerably. Taking the even less direct route to the west and then back to Aberdeen would place a huge burden on civil aircraft costs.
  My hon. Friend referred to the lack of a formal appeals procedure. He is quite right, but there is a highly developed consultation procedure that is supplemented, when necessary, by direct approaches to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and to my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Armed Forces.
  By raising the matter, my hon. Friend has drawn attention to several substantial points and has ensured that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary re-examined all the proposals. The NATS proposals appear to represent the best compromise between the needs of a variety of interests and are necessary for the safety of the area.
  The controller of National Air Traffic Services, Air Marshal Sir Ian Pedder, has given an assurance that within the proposal his staff will do all that they can to accommodate the Portmoak activities. To this end, he is arranging for the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre to discuss special arrangements for gliders with the gliding

  395
  club. When they are worked out, there will be a letter of agreement between the Scottish centre and the gliding club at Portmoak. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will accept that these are intended as helpful moves. He has done a valuable service in bringing the matter before the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE
  Port State Control
  Port State Control
  Manufactures (Imports)
  Manufactures (Imports)
  Merchant Navy
  Merchant Navy
  Handicapped Persons (Import Concessions)
  Handicapped Persons (Import Concessions)
  Company Liquidations (West Midlands)
  Company Liquidations (West Midlands)
  Bankruptcies (Scotland)
  Bankruptcies (Scotland)
  Aberdeen Airport (Air Traffic Operations)
  Aberdeen Airport (Air Traffic Operations)
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Aerial Advertising
  Aerial Advertising
  Air Routes
  Air Routes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Crown Estate Commissions (London Tenancies)
  Crown Estate Commissions (London Tenancies)
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  Public Service Pensions (Indexation)
  Public Service Pensions (Indexation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Wai Kwok Tse
  Mr. Wai Kwok Tse
  Taxis
  Taxis
  VHF Radio (Anglesey)
  VHF Radio (Anglesey)
  Firearm Certificates
  Firearm Certificates
  Cable Television (Wales)
  Cable Television (Wales)
  Police Welfare Officers
  Police Welfare Officers
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Rothschild Report
  Rothschild Report
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Toxteth (Disturbances)
  Toxteth (Disturbances)
  Immigrant Population (Grant-aid)
  Immigrant Population (Grant-aid)
ENERGY
  Atomic Energy Authority (House Sales)
  Atomic Energy Authority (House Sales)
  Nuclear Fuels
  Nuclear Fuels
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Redundancy and Severance Payments
  Redundancy and Severance Payments
  Members' Travel
  Members' Travel
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Samy Zalabany
  Mr. Samy Zalabany
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Rehabilitation Training
  Rehabilitation Training
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Training Schemes (Handicapped Persons)
  Training Schemes (Handicapped Persons)
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Disabled Departmental Staff
  Disabled Departmental Staff
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Intimidation of Witnesses (Prosecutions)
  Intimidation of Witnesses (Prosecutions)
  Scottish Law Commission
  Scottish Law Commission
  Searches for Offensive Weapons (Prosecutions)
  Searches for Offensive Weapons (Prosecutions)
  Procurator Fiscal (Kirkcaldy)
  Procurator Fiscal (Kirkcaldy)
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands (Vessel Defence)
  Falkland Islands (Vessel Defence)
  Landing Ship "Sir Tristram"
  Landing Ship "Sir Tristram"
  Standby Squadron
  Standby Squadron
  Exercise Squareleg
  Exercise Squareleg
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Falklands Campaign (Discharged Service Personnel)
  Falklands Campaign (Discharged Service Personnel)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Terrorist Organisations
  Terrorist Organisations
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Housing Associations (Merseyside)
  Housing Associations (Merseyside)
  Rates
  Rates
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  Houses (Repair Grants)
  Houses (Repair Grants)
  Housing Development (Islington)
  Housing Development (Islington)
  Canadian Seal Products
  Canadian Seal Products
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
  Lyons Maid, Liverpool
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Namibia
  Namibia
TRANSPORT
  Grants (Newham)
  Grants (Newham)
  Heavy Vehicles (Tests)
  Heavy Vehicles (Tests)
  Transport Subsidies (Merseyside)
  Transport Subsidies (Merseyside)
  Invalid Tricars
  Invalid Tricars
  QHV90 Project
  QHV90 Project
  M42 (Water Orton)
  M42 (Water Orton)
  Car Space-saver Tyres
  Car Space-saver Tyres
  Motor Vehicles (Lighting)
  Motor Vehicles (Lighting)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Marketing Board (Appeals)
  Milk Marketing Board (Appeals)
  Land Settlement Association
  Land Settlement Association
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Community Services and Mental Hospitals (Liaison)
  Community Services and Mental Hospitals (Liaison)
  Health Care
  Health Care
  Senile Dementia
  Senile Dementia
  Elderly Persons (Physical and Mental Abuse)
  Elderly Persons (Physical and Mental Abuse)
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Local Authority Spending (Disabled Persons)
  Local Authority Spending (Disabled Persons)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Medical Manpower (Planning)
  Medical Manpower (Planning)
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Invalidity
  Invalidity
  Mobility Allowance Appeals
  Mobility Allowance Appeals
  Rural Pharmacists
  Rural Pharmacists
  Hospitals (Patients' Money)
  Hospitals (Patients' Money)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  Battered Women (Refuges)
  Employment Rehabilitation
  Employment Rehabilitation
WALES
  Civil Engineering Industry
  Civil Engineering Industry
  A494 (Ruthin)
  A494 (Ruthin)
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Young Persons (Statistics)
  Health Ombudsman
  Health Ombudsman
  Local Authority Commissioner for Wales
  Local Authority Commissioner for Wales
  Marginal Land Areas (Assistance)
  Marginal Land Areas (Assistance)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Mr. Trang C. Dinh
  Mr. Trang C. Dinh
  Teacher Training (North-East London)
  Teacher Training (North-East London)
  Teachers Salaries
  Teachers Salaries
  Teachers Pension Fund (Independent Schools)
  Teachers Pension Fund (Independent Schools)
  Universities (First Degree Courses)
  Universities (First Degree Courses)
  School Closures
  School Closures
INDUSTRY
  Industry and Commerce (Assistance)
  Industry and Commerce (Assistance)
  Grants
  Grants
  Inmos Ltd.
  Inmos Ltd.
  Advice and Assistance
  Advice and Assistance
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Optical Fibre Cabling
  Optical Fibre Cabling
  Focus Committee
  Focus Committee
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
SCOTLAND
  National Health Service (Pay Dispute)
  National Health Service (Pay Dispute)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Needy Children (Clothing Allowances)
  Needy Children (Clothing Allowances)
  Rural Areas (Rate Support Grant Order)
  Rural Areas (Rate Support Grant Order)
  Steel Plants
  Steel Plants
  National Average Wage
  National Average Wage
  Stationery Office (Orders)
  Stationery Office (Orders)
  British Aluminium
  British Aluminium
  Suckler Cows
  Suckler Cows
  Rutherglen and Cambuslang
  Rutherglen and Cambuslang
  Ayrshire Marine Construction, Hunterston
  Ayrshire Marine Construction, Hunterston
  Shetland Box (Fishing Licences)
  Shetland Box (Fishing Licences)
  Co-operative Wholesale Society (Govan)
  Co-operative Wholesale Society (Govan)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  North Sea (Geographical Limits)
  North Sea (Geographical Limits)
  Edinburgh (Unemployment Statistics)
  Edinburgh (Unemployment Statistics)
  Dundee (Textile Industry)
  Dundee (Textile Industry)
  Engineering Industry (Apprentices)
  Engineering Industry (Apprentices)

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

The Palmé Commission Report
Lord Mayhew: 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 have studied the recommendations of the Palmé Commission report, and what conclusions they have reached.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I welcomed this important report in the House on the 16th June, and gave the Government's views on its main proposals, many of which are in line with our own approach. We believe that the report makes a valuable contribution to informed debate about disarmament and security issues.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the report is most unusual in having been produced and signed by people of real standing on both sides of the Iron Curtain? Can he say which of its specific recommendations the Government now accept?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree that the report is very valuable, for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. I think that I would pick out as being of particular value in its recommendations, first, that it specifically excludes unilateral disarmament; secondly, that it emphasises the importance of verification in arms control; and thirdly, that it recognises that the best way of making progress is through specific and balanced agreements step by step.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in seeking to limit the use of nuclear weapons and to prevent theatre nuclear war, the Palmé Commission—which we, too, on this side support—recommends negotiations on the deployment of conventional forces? Will he assure the House that the Government will do all that they can to help to revitalise the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions as suggested by the Palmé Commission?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, by meeting a major stated Eastern requirement—firm commitments by all participants from the outset—the alliance, in an initiative which was taken at the beginning of July has, I think, again demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment in mutual and balanced force reductions
522
to reaching an effective agreement involving significant reductions, adequate verification, and lower equal ceilings. We are still awaiting a reply to the July initiative.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while I appreciate the welcome that the Government have given to the report, may I ask whether they will carry out their welcome by supporting in the Geneva Committee on Disarmament the comprehensive programme for disarmament that is endorsed in the report?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we certainly wish to work for a comprehensive test ban, and we have, of course, been active in supporting the setting up in the Disarmament Committee at Geneva of a working group to look at the particularly difficult problem of verification.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that one of the most interesting proposals in the report is that for a 150 kilometre-wide nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone on each side of the Iron Curtain?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that verification is quintessential in all these things?—because no matter what agreements are reached, people will be suspicious of one another unless there are guaranteed results of proper verification. Therefore, towards this end ought not the Government perhaps to consider the establishment of a fully qualified, independent body which could produce the fruits of verification to make disarmament an accepted reality throughout the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, that is an interesting question, and the noble Lord hits the nail right on the head, because the Western powers have made proposals for arbitration on force levels in the MBFR talks in Vienna. This, again, is an initiative to which we await a response.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State aware of the difference between a nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone and a nuclear weapon-free zone? Is he aware that the report recommends the former, but does not recommend the latter?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord if I got him wrong in his original supplementary question, but I think that the answer remains, no, because in both cases there is a difficulty of targeting. This is the problem, and if you declare a zone to be nuclear-free, it may be nuclear-free for those who are of good intention, but those who are not of good intention can simply station their nuclear weapons just outside the zone and target them on the zone.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that a nuclear battlefield weapon-free zone is not a nuclear weapon-free zone, and that therefore his last answer was inapplicable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I had better look carefully at what the noble Lord has said and at what I have said, and if I have misled the noble Lord or the House, I shall, of course, write to him.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most of us partially welcome what he has said? But is he also aware that in the Palmé Commission report an emphasis is placed on securing world peace by asking for a partnership between the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and an approach to third world countries, so as to encourage among those countries the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by extending aid and, I hope, lifting the standards of living of the countries?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is asking me about two things, So far as the third world countries are concerned, may I make it crystal clear that the Government welcome anything which can be done to see that the valuable provisions of the non-proliferation treaty are really made to stick. So far as concerns the proposal in the report for a concordat of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the Government feel that this is something which really would not work. We feel that the Falklands, Afghanistan and other crises suggest that the United Nations would rarely have sufficient warning time to achieve the kind of conflict prevention which is advocated in the report on that particular point.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, referring to the answer that the Minister gave to my earlier question, is he aware that I was not referring only to a test ban on nuclear weapons but to the comprehensive programme for disarmament now being discussed at Geneva? What is the Government's attitude towards that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, our attitude is for a step-by-step approach, and this is why we welcome the individual negotiations on intermediate nuclear forces, and on strategic forces, both in Geneva, and on mutual and balanced force reductions, in Vienna.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the new leader of the Soviet Union has declared that Soviet policy rests upon the invincible might of the Soviet Union, and will he therefore take care to see that the Soviet Union takes some steps in this direction before others commit themselves?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I entirely agree with the force of his question.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that if nuclear weapons were abolished all the way round then the Russians would have vast superiority in ordinary troops over Britain and the rest of Europe?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords, and this is why we are endeavouring to proceed step-by-step, not only so far as nuclear weapons are concerned but also so far as conventional forces are concerned.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is only a simple question, my Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have now had nine minutes on the first Question. Perhaps I may suggest that we take one more very short supplementary question and then move on.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that if we are going to get armament reduction and agreement we need the Soviet Union to have a sense of some security; and that while we oppose their ambitions, we recognise that in the case of their own territories, liberalisation must come from within and not from without?
Lord Belstead: But, my Lords, surely, as the speech of my noble friend Lord Home made clear in the debate on the gracious Speech only a week ago, all arguments—moral, strategic and security arguments—point towards the desirability of mutual and balanced force reductions. If we can achieve that in both the nuclear and conventional fields, that would give the security which the noble Lord is speaking about, not only for the Western powers but for the Soviet Union as well.

Opticians: NHS Fee Payments
2.47 p.m.
Lord Rugby: 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 make a Statement on the "unintended profits" of opticians of £6 million caused through the falsifying of statements rendered to the DHSS; and also on the back payment of £70–90 million with particular reference to which part of the trade qualifies for such payment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, opticians have always complied with the prescribed system and claimed the reimbursement rates laid down in a statutory statement, as they are required to do, and it is wholly wrong to assert that the "unintended profits" have arisen through opticians falsifying statements to the DHSS. After discussion with representatives of opticians, the Department of Health has decided that £6 million should be withheld from the arrears of NHS fees due to opticians pending the results of a detailed inquiry into the prices actually paid by opticians for NHS lenses and frames. Negotiations on NHS fees and the appropriate amount of arrears due are now in their final stages. When fee arrears have been finally settled, they will be paid to all ophthalmic and dispensing opticians who provided NHS services during the periods to which the arrrears relate.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord: has there not been a very considerable degree of purchasing of cheaper lenses and appliances from Far East countries and then the sending in of accounts to the Department of Health and Social Security as though those items had been purchased from prescription houses in this country, as a result of which a large number of highly skilled workmen have been laid off, machinery has been unused and, generally speaking, the prescription houses which rely on this particular work from the Department of Health and Social Security have been done out of their legitimate profit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, opticians are entitled to purchase their lenses or their frames from wherever they please, provided, of course, that the items they acquire meet the required standards, and they are then entitled to claim reimbursement at standard rates. Of course, all this is in the context of arrears of some £60 million or £70 million, or even more, due to opticians, which have arisen over the last four years or so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that perhaps there is a case to be made for the department not only buying British but seeing that it is supplying British?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the important thing is to be sure that we get the best value for money out of the sums of money that we make available for these purposes, and to make our purchasing arrangements accordingly.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the Minister saying that opticians have the right to buy their frames and lenses from any part of the world and, if they get them at a very cheap rate, to charge something really exorbitant because a much higher figure is in the agreement between the opticians and the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was the arrangement in the past in view of the fact that reimbursement was at a standard rate. That is one of the things that we are looking at now.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in many parts of this House and in another place as well there is great distress at the exceptionally high price which has to be paid in this country for spectacles? We are under the impression and we were told that the Office of Fair Trading was looking into all these arrangements. One year has elapsed since that body was given this remit. Can my noble friend say when we are going to get this report? We want to get on with it and try to clean up the arrangements for cheap, effective and good quality spectacles in this country as are available elsewhere at a much lower price.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the case that there was some anxiety about the prices charged for private spectacles. I am happy to say that there has been some indication of these prices having gone down in recent months following our new arrangements with regard to National Health Service spectacles, because opticians used to maintain that they had to subsidise
526
the production of health service appliances from the profits that they made from the supply of private spectacles. We are seeing to it that that arrangement is put right. As for the investigation by the Director-General of Fair Trading, I cannot hide from my noble friend the Government's considerable disappointment that it has not been possible for the Director-General to produce his report so far. I had hoped to be able to give your Lordships today a date by when he would have been able to do it; but that is still not possible. We hope that it will be by the end of this year.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the charge of falsifying statements to the DHSS is a very serious charge indeed? Furthermore, is it true? If it is not true, then I would suggest to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, should withdraw that particular charge.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have endeavoured to explain that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, is mistaken in the assertion contained in his Question; but anything after that is for the noble Lord himself.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I got these assertions from the newspapers. It was very widely reported and nobody at that time secured a libel action against the newspapers. If it is true that opticians are in fact falsifying the accounts, may we be assured that such people will be brought to court and that the due processes of the law will be brought about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must emphasise that the Government have no evidence of any falsification of accounts such as the noble Lord sugests; but he must use his sources from where he finds them.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Government have the power to claw back in recompense their £6 million. Who is going to recompense the people who have paid too much for their spectacles?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring to private customers or health service customers. Health service customers get their spectacles in accordance with the provisions of the health service scheme under which they pay a fixed charge.

Video Horror Films
2.55 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 make a Statement on Government policy with regard to prosecution of traders in video horror films which offend against the Obscene Publications Act.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the decision whether or not to prosecute does not rest with the Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions will continue to

527
consider each case on its merits, but has recently stated that it is his present policy to institute criminal proceedings under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 where circumstances warrant it. In a number of recent cases forfeiture orders have been made in courts of summary jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act following searches under warrant by the police.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that there seems still to be some need for the Director of Public Prosecutions to clear his mind on the line which my noble and learned friend has just explained? Because last September in the Croydon Magistrates' Court summonses were taken out by a Scotland Yard chief superintendent, under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, which would have committed the Astra Video Company to trial before a jury and, on conviction, to a custodial sentence, and the DPP's representative had these summonses stopped so that the prosecution proceeded under Section 3, with only a possible punishment of forfeiture of the objectionable tapes. As these video tapes were declared by the magistrates to be of an exceptionally violent nature, I would ask that my noble and learned friend would confirm that he himself is confident that the Director of Public Prosecutions does understand that we in Parliament expect that the law on obscene publications, weak though it may be, be allowed to be prosecuted with the full force that Parliament has given to it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate or constitutionally correct for me to discuss a particular case which has been heard by the courts. I am sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions has the same freedom of action as have other prosecuting authorities in relation to what kind of proceedings to undertake and when to undertake them. There are difficulties in relation to a successful prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act and the application of statutory definition must ultimately be one for the courts. I do not think that I can properly express my own view with regard to a particular case. I am sure that the Director was responsible in the quasi -judicial decision (to use slightly inaccurate language) that he took.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, in spite of the explanation by the noble and learned Lord, there appears to be something very vague about this matter. Could the noble and learned Lord explain how one decides what is an offence against the Obscene Publications Act? Is it a matter of personal judgment or can the law be invoked? If the law can be invoked, why is it not invoked? Is there some reason why some people who offend within the Soho area of London are allowed to escape?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as with any other criminal offence it is for a judge and jury to decide whether there has been a breach of the law. The prosecuting authority has to decide, first of all, whether a case has been made which is likely to result
528
in a conviction rather than otherwise and, secondly, whether the public interest demands prosecution in that particular case. Because the case is under the Obscene Publications Act it does not differ from any other form of criminal offence. There are certain proceedings which can only be taken with the consent, I think, of the Attorney.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow himself to say, as a matter of public policy, in view of the enormous power, and increasingly enormous power, of these communication devices to influence human behaviour, that it is essential to use every means under the law to enforce a reasonable standard of decency and taste?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that I said exactly that the question of prosecution was not a matter for Government responsibility but for the prosecuting authorities. I regard that as a very important constitutional principle. That is what is inhibiting me from stating my own view about this particular matter.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend not agree that in matters of this kind forfeiture is very seldom likely to be enough; that prosecution against distribution is the critical element that we are seeking to pursue?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it depends upon the case. Forfeiture may be enough or it may not. What I have said is that the Director of Public Prosecutions has stated his intention of prosecuting under Section 2 where the circumstances warrant it.

Iranians: Deportation
3 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Iranians have been deported back to Iran between 1st January and 1st October 1982, and whether, given that the Govenment apparently agree that Iranians who can be shown to be on a "special visit" will be treated sympathetically, it will now be possible to make it clearer to which individual cases this policy is likely to apply.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, 28 Iranians have been deported from the United Kingdom between 1st January and 30th Spetember 1982; I regret that it is not possible to say in how many of these cases the removal directions specified return to Iran. All decisions to deport are kept under review and reconsidered before departure is enforced.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that applications from Iranian nationals who express a fear of return will be considered sympathetically and that, where the grant of asylum is considered inappropriate and the applicant does not otherwise qualify to remain, the granting of leave to remain exceptionally to the immigration rules will be

529
considered. But my right honourable friend is not persuaded that it would be right to allow all Iranians to remain in this country regardless of their circumstances. Every case is considered on its individual merits.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that fairly satisfactory reply. May I, however, ask him whether the Government agree that almost any Iranian who returns now to his country after a reasonably long period in this country may be in some danger of being judicially murdered by the existing Government on the grounds that he is doubtfully Islamic in his outlook? Will not therefore the Government at least see to it that the existing regulations can be stretched as far as possible so as to avoid adding to the already long list of assassinations by the Ayatollah Khomeini?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the problems associated with returning Iranians to Iran. The noble Lord may like to know that since 1st January 1979 some 5,000 Iranians have expressed a fear to return to Iran; 3,800 have been granted asylum and 63 have been granted exceptional leave to remain. Six hundred and forty-four applications have been refused and the remainder have either been withdrawn or are still under consideration.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that out of my limited experience—having spent a number of years in Iran trying to promote agriculture there—every single person with whom I dealt, minister, civil servant or others, has been murdered? Will he please encourage the Government to avoid sending anybody back who is in that danger?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take careful note of what the noble Lord has said. The Government work very much, as will be understood, in the principle that not every case is the same and that individual cases must be treated on their merits. There is no exceptional evidence to suggest that people are always being murdered when they go back to Iran.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what has been the fate of those who have been sent back? Is there information available about that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no. Nothing particular is known about their fate. Despite repeated allegations that some of those deported were executed or imprisoned upon arrival in Iran, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been unable to establish that such was the case. Certain names have been provided and these have been identified from Home Office records. But in no case where the person involved is alleged to have come to harm was deportation or enforced departure actually involved.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to tell the House whether any of the 28 who were deported were refugees within the definition of Article 1 of the United Nations convention?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords. I am afraid that I am not able to give that information, but I shall be happy to find out and write to the noble Lord about it.

Science and Technology
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

Adrian, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Flowers, L.

Gregson, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Jeger, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Melchett, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Shackleton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Todd, L. (Chairman)

Tordoff, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session—

Airedale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Derwent, L.

Hayter, L.

Jacques, L.

531

Listowel, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Renton, L.

Simon, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled People: "Charter for the 80s"
3.5 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell Lord Wells-Pestell rose to call attention to the need for a comprehensive approach to the integration of and equal participation by people with disabilities in the community, as recommended in the world Charter for the 1980s; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many of your Lordships may feel that I ought to apologise for introducing this matter again. It is perfectly true that during the five years of the last Government and the three years of this Government we have considered the question of the disabled on a number of occasions. But unless one constantly refers this matter to the House, it is liable to be overlooked and, to some extent, forgotten.
It is a very wide field; and because it is a wide field I want to say that it is not my intention to deal with every facet which comes within this particular subject. In the first place, I do not propose to deal with or comment on the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, known as CORAD, which functioned under the very able—and I was going to say distinguished—chairmanship of Mr. Peter Large. Those of us who have worked in the department—albeit even as a junior Minister—will know the value of his contribution to society in this particular field. The committee's report makes an outstanding contribution to the problem, and I understand that some speakers will refer to it today. I ought not to do so because I believe that my noble friend Lord Ingleby will be speaking about the work of CORAD. I do not think that it needs two of us to do so, and he is far more competent to say something about it than I am. It is also true that I have been able to ascertain that a number of matters which I proposed to deal with will be dealt with by other noble Lords.
It is now nearly two years since the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, introduced in this House the debate calling attention to the International Year of Disabled Persons. That debate was on 14th January 1981. It is 18 months since a Motion was put down in another place urging the Government to begin discussions on a programme of action to maintain the impetus of the International Year in the years ahead. Perhaps it would be understandable if I asked the noble Lord the Minister whether he will indicate what the Government have done in that respect.
It is exactly one year and six days since the Prime Minister accepted the Rehabilitation International world Charter for the 80s, urging the Government to
532
prepare a comprehensive national plan to achieve the full integration of and equal participation by disabled people in our society. Again, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have moved in this matter, and whether they have so far achieved anything. It may well be that I cannot get all these replies today, and I accept that and understand it.
At the beginning of the year, no one was foolish enough to think that the International Year of Disabled Persons would be a magic wand which would solve all the problems related to disabled people and end all discrimination and prejudice. But there is a general consensus that the voluntary organisations, the media and the public generally responded magnificently to the International Year of Disabled Persons. Unfortunately—I do not say this with any bitterness at all—the Government response was and has been very disappointing. Briefly, the aims of the Year—and I will give perhaps four of them—were to increase public awareness of the needs of disabled people and their disabilities, to ensure that disabled people can participate on terms of equality as fully integrated members of society, to prevent disability and to promote a more positive attitude towards disabled people.
Those of us who are disabled perhaps have the good fortune not to show it very much. But I can remember quite recently, as a patron of an organisation for the disabled in Oxford, talking to a young man in a wheelchair who has a degree from the Open University. Somebody came up and asked me, "Would you like a cup of coffee?" I said, "Yes". "Would he like a cup of coffee?" I said, "Would you?" He said, "Yes". She said, "Does he take sugar?" That is the sort of thing that happens. Of course it is funny unless you are in a wheelchair and, believe me, I am rather surprised that it does not cause some of the people to be so incensed that they get out of the wheelchair and strike the person. Certainly, however, that was an indication that somebody was trying.
What did the year achieve? It is generally agreed that most progress was made in the area of attitudes. Here the media played a very important role: not only were there many special programmes about disability, but it was encouraging to see the features about disabled drivers in ordinary motoring programmes and about holiday facilities for disabled people, and also general travel programmes. The Year brought disability if I may say so, for perhaps the very first time, to the attention of the people, showing the barriers that society has erected between the able bodied and the disabled and encouraging them to help to find solutions. Many people also discovered that those we have labelled "the disabled" were in fact individuals with strengths and shortcomings, feelings and aspirations like everyone else in society, including your Lordships. Even more encouragingly, there was much more co-operation between the voluntary associations at local and national levels, and particularly between organisations dealing with different disabilities, compared with their former parochialism.
It was at the local level that there was perhaps the greatest activity. Special IYDP groups, associations of disabled people and councils of voluntary service initiated a variety of projects such as respite care schemes, campaigns on taking up benefits, access projects, special exhibitions and fund-raising projects.

533
Often these were joint initiatives with local authorities and other groups not usually concerned with disability.
Here I want to pay tribute to the work of four IYDP committees for each of the countries in the United Kingdom. I want to pay tribute to their chairmen, though this is not possible in the first instance, of the late Sir Christopher Aston, who was responsible for the regional committee for England. A very old and much appreciated friend of some of us, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is responsible for the whole of Scotland, and I always think that must be a most terrible job. Then there was Mr. Alastair Wood for Wales and Colonel Hughes for Northern Ireland. They did a magnificent job, and although I cannot thank the other three personally, I would, not only on behalf of the disabled community in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom, express gratitude to and thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the magnificent contribution he made as one of the chairmen of the four areas. It is also true that one has to say a word or two of appreciation to the secretaries of the IYDP and their staff and all the disabled groups in the country and those who lead them, both able bodied and those with a disability, because in many of these clubs some people are in wheelchairs and others not, but when it comes to acting and doing things, except in terms of mobility, there is not very much to choose between the physically handicapped and the able bodied.
I think mention should be made of the inspired lead and the very practical assistance which was given by the president of the Year. I am delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, today, as will be everybody in your Lordships' House. I can remember, when I had difficulty in walking, that he was going to put on a wheelchair at an absurdly low price, and he invited me to try it. It is this sort of thing that people in your Lordships' House do but the wider public knows very little about it. I did not know whether the noble Earl would be coming today, but I think I speak on behalf of all of us, and certainly on behalf of the disabled, when I say that we are delighted to see him here and always will be delighted to see him here.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I wanted to say something about the role of the voluntary sector. The IYDP was a triumph for the voluntary sector. It showed its strengths and obviously revealed its weaknesses. The voluntary sector is obviously more innovative and adventurous than the statutory bodies, and can provide a more flexible personalised form of care. The state cannot afford to experiment; it is too costly. But the voluntary organisations can, and the best provision is that based on co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary services. I do not want to mention any particular one. The one it was suggested to me that I should mention happens to be one of which both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I are patrons, although the person who suggested the name to me did not know this. So perhaps I should not mention any of them.
We denigrate and abuse the voluntary sector if we expect it to fulfil a role for which it was not designed.
534
It cannot match the statutory sector in terms of resources, administrative structure and the manpower necessary to provide the basic comprehensive social services. The discrepancies in provision between local authorities and health authorities are the cause of a good deal of concern that the voluntary sector is even more prone to patchiness in the provision between geographical areas and social groups and with an unfortunate tendency to divide disabilities into "popular" and "unpopular" disabilities. For example, mental health is not a popular disability and to a large extent mentally-ill people missed out on the Year, even though they were included in the original aims. I think this was a fear expressed, if I remember rightly, at the beginning of the Year by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw.
I want now to turn to the Government. Since the International Year of Disabled Persons, they have been basking in the reflected glory of the success of the voluntary sector, handing out prizes at the same time as the voluntary sector has had increasingly to take on a statutory role because of cuts in services. I put it mildly because I do not want to be disagreeable; but the Government have been handing out trophies for doing the work they themselves should be doing. For example, the first prize in the IYDP award scheme was won by the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and for social rehabilitation courses preparing young people with those disabilities who want to live as independently as possible. However, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus have expressed concern that the Government policies are causiung additional hardship to disabled people. The association are now paying out far more in welfare grants for needs previously met by the statutory services. This puts not only a severe strain but a severe test on a voluntary organisation, when they have to spend more and more time getting in money, which often means less and less effective work, because you cannot do the two together.
On the other hand, while praising the good work being done by the charities, the Chancellor has been clawing back a substantial part of their income in VAT. In 1980–81, eight of the largest welfare charities lost £1·3 million in VAT on many of the same services for which local authorities are zero-rated. It really is a bit too much, when you prevail upon people to face up to their responsibilities as citizens in a community, and part of it has to go in VAT. As Brian Rix, the Secretary-General of Royal Mencap commented:
"We are running a service for charity and we are being clobbered."
The most outrageous example of voluntary organisations having to do the Government's job is the project by RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, and 13 other charities on the enforcement of Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. As I said in this House, when I took part in the debate on the International Year of Disabled Persons:
"It is coming to a pretty fine pass when voluntry organisations have to consider [legal action] against a local authority … to enforce"—[Official Report, 14/1/81; col. 61.]—
the Act of Parliament.
The Secretary of State's response to the cases referred by the charities has been disgracefully

535
complacent. RADAR complained that they were waiting an average of six months for a reply from the Secretary of State who, although he has intervened in the cases of several individuals, has consistently refused to investigate general policies of local authorities or to direct them to clear their waiting lists. I do not want to be unfair—it is so easy to be unfair—but I do not think it is unfair to say that the Government have passed the buck to voluntary organisations and have refused to give them cash, which they have replaced by kudos.
We were warned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when we had the debate on 14th January last year, that there would be no money. The noble Baroness said:
"I have no doubt that… the Government, and local government, will be asked to find more resources for a great many good causes, and I am equally certain that I shall have to resist these demands. As a consequence, once again, the Government will be described as uncaring and willing only to pay lip-service to the International Year of Disabled People".—[Official Report; col. 53.]
I told the Baroness that I would be quoting that—it was only fair to do so—and she thought it quite reasonable that I should.
Unfortunately, unlike the rest of the population, the Government's attitude towards disabled people did not change and there was no more money. That was to be expected, but we did not expect that disabled people would actually lose out during the year; that they would actually slip back. For example, £650,000 invalidity pensioners had their benefit cut by nearly 5 per cent. in real terms, which meant a loss of £60 a year for the single person and £96 a year for the married couple. It is the wrong end at which to save money. I am sure that the Minister will give a long list of measures which the Government took during the year, but, in fact, most of those were of very little substance at virtually no cost.
There is so much more that I wanted to say, but I have spoken for 19 minutes and we have a large number of people who want to take part. I have not touched on matters such as education, which I intended to do; I have not said anything at all about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which I intended to do; I have said nothing at all about employment, which, again, I intended to do and I have said nothing at all about various other matters which impinge on this debate. I apologise for not completing what I intended to say, but I am sure that the t's that are left uncrossed and the i's that are left undotted will be taken up by my friends who will be following me. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for raising this important matter this afternoon and for the way in which he has done so. I listened with great interest and much sympathy to what he had to say. He was right in indicating that there is a great danger that the interest aroused in 1981 by the International Year of Disabled Persons may be allowed to dissipate.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to Sir Christopher Aston, the chairman of the IYDP (England). He, in his report, said:
536
"The value of much of IYDP's work will be lost, unless we have a plan of action for the '80s",
and the Charter for the 80s, which is referred to in the Motion, and which is produced by Rehabilitation International, is one such plan. It is really based upon five simple principles—prevention, rehabilitation, integration, participation and education. What is aimed for, of course, is equal opportunity and measures to neutralise, so far as possible, the effects of disability. No special privileges are asked for, but discrimination against the disabled is opposed; though there has to be, perhaps, some positive discrimination.
When people are at a disadvantage, it is sometimes necessary, in order to even things up, to provide a certain measure of what might be called positive discrimination in their favour. For example, enforcement of the quota of disabled people to be employed might be regarded as positive discrimination. The removal of barriers to provide access for the disabled might also be so considered. The Charter for the 80s states:
"At least 25 per cent. of the people in any population are adversely affected by the presence of disability."
That is a rather startling statement. Of course, some disablement is not apparent, but able-bodied people—and this is the point—can be crucially affected by the disablement of others. So if 25 per cent. are affected in one way or another, this is clearly not a problem of a small minority.
We were much concerned in this House a little while ago with the integration of handicapped children into the normal school system, and that at once involves not only the handicapped children themselves, but parents, brothers and sisters, other children, teachers and staff. We on this side of the House were afraid then that the Government's intentions might be frustrated by the lack of resources, so we must monitor carefully progress in this field.
But the majority of handicapped people are over age 65. Fifty-eight per cent. of handicapped people are over age 65 and 28 per cent. of handicapped people are over age 75, and the increasing number of the very old means that this number is being continually added to. It is estimated that, between now and the year 2001, an extra 493,000 persons will be in the age 75 and over category, and an extra 288,000 in the age 85 and over category. That is an increase in the latter category—the over-85s—of 52 per cent. If, as is natural, there is a heavy incidence of handicap in those age groups, then we see that there is an increasing problem of providing the proper resources to integrate these people into the community. The object must be to provide care in the community for as many as possible. The principle of integration demands that we do this. As Age Concern say:
"The desirability of keeping elderly people in their homes has become an accepted wisdom".
But again the problem is resources. The Select Committee on Social Services in another place recently concluded in its report on public spending that the personal social services were already falling behind in the care of the frail elderly. "Services", they say, "are almost certainly insufficient to meet growing demands". Day care places have fallen in proportion to the population over 75 since 1975–80. Home help hours of service to those over 75 have failed by 8 per cent. to keep pace with the growing numbers of elderly

537
people. Meals served to those over 75 have failed by 11.6 per cent. to keep pace. These are the conclusions of the Select Committee, and I should like to ask whether the Government agree that these conclusions are correct.
I should much appreciate an answer on that point, because, if these conclusions are correct, this is a serious and worrying situation. But the amount spent on the personal social services—the local authority social services—is under £2 billion a year, compared with £32 billion spent on social security, £11 billion on the National Health Service and a total of £115 billion for all the Government's expenditure. We could increase appreciably—say, by 10 per cent.—expenditure on the personal social services without a very great effect on the overall national budget.
Now consider the allowance for the carer—the help for the carer. When we do this we are passing from the sphere of the personal social services to the much more extensive sphere of social security. The majority of carers, research tells us, are married women, but they do not qualify for the invalid care allowance which is going up this month to £19.70 per week. The income care allowance is paid to married and cohabiting men but not to married and cohabiting women. When he replies to the debate, I wonder if the Minister can say whether he agrees that that is an unjustifiable discrimination. It would cost £40 million to rectify, but the £19.50 itself would need to be increased if there is to be a proper carers' benefit. I am not talking at the moment about whether or not we can afford it. I am merely trying to indicate how we fall short of what seems to be the minimum necessary to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves.
There was the pledge to restore the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit when the benefit was made taxable. I wonder whether any date has been set for that, and what the Government are doing about the invalidity trap where those with earnings slightly below the upper limit can never qualify for the upper limit. What is going to be done to put that right?
Considering further the position of the handicapped themselves, what is the current thinking of the Government about the desirability of establishing as soon as possible a disablement income consisting of two parts: one part which would replace inability, or partial inability to earn and another part which would make a contribution towards the additional expenses which disabled people inevitably have? I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that.
Moving from cash to discrimination, I should like to ask the Government what their views are—indeed, I should like to know what are the views of the House—on the possibility of legislation to make discrimination against the disabled unlawful. Many feel, like the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred, that legislation is necessary to give sufficient backing to the disabled in their fight for greater equality of opportunity.
Speaking from these Benches, I am well aware of the danger of surrounding the individual with too many restrictions on his personal conduct, yet we on these Benches have fully supported legislation to deal with discrimination on grounds of race or sex. It may be that similar legislation is required to deal with discrim-
538
ination on grounds of disability and perhaps, too, on grounds of age. It would help us to decide this question if the Government would commission some thorough research into discrimination against the disabled. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the Government's thinking on these matters.
The Charter for the 80s asks that in each country there should be established an office or the appointment of an individual directly responsible to the head of Government to have primary responsibility for the implementation of a comprehensive plan dealing with disability. Are the Government satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination and cohesion in their organisation for dealing with this matter through a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security who also has responsibility for the whole complex social security system?
Finally, are the Government satisfied that, in the words of the charter:
"all necessary steps [are being taken] to ensure the fullest possible integration of and equal participation by people with disabilities in all aspects of the life of their communities"?
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, many of your Lordships already show much concern about the needs and aspirations of disabled people. The very provision this afternoon of extra space for wheelchairs on the Floor of the Chamber is proof of this, and it is something for which I certainly am extremely grateful. So it could seem as though it might almost be belabouring the point unnecessarily to parade our case once again. But there continue to be gaps in provision which really do call for attention, as we have heard from the two noble Lords who have already spoken. Thus, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, serves a very valuable purpose in initiating this debate in step with Charter for the 80s, and I am very grateful to him.
Rehabilitation is a much overworked word, but it has an important range of uses, so it is not surprising that it crops up very often in the charter. Last week, the Minister for disabled people, Mr. Hugh Rossi, told of seven new demonstration centres in medical rehabilitation, of RADAR's new communication aids centre and of the Department of Health and Social Security's support for an extra 30 occupational therapy students in the current academic year. The fact is, I believe, that until this academie year the department supported a new intake of 551 first year occupational therapy students. Earlier this year it was decided to increase the number of students to 581. And that was not all. The department also let health authorities know that there were some places available in schools for students individually sponsored by authorities. So an extra 54 students are being supported in this way, giving a total of 635 new occupational therapy students entering training this year.
These are three examples to illustrate the importance which Mr. Rossi places on rehabilitation, which he says he sees as a means of enabling someone to return to an independent and productive life which brings greater happiness all round. That was one of the ways in which he saw rehabilitation as a good investment for society as a whole. Of course, the Minister is absolutely right, and I believe that one of the finest means of rehabilitation is to be trained for,

539
and to get, an opening in gainful employment. Although the middle of a recession may not be the best moment for this, the marvel is that progress made in electronics and in the computer and microchip industry makes it feasible now for even very severely disabled people—those with flail upper limbs or respiratory troubles, for example—to have a much wider employment prospect. This is particularly relevant for patients at a place with which I am connected, the Phipps Respiratory Unit, so I do know quite a bit about it.
Of course, there are some whose physical condition allows them to work only part-time. Nevertheless, such new opportunities really do deserve the very maximum encouragement. Alas, as things are, there is a great disincentive to whatever part-time employment some disabled people can manage. On 23rd June there was a debate in your Lordships' House initiated by my Unstarred Question about partial incapacity to earn and the disincentive of the therapeutic earnings rule, when we discussed these matters, The fact is, in effect, that today a disabled employee who earns more than £16.50 per week (which is to rise to £20 a week very shortly) becomes liable to lose the whole of his invalidity benefit. Let me remind your Lordships that the basic rate of invalidity benefit will soon rise to £28.35 per week, and that is a sum which a disabled person just cannot afford to put in jeopardy.
During the course of our debate in June, the Minister was kind enough to explain that those who are disabled but who retain some capacity for work are debarred from normal incapacity benefit. The theory is, presumably, that it is not supposed to be in one's best health interests to work as much as one wants and as much as one can do. So the therapeutic earnings limit is the amount to which a doctor may prescribe work for a disabled patient; that is the theory. In practice, usually this is not what happens at all. No doctor ever prescribed work nor found a job for me—why should he have done so? Like may others, I took whatever job happened to appear which was within my capacity. The question of the earnings limit was a matter between me and the social security office, leaving me fairly puzzled that my keenness to work should be snubbed in this way. Was it really the general intention to restrict somebody severely disabled at a difficult point in his or her earnings level?
A happy aspect of the June debate was provided by my noble friend the Minister, and I quote:
"We have been persuaded that there is a problem and that we must look carefully at all possible solutions to it".
There have been statements also from the Minister for disabled people, revealing that the present situation is seen to be unacceptable. The clearest ray of hope of creating a partial incapacity benefit appears to me to shine out from the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit for the Multiple Sclerosis Society. This recommends that changes within the present law of invalidity benefit would be the easiest and cheapest method of achieving it. They claim that it would save the economy in the region of £5 million. I shall not presume to explain the basis of its arguments, but the co-authors have very good reason for contending there are fears that people now working full-time will filter in on the part-time level, but those fears can be provided
540
for by isolating certain illnesses of which those known to have fatigue as a characteristic would be prominent.
There had been fears that the BMA would not wish to undertake the assessment required. Now there is very clear evidence that the BMA would have no objection whatsoever to GPs carrying out an assessment of partial incapacity, provided that the doctors are authorised on a fee basis by the DHSS. It further appears that the BMA does not see any reason why provision of partial incapacity should represent any substantial cost to the economy, with the basic structure already there. It does appear that this particular time could be very propitious for the provision of partial incapacity benefit. There are two more reasons.
The Department of Employment has been good enough to say that every effort will be made to ensure that disabled people are able to participate in job-splitting schemes. This is most welcome, but the irony is that those who suffer partial incapacity may not be eligible to join such schemes, where the prerequisite is to have been in receipt of unemployment benefit—the sort one can receive only if one is seeking full-time employment. So that needs tidying up. My second point in favour of immediate action is a report prepared by the Open University for the European Economic Commission. In its final draft, it emphasised the need for an employment policy to be considered in conjunction with social security benefits in countries with no recognition or inadequate recognition of partial incapacity. It is believed that the report will carry considerable weight in policy development within the EEC.
It seems to me that we in this country have the chance now to try and make use of an important scheme, both economic and humane, in line with the Government's admirable philosophy to help make the very most of everyone's enterprise and initiative, despite their handicap or whatever. It appears that Ministers see the need to abolish the glaring anomaly which at present exists. They have spoken of the advice from the Social Service Advisory Committee, on which they rely to some extent, as on the work of the Civil Service as to the exact cost of the scheme. I do ask—I do more and implore—the SSAC to give this clear-cut scheme the favour of their wise counsel at the earliest opportunity.
At present, I understand that the Civil Service suggest that £100 million would be the expenditure involved in the report's proposals, compared with the report's estimate of a saving to the economy of £5 million at least. I ask them, please, to try to see the merit of our argument and, if possible, to move fast on a matter which has cried out for attention for a decade. Even if the scheme suggested did not succeed (and this I find hard to visualise) there is another categorical demand: for an end to the earnings restriction on invalidity basic income. This is contained in a very new document available from the Printed Paper Office. It is the Minutes of Evidence of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's sub-committee in another place on the structure on personal income taxation and income support. This is one more indication that the thinking public is not prepared for the wish to work to be squashed in disabled people.
Finally, may I repeat that the chance to work remuneratively can be the best form of rehabilitation for disabled people. For this reason I humbly submit

541
that a partial incapacity benefit is an important factor in the charter under debate.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing this matter before us again. It is obviously a subject upon which we need constantly to be reminded. There are still too many who regard disabled people as being a race apart. I was going to use the illustration of the sugar, as the noble Lord has already done; nevertheless I forgive him, and I apologise to him that I cannot remain for the whole of the debate.
In church we pray from time to time, in the words of the old Book, for all sorts and conditions of men. And many people forget—and there is something in all of us perhaps that forgets—that the disabled are in fact whole people. They are certainly as whole as the rest of us, with the same emotional and physical and spiritual needs as everybody else has. I would like to quote from the annual report of the Royal Association for the Deaf and Dumb. Of course, their affliction is not visible to the naked eye and they often feel passed over. Their annual report reads:
"Disabled people would like those who have no obvious recogniseable disability to realise that they share the same humanity, the same feelings as the rest of humanity. They would like the rest of humanity to know that they are just as entitled to have such feelings, however strong or passionate, irrational or sensitive, or sinful or idiocyncratic they might be, as their non-disabled counterparts. They would like to have these feelings recognised, accepted and valued. As long as disabled people are not accepted by their standards as real people, equal people, then whatever is done for them and with them is only, in their opinion, scratching the surface of the problem. Disabled people do not wish for a dichotomy of function and feelings. As whole persons they cannot see themselves as functioning to their own satisfaction unless their feelings also are taken into consideration".
Among such feelings one of the most powerful is the sexual side of our nature. Society appears still to have very great reservations regarding the development of deep personal relationships between handicapped people, whether the handicap be mental or physical. Mencap (that is the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults) found public attitudes towards the mentally handicapped even harsher than for those who are physically handicapped in this respect. A public opinion survey recently revealed that only 29 per cent. of the people believed that mentally handicapped people should marry and should have children, though in fact they have the same urges and the same rights as we all have. Very often couples meet in institutions and are frequently drawn to one another and encouraged to think in terms of permanent relationships. We all must know of many such cases. They hope to set up home together and do in fact create ideal marriages, more ideal in very many cases than the marriages of those who have apparently little external handicap.
But if you want to set up home you must have a house, and finding separate self-contained accommodation is a very real problem today, for everybody, of course, but not least but rather most for those who have handicaps. Last week the General Synod of the Church of England passed by an overwhelming majority a resolution which acknowledged the role that inadequate housing plays in exacerbating health
542
problems and social problems, and called upon Her Majesty's Government to give higher priority to the construction of suitable housing. The housing of disabled people and their needs may be met in various ways; perhaps by mobility housing—that is to say, the adaptation of a building so that the doors are made wider to take chairs, where there are few steps and so on—where wheelchair units can be used.
In this area, sadly, the effects of cuts in public expenditure of over 50 per cent. have been quite devastating. I am told, and indeed it is in the Department of the Environment's housing and construction statistics, that for the first two quarters of 1981 the numbers of conversion and improvement adaptations averaged two per local authority per quarter, and the number of grants for adaptations in the private sector were less than that, less than two, with one intermediate grant per local authority each quarter. Thus, for the first two quarters of 1981 starts were made in only the same proportion of all local authority starts as in the first two quarters of 1979, and this despite last year with its special emphasis. Some local authorities are building no such houses at all; and there is an even greater drop, sadly, in the number of starts for housing associations. We have such a association, I am glad to say, in my diocese where particular concern for sheltered housing and mobility housing is made a most important end.
The figures which I have just given seem to indicate the end of the progress being made in the late 1970s, particularly in the trend to including special purpose housing among new council and housing association developments. Now the little construction that is being undertaken is entirely by specialists and there is a danger that disabled people will become isolated in ghettos. There is a need for more incentives, too, in the private sector, to recognise their role and responsibility in this area, and that with an ageing population it makes good commercial sense, apart from anything else, to include mobility housing in their developments.
We are all concerned, too, with the problems of access. Apparently the Prince of Wales drew a comparison with California, where, he says, every corner kerb on every public pavement is ramped for wheelchairs. Every public building must be accessible to the handicapped, every cinema must be equipped for wheelchairs, and all public parking facilities must provide a certain number of reserved spaces for the handicapped.
If I may again enter a personal note, in the diocese of Chelmsford we have just published a booklet of 51 pages entitled Can I Get In? which lists all the churches in the diocese. We have 660 churches, and I imagine that the other denominations have an equivalent number. They have all been listed with details of what is available and what is not in ways of getting into the place, provided, of course, that it is unlocked, which defies even those without handicap. This is a rather simple thing to do, though it took a lot of time, using a computer and one thing and another, but nevertheless it has been well received as at least a gesture in the right direction.
Physical access, however, is not to be seen as an end in itself. It is a first step, but without taking further steps it is a complete waste of time, like going to the

543
moon and then not getting out of the rocket. The disabled need to share very much more and to participate in all the things which we are enabled to do. Which brings us, of course, to financial matters, which have just been dealt with so comprehensively, if I may say so, that I need add little. May I quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech in this House last year. He said this:
"It should, I believe, be a principle of government that available resources should go first to the weakest and the most vulnerable. That means that even in a time of stringency we must try to ensure that those who begin life with mental or physical handicaps do not suffer further because of what we fail to do and inevitably end up at the bottom of a heap".—[Official Report, 14.1.81, col. 68.].
Many people deplore the decision announced by the Chancellor last week to claw back the rises in social security benefits in November 1983, following the estimated overpayments of about 2·5 per cent. next year caused by falling inflation. This, if I may say so, seems to be a missed opportunity to increase slightly a benefit for the handicapped, who are among the weakest and most vulnerable. Indeed, the Parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group only last month noted the urgent need for a comprehensive disability incomes scheme. Such a scheme would involve bringing the incomes of people with disabilities at least up to the levels of those without, and would reform the system of social security benefits so that people with equally severe disablements, irrespective of how or where they were caused, would be entitled to similar weekly allowances or pensions at realistic rates. In turn, these allowances would greatly diminish the extent to which disabled people would depend on means-tested assistance. The Conservative Party, I need not remind the Minister, committed itself in its election manifesto to the creation of a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability.
I close with another factor; that is, the spiritual needs of the disabled. The work of the Royal Association for the Deaf and Dumb, which I have already quoted, is primarily based on caring for profoundly deaf people of all ages. To help them in this work they have a trained lay staff. Spiritual care is provided by their chaplains. They work largely in London and, therefore, to a great degree in my own diocese. This dual approach, they claim, enables deaf people to realise that they are not a forgotten sector of the community as a result of the problems of communication and that they have the potential to play a full part in communal life.
The Queen's Speech included reference to a Health and Social Services Bill to implement the Government's "Care in the Community" proposals. Of course, the Churches support these proposals in large, but an unfortunate aspect of moving patients from long-term care, especially in mental handicapped hospitals, into the community is that, while spiritual and pastoral care is offered by chaplains financed through the NHS, no such provision is made for those needing continuing support from the statutory social services.
An International Year of Disabled Persons Working Group submitted a statement to the Department of Health and Social Security about this particular matter. It stated:
544
"The Working Group seeks assurance that attention will be paid to such omissions. Mentally handicapped patients in particular will require every assistance possible to establish themselves within the community: even where there is sufficient goodwill amongst caring congregations and clergy little can be achieved unless statutory workers, be they hostel staff, social workers or others, also acknowledge a responsibility to encourage and, if necessary, initiate links with local Churches where this is the wish of the individual."
I certainly wish to identify myself with those sentiments.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for initiating this important debate and for the thoughtful and moving speech with which he opened it. The fact that the subject has been debated before indicates the significance this House attaches to it. The Government have also made statements about disablement. But we cannot detach an assessment of the International Year of Disabled Persons from an analysis of the general economic and social policies of this Government. The vast majority of disabled people are still among the poorest and most vulnerable groups in our community. As the right reverend Prelate has just said in his constructive speech, the Conservative election manifesto stated that the disabled would be singled out for special help. But what is the Government's record on disability? I think it is our duty to examine this with great care.
By June 1980 the Government had already demonstrated their half-heartedness on disability to such an extent, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell reminded us, as to prompt an Opposition debate in the other place to draw attention to the Government's policies which were in conflict with their own manifesto commitment and which were creating hardship to thousands of disabled people. Some of those measures were: the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit; the change in the linking period making it more difficult to qualify for that benefit; the increase in prescription charges from 20p to £1; the abolition of exceptional needs payments for disabled people not drawing supplementary benefit; the abolition of earnings related supplement for sickness benefit; the abolition of the Parker Morris space standards for council housing, which would make them less accessible for wheelchairs, and so on. The list, I regret to say, is not a short one. Therefore, any account of the Government's measures in this special Year for disabled people which the Minister may well give us later must be seen in the context of policies which have already reduced the standard of living and created hardship for hundreds of thousands of disabled people.
Let us examine some of these measures as outlined in the DHSS booklet which all of us read at the time with considerable interest: IYDP and After—the United Kingdom Response. What has really happened to disabled people? The section in this booklet on social security headed "Personal Finance" contains the dubious statement, on page 41:
"The protection which the Government has given to long term and sick disabled people despite the economic problems of the past year is no mean achievement".
This protection included—again, I give some examples—the doubling of the blind persons' tax allowance from £180 to £360 a year; an increase in

545
mobility allowance to £16·50 a week; a 90 per cent. grant for home insulation to recipients of mobility allowance or attendance allowance who were also receiving supplementary benefit or housing benefit, and extension for eligibility for invalid care allowance to non-relatives. It would be quite wrong—indeed, it would be churlish—for me to deny that these measures were of some assistance to disabled people, but only 30,000 out of 128,000 registered blind people benefited from the increase in tax allowance and only 21,500 people received mobilituy allowance, and this does not include thousands of disabled people over 65 years or the many blind and mentally handicapped people with severe mobility problems. The extension of the invalid care allowance reinforced the discrimination against married women who are not eligible for the benefit but who make up the vast majority of those caring for elderly and handicapped dependants.
An old friend of mine who is blind called to see me at the weekend. He said that because he had not made an application for mobility before he had reached the age of 65 he is not now entitled to make the claim at all. That is reaching the heights of unfairness and, indeed, absurdity.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity pension from November 1980. The House will recall that the reason given for the cut was that IVB would be ultimately subject to tax. But the date for this recedes further into the future and as many invalidity pensioners would have incomes below the tax ceiling they are being doubly penalised. I strongly support the case which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made in her speech. Again, changes in the statutory sick pay scheme made in the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act will adversely affect many disabled people. For example, it will reduce the linking period from eight weeks to two weeks and will particularly hit disabled people who suffer from short periods of incapacity; there will be a lower rate of sick pay for lower earners; and by shifting the responsibility for payment from the state to employers there is the danger of reinforcing prejudice against disabled employees and worsening their job prospects.
Changes in the Industrial Injuries Scheme are often presented as bringing more assistance to the most severely disabled—no benefit for disability assessed at less than 10 per cent. and reduced payment for 40 per cent. and less—but in fact it is a matter of depriving one group of needy people to pay another, in line with all the Government's "nil cost" social security measures. Disabled people and their organisations have had a firm rebuff from the Government on the call for a general, non-contributory disablement income based on need, not cause of disability, with a costs allowance and provision for partial incapacity; for the extension of mobility allowance; for the extension of eligibility for ICA to married women and, eventually, a general careers benefit.
I should now like to say a brief word about the document, Care in the Community. As the House will know, the professional and voluntary organisations welcomed this consultative document and its commitment to bring mentally handicapped and mentally ill people out of hospital, but they are greatly disappointed by the Government's rejection of their
546
proposals on the planning and structure of services, and especially their unanimous insistence that a new injection of funds is necessary. Wales—and this is an area which I know well, and in which I have been privileged to work in this area—appeared to be leading the way with the announcement by the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, that he would be providing £1 million of extra cash each year beginning in 1983–84 for an initial period of five years, building up to £23 million per annnum additional expenditure after 10 years. We were delighted to hear of that initiative. However, our delight was slightly dampened by the simultaneous announcement that this extra money would be taken from the existing National Health Service budget. This seemed to us to be really negating the objectives which the Government said that they were pursuing. The effect of this on other parts of the National Health Service in Wales will become clearer after health authorities have evaluated the impact of nil growth—that is, the £52 million holdback.
Progress on transferring people from long stay institutions into the community is already being impeded by the crisis in housing—to which reference has already been made—and the personal social services. The Government plan to extend joint financing to include education and housing and voluntary organisations and, where the object of a scheme is moving people out of hospitals, allowing 100 per cent. joint financing to be extended from the standard three years to 10 years, with tapering over a further three years. This of course will be helpful, but again questions arise.
In many areas joint financing is now being used to rescue basic services such as meals-on-wheels. When hospitals and homes have closed, the money saved has contributed to cuts or asset stripping, and there has not been a transfer of resources into community services. Despite the extension of joint funding, local authorities are understandably reluctant to take on a commitment with revenue consequences for the future. It is obvious from discussions at conferences of local authorities and professional bodies concerned, that they do not believe that the same Government that is each year turning the screw on the rate support grant will in fact effect a central transfer of funds from the National Health Service to local authorities. Perhaps the Minister can give us some reassurance on this point when he replies.
Thus I move to personal social services. It does no good for Ministers to claim repeatedly that there has been a 5 per cent. increase in spending on local authority personal social services. This just does not square with what is happening in individual authorities, and the experience of voluntary organisations involved in the Section 2 project, nor the conclusions of the Social Services Select Committee in another place. I learnt a great deal from the report of the Select Committee in another place, especially as regards the difficulties which now confront local authorities. The House will bear in mind that the Select Committee concerned is composed of Members of Parliament of all parties.
The Select Committee also noted the exacerbation of the problem of discrepancies between local authorities in the provision and quality of their services—a problem that has continued since the 1970

547
Act came into force. The greatest extent of the variation is among those London boroughs that have imposed higher increases on charges and greater cuts. RADAR found that differences in charges, in definitions and criteria led to such glaring anomalies as the case of the man who, when rehoused by the Greater London Council because of increasing disability, could no longer claim for assistance with the payment of telephone rental charges because he had crossed the street and was now in a new borough and this new borough applied a different criteria of need from that used in the other borough where he originally resided. This kind of absurdity must be brought to an end.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to housing—another gravely neglected area, as he pointed out so effectively. In October last year the Minister of Housing announced that disabled people wanting to adapt their homes would be able to obtain grants of 75 per cent., compared to the previous limit of 50 per cent., and 90 per cent. in cases of hardship. This was a most welcome and helpful measure, but it must be seen in the context of the appalling statistics on housing starts for disabled people. The right reverend Prelate gave some of the figures. From 1980–81 the number of starts by local authorities in wheelchair housing and mobility housing fell from 5,603 to 2,405. In the same year, wheelchair and mobility housing, as a percentage of all local authority total starts, fell from 14·6 per cent. to 10·5 per cent. and for housing associations from 3·7 per cent. to 0·7 per cent. The figures for the first two quarters of this year indicate that there will be no improvement. This is extremely sad. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when he gets back to his department will call his right honourable friend the Minister to him and discuss these matters so that we may make some real progress and not be flailing the air when we talk about them. The evidence seems to me to be clear, and we would like to know what action the right honourable gentleman and his noble friend are now proposing to take.
The swingeing cuts in the housing investment programme in recent years have reversed the steady progress which was being made since the mid-1970s in local authority and housing association provision of wheelchair and mobility housing. Encouragingly, much of this was being built within ordinary housing schemes, thus integrating disabled people—a very important step. Now there is little chance of much progress on sheltered housing, satellite housing and "core and cluster" schemes for people coming out of institutions; or what building does take place will be in the form described by the right reverend Prelate as "special need ghettos", and there I must agree with him.
The extension of joint financing to include housing is totally inadequate. There should be specific grants to housing authorities with target numbers for provision of special needs housing. At the very least I hope that when asking councils to increase their capital spending on housing, the Government will urge them to give priority to those with special needs.
I turn now to what is probably the most important disablement issue of all—namely, that of prevention.
548
Again I regret to say that the response of the Government has been less than encouraging. The prevention of the birth of handicapped babies starts with preconception care, as the general health of the mother is one of the most important factors in the healthy development of the foetus and the production of a healthy child. Poor nutrition and smoking during pregnancy increase the likelihood of a low birth weight baby, with subsequent susceptibility to infection, and continuing health problems later on. Government support for health education has been small. In 1981–82 they gave £4,750,000 to the Health Education Council, of which £900,000 was spent on the anti-smoking campaign, while the tobacco industry spent £100 million on advertising. There should be a ban on all tobacco advertising and sponsorship, mandatory health education in all school curricula, and more stringent regulations on chemicals and noise at the place of work, which research indicates to have an adverse effect on the foetus. It is also of little use to urge mothers at risk during pregnancy to eat properly, have sufficient heating and so forth if they cannot afford it because of low standards of living due to unemployment and other problems.
The maternity grant was made non-contributory this year but, again, it is a totally inadequate £25. On the Government's own figures, it should be increased to £114 to restore its original value, while Parents Magazine of January this year estimated that the cost of basic essentials for a new baby was in the region of £277. Several Government Ministers have publicly deplored the atmosphere of many ante-natal clinics which deter many women from attending them, but no effective measures to improve the situation have been taken. The Spastics Society has, again, long urged the establishment of minimum standards in the provision of maternity and obstetric services, as did the Select Committee on Social Services in its second report; indeed, this was the argument advanced in the four previous reports on the same subject.
The cost of the state supporting a disabled person over a lifetime has been put at between £300,000 and £500,000. It is strange—I must say this with all the emphasis that I can command—that a Government so concerned with saving money do not take the most minimal and cost-effective measures to prevent disability.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has drawn attention to the concern about the implementation of the Education Act 1981. Although I should like to have covered some of the educational ground, when she replies, my noble friend Lady Jeger proposes to deal with this subject and I shall leave it there. However, I should like to say a few brief words about employment, which was also a subject mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox.
The employment figures for disabled people are depressing in the extreme. The facts are that unemployment among disabled people is twice the national average. In July this year 70 per cent. of registered disabled were employed compared with 30 per cent. of the total workforce; 50 per cent. had been out of work for over a year compared with 25 per cent. of the general workforce; the average level of compliance with the 3 per cent. quota is 1·2 per cent. in the public sector and 1·7 per cent. in the private sector,

549
with only 35 per cent. of firms in compliance. That is really disgraceful; yet there has been only 10 prosecutions under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Although I do not deny the value of educative campaigns, such as "Fit for Work", it is clear that exclusive reliance on them has not protected disabled people. I am very pleased that the Government have decided to retain the quota, but they now have a duty to see that it is enforced, with proper penalties.
The Government's excuse for their poor record on disability and lack of progress on the outstanding issues is, first, that there is no more money and, secondly, that progress can be made through better use of existing resources. The first statement is just not tenable. At the same time as the Government were cutting invalidity benefits, they were handing back £1,400 million in tax cuts to 5 per cent. of the richest people in this community. On any basis, that is indefensible. I know that noble Lords opposite are as concerned as I am about this, and I hope that they will press the Government that they support to see the unreasonableness of such an attitude. Again £500 million was suddenly and properly found from the Contingency Fund for the Falklands war, and there are other great plans in process.
We are frequently reminded from the Benches opposite—and I am bound to make this point because the noble Lord may make it—of the shortcomings of Labour Governments. No Government are perfect. Labour Governments have been known to make mistakes and I am the first to concede that, although not often and not big ones. Nevertheless, they have made their mistakes. But under the Labour Government when public spending in almost every other area was being cut back, spending on cash benefits alone for chronically sick and disabled people rose from £474 million in 1974 to £1,574 million in 1979, and spending on centrally provided services for disabled people almost trebled. At a time when we were deeply concerned about the problems created by public expenditure, this is what we did.
In the other place the Minister for Disabled People said that the Government "readily" accepted the motion calling for the Government to initiate discussions with all the relevant organisations before the end of 1981 on a programme of action to maintain the impetus of the International Year in the years ahead. We are still waiting for the Government to do this. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—for whom we all have a great respect—will have something to say to us about the Government's intentions when he winds up the debate.
I must conclude this rather long speech, for which I apologise, but I think that a number of things needed to be said. Perhaps I cannot do better in conclusion than quote from the Charter for the 80s. Tributes have properly been paid to those who have played their part in various areas of the United Kingdom. I should like to pay my own special tribute to my right honourable friend Mr. Alf Morris for the contribution that he has made. As the House will appreciate, he was one of the moving spirits behind this charter. Paragraph 31 says:
"People with disabilities have rights equal to those of all other people in their societies, including the right to participate in and contribute to all aspects of economic, social and political life. A society which shuts out any segment of its members is an impover-
550
ished society. Each social structure should be planned and organized in all of its aspects to provide opportunities for the full participation of people with disabilities".
That is the challenge. The Government have not so far distinguished themselves. Although they say that they have money to spend, some money was handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week and more money is to come in the Budget—indeed, we are told, very large sums of money, tremendous sums of money. We await with interest how that will be spent. But a small percentage of that sum which is available as a help to the disabled would make an enormous contribution to them, to their way of life and to their hopes for the future. The Government should now try to rescue their reputation by showing a real commitment to progress for disabled people by initiating discussions and drawing up a comprehensive plan for the coming decade, of which they and we can be proud.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having introduced this important debate. I want to apologise to him in advance, because I am afraid that I shall have to be absent from the Chamber for an hour or so owing to a previous commitment, but I shall certainly be back to hear the winding up speeches.
It was with some misgiving that I put down my name to speak in this debate, not through any lack of sympathy with the subject, but because I cannot claim familiarity with it or, indeed, the expertise that other speakers have in this field. My speech will, therefore, be brief; I am here mainly to listen and to learn. I have, of course, read the Charter for the 80s, and it would be extremely difficult to quarrel with any of its ultimate objectives. Therefore, it would seem to be an important question how far these admirable intentions are implemented in domestic law and practice. For instance, we have had the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act on the statute book since 1970, and I understand that there are serious doubts about its effectiveness.
I should like to devote most of my remarks to the question of employment. This is one of the themes which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would have touched on but for the fact that unfortunately he ran out of time, because he would have done it a great deal better than me. It was also a matter which was touched on in a very eloquent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in particular in relation to the partially disabled.
Here again it is difficult to quarrel with the aims expressed in paragraphs 49 to 56 of the charter, but there are difficulties which it would be foolish to overlook in a generally cold climate for jobs. The question of jobs for the disabled is discussed in Chapter 13, paragraphs 13.26 to 13.30, of the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Unemployment, which was debated last night. In May 1981 the unemployment rate among disabled people was 15·7 per cent., as against 10·4 per cent. among the whole working population. Other noble Lords with more experience than myself in this field will possibly have more up-to-date figures, but I should be surprised if the gap had been narrowed. I am afraid that I missed

551
it if the noble Lord, Lord Clwdwyn, had more recent figures up his sleeve. Another discouraging statistic is that in October 1980 45 per cent. of all unemployed disabled people had been out of work for over a year—that is, had joined the growing army of the long-term unemployed—and 21 per cent. for over three years.
As we all know, the quota system has been in operation since 1944, but, in the view of the MSC at any rate, the decreasing number of disabled people who choose to register has made the system impracticable, and the MSC has proposed to replace the 1944 Act with a general statutory duty upon employers (linked to a code of practice) to take all reasonable steps to promote equality of employment opportunity for disabled people.
In paragraph 13.29 of its report, the Committee on Unemployment approved the MSC's proposals on the ground that many disabled people dislike the quota system, and that it does nothing to ensure,
"that the disabled person is employed at the highest level for which his abilities fit him and for which his disability is not relevant".
The unemployment committee also stressed, in its recommendations on the public employment service, that disablement resettlement officers in job centres must be given the time and resources to do their job properly.
Those, in a nutshell, were the views of your Lordships' unemployment committee, but of course I did not know whether they accorded with the views of those most concerned with this problem, and so I turned for guidance to the CORAD Report, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, drew my attention. There has been a certain shortage of documents for this debate and I am afraid that I managed to get my hands on a copy of the CORAD Report only at the last minute, and so I have been unable to read it all, but I have read the sections on employment. Paragraphs 38 to 52 in Chapter 2 outline a wide range of cases of what is clearly discrimination against the disabled for jobs that they could perfectly well do, and I noted the summary in paragraph 2.52:
"Of all the types of discrimination experience by disabled people, it is probably the field of employment which offers the closest parallel to discrimination on the grounds of race or sex".
I read that with particular interest knowing, as I do, that some of your Lordships are in favour of antidiscrimination legislation for the disabled.
Next I turned to paragraphs 3.15 to 3.20, on the existing statutory provision. Paragraph 3.16 describes the shortcomings of the quota scheme. Despite these shortcomings, paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19 indicate considerable, in fact great, reluctance on the part of the authors to see the scheme wound up, though paragraph 3.20 seems to show that many employers of over 250 people have adopted policies and good practice on the new lines proposed by the MSC.
Chapter 4 of the CORAD Report comes out in favour of anti-discrimination legislation, and the authors do not think that employment should be exempted from this. Chapter 5, and in particular paragraph 5.22, recommends that,
"any measure designed to improve employment opportunities for disabled people should include a quota or quotas element that is enforced".
552
That is the main conclusion of the CORAD Report in this field.
However, in Appendix VIII there is a very strongly argued minority report by Mr. Dennis Dodds, who feels that the committee did less than justice to the MSC's proposals. On the grounds of,
"the practical impossibility of meeting an obligatory quota of 3 per cent. from voluntary registrations amounting to only 1·9 per cent."
and also of regional variations in both the incidence of disablement and employment opportunities, he concludes that,
"an enforceable obligation on employers supported and amplified by a statutory code of practice (similar to the Highway Code) seems to have a much greater likelihood of promoting the employment interests of disabled people … than the present obligation which, though strict in form, is inherently without substance and is accordingly ineffective in practice".
This poses some considerable difficulties for anyone attempting an objective approach to the type of employment policy that is really in the best interests of disabled people, and I shall listen with great interest to the views of other noble Lords, noble Baronesses and noble Ladies on this point. I think that it would also be very helpful if at the end of the debate the Government would state their approach to employment policy for the disabled. If it is the case that they have decided to retain the quota system and to reject the MSC's proposals, it would be of very great help to have the arguments clearly deployed.
I want to turn very briefly to my own party's approach to the general problems of disablement. Our Green Paper, No.11, entitled Attacking Poverty—I have it in my hand—on page 13 advances the case for a general disability incomes scheme, payable irrespective of cause of disability, on the grounds that the present system of preference for industrial disability is unfair. However, the paper recognises the financial constraints and comes down in favour of a graduated approach which would be implemented in the following order:

(a) bring civilian disabled people's benefits in line with industrial benefit levels in a sequence of steps;

(b) improve work incentives for partially disabled people by removing the earnings conditions and tapering the benefit payable—

That, I think, meets the point on the therapeutic earnings rule raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—

(c) remove the age limit on entitlement to mobility allowance—

That is in accordance with a recommendation of Age Concern—

(d) improve take-up of benefits by the poorest disabled people through support for an independent local advisory/advocacy service;

and,

(e) commission research on the current and projected numbers of disabled people, their type and degree of disability, with a view to devising a general disability incomes scheme.

I should emphasise that those proposals come from a discussion document and have not yet been adopted as party policy. Therefore, it would be of great interest to me personally, and of great value to us in our policy formulation in this important field, to know whether that order of priorities commends itself to those of your Lordships who have long experience of these matters. I shall certainly value any advice or comments either during this interesting and valuable debate or later, outside the Chamber.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having introduced the debate in such a helpful manner and for having raised the subject today. As your Lordships will know, the noble Lord has himself been untiring in promoting the interests of disabled people, and it is timely and and appropriate that we should be discussing this charter 10 months after the International Year, since it arose from that year. I was chairman for Scotland of the International Year, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, just now said some very kind things about me—they were quite undeserved. However, I can endorse what he said—that during that year a great deal was done in the United Kingdom. I am sure a great deal was done in other countries, too, but we were able to see it fairly closely here.
A lot of people entered into the spirit of the Year. I do not think that those who were leading it in the other three parts of the United Kingdom would dissent from my opinion that one of the most important achievements was the great increase in awareness and knowledge among the general public. In other words, more progress was made generally, I believe, in a single year than one could previously have expected over a period of several ordinary years.
I must again declare a personal interest, in that I am in the category of 80 per cent. war disabled, because the cause was a bullet which went through my middle. I was an officer in the regular army at the time, and my view for nearly 40 years has been that, on the whole, war pensioners have been well cared for, particularly when they have met medical setbacks. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Haig is to speak later in the debate. He and I took part in a number of occasions and activities during the International Year in Scotland, and he is the president of the Royal British Legion (Scotland), being the son of the distinguished founder of the British Legion. But my concern since the mid-'sixties, when I was one of those who started raising the subject of the disabled in another place, the Commons, has been to bring about a rational system for those disabled people who have been disabled from other causes—causes which, particularly, were not war or recognised industrial accidents.
Progress has been made since the mid-'sixties, but there are still anomalies and a labyrinth of procedures. I should like to refer to one milestone which was passed in that earlier period. It was an announcement which was made in reply to a Question of mine in the Commons on 23rd October 1967. That was the announcement by the then Secretary of State for Social Services that there was to be a survey. It was initiated and became the Amelia Harris survey, which reported in May 1971. That was over two years before the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 had even been introduced as a Bill. But at that time almost nothing was known about what was referred to as the problems of the civilian disabled.
The Amelia Harris report was itself limited. It was a sampling operation. Moreover, it was only for persons in certain circumstances over the age of 16, and it did not apply to Northern Ireland. But for the first time it enabled people in this country to make estimates of the disabled people in various categories, because the
554
report introduced a system of categories, over the country.
I will speak on only two or three points, because the charter ranges over a large number of subjects. First of all, access. This is very much emphasised in the charter, and in paragraph 4 of the declaration, at the beginning, it is stated:
"Throughout history humanity has erected barriers, both physical and social, which exclude from full participation in its communities those judged to be different because of physical or mental variation. Buildings and transportation are mostly inaccessible to many people with disabilities".
That was not intentional, and I will illustrate my observation, which I am sure will be corroborated by others. As the right reverend Prelate drew to the attention of your Lordships earlier this afternoon, churches, chapels and cathedrals are among the worst buildings in this respect, with many steps and an absence of handrails—and this is true of all creeds and denominations. It clearly was not intended: it simply illustrates that this was not taken into consideration as a serious factor until the recent past. Those who were building such buildings, including Sir Christopher Wren, were thinking of other considerations at the time.
Some significant progress was made last year, your Lordships will remember, and initiated in this House. That was to put some teeth (as this was called) into the 1970 Act. This had been recommended by several committees, including the Silver Jubilee Committee, and the clause that went into the first Bill that passed through this House indeed carried out what was recommended by those committees. This was that there should be a new approach and different arrangements for dealing with new buildings for public use. I remind your Lordships that it was during last summer, when a Scottish Bill was passing through this House at its Committee stage, that a clause which had been tabled by me was adopted by the Government. It was extended to the rest of the United Kingdom in a later Bill.
I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the procedures for setting up the prescribed machinery have been somewhat slow, and I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend when he replies this evening whether he can give us information on this. I may be incorrect, but I have the feeling that there has been rather more progress in Scotland than south of the Border. There is a different procedure being adopted in Scotland, and I should like to point out that every local authority in Scotland has designated an access officer. Indeed, when that Bill was going through last summer we found that there were only two local authorities in Scotland who had by that time not done so. So some progress is being made.
Then I come to the related question of transport. During the International Year I think that the public transport bodies in this country went to a great deal of trouble, and that meant that they themselves discovered some new problems in addition to the ones with which they had been familiar. There was a day seminar, for example, held by the airline companies and the Airports Authority at Gatwick, which I attended. I can tell your Lordships that now, at airports, special arrangements are made for the deaf. They can go to a certain part of a waiting lounge and

555
then be able to hear announcements and be given information which they need.
Another advance has been the electric buggy at Gatwick. Unfortunately, it is not available at other airports yet; but those very long passages in airports, which are difficult for some disabled people, can now be dealt with much more easily with the buggy. I am perhaps myself an illustration, as I can only do about 40 metres at a time without having to perch or sit. That limitation has meant that in the past I used to make use of those combinations of litter bins and ashtrays upon which to perch, because that was the only thing on which one could perch going down these apparently endless corridors. More than once anxious ladies came up to me and asked me whether I was aware that I was on fire. I can report that I do not now have to do that as much as I did in the past.
A great deal more has been done, and there is more seating at suitable stages on railway platforms and at airports. But there is still much to be done, and I would draw attention to the whole question of car-parking. We have had debates in your Lordships' House about this. The Department of Transport are supposed to be rationalising the whole system of disabled parking signs. One of the matters which must be put right is the question of abuse, because the present system is such that able-bodied people quite rightly suspect that a lot of abuse is possible because the system has not been properly worked out.
My Lords, what I have been speaking about is all helping to carry out the principles of equality and full participation, but when we speak of barriers or transport we must bear in mind the very special arrangements that have to be made for the completely incapacitated. Only last week we read in the press about the boy who was so paralysed that he could only communicate by moving his eyes. I know of similar cases of all ages and have met them in the past. We cannot assume that the kind of arrangements which we have been discussing in general for most categories of disabled people can cater for people who are as disabled as that. So we always have to bear in mind that there are some for whom very special arrangements will have to be made.
We only heard of that case, I would remind your Lordships, because of the damages that had been awarded. If it had not been caused by an accident for which somebody had been found responsible, we probably would have not have heard about that case at all. That raises the whole question of damages and no-fault compensation which we discussed at the beginning of this year in a debate in your Lordships' House initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on the Pearson Report. That raises the question of liability, but there is no time for that today.
My Lords, one of the aims of the charter is dissemination of information. An important part of this, I believe, is that more should be known about different kinds of disability; for example, mental illness, deafness, particularly among the deaf and dumb, lungs—those who can move only in a limited way because of loss of breath—and epileptics, who seem perfectly all right but may suddenly collapse. Greater knowledge and awareness among the public will encourage people with such disabilities to venture
556
beyond their own doors and to circulate. It will enable them to live a full life alongside the able-bodied.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was not here at the beginning of this debate, has asked me to say that she would have been speaking in this debate, but that she has been attending a conference on incontinence at the Royal College of Physicians. This is a subject of utmost importance about which she is very concerned. Sufferers from incontinence need rehabilitation and the greatest support and understanding. The noble Baroness has such close experience with the subjects that we are discussing today that I am sorry she is not enlightening your Lordships with her experience on this occasion. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and those who have made it possible for us to discuss Charter for the 80s and the rehabilitation services proclaimed by Rehabilitation International.
My Lords, I have travelled to many countries in the world and have seen how often developing countries still look to Britain for much inspiration and advice on matters relating to overcoming disability. It is a service well worth giving. In some countries, I have been impressed with how much can be done with very little money. In many countries there are shortages of wheelchairs. The charter stresses that Governments must be encouraged to give disabled people the things which enable them to rehabilitate to their full potential. I wholly endorse this. In Sri Lanka a man came up the hill to speak to my noble kinsman and myself. He propelled himself on his hands and his behind. He had had poliomyelitis and had no wheelchair. He had been told that he would get a chair only if he went into residential care. He did not want to give up living in the community with his friends. In the bush of Kenya a man came to me and asked about wheelchairs. His wife could not walk, he told me. I wished that I had had two wheelchairs with me. I advised him to try to contact the Red Cross. I often think about him; he wanted a chair so badly.
The International Year of Disabled Persons 1981 did a great deal in many countries to bring the needs of disabled people to the fore. Disability is not an easy subject as it embraces so many different aspects of accident and disease. Prevention of disability is stressed in the charter. Prevention of sporting accidents should be closely studied; they involve so many young lives. Prevention can be achieved by vaccination and injection. Thus the ill effects of rubella on child bearing, the bad effects of the rhesus-negative factor, of poliomyelitis and even of leprosy can be avoided. Good and well organised primary health care is essential if preventive medicine is to carry on. Of course, much disability would be avoided if there were no wars. I am sure that many people, as I was, were touched to the depths of their souls when they saw on television Mother Theresa of Calcutta going to the rescue of the mentally-handicapped children who were marooned in their hospital in the war-torn city of Beirut.
The charter stresses the need for rehabilitation to reach everyone who needs it. Rehabilitation is not just the physical means of helping someone to achieve their goal; it is also the spiritual and psychological

557
aspects. The need to have the will to want to rehabilitate is vital. It is very difficult to succeed with a patient who turns his face to the wall and wants to die. He must feel wanted and needed, and there must be a life worth living at the end of the tunnel to encourage him. Rehabilitation can be hard work for everyone; it needs enthusiasm, energy and dedication.
We are fortunate to have some splendid doctors and therapists working in this field, and also some nurses who see how vital is rehabilitation if their patients are to succeed. I am certain that we need better links in some areas between the hospitals and the communities. We need more community physiotherapists and occupational therapists who can show people how to use aids and to cope in their own homes. The spinal unit at Oswestry has prepared the way for patients with a charge nurse visiting the home and helping to advise the family, and this has been without doubt of great benefit to many people.
The different disabilities are so specialised and the needs so varied that the generic social worker has not been helpful in the confusing world of disabled people. How can a social worker who has to help the elderly, the delinquent young, children in need and many other necessities, know the needs of the blind, the deaf, the incontinent, the arthritic, the sufferer from spina bifida or cystic fibrosis, the spinally-injured, the rheumatic-diseased, and many other disabilities plus the mentally-handicapped and the mentally ill? Great tribute ought to be paid to the many voluntary specialised organisations who gather information about the needs of their members and can be of great value to the statutory organisations if professional jealousy does not get in the way.
In working for and with disability, great humility and understanding is needed by the statutory people, by the voluntary organisations, by the disabled people themselves and by their families. If good rehabilitation is to take place and people with disabilities are to be successfully integrated into the community, much co-operation and the will to work together is needed. A disabled person can mean a disabled family. It took my noble kinsman and myself five months to get permission to get a ramp at the entrance to a block of flats. How much longer might it take to get planning permission for a hostel for mentally-handicapped people? Charter for the 80s stresses the fullest possible integration of and equal participation by people with disabilities in all aspects of life in their communities.
I was invited to Leicester a few weeks ago and was told that that city employed an access officer, someone trained in the need for access for disabled people. That officer has proved to be of such benefit that an assistant was being appointed.
So many unnecessary mistakes are made by people not following the code of practice. I serve on the corporation of two new towns; Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe in County Durham. To save money, the corporation office moved to a disused factory. Having had a very adequate lavatory suitable for someone in a wheelchair which was used by everyone in their previous office, at the last meeting I attended I discovered the new lavatory in the factory had been made completely inaccessible by placing expensive fixed rails on either side. This has often happened all over the country, on many lavatories on the motorways, by
558
people who get a fixed idea in their heads that fixed rails are the answer. There are splendid rails which can be hinged up and down and cater for all who have different disabilities and needs.
Aids are sometimes vital necessities to the rehabilitation of disabled people. I feel it is now time, with the reorganisation of the health service, to get this vital source of independence efficiently organised. Many aids cost considerable money and much has been wasted. This is not the fault of the disabled people; it is the fault of a Cinderella service. The calibre of people working in this field has not always been of the best and the most caring. The social services in many districts have put it a long way down their list of priorities.
Great credit ought to be paid to the aids centres. The first one was organised by the Disabled Living Foundation. Last year I was invited to officially open the one in Leeds. These centres help to train professional people and give the chance to the consumer to see what is available for themselves. I think it is time each health region had an aid centre jointly funded by the health authority and the social service department with local depots. This would bring the people serving the needs of disability together. So often the disabled person does not know who to go to as aids are supplied some by one body and some by another. The general practitioner generally does not know either, so there is confusion all round.
Rehabilitation services need to be brought together in real team co-operation. It is encouraging to hear that the British Medical Association is researching into the ways in which information technology is being used to assist the disabled. I have so often heard doctors say after years of practising when they come in personal contact with a disability that they had never dreamt it was anything like it really is. So much more could be done to educate the public. A tutor in a college told me the other day that he had gone to Canada on a year's exchange. He took his family. His daughter went to a Canadian primary school. Every child in that school had to spend a whole day in a wheelchair. These are the architects, doctors, and town planners of the future. Some countries such as Canada are more advanced in their planning and attitudes to disabled people.
Advances differ considerably. At the NAIDEX exhibition the other day I saw a car from France which could be driven by the voice. Another one was at the Electrical Engineers' prize-giving. An exhibit for the benefit of the disabled was driven by a girl who had no arms due to Thalidomide. She used a joy-stick. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, showed great interest and drove the car as he was good enough to give over the prize to the delighted inventor. These aids give independence and widen horizons of severely disabled people. This is good rehabilitation.
Some attitudes are not so helpful, and the charter would not accept them. The correct aid can assist the handicapped person to remain at home with his family. Some aids are essential if the handicapped person is to remain in the community. Too much pressure on a family where there is a heavy disabled person who needs lifting, such as a stroke victim or sufferer from multiple sclerosis, may break down under the stress and frustrations of a bureaucratic system. I will appreciate an answer from the Government about

559
means testing the blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons, et cetera under Clause 12 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill which is to be debated by your Lordships this coming Monday. Means testing disabled people and their families who desperately may need a bath lift or stair lift could just be the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
When a wife has to overcome the emotional stress of coping with a husband who dribbles and gets very depressed and is almost impossible to move, is not trying to preserve the last ounce of dignity important? I ask your Lordships to think very hard about this. I feel the criteria should be on need, and the assessment should be correct. I will be bringing the matter up on Monday.
I should like to thank The Times newspaper for some of the excellent articles that it has printed about the experiences of disabled people. I refer to one by Sue Jones. The custodian at the gateway to a 13th century manor house in the Midlands, which was open to the public, told her, "You cannot come in here". She asked, "Why?" He pointed to a notice on the wall stating that wheelchairs were not admitted. The Country Landowners' Association is now encouraging such places to be humane and helpful towards disabled people. Maybe this helpful approach was stimulated by such an article.
It is encouraging that much more out and about is being done, but London remains a major black spot for disabled people. No consideration is given to the parking cars driven by severely disabled people by police and traffic wardens. I should love to discuss this matter with them, and the kerbs are as high as ever. On Monday night I attended a dinner for the doctors and scientists visiting London from America and Canada, who, with our experts, are discussing ways of regenerating the spinal cord. Some of the American members of the Spinal Associations were in wheelchairs and had tried to see London. They were amazed and appalled at the kerbs and difficulties of getting around.
Up and down the country there are great differences on how local authorities and individuals treat and consider the needs of disabled people. Two conference halls have been opened this year costing millions of pounds. The one at Harrogate, costing about £27 million, allows only two disabled people in wheelchairs. The one in Cardiff allows 20. Why should there be such a difference? I am told that in Canada and the United States of America there is legislation so that disabled people must be let into public buildings. I had hoped the goodwill of so many people would have meant that this was not necessary. But when this kind of situation occurs, one wonders. The banning of disabled people in Harrogate is very disturbing because there are several residential homes for the disabled, and integrating them into the community is of the utmost importance to their quality and enjoyment of life. One of the homes is a Dr. Barnardo's school which has just opened and I had the pleasure officially to do this. It is a most excellent rehabilitation unit with three independent living flats, so that the teenagers before leaving school can be "fed" gradually into the community. The situation at
560
the conference hall is very damaging to their rehabilitation; and what makes matters worse is that a town like Harrogate made its prosperity out of disablility, as it was a spa town. In Northallerton, in North Yorkshire again, the post office was completely reconstructed last year. Steps were allowed even though there was room for a ramp. At Murton in County Durham the ex-servicemen's club has been redesigned to incorporate six steps. It goes on and on.
British Rail must be congratulated on the efforts they are making to help disabled travellers, and especially the Eastern Region. Sometimes the system works better on some days than on others, as my noble friend Lord Ingleby and I well know. That is to do with the efficiency of the people working the system at ground level. The railcard and taking the seats out of the 125 trains helps a great deal. British Rail are now putting in an inductive loop at Kings's Cross Station to enable people who are hard of hearing to be able to hear the announcements.
I was written to by a young family doctor a short time ago who was worried because some of his patients had spent years of their lives looking after elderly disabled relatives. Uncomplainingly, they cared and coped with an immense emotional burden which would otherwise have to be picked up by the State service. He was totally unaware that there are some benefits and concessions these people can claim. He now writes to me asking: how does one make the Government publicise under-claimed allowances? The Government should ask the medical and nursing colleges to help publicise this; they could also advertise more widely in medical journals. The family doctor ought to be more involved, as may patients become more disabled by stress and strain which is sometimes unnecessary.
Another costly evil to the National Health Service is the problem of pressure sores, which delay rehabilitation. These can be avoided with correct cushions, supportive care and such things as turning beds. The Society for Tissue Viability is a new and excellent society which I am proud to be patron of. It brings together doctors, nurses, therapists, technicians, firms which supply equipment, and universities and consumers. This is run from Odstock Hospital in Salisbury. This problem of pressure sores can cost the National Health Service something in the region of £100 million a year, so much of which could be avoided.
There are some excellent care schemes in the community, such as Crossroads. How many health districts do not have them? This is a very important need to keep disabled people in the community. Without some extra help, some families break under the strain. It is encouraging that the National Consumer Council is so strongly supporting these needs.
In several districts there have been problems for severely disabled people who use wheelchairs and travel home for rehabilitation weekends by ambulance. For some reason, ambulance men have refused to carry the patient's wheelchair. This amounts to taking someone's legs away. It also puts great extra cost on to the National Health Service, as the wheelchair has to follow in a taxi. With more co-operation and understanding, surely this could be sorted out.

561
Not long ago I visited an ex-soldier who had been shot in the neck in Northern Ireland. He spends a month a year in hospital as he is paralysed from the neck down and this gives a break to his sister who looks after him in their own home. He has to eat with a special spoon and fork. These could not go in with the general washing-up process at the hospital, and he told me that in nearly four weeks they had been washed only four times. I washed them in his basin—the fifth time in 26 days. There was no shortage of staff in that hospital but here was a lack of thought-fulness and TLC.
I end by quoting a letter I have just received from a young spastic person who is doing a two-year course at York College of Art and Technology. He says:
"I feel quite worried at times, as society seems to be far from being able to treat us as normal people. I think this is not their fault as education, in my view, is the only way of changing society. I find it great, but people are very fearful of any of us who are not 'normal'. It is a pity, because once I get to know them they find they can understand what I say".
They told him that at first when he went there they did not know what was wrong with him and they were suspicious. It is the unique, living person inside the human shell which really matters. If integration is to be successful, understanding that is paramount and the dignity of all individuals should be respected.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing up this matter again. I do not see any reason at all why he should be in any way apologetic because I believe that a subject such as disablement should be brought up about once a year, to monitor how things are going along and to see whether there are any new ideas and also to see, as one or two speakers opposite have mentioned, how money is being spent or not being spent. The last time I heard the noble Lord speak was in January 1981, in the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. He then made a cheerfully abrasive speech, criticising noble Lords on the Back Benches on this side of the House for not in turn criticising enough those who sit on the Front Benches about the steps they had been taking so far as disablement was concerned. I could not really agree with him in that respect. Almost inevitably in a debate like this we hear a lot of criticism regarding what is not done—and it is right that we should—but at the same time I think it is quite easy to forget the big steps that have been taken, probably because of the people who have already spoken in this debate.
Before I get on to my pet subject, if I may call it that, I should like to disagree to a certain extent with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, when he said he would be interested to hear the views of the House as to whether there should be a law preventing discrimination against disabled people. At first glance, that sounds very nice indeed but it would be an extremely complicated law and perhaps it would become so complicated that it would not fulfil the wishes of anybody who wanted such a law. I have a feeling that it would be very liable to abuse in practice. I may be wrong about that, but I felt I should like to put my view forward on that.
I was amused to hear—and it was repeated by the
562
right reverend Prelate—that churches were hopeless as far as the disabled are concerned. In Rochester Cathedral, a disabled person really could not worship at all because there are so many steps up towards the choir stalls that it has probably disabled a few people. The reconstruction of the cathedral has been a great improvement, because in cathedrals in the old days, as I am sure your Lordships know, there were not even pews and everybody had to stand. That led to the expression that the weakest "went to the wall". I think at least we are a little better than that now.
The subject I want to speak about—and I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is here—is education. I should like to take a brief look at the Education Act 1981, which is now coming into force on 1st April, having suffered a postponement, which makes one feel there may be trouble brewing in that area. I also want to speak, in particular, about dyslexia and I make no excuse for reminding your Lordships of dyslexia and its importance in society as a disability. The right reverend Prelate spoke of people who are deaf and dumb having an invisible disability, but it is not nearly so invisible as dyslexia. Eventually, you realise that somebody is deaf and dumb and can try to help him but unless you are concerned with reading and writing skills—because dyslexia is a language disorder—dyslexics can pass in society as perfectly normal people. But they have tremendous trouble in getting through schools, in getting to universities and in getting through universities, while in finding jobs they must be at a very severe disadvantage.
It is no exaggeration at all to say that there is a very strong connection indeed between this disability and delinquency and crime. For some extraordinary reason, dyslexics tend to be male rather than female, they get frustrated at school, as well as, no doubt, frustrating their teachers, and in the male child this very often leads to aggression and frustration, and then—the syndrome is perfectly logical in a way—there is a strong possibility that it will lead to delinquency and crime.
The point I am trying to make, which was made so well in the Charter for the 80s, is that what we want in society, as we are practical people, as well as being very humane, is to have people who contribute. I think it was put that they contribute to the tax situation and do not withdraw from it. We do not want people to be disabled in such a way that they draw the dole. We do not want them to be disabled in such a way that they take up the time of magistrates, clerks and police. We particularly do not want them to be disabled in such a way that they go through that very expensive process for the state of being in prison.
So I come to the Act itself, over which many of your Lordships took a lot of trouble. The end product satisfied some of us in part, and some of us not quite so much, but Act it is and it is coming into force on 1st April—which is a rather inauspicious day but I do not suppose that it will make any difference. The worry that I have is that, although the Act sounds all right, there is not the wherewithal available to make it work. I put this in various categories. We all know, roughly, what the Act says. It is quite good in that it is obviously meant to try to help disabled people, and it stemmed from the Warnock Report. Disablements were not categorised; they were all meant to be dealt with. If you

563
did not put anything in, then nothing could be left out, which always seemed illogical to me.
But one point is that a parent has the right to ask for an assessment. Talking to people around the counties, I find that educational psychologists are already quite heavily overworked. I would not say that there are queues of people wating to see them, stretching from here to yonder, but there are distressing periods which people have to wait, particularly those who are not too handicapped. On the whole, I think that educational psychologists manage to get around the serious cases on a rota basis, but there are not enough of them. Furthermore, there will be additional people coming forward because a parent has the right to an assessment, which, again, will increase the load. Then there will not be quite enough remedial teachers to deal with the ensuing situation.
But what really worries me, and what I particularly want to talk about briefly, is the fact that dyslexia is such a new thing that there is not the expertise to deal with it within local education authorities. I must point out, quite clearly, that the dyslexic child does not respond to remedial teaching, as it is practised. At the moment the expertise lies with those who have been lucky enough, or who have taken the trouble, to go abroad. It lies basically in the universities and I would mention, in particular, Bangor, Aston and Southampton, as well as the voluntary societies. I would mention one of which I am proud to be president, the Dyslexia Foundation, which now has teaching institutes more or less all over England, and has outposts as well.
My fear is that this Act looks very good. I have seen the papers from the education officer of one county where dyslexia is mentioned and, with great boldness in hard times like these, it is suggested that six or so extra remedial teachers should be taken on. But it is absolutely no use taking on remedial teachers, as they are now known, if they do not have this capability of multi-sensory teaching, which does not have to take any stereotyped form. As many of your Lordships will know, it came originally from Dallas in the States or Scandinavia.
Finally, I have also heard from local education authorities around the counties that they are a little distressed that the Financial Memorandum to the Act virtually states that no more money will be necessary to put it into action. But it does not look as if that will be true, because authorities will need more social workers, more remedial teachers, more educational psychologists and many others as well.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to answer two questions when he winds up. First, in view of the fact that the Financial Memorandum is seen to be, at least, slightly misleading to local education authorities, will the Government produce any more money for them, if a real need for extra teachers and so on is seen? Secondly, can he impress upon local education authorities, in some way or other, the importance of seeing that the remedial teachers have this proper training from the proper source, so that they do not teach this 4 per cent. of the school population—because that is what we are talking about—in such a way that it does them no good and they come out at
564
the end of the system no better than they went in but only more frustrated?
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like other Members of the House, I was much interested by what the noble Earl has just been saying about dyslexia, on which he speaks with special authority. I do not know whether he knows of a book written by a famous actress about her life as a dyslexic person. It was published by a firm with which I am connected. I see that the noble Earl obviously thinks that it is an excellent book. I was also interested in what he said about the connection between dyslexia and crime. A good many years ago I got to know a young man who could not read or write when he left school at 16. He came of respectable, middle-class parents and was a good athlete and prominent in the school. But when he left school he became so frustrated, and in a sense so looked down on, that he took to armed robbery and killed a policeman. It was a very famous case at the time. When I first met him he had been in prison for some time. Slowly he had learned to read and write in prison. The prison education sercvice is fairly good but there is nothing extraordinary about it. Nevertheless, he was systematically taken in hand and learned to read and write in prison. He came out some years later and he has led a blameless life ever since. It shows what can be done with dyslexic people, but I agree with the noble Earl that it is a very intractable problem and that we ought to be doing everything we can to help him and his colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has probably done more for the distressed in the past 15 years than anybody else in this House. They have had a most ardent champion in him. It is an honour to take part in a debate which has been marked by so many memorable speeches. I hope that the House will allow me to mention that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who does such an endless job on their behalf. I know that it is a labour of love, but I cannot imagine anybody else doing quite so much as she does for them.
I realise that this subject is very wide. Like others, I am deeply interested in the mentally handicapped. For some years I was chairman of the national society and, following a debate which I started in this House, I am chairman of a committee which is hoping to report shortly on mental after-care. About half a dozen Members of this House are on the committee.
I must confine myself to the physically disabled. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate who spoke so well will allow me to begin with a text—if that is in order here—taken from what the Pope said when he gave that tremendous address at Southwark Cathedral last year. I have seen him bending over the disabled and doing it in more than one part of Ireland and also in Rome, but everybody seeing him on television must have realised that the Pope has a special tendresse for the disabled. When he addressed a gathering a little later the only person he was able to greet when he left the hall was the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. What the Pope said in his tremendous speech on that occasion was this:
"Do not neglect your sick and elderly".

565
That includes quite a lot of us who are not technically disabled.
"Do not turn away from the handicapped and the dying. Do not push them to the margins of society. Let us keep the sick and the handicapped at the centre of our lives. Let us treasure them and recognise with gratitude the debt we owe them. We begin by imagining that we are giving to them. We end by realising that they have enriched us".
I do not think anybody could put that better.
Certainly those of us who are here today but also large numbers of people in the country have a great desire to show their goodwill and practical help towards the disabled. What steps does that lead us to take? When I turned to the sporting page in The Times this morning I read there about a gentleman called Andrew Widdowson who contributed, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, to a book about accidents which I edited not so long ago. We are told there that Mr. Widdowson's spinal cord was damaged for life in a rugby accident. We are told of the steps which have been taken to help him. Well over £30,000 has been raised by rugby admirers. To use the words of The Times, he "has been able to buy independence". He is thriving—teaching at Felstead and coaching rugby from his wheelchair. The Times adds truly that "he is a remarkable individual".
He is a remarkable individual, and we in this House have remarkable individuals in wheelchairs. But what I am saying is that most disabled people are not remarkable individuals. On the law of averages, that is impossible. Most of them are ordinary individuals. No doubt they have their quota of rather inadequate individuals—people who were inadequate before they were damaged. We must take them just as average members of the public—some remarkable and some very much not. Therefore, we canot expect everyone to arouse that degree of enthusiasm. We cannot expect them all to be heroic like the disabled we know best. Also, we canot expect everyone to know about their situation.
So what can we do? Here I am afraid, having agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, earlier, I must disagree with him strongly if he implied, only in passing, that he is against the report of the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People. I wonder whether the noble Earl has read their report. He did not mention it, and there is no reason why he should have read it. However, the noble Earl brushed that question aside. I cannot help wondering whether, with his great fairness, he might have reached a different conclusion from the one which he seemed to be adumbrating, had he read the report. This committee, chaired by the distinguished Peter Large who rightly was praised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has come down firmly on the side of legislation to make discrimination on the grounds of disability illegal.
What is interesting is that at the beginning they seemed, on the whole, to be rather in the same state of mind as that expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The report said that many of its members started with the instinctive feeling that antidiscrimination legislation, with its overtones of belligerence and conflict, was an over-reaction. At the beginning they were inclined to think that it would set disabled people apart from the rest of society. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, will speak on
566
this subject with much greater authority than I can command, so I am not going to spoil his speech by explaining all that they have in mind. On balance, however, they come down firmly in favour of antidiscrimination legislation. I expect that this will be set out before us by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. I beg every Member of the House who is interested in the subject—and people who sit through a debate of this kind obviously are—to study the report and see at the end whether it is possible to resist their conclusions.
I shall not speak for more than another moment. There are various other ways of helping disabled people. Today I gave lunch to a lady of my own generation—in other words, elderly—and I asked after an old friend of ours who had been staying with her for some time. This other lady had been suffering from what was, I believe, described as schizophrenic paranoia. Certainly she was in no normal state when I saw her some years ago. I asked how this lady was and my friend told me today at lunch that she is now cured. If there are any sceptics here, they will say that the cure may not last for ever. I hope that it will, For the foreseeable future she is cured. My friend no longer has to protect her. This other lady has now gone off to stay with one of her relatives. She is very happy and full of beans. Knowing my friend—the one I was having lunch with—I would not call it a miracle, although it may sound like one. But it has taken four years and it was simply the natural result of loving care. So I am only suggesting that loving care is the most crucial thing of all, whether it is applied by friends or relatives or whether it is applied in hospital or in other ways.
As this report says, one cannot force people to love, but one can make it much more likely that they will love, and so I do beg your Lordships' House to accept the arguments in favour of the CORAD Report. I rather hope that the noble Lord who is going to wind up this debate—I am afraid I may have to leave before he speaks—if he does not have a favourable answer, will at least not give us an unfavourable answer. This is a very serious question and, although it is perhaps too much to expect the Government to say, "We are now favouring this legislation", I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will bear all this in mind. I personally feel that, if we really care for the disabled, we are bound to follow this course.
5.40 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing this debate; he has a very special place in our affections. I am very glad, also, to see the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, here, and am only sorry that it does not seem that we shall have the benefit of hearing from him. I am also very glad to be following the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because one could almost call him the godfather of the "mobile Bench". Your Lordships may remember that in 1970, when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was introduced here by the noble Earl, three of us here all made our maiden speeches under his aegis.
I would like to talk about two main questions. First, is there discrimination against disabled people? If there is, should there be legislation as a long stop? The Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled

567
People—CORAD—have been considering these two questions for the past two and a half years. They define discrimination as the unjustified withholding, whether intentional or not, of some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled person because of that person's disability. To find the answers to these questions, they sent out a questionnaire. Some 20,000 copies were sent to disabled people, to organisations for the disabled, and to other individuals concerned with disablement. They had 763 analysed replies—not surprising in view of the fact that a considerable amount of time, thought and effort had to go into answering this questionnaire. Of those 763 replies, 463—or about two-thirds—believed that there was discrimination against disabled people. When asked what form that discrimination took, by far the largest number—341—thought that access, or rather lack of it, was a form of discrimination. The next largest number thought that employment was a sphere in which there was discrimination against disabled people; 186 answers in that category. The next largest number thought that safety regulations such as fire regulations were a form of discrimination, in that they prevented disabled people from attending places where they would like to go, perhaps not always with satisfactory cause. There were smaller numbers who cited parking facilities, education and insurance as other spheres where there was discrimination.
How best should this discrimination be overcome? I am sure that education has accomplished a lot over the past 10 years—in particular, in the International Year of Disabled People. In fact, of those who answered the questionnaire it is rather encouraging that 185 thought that the situation was improving and only 16 thought it was getting worse. But, education cannot go the whole way, and it may surprise your Lordships to know that, of the 16 members of the committee, 15 came out in favour of legislation as a long stop provision. The only dissenting member was a Mr. Tom Tickle; perhaps he felt a little bit ticklish. Anyway, I am sure he had good reason for his dissent.
When I mentioned legislation to someone the other day as a possible remedy, they threw up their hands in dismay and said, "It is a question of compassion; you do not need legislation, but compassion". But compassion, if it is to be real, is a costly thing. It is costly in terms of time and money and of sticking one's neck out. If a disabled person feels unfairly discriminated against, what can they do at the present time? They can take the matter up with the person concerned, but what can be done if that is not successful? The person could write to Mr. Rossi, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. Mr. Rossi has been very helpful on a number of occasions, and merely by taking the matter up and writing to the authority concerned he has been able to secure quite a number of satisfactory answers. But he has no powers other than persuasion, and if the individual or authority concerned dig in their toes there is nothing that Mr. Rossi can do about it.
This is well-illustrated by the question of access to new buildings, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, touched on earlier. Everybody thought that buildings were going to be accessible after the 1970 Act, but in fact it had no teeth and it was necessary to
568
pass the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred. In that connection I would like to say that yesterday evening the All-Party Disabled Group met the Minister concerned with this particular section—Mr. John Stanley, the Minister for Housing and Construction—and had a very helpful discussion with him. He is shortly going to lay orders, which we all hope will result in new buildings being accessible. That just emphasises the need for legislation in this particular sphere.
I would like to finish with a word about swimming baths. I consider that swimming is the best form of therapy for disabled people, other than membership of your Lordships' House. But when one looks at swimming baths, one must ask whether they are all accessible; do they all have a simple hoist for lowering disabled people and raising them up again? In some cases, I fear that the answer is, No. One wonders, if there was a back-up law that swimming pools and baths should be accessible and should be provided with a hoist, whether progress towards this very desirable end would not be a little quicker.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for once again treating us to his wisdom, as always, on this particular subject. I am going to speak for only a very short time, on a very narrow point which has not been touched on so far. I am going to speak about prevention and in particular about poliomyelitis.
Before I start to do so, I would like to pay a very particular tribute to Her Royal Highness, Princess Anne, for all that she has done in the last three weeks, during her arduous tour in Africa. I have received information that not only was she always genuinely interested but that she was well informed, showed deep compassion, was sympathetic, and was kind. Not only that, but wherever she went, she boosted the morale of the people who are trying to prevent the spread of disablement in Africa; she boosted the morale of field workers. Perhaps she might be able to read this. I would like it to go from this House that we owe her a very deep debt of gratitude. She undertook this trip as President of Save the Children Fund, and this is where I am hanging my few words this evening because I am on the sub-committee of the Stop Polio Campaign. She will have seen the tragedy of the lives of small children in Africa which are already ruined by polio, blindness and other forms of disability. But I am taking the opportunity this evening to tell your Lordships something about the work of the Stop Polio Campaign.
It started in Africa only in 1980, but already well over 1 million children have received three doses of the prevention of polio vaccine. In Malawi, which was the first country they went to, already 72 per cent, of the relevant children, those under two years old, have had their three doses; 3,240,000 children have already been given the doses. There are three expatriate staff and 30 locals in Malawi. We have also been to Swaziland where 22 per cent. of the children have already been given the dosage; Lesotho where 54 per cent. have already been given the dosage. We have also gone into the Sudan, and Zimbabwe recently, and

569
Burma, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Vanuatu, which I gather is in the New Hebrides.
The range of the amount of help that this Save the Children Fund organisation has been able to give to the young children of the up-and-coming generation in preventing them from getting poliomyelitis is really worthy of great note. In 1981–82 they spent well over half a million pounds, over £598,000, in various ways, by sending experts out to train people on the ground, by the purchase of vaccines, by the cold chain equipment which is so vital, and expertise in many fields.
Although prevention of disability is obviously better than a possible cure, if there is no cure then as full a life as possible is surely the right of people of all ages who suffer from any disability. We have heard tonight, and I have listened with great interest, all that is being done in this country, but I thought I would like to take this opportunity to tell your Lordships something of what is being done in the third world.
5.52 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, once again opening a debate on this subject on which he is so knowledgeable. I should like also to support the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, in saying how pleased I am to see the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, here today, and I am only sorry he is not speaking in this debate. There are an infinite number of topics that can arise within the broad range of this debate. While supporting what the noble Lord and many others have said, I shall confine myself to a few of them.
First, we must achieve the best possible use of existing resources. This seems to be the only rational basis for a policy for the disabled. Local authorities can only make the best use of their available resources if they have as complete a list as possible of the disabled in their area and the different disabilities. I understand that Newcastle-upon-Tyne carried out a survey and discovered that there were four times the number of disabled people they had originally thought. The authority then examined its priorities, with the consequence that the Director of Social Services was able to obtain more resources for people with disabilities in the area. I wonder how many other local authorities have done this. I think Newcastle-upon-Tyne is to be congratulated. I wonder what pressure the Government can put upon local authorities which have not taken a similar action.
I am also anxious about possible wastage of resources. I wonder how many local authorities have systematic arrangements for the return to a central collecting point of appliances which are no longer in use. Each year NAIDEX has its wonderful exhibition of appliances for the disabled, indeed the most ingenious gadgets for all forms of disability, and one sees how very expensive they are; therefore any means of possible saving would surely be welcome at any time.
When speaking of the disabled one must always remember that there is a very broad range of disabilities. In the very interesting report by the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, a minority report by Mr. Larry Walters emphasises the need to remember when legislating for the disabled that they
570
include mentally handicapped and not only the physically handicapped, whether the blind or deaf or otherwise handicapped. Indeed, Remploy employs persons who suffer from both physical and mental handicaps at the same time, as well as those who are either physically or mentally handicapped. Indeed, I have seen this in York for myself. The achievement of categorisation is, of course, very difficult but worthwhile if a satisfactory survey is to be achieved.
One way in which local authorities help the mentally handicapped is the day centres. For the relatives who are caring for them this can mean a respite for a few hours each day. For the handicapped person this can mean learning new skills and learning how to make new friends. A girl of 23 whom I know, with a mental age of 3 or 4, has attended one of the day centres in York for about a year now, and has improved enormously. The local authority and the staff are much to be congratulated.
Only last evening I was able to attend the launching, by the Society for Horticultural Therapy and Rural Training Ltd., of their book Gardening is for Everyone. They had posters demonstrating what a disabled person is able to do, whether physically or mentally handicapped. Of course, a garden can be as large as either a front or back garden or a flower pot. Indeed, there was a poster of a mentally handicapped person taking cuttings from a small plant, another of a physically handicapped person planting seeds in a flower pot with an instrument in his mouth. Gardening can indeed be done indoors for those unable to go out, with window boxes and flower pots. I think this society should be encouraged by all the means at our disposal.
I think also that in overseas aid schemes some proportion might well be earmarked for the needs of the handicapped. I have in mind a long conversation I had this summer with a nominated member of the Kenya Parliament whose especial interest was his work for the disabled. He was endeavouring to set up in Mombasa a sheltered workshop. He had some most interesting ideas, and I wish him every success.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, not for the first time as 6 o'clock approaches, having listened to a large number of interesting speeches on this all-important subject by many better informed upon it than am I, I rather wish that the rules of your Lordships' House permitted one to do what one used to be permitted to do in the courts when one had a party with a common interest; one could adopt the pleadings and arguments of the other party and ask the court to accept them as repeated repetatis causa. Were this permissible, I have heard many speeches that I should dearly like to adopt now. I mention in particular two sharply contrasting speeches—that of my noble friend (if he does not mind my calling him that) Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—two very different and contrasting speeches, the one so political, not in any pejorative sense, and the other so full of knowledge and understanding of the subject.
I have only two things that I should like to say, and I hope I do not give a hostage to fortune in saying that I ought to be able to say them in less than four minutes. The first is to echo the appreciation that has already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-

571
Pestell, for raising the subject of this Charter for the 80s. I sometimes feel on these occasions, when those who are speaking in these debates express thanks to the initiator, that perhaps there is something about the thanks of what lawyers might call "words of style". This is certainly not such an occasion. Surely the country's response and, more particularly, the Government's response to Charter for the 80s is a measure of the extent to which we, and particularly the Government, are committed to the promotion of a more civilised society.
I do not imagine that very many in your Lordships' House are anything but chary of politicians who are committed to changing society. But it does no harm now and then to contribute towards making it just a little more civilised. Certainly Charter for the 80s is concerned with that. So we are in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
The only other thing that I should like to say is that I hope that the Government's response to this debate will be constructive, imaginative and positive. I say that because I was concerned with the provisions in the Scottish Bill a year or so ago to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, have referred. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is not here because he might not agree with me. The Government's initial approach to that particular provision was quite lifeless and bureaucratic. It took a great deal of nudging to secure the acceptance of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I mention that not in any spirit of churlishness, but in the hope that, in spite of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, the Government will have reflected seriously on the terms of this very impressive charter and that they will not be lifeless or bureaucratic in their response to what it says.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for initiating this debate. After what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said I shall try to make my thanks sound genuine. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and congratulate him on his pretty broad portrayal of the scene, although he said that he had left out several aspects.
The noble Lord, has given us this opportunity of examining the existing position of the disabled in this country and to decide what needs to be done and how to do it. I, too, should like to say that we are all delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon here and I am only sorry that we shall not be hearing from him on this occasion.
The prevention of impairment, rehabilitation services, access and integration are all interrelated to some degree, some inextricably and some more tenuously. I shall concentrate solely on integration, but not with regard to employment as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, thought. However, while we are on the subject of employment I should like to say how delighted I was to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, speak in favour of the abolition of the therapeutic earnings rule and for the theory of the introduction of the partial incapacity for work. I intend to speak on integration in education. I shall try hard not to go over
572
the same ground as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I was particularly interested to hear what he had to say about dyslexia because he speaks from deep experience. On the general field, I share some of his views on integration but take an opposite view on legislation.
I shall not dwell on the advantages of integrated education because we have been over that so often. However, if the disabled child is educated in an ordinary school, not only will he have better employment prospects but will have grown up with the model of the ordinary child beside him and will know how to behave in a world composed mainly of able-bodied adults. The able-bodied child will treat his disabled peer as simply a fellow human being, warts and all. Therefore, an integrated education is crucial, as I see it, to the whole question of integration because only when the disabled and able-bodied children have grown up together, played together, fought, laughed and cried together will real integration come about.
Among, "Targets at National Level", the charter mentions:
"Providing within all national policies on education for adapted programmes and facilities integrated as far as possible to meet the needs of disabled children and adults with all types and extent of disability and including particulary the severely disabled."
Again, it suggests:
"reviewing existing educational policies to eliminate any provisions that discriminate against children and adults with disabilities."
So what exactly are our existing policies that the charter asks us to review? Do they discriminate against disabled children and adults? Progress towards integration, until now, has been slow. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, touched on this. Section 10 of the Education Act 1976, which called for disabled children to be educated in ordinary schools where possible, was said only to be enacting what had long been the policy of various Governments. Yet it was never implemented.
As the noble Earl said, the Education Act 1981 will come into force on the 1st April 1983—perhaps not an auspicious day, as he said. Even that is a good deal later than was anticipated during the passage of the Act. But will it lead us any nearer to integration? According to the Department of Health and Social Security's booklet "IYDP and After—the United Kingdom Response", the passage of the 1981 Act is:
"perhaps the outstanding event of IYDP so far as education is concerned".
That appears on page 39. On page 40 the booklet states:
"In general, the aim will be to continue to move towards integrating disabled and non-disabled children, and to enable all disabled children to be educated to their full potential".
I would be more inclined to agree with Valerie Hannon of the Centre for Criminological and Socio-Legal Studies, at the University of Sheffield, who writes about the 1981 Act in the Journal of Social Welfare Law, in September 1982, as follows:
"On the issue of integration the Government (to use Balfour's phrase) has nailed its colours firmly to the fence. Integration should be effected, but only subject to three conditions so framed as to permit any LEA in the country to pursue a quite contrary policy. It is interesting to reflect that the accepted wisdom on this Act is that it is legitimising changes which have already occurred in practice, as distinct from an expression of political aspirations which may be followed up by real changes. Yet there is good reason to question whether integtration is indeed becoming the preferred option of LEA's".

573
Later she continues:
"No machinery has been created to impel LEA's to move steadily towards integration in a planned manner. No extra resources are available for the task".
Those who are concerned with the 1981 Act will remember that lack of planning caused much concern during its passage. Without planning how can we move more effectively towards integration?
I suggest that the lack of commitment to improving access in the Act does, in fact, amount to discrimination. The situation for adults in the education field is not much better. Only a few universities are accessible, which means a very limited choice of courses, and evening classes are frequently inaccessible to those in wheelchairs because they are held in buildings and up several fights of stairs.
How are we going to improve the situation in line with the aims of the charter? The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby have already drawn your Lordships' attention to the CORAD Report. They have talked about it in terms of anti-discriminatory legislation, but they also have other recommendations which do not concern legislation. Regarding education, their recommendations spell out in practical detail the aims outlined in Paragraphs 45 to 48 of the World Charter. These recommendations include that local education authorities should prepare a plan for providing a range of facilities in different types of schools and further education establishments designed to promote the integration of disabled children and adults with their non-disabled peers, as recommended by the Warnock Committee. Again, as many ordinary schools as possible should be made accessible to disabled children and adults. Moreover, each local education authority should publish a list of schools in its area with details of which are integrated and which are accessible to disabled people. Universities, polytechnics and colleges of further education should take positive steps, without lowering academic standards, to increase the number of places open to disabled students.
Paragraph 69 of the charter says:
"All legislation should be examined to remove any provisions which discriminate against the rights of people with disabilities".
And, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said:
"All systems of law should include provisions that (among other things) ensure the full participation of people with disabilities and their families, in decisions affecting their lives and the services provided to them".
If all discriminatory measures are removed from legislation, does it make discrimination illegal? I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that the mere absence of discriminatory provision would not make the practice of discrimination unlawful. Paragraph 31 of the charter states that:
"People with disabilities have rights equal to those of all other people in their societies, including the right to participate in, and contribute to, all aspects of economic, social and political life".
That is taken from a United Nations' General Assembly Resolution. Do we need some positive legislation to protect these rights?
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Ingleby and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I shall try not to go over too much ground, but the trouble is that when one is the 15th speaker one must either repeat
574
something that someone else has said or shut up altogether. As other noble Lords discussing the CORAD Report have said, certainly discrimination exists at present. As my noble friend Lord Ingleby said, those who answered the questionnaire felt that the excuses provided by access and fire and safety precautions were the most fundamental cause and manifestation of discrimination. The next most common area of concern was that of employment. I think that that was then followed by education. I shall not bore your Lordships with any examples.
As your Lordships have heard, the majority of CORAD—one member dissenting—eventually concluded that anti-discriminatory legislation was necessary to help disabled people, but it recognised the importance of education and persuasion when accompanied by legislation. I think that here it is worth repeating what my noble friend Lord Ingleby said. We must be very clear as to what is meant by discrimination in this context. It is the unjustifiable withholding—intentional or otherwise—of some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled person, because of that person's disability.
I should like to explain the situation. It would still be reasonable, for example, to refuse someone a job if he did not possess the physical requirements inherent in the performance of some essential task; or it would be perfectly reasonable if, with reasonable accommodation, the disabled person still could not manage to perform the task. So the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is also very important. If the changes necessary to enable a disabled person to carry out the job were judged impracticable or unreasonable, the employer would not be required to make them. I think that that is quite an important point.
Legislation would give the disabled person access to the law when persuasion had failed. It does have an educative effect: both the able-bodied and the disabled would have to examine their position and attitudes and it would set a standard for people to go by. I know that some people—and we have heard it tonight—argue that legislation might damage the goodwill which already exists towards disabled people. I do not deny that a lot of progress has been made and that a good deal of goodwill exists, but we still have some way to go. What I cannot understand is why people should be upset, if they are doing the right thing in any case, if the law simply proves them to be doing so. It would surely strengthen the position of those wanting to help. I have heard that some employers actually welcomed the Race Relations Act because it enabled them to do what they had previously been unable to do owing to opposition from within.
I should like to quote from a letter to my noble friend Lord Ingleby from a disabled lady who cited various instances of restrictions against her, including the fact that not one of over 60 local evening classes was accesible to her. She said that at one time she might have agreed with the view that the advantages of anti-discriminatory legislation might be outweighed by the loss of existing goodwill, but having tried to obtain for herself the same facilities that others automatically enjoy, she feels that there is little evidence to support this view. She writes the following:
"Where an organisation does not want to help, nothing can be done to persuade them at present. Occasionally I have been told, 'There's no law against it' ".

575
Further on, she concludes:
"Until there is effective legislation, on access and discrimination, disabled people will remain at the mercy of another individual's whim: he will dictate where they can or cannot go, not they themselves. Such law would set a standard and hopefully remove the burden at present put on disabled people to complain when they are unfairly treated".
That last point is also valid. The anti-legislationists argue that it is better to educate people, to sort things out amicably and to write letters, and eventually it will all be done. But if, as the charter says, disabled people have rights equal with those of other people, they should not have constantly to complain—it is an exhausting and time-consuming process and sometimes an abortive one too. After 11 months of contact with her local education department about extremely simple ramping procedures—it was only ramping one step outside and one step inside and levelling a portion of floor where there were two steps down and two steps up—and after 11 phone calls and seven letters, the writer of that letter was no nearer her evening class than she had been in the first place. She is by no means a militant because she admits that her thinking has changed with actual experience.
Last summer in another place Jack Ashley introduced a Private Member's Bill entitled Disablement (Prohibition of Unjustifiable Discrimination) Bill, which was unfortunately lost owing to lack of parliamentary time. But I hope that it will come up again soon. In the meantime, I hope that those of your Lordships who are undecided and those of you who are at present against anti-discriminatory legislation, will read the CORAD Report about which my noble friends have talked, and think about it very carefully. It has convinced me, as well as them, that legislation to be used where education and persuasion fail, to be used to back up those who want to help, to set a standard of behaviour and to encourage people to reflect upon their attitudes is the most effective way—perhaps the only truly effective way—of ensuring the integration of disabled people into the community, and would in fact facilitate a comprehensive approach towards such integration.
6.20 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for enabling us to discuss the disablement problem. Certainly for me it has been a most moving debate, thanks quite largely to the contributions made by the noble Viscount and the noble Baronesses in wheelchairs. All of us know of the wonderful courage shown by the handicapped and of their will to overcome their disabilities, and it is up to us to provide all the aids that we can think up. This debate will certainly help towards finding some new way in which to assist them.
On Sunday I had the privilege of joining General Howard Dobson on the saluting base for the march-past of over 4,000 legionnaires in driving rain. The wonderful spirit of those men and women from all three services—some of them blind or in wheelchairs, veterans from the Somme and from the Desert, from Normandy and later wars, men in Royal Marine and Para berets and Chelsea Pensioners—was deeply inspiring.
Less inspiring is my awareness of the injustice done
576
to many of these men and women who were on parade, in the way of their pensions. First, I would say that the state has always acknowledged the debt it owes to the men and women who have served their country so well, and since the end of the last war successive Governments have accepted the principle of war preference compensation, the compensation taking the form of a disability pension, with certain supplementary allowances in connection with unemployability and attendance requirements.
The Legion has always held that such disablement compensation, including the war preference element, should be the same for all, no matter the conditions of their service or for how long and when they served, and that it should be according to the degree of disablement suffered. The basic rates of the war pension and the supplementary allowances have been increased periodically, and over the last decade to combat the ravages of inflation; and, indeed, since the Second World War the real value of the war pension has increased. However, while the war preference allowances for the severely disabled have roughly kept pace with inflation, for the lesser disabled, and in particular the married war pensioners, without supplementary allowances, the war preference element has, to all intents and purposes, disappeared.
Due to improved war pension rates, introduced in 1973, members of the armed forces who served after that date were given advantages over their predecessors. As a result, there has been a considerable gap between the two categories of ex-servicemen. There are anomalies, which are too complicated for discussion in this debate, which need sorting out and clarifying. I have given details of them to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in the hope of getting an assurance that they will be looked into.
The Royal British Legion throughout the United Kingdom takes the view that the Government should introduce a new supplementary war preference rate, so that the ordinary war pensioner and war widow will enjoy the same rates as their younger colleagues who served their country well in recent times. Many of the allowances have been written off as being incompatible with our modern social security system, and left at pre-1948 rates. The principle of war preference is accepted because of the unique nature of service in the armed forces, but successive Governments have shown reluctance to bring in retrospective legislation to help pensioners, many of whom are now old and going through hard times. Let us hope that this most unjust situation will be put right.
Next, I should like to refer to a lesser problem but one which reflects a situation prevailing in many disabled workshops run by voluntary organisations. Due to various factors in Lady Haig's poppy factory in Edinburgh, there has been a falling-off in the number of recruits. It would be a pity if the factory had to be closed and men were denied the opportunity of working in a comradely atmosphere.
Among the various factors affecting our future are the high running costs together with the difficulties of keeping wages high enough to give the men proper security. The wage of £66 gross a week is extremely low, but this is necessary because of the need to concentrate the bulk of Poppy Day money on the ever-increasing claims for benevolence. Our disabled men are faced with the alternatives of working with low pay

577
or leisuring on state benefit. Most people would chose to do nothing, but neither course is attractive. Unless some way round this problem can be found, many men will be subjected to a life of loneliness and boredom.
In our factory most of the hand-craft departments will have to be eliminated, and on the poppy side an automatic machine may have to be introduced to provide the poppies at a reasonable cost. Before we make these drastic changes we must be certain that they are in the best interests of the disabled men. In my view, these changes would go right against the whole purpose of Poppy Day. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will encourage me in the hope that we might offer the men a larger wage consequent to our obtaining grants as a sheltered workshop.
Next, in my capacity as vice-president, I should like to refer to the wonderful training and education being given to partially-sighted and blind people at the Royal Blind Asylum and School in Edinburgh. In the school there are many children who are still partially-sighted but who will suffer a gradual deterioration in their sight. In their case, education is particularly urgent while they can still see something. For these people, many of whom are learning Braille, the problem of learning is being made easier while they are still able to read ordinary letters by the use of various types of reading glasses and magnifiers. In this way, education comes at a crucial stage of development in their lives which may eventually lead to a state of enlightenment. These reading glasses enable the user, with tremendous effort, to read five words at a time due to highly magnified lenses, and are now available on the national health to parents who wish to apply. But the rather more expensive visual text machines, which reflect reading material onto a small screen, are considered to be educational aids and are not yet provided to schools on the national health. So I hope that my noble friend may consider the possibility of schools obtaining this equipment on the national health for use by persons with limited vision.
As past chairman of the Disablement Advisory Committee in the South of Scotland, I am happy to say that in our area most of the disabled are playing a full part in the textile and other industries and, thanks to good employers, we are above the minimum quota. There seems to be a problem of obtaining the necessary regional funds to help towards the cost of setting up small sheltered groups in the area. Most of these groups are small, or even one-man, and, as I understand it, a proposal to employ five persons in a laundry at Dingleton Hospital is being delayed for this reason. The Border area, being a rural area with no serious disablement problems, does not justify the setting up of a large sheltered workshop, but all the more reason to satisfy our smaller needs when they are apparent.
Lastly, I should like to raise two points which affect disabled ex-servicemen as a whole. I urge the Government to give some financial aid to institutions like the Princess Louise Scottish Hospital at Erskine, to help towards the setting up of sheltered housing schemes with nursing care. Due to the mounting age of the majority of the disabled ex-servicemen, many of them need some degree of permanent trained nursing care. For these at present there is no alternative to
578
hospitalisation. Far preferable would be for them to live with their families in homes adjacent to the hospitals where they can find medical treatment. It seems wrong that sheltered housing schemes, which are mushrooming through Legion initiative and which do not provide medical care, qualify for Government aid, whereas sheltered housing with nursing care does not. Perhaps when my noble friend replies to my questions he would also agree to look into the nursing needs of the younger disabled to include not only ex-servicemen who have been injured in the Falklands or in Northern Ireland but civilians as well.
Young disabled men in Scotland needing long-term treatment have to face up to living in an atmosphere which, inspiring as it is at Erskine, is somewhat elderly. There appears to be no provision within the health service for the long-term young disabled person who is mentally alert. The staff at Erskine have found that the lack of companions of a comparable age has tended to make very difficult the task of rehabilitating these young men. This is a problem which should be looked at from a general point of view, rather than be limited to the ex-service aspect alone, though its urgency is increased by the influx of men recently wounded in the Falklands Islands.
The purpose of this debate is to find ways and means of better integration of disabled people in society. Perhaps some of the instances that I have mentioned show just one or two examples of where money should be spent to provide technical aids for the education of young blind people, to keep factories and small, one-man groups going for the employment of the disabled, and to provide for nursing care of the disabled in a family atmosphere if available, or otherwise in an atmosphere that is acceptable from a human point of view.
Far better facilities are needed for all disabled ex-service and non-ex-service alike, and properly coordinated improvements are needed, too. My intervention on behalf of the ex-serviceman, as president of the Haig Fund and Legion in Scotland, is due to my involvement with those ex-service organisations, and is not because I do not see that the problem is one which should be tackled on behalf of disabled people as a whole.
6.32 p.m.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, I, too, should like to say what pleasure it gives me to see the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, on our Benches, as the interest that he takes in the disabled is well known. Since the middle of the last century our society has attempted to help the mentally handicapped by providing long-term care in a mental hospital. Although such institutions started out with high hopes of therapeutic endeavour, many rapidly deteriorated into offering only custodial care. Such is the inherent nature of psychiatric disabilities that if a vigorous, active policy of care is not maintained, patients tend to get worse. This fact has been clearly appreciated over the last 20 years, and attempts have been made to provide care which is based not on the mental hospital, but on services set up outside it, in the community.
I was delighted that the Queen's Speech included the Government's intention to implement proposals from the Care in the Community consultative document on

579
transferring mentally ill and mentally handicapped people from long-stay hospitals into the community. The production of this document some time ago raised all our hopes, but what progress has been made? In England I can find no evidence of concrete proposals. Perhaps I am wrong, and the Minister will correct me. But this is not so in Wales. I applaud the radical changes about to take place there, and compliment the endorsing the recommendations of the report of the All-Wales Working Party on Services for Mentally Handicapped People.
The recommendations proposed a 10-year plan for development of community-based services, urged big new spending on community schemes, and, most important of all, promised that if local authorities endorsed the strategy, the department would increase social services funds to £8 million by the end of five years, and by a further £15 million a year over the following five years. I hope that I have got my figures right. This money would be taken from growth money in other areas of the health service, and would be held by the Welsh Office for grant-aiding direct the development of community services.
By this scheme Wales has faced up to the unequal treatment of mentally handicapped people in hospital as compared with people in acute hospitals, and through this the unfair distribution of resources may begin to be righted. But it is not only greater resources that are needed, though these are crucial. We must endeavour to change public attitudes towards mental disability. Yes, I know that these are changing, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has already said, but they are doing so only very slowly.
The International Year of Disabled People helped to create a greater awareness in society of the needs of people with disabilities, but did little to remove the shame and stigma that is often attached to mental disabilities. We need many more day centres, not only to relieve the burden of caring for someone suffering from a severe mental illness or handicap, so as to give relatives the chance of a few hours to themselves, but to extend to a wider audience the knowledge that these patients are not the monsters that people in their ignorance have been led to believe they are.
Much is already being done by the voluntary sector. To quote only one scheme, I would point out that in my local city of Leicester Age Concern has a large project to raise quarter of a million pounds to provide a multi-purpose centre for the elderly. This is to include a day centre for the mentally infirm. It is a very ambitious scheme, and much hard work by many people is being put into raising the money. I wish them every success.
The voluntary sector has a large part to play, but nevertheless the health authorities have a major responsibility, and care in the community is not care on the cheap. We need many more hostels—Yes, in the community, to prove that living next to people with these handicaps is not the nightmare that so many expect, and can be very rewarding.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for initiating the debate. Other sections of the community have only to ask for more to receive more automatically every year, whether or not the country
580
can afford it. This part of the community has only its voice with which to put pressure on the Government. I am pleased to be part of this voice—the weaker appealing to the stronger.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to join in with all the previous speakers. First, I must give my apologies, because as soon as I have finished speaking I shall have to dash to catch a train. In my conscience I feel that when I come to your Lordships' House I ought to be back at home not too late, so that if anyone rings me up, I shall be there to answer him. Listening to this debate and other similar previous debates the word which comes to my mind is "participation". To me it seems that the public are made more aware of the need of the disabled to take a full part in life—be it work life, or social life, including pleasure and recreation—by the way that the voluntary and statutory bodies and Her Majesty's Government are seen to be working together. I believe that that is happening.
Before I became a Member of your Lordships' House I was aware of what was in some ways being done for the disabled, but later I realised that I was only very slightly aware of it, and it is only since coming here and being involved with the all-party disablement group that my eyes have really been opened to the wonderful work being done by so many people, and in particular to the wonderful example being given by the disabled themselves, including those among your Lordships here.
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to see whether they can respond to the different points made to them and to take note of the concern about the need to bring in partial incapacity aid—I think that I have got it right—and to enable disabled people to benefit from the countryside and nature. Apparently there has been formed a new trust, known as the Country Landowners' Association Charitable Trust, which is hoping to be able to do that kind of thing.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for helping me to appreciate even more the need to bring together the able and disabled. I believe that working together, rather than apart, will greatly enrich society in every way. So one hopes that Her Majesty's Government will be able to respond, on the whole, to all that has been put to them.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Snowdon: My Lords, I came here to listen and not to speak, and am totally unprepared; but I want just to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on behalf of the people who tried to contribute—and I played a very minor part—in last year's International Year of Disabled People. It was, however, only the first 12 months of a new era. If that year gathers dust and is forgotten, it was totally useless. What, surely, we have to do is to make certain that it is not forgotten but is followed up in every possible way. We must make sure that it is followed up with integration, especially integration in schools, where, at the earliest possible stage, able-bodied people and disabled people can mix together. It is exactly the same as where somebody has a different colour of skin. If at

581
the age of four, five or six you do not meet somebody with a differently coloured skin, if you do not meet somebody who is different, somebody who is one of a minority group, then at a later stage, when you do meet them, you do not know how to deal with the situation. If in the majority of cases that integration can happen at school, at that age, then hopefully they will become members and leaders of a better society than we have today.
We must surely concentrate on prevention, which is vital, as so many noble Lords have said so marvellously today. There is also the importance of research at every level, not only to stop polio spreading in the third world but also to ensure that it does not start again in this country, as it could because people have become careless about it. People have forgotten about it; people have taken the situation for granted. At any moment that dreaded disease could break out again in this country, and this is why the "Stop Polio" campaign of the Save the Children Fund is so vital.
We should like to think that discrimination does not exist, but it does. I do not think it is ever practised on purpose, but it is practised through thoughtlessness and a lack of caring. That goes for people in a position of power—architects and engineers in their thinking about access and in giving fire regulations as a feeble excuse when it need not be. It was interesting that in the case of two buildings side by side, the National Theatre and the Festival Hall, the Festival Hall in fact banned or did not allow somebody who was blind to go there unless they were accompanied by a sighted person. The National Theatre is not by any means perfect for disabled people to visit, but because of the people who work there the National Theatre welcome people who are blind, and their guide dogs. In fact, the staff who are showing people to their seats are told where those people are in case there is an emergency; but they are welcomed. Luckily, the position at the Festival Hall has been changed. We were in touch with the GLC and now these people are also welcomed at the Festival Hall.
My Lords, I hate the expression "the disabled". Everybody is disabled, and we are more likely to become so as we get older. It is a question of whether or not we can cope. But every person who is disabled is a first-class citizen, and for them we must demand that equal opportunities and equal rights are taken for granted—not as a favour, not out of pity, but as of right.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging and important debate, and it is rather difficult to wind-up from this side. My only comfort is that it will be much more difficult for the Minister opposite to reply to all the points that have been made in this debate, though I can see that he is probably better briefed than I am. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who once again has shown his sympathy, his compassion and his expert knowledge and concern for disabled people. I do not want to be invidious, but I was especially glad—and I am sure that this is something which I share with all other noble Lords—to see the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), back with us again. She has had a
582
rotten long time in Stoke Mandeville, and it is very good to have her back with us.
I am especially glad that the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, intervened in this debate, because we know not only of his great sympathy and understanding but of his practical assistance, and that is what is so important in this field. Nothing is easier than to have people talk about these things, but we all have to acknowledge a special debt to those who do something about it. I would say with great respect to the noble Earl that I am glad he said he came unprepared to speak, because I can tell him that some of the best speeches I have heard in this House have been unprepared, and some of the most boring have been the best prepared. It is very refreshing to hear a spontaneous contribution in that way.
In trying to pull some of the themes of this debate together I am thinking in terms of prevention, integration, information and education. I found it especially refreshing that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, referred to the problems of other countries. We are, after all, supposed to be talking about the International Year of Disabled People, but we have been very domestically fixated, I feel, during most of the debate. That is fair enough, because we have plenty of problems at home; but her reference to preventive measures, particularly as to polio, I think was a fair reminder to your Lordships that we are talking about a world problem.
I have been in India, and I have seen so many people, especially children, blind for lack of the most simple surgical operation for glaucoma and cataracts, which, in terms of the Western World, cost almost pennies to deal with. There was also the world disgrace of malaria, which can be a crippling disease and can become incurable. For some years we thought we were getting on top of malaria, but now, I understand from friends in the World Health Organisation, it is getting dangerously resurgent.
There are two reasons for this. One is the increase in poverty of many of the countries where malaria is endemic and the second is the high cost of petrol. The spray which is used in anti-malarial campaigns is a by-product of petrochemicals, and has therefore become inordinately expensive. Also, to run the jeeps to get the teams up to the areas to be sprayed also needs petrol, and in many of the third world countries this has meant a curtailment of their anti-malarial programme. There has been, in effect, a fallback from the situation where we had almost eliminated malaria, and it has now come back again, so all the money spent previously and all the previous efforts have been wasted. I feel we must keep this world perspective in our minds.
I agree with what many noble Lords have said about the question of prevention. There are so many children who could have been spared lasting incapacity, health problems and mental problems if only there had been better maternity care and better post-natal care. And, as we are thinking about this aspect of the problem tonight, may I remind your Lordships about the emergency situation at a hospital like Great Ormond Street. We are very glad that the Government have stepped in with what I must call a first-aid contribution to keep things going; because, in hospitals like this one with its highly specialised care of children

583
with serious defects, there can be a real hope for their future if not by removing their problems at least by diminishing them. I am afraid that there must be many other hospitals in this country which do not have the prestige of Great Ormond Street where work is being curtailed.
Not long ago, we had questions in this House about the closing of some very important laboratories at the Westminster Children's Hospital. There was a letter in The Times this morning from some staff at Great Ormond Street which pointed out their gratitude for the interim help that had been given but stated that this had given no long-term confidence in the future of that hospital. I feel sure that the most important aspect of our work is prevention. Although I have mentioned only these two London hospitals, I know that the same anxieties pertain elsewhere in the country.
There are so many aspects of this problem that I am going to confine myself to only one or two. I particularly want to refer to the Education Act and I am very glad that the noble Baroness referred to it. I am a very simple person. When the Education Act 1981 was going through this House I moved an amendment asking that it should be implemented by September 1982. I believe that it concentrates the minds of politicians and of officials very much if they are given a sort of vesting date to which to work. I suggested September 1982 on Friday, 17th July, 1981—as can be seen—at column 1540 of the Hansard of that date. I particularly stressed that there should be a date for implementation of this Act, which, as noble Lords will recall, embodied the main proposals of the Warnock Committee, because I am so old that I remember the 1976 Education Act. Section 10 of the 1976 Education Act stated that disabled children should be integrated into county and voluntary schools rather than in special schools. That has been on the statute book since 1976; and absolutely nothing was done about it. When we got the Education Act 1981, I thought that, seeing that this had been hanging around since 1976, it was not a bad idea to suggest to the Minister that what I call the "Warnock Bill" might start work by September 1982. I got a very moving answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, at that time. She said that she could not accept my amendment, the reason being that (and I am quoting from column 1543):
"we do not wished to be tied to a date … I am already exploring the possibility of bringing some provisions into force earlier than September 1982 . . ."
I thought that that was splendid and in my naive belief in the goodness of Ministers, even Tory Ministers, I withdrew my amendment.
Then we come to September 1982 and I find that absolutely nothing has happened at all. Well, I must not say that nothing has happened at all. As far as the children are concerned, nothing has happened, although I suppose that a lot of important people have been talking to a lot of other important people about it. So I took a deep breath and I put down another Question to ask what progress had been made towards the implementation of the Education Act 1981. By this time, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was in charge. He replied that it had been hoped that the regulations would be ready in time to bring the remaining
584
provisions of the Act into force in January next. The noble Lord said—and I am quoting directly from Hansard—
"This will not be possible and in order to give the local authorities adequate time in which to take account of the regulations, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales now plan to bring these provisions into force at the beginning of April 1983".
I think this is disgraceful. I feel that I was misled, that the House was misled and that hundreds of handicapped children and their parents will now never benefit from the 1981 Act because they will have left school by the time the Government get around to doing anything to implement the recommendations of the Warnock Committee and the 1981 Bill. They will never get those years back again. As far as the children are concerned, those years have gone forever. I think that this is one of the most disgraceful things that I have known to happen since I have been in your Lordships' House.
I want to say a word about integration. I am not concerned only about the integration of people with mental and physical handicaps into what we choose to call the community. There was one disabled lady who said to me the other day: "I don't bloody well know what the community is because it doesn't seem to care much about me"—if your Lordships will forgive my putting it in her words. I found a lack of integration between various offices of the Government, and I will give one particular case, not because I want to do any special pleading, but because it illustrates the sort of difficulties into which disabled people can get.
I know a young man who is registered disabled but he is not immobile and he is not all that mentally handicapped, though sufficiently so to be registered. He is certainly not unemployable. He has done a YOP course and, as has happened to so many young people, at the end of six months there was not a job and so he became unemployed. Not wanting to sit around at home doing nothing, he made some arrangements to go to the local day centre. When he went to the local day centre, the employment office in East Grinstead said that he had to be taken off the dole because if he went to the day centre he was not available for work. He said, "If I sit at home and do nothing, then will I be available for work?" They said, "Yes, so long as you come along every Wednesday and register". I know that some changes are being made in compulsory registration, but this did not happen in this case. So this employable but unemployed young man was told that unless he signed on every day at East Grinstead he could not be considered as available for work. Meanwhile, he was going to a centre at Burgess Hill which is run under the local authority, West Sussex County Council. He suggested—quite intelligently, I thought, for someone who was supposed to be mentally handicapped—that perhaps he could sign on at Burgess Hill in the lunchtime. "Oh, no!" said East Grinstead, "You cannot do that. If you are supposed to sign on at East Grinstead, you cannot sign on at Burgess Hill". So he cannot get unemployment pay because, in the eyes of officialdom, he is not available for work because he is going to a day centre.
I put this forward very seriously not just on behalf of this one person. I would not presume to raise a single case unless I felt that it illustrated a wider problem. Are disabled people who go to day centres to be

585
crossed off the employability list at the employment office somewhere else? I can understand it if disabled people (or anyone else) are on a structured course where one has to do one's three months or six months. But the people at this day centre are merely filling in time longing for a job. They are longing for work. The fact that while they are there they stand less chance of getting some rare, precious job than if they sit at home doing nothing seems totally unfair. I am not trying to make any mean points out of this. I feel that there must be some misunderstanding between the local authorities who run the day centres and the employment offices which are supposed to look for jobs, including of course jobs for the registered disabled. I hope that the Minister can assure me that if a registered disabled person attends a day centre he is not then precluding himself from employment opportunities.
I must say another word about this case, again in illustration of an increasing difficulty for disabled people. This particular young man lives in a village in Sussex. I have already mentioned that he has to go to East Grinstead to sign on as unemployed. He then has to go to Burgess Hill, which is the nearest day centre. The Government have decided to close the local office of the Department of Health and Social Security at East Grinstead. That has now been moved to Crawley, so, in order to claim social security, he has to go to Crawley. When he gets to Crawley, he is told that because there is a health problem his papers have gone to Haywards Heath. It is very serious that disabled people should be pushed around in this way as if officers cannot telephone one another. It seems that Haywards Heath does not speak to Crawley, and Crawley does not speak to Burgess Hill, and Burgess Hill does not speak to East Grinstead. The problems I have seen for this young man would defy people with a far higher IQ than many noble Lords in this House, and so would the leaflets which have been pushed out. And this is to someone who is supposed to be inadequate and disabled, both mentally and physically!
The Minister ought to be glad that I am asking him to do something that will not cost any money. I beg him to lean on these people to ensure that they use the telephone rather than try to put disabled people on buses. I asked a Question some time ago and I know that where elderly and disabled people go to local offices there are circumstances in which they can reclaim their fares. But they have to pay the fares first, and it is not only a question of money. It is not a very good idea for a cripple to have to stand at a bus-stop in the rain in some of our rural areas waiting to go from one place to another just to save an official a 'phone call or two.
I was sorry to get an Answer to a Question that I asked on 2nd August from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, telling me that 16 national insurance offices and 12 area offices have been closed since May 1979. He stated that their work had been absorbed by the creation of 12 new integrated local offices. They may be integrating the offices, but they are not integrating the services for the local people; in fact, they are disintegrating them because they are making people travel further and further, and from one office to another.
586
It is not a question of money but of attitude. I very much appreciate the work that many understaffed offices carry on in great difficulties. I will end the story of that young man with what I suppose might be regarded as a happy ending. A sympathetic official—I hope that I am not getting him into trouble—said, "The only answer is to go sick. If you can get a medical certificate saying you are sick, we may be able to give you some money". Nothing is worse than to tell a disabled person that he is sick. Disabled people have enough problems working within their limitations. This young man said "I am not sick. I am as well as I ever will be". He was told, "No, but we can give you some money. Have you not a nice doctor who can give you a certificate?" This went on for six weeks, and for six weeks that young man received not one penny because all four institutions with which he was in touch passed the buck. However, I shall tell you, my Lords, that he has a lovely doctor and he is now getting £22 a week and he is still going to the centre. But he would so much rather have a job.
This must apply to many people; it cannot be just an exceptional case that I have come across. It raises many questions of principle. Regarding information, I appreciate what so many noble Lords have said about public understanding, and knowledge. From the enormous amount of literature, the number of reports that we have received, and the thought that is being given to this subject by Government and by statutory and voluntary organisations, there is clearly public support for improvements in this situation. I was very glad that my noble friend. Lord Cledwyn, raised some of the factual and financial implications. Many of the points that he made are evidence not only to us on this side of the House but to thousands of disabled and sick people outside that there is not a reality, not a dedication in the Government's proposals.
I am very sympathetic to the discussion about discrimination. I am not quite sure which way forward we should go, but I can tell you that the biggest discrimination of all against the disabled is financial. To be disabled is bad enough; but anything that makes people poor as well as disabled is almost unbearable. The fact that the Government have done absolutely nothing to restore the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit contradicts all their weasel words of good intention. Poverty among the disabled is the most disabling aspect of their situation.
I am glad that one speaker referred to America. I was in America during the International Year of Disabled Persons and I travelled from New Mexico to New England but not by aeroplane. They seemed to be showing a much livelier attitude to this whole problem. There were stickers up in all windows and on stamps saying—and the text is very useful—"Disabled but not unable". They had made special efforts in the smallest communities and the smallest villages. As one noble Lord said, the kerbs had been sheared off for wheelchairs. Every shop had its disabled parking place marked. People were very respectful of them. One did not see hearty young men jumping out of Jaguars having parked in the spaces reserved for disabled people.
I am sure that there is the same latent feeling in this country. I know that the International Year brought something forward to the minds of the public. But it

587
must be followed up, as several noble Lords have said. It is no use the Government saying that local authorities must do this, that and the other while they are curtailing the resources of local authorities. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, gave some very important information on those cuts, and most of us must know of local situations where there has been a cut in services, where there are fewer home helps, fewer meals-on-wheels services, whatever anybody says.
As for the Government's invitation for local authorities to spend a lot more in capital expenditure in the next few months, I only wish that that could happen and that, after the capital has been expended, the Government will ensure that the current expenditure is available to keep these homes for the disabled and these centres going. There are hospital beds—whole hospitals in this country—shut, and not because of industrial action. There are wards closed because of lack of money, and we do need this continuing effort. I know the noble Lord will talk about the economic difficulties of the country. What we are talking about are people who could help the economics of this country if they were given the opportunities for work and for training and, if not for that, the right, which they deserve, to comfort and support.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I find myself rising to my feet rather earlier than I had at one time expected during the afternoon and therefore I hope that your Lordships will think it appropriate if I reply at slightly greater length than I might have done had the hour been a little later. If I see your Lordships getting restive, I will rapidly wind up my speech. I would naturally wish to join those noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation of the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to debate this important subject again today. It has been an important and fascinating debate and I have listened to it with very great interest.
It is particularly appropriate that in introducing the debate the noble Lord made reference to The Charter for the 80s. Your Lordships will know, because the noble Lord referred to it, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister warmly welcomed this document when it was presented to her last year. Its aims go to the very heart of what IYDP was all about—prevention, participation, integration—and in calling for a programme of action over the next decade in pursuit of those aims it underlines the message that IYDP should not be looked upon as a one-off exercise in benevolence but as a spur to continuing activity. That was referred to by several speakers, and not least by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon. This is absolutely right. The achievements of the Year itself have often been debated and dicussed, but I believe we can agree it was a great success in increasing public awareness of the needs of disabled people, in giving disabled people themselves a greater chance to express their own wishes and in promoting opportunities for them to lead as full a life as possible in the community. As recently as last Friday I had the privilege of presenting a special award made by the Institution of Electrical Engineers to an engineer from Reading University for his development of a joystick control system which can be fitted to many standard cars to enable them to
588
be driven by thalidomide victims and other severely disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was there too.
We must now concentrate on what comes after the Year, on maintaining the momentum it generated. That was the message both of the report of the Voluntatry Organisations Committee (appropriately called A Beginning, Not an End) and of the Government's own report on the Year, IYDP and After—the United Kingdom Response. I think that document has been referred to in only one speech throughout the course of the debate, unless I have missed another reference, and that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—my Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who is obviously feeling a little bit "miffed".
It is not something the Government alone can do. The community as a whole must be involved. The activities of the voluntary sector and the hundreds of local groups which have been set up all over the country, groups both of and for disabled people, have a vital contribution to make and I have every confidence that they will not allow the flame of IYDP to die away from neglect. But Government does, of course, also have a role—and in our report we have already made known some of our wider plans for the development of services to assist the disabled.
May I tell your Lordships about some of those plans and initiatives. The theme of this debate concentrates on maximising the opportunities of disabled people to participate and become integrated into their community. But IYDP and the Charter for the 80s both rightly stressed the tragic fact that many of the disabilities people suffer could be prevented. Prevention of ill health and disability is a major priority in the Government's health policy, and we continue to promote the strategy set out in Care in Action. Encouraging progress has been made. For example, the uptake of vaccination against diseases such as rubella and polio has increased over the past three years, and for two years running now perinatal mortality has fallen at the fastest rate since statistics first became available over 50 years ago. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon (whom I see is not now in his place), particularly asked me about the take-up of polio vaccination. I have the figures in front of me, and perhaps I will write to the noble Earl on them.
We shall continue to seek improvements in ante-and post-natal care, in screening services, genetic counselling and health education; and in those measures aimed at reducing the number of accidents at home and on the road. Here, too, it is encouraging that, despite increasing numbers of vehicles on the road, the most recent figures for deaths and injuries have shown a further decline. I hope that the new seat belt legislation will reduce the figures even further.
As a mark of the importance we attach to prevention, we convened an international seminar towards the end of IYDP, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, with distinguished representatives from all over the world. This produced The Leeds Castle Declaration on the Prevention of Disablement, which among its recommendations called for a worldwide expanded programme of immunisation, improved nutrition and health care. I am pleased to say that this United Kingdom initiative has been well received

589
internationally and its recommendations are being taken up by a number of international agencies. I listened with care to the words of my noble friend Lady Macleod about the need for these activities in the third world, and I very much agreed with her.
But however effective prevention measures are, they will never eradicate disability, and our overall aim must be to try to ensure as far as possible that when disability occurs it does not become a handicap. This means working towards the creation of the kind of environment in which disabled people will be able to lead fuller and more integrated lives, wherever possible, within the community. We are concerned that there are still large numbers of people in long-stay hospitals, who, given the chance, could lead more independent and fulfilling lives outside; and we are committed to a policy of developing community care.
May I just digress for a moment on a personal note here. One or two noble Lords, and perhaps a noble Baroness or two as well, raised some questions about that policy. Speaking for myself, with a particular responsibility for mental illness and mental handicap within the department in which I serve, I would say this. If any noble Lords had, as I have, visited some of these dreadful old mental hospitals and homes for the handicapped I am sure they would be wholly in favour of the policy we have embarked upon. The fact is that some of these old hospitals are a public scandal and if there is anything I can do, in whatever time I am spared at this department, to see people moved out of them I shall be a little satisfied. The present thrust of our policy in this area is to get the children out of these places in the first instance, and then move on to the others, who in some cases have been there very many years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question before he moves to another point? When the people are moved out, will he be sure that the resources move with them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend, if I may call her that, raises a very important point. The Care in the Community initiative, which has been referred to on several occasions, does provide for that, as indeed does the Bill which we shall be discussing on Monday.
In July the Government announced their decision on the proposals contained in the consultation document Care in the Community. Some changes we can make right away, and we hope to issue guidance by the end of the year on more flexible arrangements for using NHS funds in the development of community care for ex-hospital patients. We shall be making it possible for responsibility for providing care to be transferred from health authorities to local authorities, matched by the transfer of resources between them. That is the point the noble Baroness is raising. Joint finance will also be available on an extended basis to support projects for getting people out of hospital. We are setting aside £15 million of joint finance money over the next five years for a programme of pilot projects to explore ways of arranging transfers. These projects will be evaluated and results made available to all those concerned in providing community care. Other changes that we want to make involve legislation and, as I have already said, the Health and
590
Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill makes certain additional provisions there.
But getting people out of institutions and into the community is clearly not an end in itself. We must ensure that those living in the community have the necessary independence to lead as full a life as possible. Nearly every aspect of public service provision—health, education, housing, employment, social services, transport—has an important role to play here. Many Government departments are involved in actively pursuing policies to promote this aim. Time does not permit me to list all these in detail, but perhaps I may refer to one or two.
It is clearly important that the equality of opportunities we aim to give disabled people in the educational system is carried over into their working lives, and that people who suffer a disability later in life are given chances of returning to employment. The sad fact is that disabled people cannot be isolated from the effects of the recession. But we are doing our best to mitigate its impact upon them. Both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission are committed to maintaining the level of assistance which is provided for disabled people, and the commission operates an impressive range of services and special schemes to help them into jobs. Very many disabled people find work each year through their local Job Centre—more than 35,000 in 1981–82.
About 16,000 people a year attend courses of rehabilitation and more than 4,000 disabled people a year complete training courses open for open employment. In addition, practical and financial assistance is available to both disabled people and their employers through the MSC's special schemes. This assistance may take the form of help with the cost of travel to work; adaptations to employers' premises to improve access or to ensure that the work environment does not place disabled people at an unfair disadvantage; and the issue of special aids to help disabled people do a particular job of work.
But it is increasingly clear that it is not just the number of jobs available for disabled people that is important. We are also committed to promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people once they are in work—by influencing employers' attitudes regarding the quality of jobs available; by encouraging employers to provide suitable training and career development opportunities for disabled employees; and by focussing employers' attention on the benefits of retaining newly disabled employees, as well as recruiting unemployed disabled.
In 1979, the "Fit for Work" campaign was launched by the MSC and Government, with the full support of the TUC and the CBI, to encourage just this sort of approach—to get these messages across, to change attitudes and to improve the employment prospects of disabled people as a result. The purpose of "Fit for Work" has been to bring home to employers what disabled people have to offer as employees. It may need a little imagination to match the skills and abilities of a disabled person to a particular job. The effort, however, is always worthwhile. Experience has shown that disabled workers are good workers—adaptable, co-operative, conscientious, hardworking and reliable. In many ways they are a prize for an employer—not in any sense a liability.

591
Job prospects for disabled people, as for everybody, are obviously linked to the health of the economy as a whole. As I have said, disabled people cannot be isolated from the effects of the recession, and I make no bones about the fact that there is a great deal more that we would like to do, if we had the resources. I appreciate, too, people's concern that disabled people are more at risk than others in an economic recession. We are very mindful of this. In the social services field, for example, we have always encouraged local authorities in their expenditure plans to pay particular attention to the needs of the most vulnerable, and it is fair to say that they have continued to give the disabled high priority in their programmes. For example, spending on day care rose slightly in real terms over the two years 1980–81, and, while spending on aids and adaptations admittedly fell over the same period, the numbers of cases assisted increased.
Turning now to the cash benefits available to disabled people, last year we spent £2¾ billion on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. Expenditure in this financial year is estimated at over £3 billion—about one-tenth of the total social security budget. In spite of this enormous expenditure, there remain shortcomings in provision which we admit. There is, of course, much more that we would like to do, but I think that this would be true whatever the level of provision we were able to make—the possible demand is almost limitless.
Nevertheless, we should take pride in the achievements which have been made. Governments of both persuasion have introduced many new benefits to help the disabled: for example, attendance allowance for those who require a great deal of attention, and mobility allowance for those who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The present Government have continued the improvement on the system of benefits. Apart from the general increases in benefits each year, we have given special help to disabled people in a number of ways. In 1979, we brought the 61–64 age group into mobility allowance in one stage rather than two—earlier than planned by the previous Administration. Next week the allowance will go up to £18.30 a week, an increase of 83 percent. since 1979. In addition, we have increased its effectiveness by taking it out of taxation and by removing VAT from the purchase price of Motability cars.
Invalid care allowance has been extended to people who are not relatives of the person needing care; and the amount which the carers can earn without losing the allowance is being doubled from £6 to £12 next week. The heating additions which go to the poorest disabled people—those receiving supplementary benefit—are going up by 15 per cent., and, at the same time, we shall extend automatic entitlement to the higher rate of this heating addition to people driving invalid trikes or cars provided by the department and to those receiving a car maintenance allowance.
As well as maintaining the value of benefits and improving them, where possible, we have been making efforts to ensure that people are aware of and claim the benefits to which they are entitled. That these efforts are having some success is confirmed by the increasing numbers of claims—for example, the number of new claims for attendance allowance in the first nine
592
months of this year was 18 per cent. up on the corresponding period of 1981. These are all worthwhile achievements and improvements which the Government have made in a period of considerable economic difficulty.
Our long-term objective is to produce a coherent, more rational and easily understood system of benefits for the disabled. But a comprehensive scheme of this kind, cutting through the complexities and catering properly for all disabled people, would be very costly. The Government could not contemplate introducing any such scheme until the necessary resources become available. That is why the fight against inflation and for prosperity is a fight which the Government are conducting on behalf of the disabled just as much as for any other group.
I have concentrated in my speech mainly so far on measures which the Government are providing, but I feel I must make some mention of the vital contribution made by the voluntary sector towards improving the quality of life of disabled people. In our view, voluntary effort formed the backbone of IYDP. Voluntary organisations are uniquely placed to promote public awareness of the needs of disabled people, to provide information, to be the channel through which the disabled themselves effectively voice their views, in a way which the statutory sector simply cannot do. We acknowledge that and will continue to promote a flourishing voluntary sector, through, for example, financial support. Last year my department alone made grants of £2¼ million to voluntary organisations in the disablement field.
Your Lordships will also be glad to know that we are continuing the "Opportunities for Volunteering" scheme throughout the whole of next year. This, of course, covers voluntary work in the health and social services field as a whole, but it has benefitted projects in the disability field as well, giving individual disabled people the chance to participate in projects affecting other areas of service provision. This, too, is very important in the context of integration.
I turn now to some of the points which have been made during the course of the debate. First, I take up one of the points which was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and more than one other speaker; namely, transport. The Government recognise that the extent to which a disabled person has the independence to lead as full a life as possible is closely linked to his ability to move around. Our aim is to make it easier for disabled people to travel with the same freedom as the rest of the community.
I hope that some of your Lordships have had a chance to see the "Away from Home" exhibition which is on display this week in the upper waiting hall. I commend it to those of your Lordships who have not yet done so. This has been mounted by the Department of Transport, British Rail and the National Bus Company and it illustrates past, present and future work being carried out to enable disabled people to use public transport. It shows, too, the exciting work, in collaboration between the Department of Transport and Carbodies Limited, to design a successor to the London taxi which will be able to carry a wheelchair.
The department is also looking at other ways of encouraging more flexible possibilities of door to door

593
transport for disabled people. Indeed, they are today holding a conference with RADAR to consider how dial-a-ride services could be helped to flourish. A number of these community-based minibus schemes have already sprung up and we are keen to encourage more. There are, of course, some disabled people who prefer the independence of their own cars but who find that they face major obstacles—for example, in learning to drive. The "Away From Home" exhibition shows how the Department of Transport is working to help overcome these obstacles, thus allowing disabled people to enjoy the personal mobility which most of us take for granted.
Education was in the minds of several speakers this afternoon. I have tried to show in my remarks that our aim of promoting the integration and participation of disabled people is reflected across a whole range of service development. One of the most fundamental areas is of course education. In this country, disabled children have long shared the right of all children to education suited to their age, ability and aptitude. However, the Warnock Committee drew attention to the need for a reform of the legal framework of education for disabled people, and the Education Act 1981 embodies many of their recommendations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said—although somewhat disparagingly, I felt—it has been decided that the Act shall come fully into force on 1st April next. Like the noble Baroness, I regret that it has not been possible to bring it into force earlier, but there were some genuine difficulties in drafting the regulations under the Act. Now I am happy to be able to give the firm date. The noble Baroness referred to the statutory provisions which were made in 1976. She will recall that she and her noble and right honourable friends were then responsible. I do not want to make party politics out of this. We are all anxious to get these provisions into force as soon as possible and I am happy to be able to confirm that this will happen on 1st April 1983.
I have a whole sheaf of points raised by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for example, in his most effective opening speech asked about a programme of action, as Charter for the 80s recommended. Many of the aims and recommendations of the charter concerned matters which are already our practice in this country. The Government have made it clear that the remaining recommendations will be taken into account in planning in all departments. I think the noble Lord was concerned that no plan has so far been produced for future action in the field of disability. We have produced the document to which I referred earlier, IYDP and After—the United Kingdom Response, which sets out not only what happened during the year but also what the Government plan to do in the future.
Several noble Lords mentioned the discrimination which many disabled people feel that they suffer. This is an important point, There are calls for antidiscrimination legislation to put it to an end. This is a very serious matter and is certainly one of the most important recommendations of the CORAD report. I do not for a moment deny that disabled people often find that unnecessary restrictions prevent them from going about their lives as they would wish. In a small number of cases there is, I fear, intentional discrimination, and the force of law might persuade those
594
involved to change their ways, but in the overwhelming number of cases I believe that such restrictions arise from ignorance or lack of awareness of the needs of disabled people.
Some of those restrictions can be reduced by legislation in one field or another. I hope, for example, that the Education Act and the Disabled Persons Act will help towards that end. But a great deal can be achieved by the kind of education and publicity generated by IYDP and by the work of local groups, such as access groups, which are being set up all over the country. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who asked me about access officers being employed by local authorities. We would not want to dictate to local authorities how they should set about meeting their obligations under the various legislative provisions which now exist, but the fact that there is an increasing number of these officers across the country is, I think, cause for satisfaction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, referred to a number of minor access problems, including access to lavatories. I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness and the people for whom she speaks about the irritations, small and large, which they must meet in their everyday lives. I entirely agree with her that more education is needed to get better design of such things as lavatories for disabled people. Many organisations, including the Centre for the Environment for the Handicapped, which my department helps to fund, are doing all they can to promote this, and we would wish to give them every encouragement in their efforts. I also endorse the compliments which the noble Baroness paid to the Disabled Living Foundation, which we also help to fund, and a number of other information-providing bodies. The foundation certainly does a most admirable job. The noble Baroness also asked me about the means-testing for people needing aids which is included in Clause 12 of the Bill which we are to discuss on Monday. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I shall leave that point until Monday.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked me about the problems with the orange badge scheme. Unfortunately, there has been some abuse of the scheme. Following consultations with interested bodies, a package of measures aimed at concentrating the assistance provided upon those with the greatest need and eliminating abuse by non-entitled people was announced in July 1981. I have some more information about that package, and perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about it.
Housing was in the minds of several noble Lords who spoke, not least the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Suitable housing is an obvious prerequisite in giving disabled people independence, and, in his speech to the Naidex conference last year, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing outlined a strategy for helping disabled people in this area. In the private sector there are encouraging initiatives aimed at giving disabled people greater opportunities to buy suitably designed new houses of their own, and in the council house sector local authorities, too, have been making substantial progress in ensuring that their own housing stock is suitable for disabled people. The number of dwellings adapted by them for their disabled tenants has increased in recent months. I

595
think that the statistics which are available to me now are not so discouraging as the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred. But they are more recent. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that point. Increasing use is being made, too, of improvement grants to assist disabled people to adapt their existing houses. These are available on more generous terms than hitherto.
The Government are conscious of the continuing need to promote greater awareness of the housing needs of disabled people. The Department of the Environment have made a film, "Housing for the Disabled", which demonstrates how disabled people can lead independent lives in the community and the contribution which the private sector, local authority housing associations and others can make. Incidentally, I have visited a number of schemes, for the housing of mentally handicapped people in particular. I was particularly impressed by a MENCAP scheme, which involved some central Government support, near Birmingham. I saw this a month or two ago. I also visited another scheme near Newcastle, at a place called Ashington.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about the invalidity benefit which was uprated in November 1980 by 5 per cent. less than would otherwise have been the case because the Government thought that the necessary reduction in the social security programme should fall on all benefits which were not taxable. The Government have pledged that this cut in invalidity benefit will be restored when the benefit is brought into tax. I cannot say when this will be because that, of course, is a Budget secret—but certainly it is a pledge that we have given and one that we will stand by.
My noble friend Lord Radnor referred to the problem of dyslexia. I understand that this is quite a complex problem. There are some important discussions going on, and perhaps I can write to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to the problem of VAT and charities, and this is a problem that is very often raised in this context. Charities have traditionally benefited from direct tax concessions and these have been further extended by this Government, but charities have always paid indirect taxes such as petrol duty, purchase tax and now VAT, which form part of the prices of the goods and services we buy. Some specific reliefs are available to charities in this area. For example, there is important relief on medical and scientific equipment bought with charitable funds for use in treatment or medical research. This relief is available to charities which look after disabled people or which carry out medical research as well as to hospitals in the National Health Service. That goes for ambulances, too, and for the types of small minibus fitted out to take wheelchairs. There is also a useful concession on ordinary goods which are given to a welfare charity for resale. This means that charities can operate bring-and-buy shops, jumble sales and the like without charging VAT to their customers.
As far as disabled individuals are concerned, since last year's Budget they have been able to buy a far wider range of specialised aids free of VAT, and in this
596
year's Budget VAT relief was extended to cover cars or small vans designed to be adapted as personal ambulances to carry a handicapped passenger. In fact, virtually every appliance which is designed solely for disabled people is covered by the relief and it includes all subsequent repair and maintenance and the cost of adapting ordinary goods. Charities for the disabled can, of course, get these benefits as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to research into discrimination. I appreciate the noble Lord's wish that research should be undertaken into discrimination against disabled people. This will take time and will be costly, but I am certainly willing to consider the possibility within our other research priorities. This, I believe, was the concern of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and I certainly take note of the research he spoke about, which was of course a good number of years ago now and needs, I would imagine, to be updated.
May I finally deal with some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Haig. First, there was the proposal by the Royal British Legion, Scotland, to introduce a new war pensions preference allowance. May I first assure my noble friend that the Government remain firmly committed to a policy of war pensions preference. In accordance with that policy the proposal for a new allowance has been carefully considered on a number of occasions over the past few years. My honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who has special responsibility for war pensions, discussed the proposal with representatives of the Royal British Legion, Scotland, as recently as April of this year when he visited Edinburgh. Indeed, I myself dealt with the matter when I addressed the annual conference of the Royal British Legion, Scotland, in May.
Let me say that the Government do not accept the basic assumption in the proposal that there has been an erosion of war preference for those in receipt of the lower rates of war pension. Furthermore, as I explained to the Legion's annual conference, the money needed to fund the new allowance is just not available at present, and even it it were, we would not regard it as a high priority. We woulds prefer to concentrate extra resources, when they become available, on the severely disabled and elderly. These seem to us to be a higher priority than war pensioners with the lower assessments of disablement. My noble friend has passed me additional information, which I shall certainly study. Perhaps I may write to him in response to the other points he has raised.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say a word about the quota scheme for employment, and the Government's response to the latest MSC proposals?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do have a lot of information on that and I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to write to him.
This has been an extremely valuable debate. There have been criticisms of the Government that we have not been doing enough, but we have nonetheless done a great deal. During this time of scarce resources we have maintained the value of benefits and extended some of them to new groups of people. In services, too, we have done much. Recent examples in my own

597
department are improvements in artificial limb and hearing aid provision, and there has been important work in many other areas; for instance, in the field of transport and other developments linked to Information Technology Year. I fully acknowledge that more could be done; yes, much more. The expectations of disabled people are rising. They want to be fully integrated into society and so, of course, they should be. Indeed, perhaps I can put it like this. The day when there is no need for a Minister for the Disabled, no need for special services for disabled people, and no need even to talk about disabled people, rather than about people some of whom have disabilities, will be the day when our policy goals and the goals of IYDP have been fully achieved.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that there is an important piece of business to follow this and I believe that I can best serve the interests of your Lordships' House if I do not exercise my right to comment on various speeches, including that of the noble Lord the Minister. All I want to do—and I hope your Lordships will feel that this is the proper thing to do in the circumstances—is to thank every Member of your Lordships' House who has participated in this debate. It has been very revealing and I hope it will be of value to the Government. I have heard every speech with two exceptions; I heard only part of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and that applies also to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I had to leave the Chamber, and I will leave it like that.
My final point is that my noble friend Lord Longford, with his characteristic generosity, rather implied that I do more for the disabled than anybody else in your Lordships' House; and that, of course, is not true; we must have that on the record too. I can look around this Chamber and see five or six people who do infinitely more than I have done, or will ever do. What I do is very limited. I can remember that when I was in the department as a junior Minister for five years, my thoughts often went out in sympathy to Henry II, who asked, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?". In my case, it was not a turbulent priest but a very troublesome woman by the name of Lady Masham of Ilton, from whom I had wads of correspondence at least twice a week for five years—and I am not exaggerating—with as many as nine or 10 letters in each envelope! If your Lordships want to know who is doing all the work, I will certainly tell you, although I am sure the noble Baroness will agree it is never one person who is doing all the work but always a group of people. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Juries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.49 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will be aware that the present position governing the disqualification of people from serving on juries by reason of their previous criminal convictions is
598
governed by the Juries Act 1974, and I do not believe that anyone has ever queried in principle the wisdom of that Act. This Bill suggests that that Act is proving somewhat inadequate and that therefore the time has now come to strengthen it. I will quote really at random four very recent instances, which are all recorded as cases of this year, which suggest that that measure is not sufficiently strong.
There was a case reported on Thames Television of a woman who had 17 previous convictions and who was nevertheless not disqualified from serving on a jury and duly did so. There was a case cited by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his admirable article in The Times yesterday, of a juror at the Old Bailey—or at least he would have been at the Old Bailey if he had not been arrested and not allowed to get there—who turned out to have some eight previous convictions for robbery, forgery, criminal deception and so forth. There was a case recently at the Old Bailey where a juror turned out to have 10 previous convictions for burglary and yet was not disqualified from serving.
There was a case at Peterborough Crown Court reported in March of this year in which a juror, who was challenged because he happened to be recognised, not altogether surprisingly, had 18 previous convictions, including serving six prison sentences, and yet was not disqualified from serving under the present law. It was that juror who, with a charming frankness, said to the press as he left the court, "I would bring in a not guilty verdict whatever the circumstances". None of those four—and they are merely four of what must be a great many more people—were disqualified from serving.
The present law, as most of your Lordships will, of course, know, is that a person is disqualified for life from serving on a jury if he has served a sentence of life imprisonment, or a sentence of five years imprisonment or more, or been detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. And a person is also disqualified from serving for a period of 10 years if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more, or a term of detention or youth custody of that amount. None of the four cases which I have cited come within those provisions.
The reason I think why there has been this development since 1974 is that there has been a very welcome increase in the use of non-custodial sentences, particularly in the use of the suspended sentence, which of course, was not in existence in 1974, and in the result there are now many cases, as I have demonstrated, where people who in ordinary parlance would be called criminals are in fact not caught by the existing legislation and are free to serve on juries.
I have to suggest that this is totally undesirable. It is undesirable for two quite different reasons: first, because anybody who has a criminal record of that nature is a person who is bound to approach a criminal case with prejudices and biases which almost inevitably are bound to be in favour of the defence, and who is indeed quite incapable by reason of his previous experience of approaching a case with the sort of openmindedness that is desirable in a jury. There may be some who will contend that this is not so, and there will be some who will oppose the suggestion made in

599
the present Bill. I look forward to listening to the no doubt moderate opposition of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington in due course. There would be even more vehement opposition no doubt to this proposal from the amalgamated association of burglars, blackmailers and bank robbers. That is the first reason why I suggest that it is wrong that there should be people with criminal convictions on a jury, because they are not capable of approaching a criminal case with the required degree of openmindedness.
The second reason is that there has grown up since 1974 a very dramatic increase in the amount of jury nobbling. Indeed it has been reported that in the last year there were some 13 cases that came to light of jury nobbling at the Central Criminal Court, one of them indeed on the 67th day of a trial. I need hardly emphasise the vast waste of time and of resources that is involved in cases that have to be aborted as a result of attempts being made to nobble jurors. I can only add this: that, if there are 13 cases at one court which have come to light because they were unsuccessful, there must, commonsense dictates, have been a large number of cases that were successful and have not come to light, and of course in each of those cases that were successful the result must have been that the course of justice has been perverted.
I cannot prove by evidence that if one is setting about the nobbling of a jury one choses to approach the people on the jury who have previous convictions. But again I have to suggest that that is really a matter of the most elementary commonsense. Of course one would approach in the first place those who have been in trouble with the police, and the more often they have been in trouble the more readily would one approach them. And unhappily, despite all the precautions that are taken, we know it is quite impossible to prevent the discovery by one devious means or another of the previous history of jurors. In those circumstances the existence on juries of people with criminal records is a very real temptation to the jury nobbier and may very well be successful in many of the cases which never come to light.
What this Bill proposes is what I hope your Lordships will agree is a modest addition to the present powers of disqualification. It proposes that in addition to the existing position a juror should not be eligible to serve if within the last 10 years he has twice been convicted of an indictable offence. Your Lordships will remember perhaps that last session there was much talk about proposals of this nature, and without going into its history there was at one time a proposal put forward by the Government in another place that the disqualification should be varied so that anybody who had on one occasion been convicted of an imprisonable offence should be disqualified. The measure which my noble friend, Lord Harris of Greenwich and I now wish to put forward to your Lordships is very much less drastic than that.
It is less drastic, first, because it provides that before a person can be disqualified—unless, of course, he is caught by the existing provisions of the Act—he has to have committed an offence on two separate occasions. We are not seeking to catch the person who has succumbed to an isolated temptation once in his
600
lifetime. Secondly, it is less drastic because instead of using the Government test of an imprisonable offence, which would include all summary offences where imprisonment might be passed and indeed would catch a very large number of motorists, the test here proposed is that of an indictable offence, in other words, an offence capable of being tried on indictment, which is, broadly speaking, the more serious type of criminal offence. Thirdly, our proposal is less drastic than the Government's proposal last session because it will only apply for a period of 10 years from the first of the two convictions, so that if a person has a long gap between his two convictions, seven or eight years, he would only be disqualified for a comparatively short time, whereas under the Government's proposal it would always be for a minimum period of 10 years.
The criteria which we have put forward in this Bill are open to discussion; of course they are. I do not think anybody would claim that we are necessarily in any way infallible in putting forward the tests we have suggested. Whatever tests one applies there are bound to be cases at the margin which it will be said make hard law. Perhaps the test that is put forward in this Bill can be applied for a moment in relation to somebody at the margin to see quite how reasonable it is. Let us take a person—may I say without being in any way anti-feminist, a woman—who has been caught shoplifting and on two occasions has stolen a pair of socks from Marks and Spencer's. I can well understand its being said at first blush, "Well, really, is it desirable or necessary to disqualify such a person from jury service for 10 years?" But the more one thinks about it, the more one realises that even on that marginal case there is a person who has been apprehended outside a shop, taken back to the manager's office, interrogated by the store detective and searched; the police will have been called and she will have been interrogated again. She will have been taken to the police station, searched and formally charged. Finally, she will have turned up at the magistrates' court. She may have elected to go for trial. She will have either admitted her guilt or denied it and been disbelieved. If that happens twice in a comparitively short space of time, then even in what I regard as an extremely marginal case it is perhaps not unreasonable to say that a person who has been through that sort of experience on those occasions is unlikely to make the sort of juror who will try a case with reasonable fairness.
In conclusion, I know that it is impossible to discuss a topic of this nature without talking about rights and liberties. I hope that we shall carefully consider what we mean when we use those words. I find it difficult to see that a person who has been convicted on at least two occasions of substantial criminal offences can claim to have a right to sit in judgment upon his fellow citizens. I find it equally difficult to see how anyone who is alleged to have committed a crime can claim to have a right to be tried by those who have committed substantial criminal offences. It seems to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and myself that the important right that we are considering is the right of the community to have a trial system in which defendants will be convicted if the evidence proves their guilt and which is not capable of being perverted in the way that we have seen so often.

601
My only other observation is that your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the end of the debate on the gracious Speech, indicated that the Government supported, in general terms, a measure to this effect. They were not, for reasons I know not, willing to introduce legislation themselves but they were hopeful that perhaps an honourable Member in another place might be fortunate in the ballot and introduce a Bill there. The object of introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House at this early stage in the Session and asking your Lordships to give it a Second Reading is to demonstrate that there is weighty support for a measure of this nature which might act as an encouragement to an honourable Member in another place to proceed along that path. If an honourable Member in another place chooses to take that course I need hardly say that those of us who support this Bill here now would not seek to pursue it further and if a Bill was under way in another place we would be very happy to lend whatever co-operation and support we could give to that measure. In those circumstances, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Wigoder.)
8.4 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for enabling us to discuss the important subject of disqualification of jurors and, if I may say so, to do so in such an undogmatic fashion. The jury system has been under a great deal of attack of late. Despite its occasional lapses and frequent surprises I believe the system provides a vital and invaluable protection for the liberty of the subject in this country. It has been rather unkindly said of Welsh juries that they are against crime but they are not dogmatic about it. I think that is a libel on Welsh juries. In my 15 years as a recorder in South Wales I do not recollect many perverse verdicts there. That there can be perverse verdicts is undoubted. I believe it was the late Lord Goddard who said:
"There is no machinery that can prevent us from the occasional perverse verdict".
Jury service is, of course, both a duty and a privilege. It can often be a burdensome duty and in these days of very long cases that is perhaps more so than has been the case in the past. But it is also a privilege in that it enables the citizen to take part in the administration of justice, public confidence in which it is vital to sustain. It enables him and gives him a sense of his significance as a citizen to play his citizen's part in the conviction of the guilty or to ensure the acquittal of the innocent. Some may regard jury service as something that they would be glad to be disqualified from having to carry out. For others, disqualification would be regarded as a serious diminution of their status as citizens, making them a kind of second-class citizen. Of course, I am not referring to those who are disqualified or rendered ineligible by virtue of the offices that they hold.
One thing will probably emerge without dispute in this debate. It is clearly not acceptable that those with long or significant criminal records should serve on juries. I think that is language which I found in an article of great interest by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, yesterday. As the noble Lord, Lord
602
Wigoder, indicated, already the Juries Act 1974 sought within its limits to deal with the problem. It disqualifies from jury service a person who has at any time been sentenced in the United Kingdom
"to imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more".
That carries a lifetime disqualification. It also disqualifies a person,
"who at any time in the last ten years has. . . served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention being a sentence for a term of three months or more; or. . . been detained in Borstal".
Perhaps in his reply the Minister will tell us how effectively that provision is enforced so far as it goes. Do some such criminals in those categories still get through the net? If so, is there not a case for strengthening enforcement of those provisions? I certainly would not object to that.
Other steps have been taken to protect the public and the integrity of the trial process. Some of them have been regarded as highly controversial and much criticised. In August of 1980 the Attorney-General announced some extension of the provisions for jury checking or vetting. While I do not want to open that wide area of controversy perhaps the Minister could throw some light on how those provisions are operating to protect—again, I repeat the phrase—the integrity of the trial process.
We have not been, as a Parliament, indifferent to this problem although it may well be, as I think it is the case, that we have not done enough. It is well to remember, for instance, that majority verdicts have been introduced and they have greatly reduced the old risk that one or two prejudiced, maverick or nobbled jurors might achieve unmeritorious acquittals.
The Bill proposes very considerably to widen the range of those who will be disqualified from jury service. Indeed, it catches far, far more than the type of case which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned in the quartet that he identified. Not only will the Bill disqualify persons who are convicted twice of possibly minor offences, even though, truly, they will be indictable, even when no term of imprisonment is included in the sentence and, indeed, the offenders may never have been inside a prison at all. As I understand it, unlike the Juries Act, no time limit is created by the Bill as regards the disqualification—it will be a disqualification for life.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I think that is not so. I think it comes within the part of the Bill which is sub-headed, "Any person who at any time in the last 10 years". So it would only, therefore, catch those people who have been convicted twice in the previous 10 years and, of course, as they grow older, if they commit no further offences, so they will not then be eligible for disqualification.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and of course accept that. However, the significance of the Bill is its very wide extension to include those who may have committed very minor offences indeed. The concept of rehabilitation seems to be abandoned in the contemplation of the Bill. It will, I repeat, catch minor offenders. I have—I shall not use the phrase "bitter memories"—very live memories of my attempt to persuade the House to give effect to the report of the Committee of Lord Justice

603
James which recommended that small thefts of property up to the value of £20 should not be indictable. We lost that, so they are all still included in the category of offences two of which will result in a possible 10-year disqualification. It means that thefts on two separate occasions, possibly under stress or in circumstances of such mitigation that at any rate the relevant court might decide not to send the offender to prison, will be caught by the provision.
The House should consider carefully whether the Bill does not over-react to the present difficulties and go far beyond dealing with the category of those with significant criminal records, which is what we should be principally concerned about in the consideration of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the fact that in another place—indeed, it was during Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill—the learned Solicitor-General made a very specific statement (and I think it right that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, should raise it at this stage) when he said:
"It is proposed to introduce a new disqualification. The Government have it in mind that a person should be disqualified for 10 years"—
not for life—
"if convicted of an imprisonable offence".
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, that, of course, is far wider than an indictable offence. The Solicitor-General went on:
"The Government welcome the earliest discussion and exchange of views on that provision".
It is very important that the House should know the Government's intention because that will clearly affect our attitude to the Bill. Do they intend to legislate as they then indicated they proposed to do? Indeed, is this not a matter that calls for governmental legislation rather than legislation through a Private Member? It is a matter for serious concern. Upon the answer to those questions the future of this Bill will very greatly depend.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I also should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for having afforded this opportunity for objective discussion on a most important subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whom I have the privilege to follow, referred to the enforcement of existing provisions and with that, with respect, may I be allowed wholly to agree? But are the existing provisions adequate? Does the Bill over-react? Surely any step towards maintaining the trustworthiness, the trustworthy quality, of jurors which in turn means that they are true to their oath, is not only welcome, but requisite.
In general, the type of juror whom this Bill seeks to disqualify is unacceptable for two reasons which are interrelated. In the first place, they have exposed themselves to the attentions of those jury minders. "No evidence" says the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and with that I agree. But do not some of your Lordships remember the recent television programme where there was the ex-villain who, with uncanny accuracy, picked out every single time, time and time
604
again, each member of the mock jury who might fall prey to his threats or his bribes? There is no evidence, it is true, but may we not use our common sense?
Secondly, it is true—I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as I usually have the privilege to do—that majority verdicts have lessened the evil. That is true, but still, in the world in which we live, a handful of perverse jurors can still play havoc with majority verdicts not only to delay but to defeat justice. At times, lawyers—I suppose it is a type of methode de métier—by picking at the stitches, destroy the fabric, and that is not my intention tonight. But the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in a sense opened up this arena when he said very fairly—and he always is fair—that the criteria are open for discussion. Perhaps consideration could be given in Committee to whether the crimes triable on indictment which disqualify could be limited to crimes of dishonesty or violence to the person. I take on board again a thought from the noble and learned Lord, Lord-Elwyn Jones, in this regard, as to the width of the existing drafting. For, as matters would stand under the Bill as drafted, a bank cashier in his mid-20s who at the age of 16 had been fined £5 for committing a public nuisance and at 18, £20 for threatening to damage his neighbour's chicken coop, would be disqualified from jury service. If anybody wishes to check that—those of us who are not lawyers—it will be found in the schedule relevant to Section 17 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Even if one takes on board Lord Wigoder's marginal case, perhaps, as drafted, the Bill could be thought to be too draconian. But, if we have to err on one side or the other, on this occasion let us be avowedly draconian. And why?—because trial by jury in criminal cases must be maintained as part of the tradition of our fundamental freedoms; because this Bill would restore a measure of lost respect and enhance the trust we have in juries to honour their oath; because the interests of the due administration of justice demand no less than our support in principle for this Bill.
In conclusion, may I add one final caveat? All instant legislation to deal with a specific evil is suspect. This is because one ought to take into account all aspects of the problem. And so it is with juries, so it is with this problem. Therefore, my real hope—and it is a personal expression of opinion, although I would support this Bill on any Division—is that this Bill could provide the catalyst to such an end; that is, a more general review.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think it is common ground on the basis of the speeches which have been made so far that the issue we are debating this evening is a matter of great importance in our system of criminal justice in this country. For that reason, if for no other, we are much indebted to my noble friend Lord Wigoder for having introduced this Bill today, although at this stage I would enter one caveat and I suspect that my noble friend would agree with me. I very much regret that we are not discussing a Government Bill to deal with this matter, which was indeed the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Frankly, I do not believe that in normal circumstances it is appropriate for private

605
Members to attempt to legislate in areas of this kind. It comes far better from the Government. I very much hope that we may have some indication from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, at the end of the debate that the Government have thought about this matter again and have decided to bring their own legislation before either House of Parliament.
The reason for this Bill is fairly clear; it is that substantial evidence has emerged over the last year that determined efforts have been made to corrupt jurors in a significant number of cases tried at the Old Bailey. These cases have involved men charged with offences including armed robbery, fraud and conspiracy to import dangerous drugs. As my noble friend Lord Wigoder pointed out in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, so far as we know, approaches have been made to juries in 13 cases, all of which were subsequently aborted. As he again pointed out, there is of course the fear that in many other cases similar approaches have been made to jurors who did not report the fact that they had been approached to the police. It would indeed be remarkable were this not to be so, for who can possibly believe that in every single case where an improper approach was made to a juror that juror went to the police? Consequently, we have to accept that, in a number of cases involving serious offences, juries either disagreed, rendering new trials necessary, or may have brought in verdicts against the evidence.
I believe that this is an exceptionally important matter. At a time when the community is rightly concerned about the rising level of serious crime, I believe that there will be grave public disquiet if it comes to be believed that dangerous and sophisticated criminals can buy themselves out of trouble by the simple process of corrupting jurors. I accept at once—as, indeed, does my noble friend Lord Wigoder—that this Bill, by itself, will not solve that problem totally. Of course it will not. But I believe that if enacted, it would make life infinitely more difficult for the jury nobblers.
However, quite apart from that issue, I think it is wrong in itself that people convicted of significant criminal offences should serve on juries. How can they possibly be expected to weigh police evidence in a spirit of impartiality when they have often bitterly contested such evidence at their own trials? They are bound to be prejudiced against the prosecution case. I do not believe that it is generally understood that even when people have been repeatedly convicted they are not necessarily disqualified from jury service. If I may, I shall give a number of examples to demonstrate this. All these cases were heard at the Old Bailey and all of them apply to defendants in those cases. All of them took place within the last two years.
In the case of the first, a woman who had 17 convictions over a period of seven years for shoplifting, receiving stolen goods and theft from the person was qualified for jury service. In the second case, there was a man who had 12 previous convictions, ranging from unlawfully taking a motor vehicle to theft, assault and going equipped to steal. Again, he was qualified for jury service. In the third case, there was a man with six convictions, including receiving stolen goods, causing actual bodily harm and causing grievous bodily harm. Again, he was qualified.
606
The fourth was a man with convictions for theft, possession of an offensive weapon and possession of a sawn-off shotgun. He similarly was qualified for jury service.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, will he indicate not only whether they qualified but whether they actually served on juries?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall gladly deal with that point. No, they did not serve on juries. I fear that I may not have put this as clearly as I should have done. The point I am making is that all of them were defendants at the Old Bailey and all of them were qualified for jury service, notwithstanding the long records of previous criminal convictions.
I do not believe for a moment that Parliament ever intended that people of this character should serve on juries. That they do so arises from the fact that there has been a radical change in sentencing policy in the last decade. Men and women who would formerly have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of three months or more and, as a result of that, would have been disqualified from jury service, are now given non-custodial penalties. Suspended prison sentences, which can of course be awarded only if a prison sentence is in itself appropriate in the circumstances of a case, were first introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Community service, regarded as an alternative to imprisonment, was not introduced until 1972.
I warmly welcome the fact that the courts use these disposals extensively. It is highly desirable that we should do everything we can to limit the number of people sentenced to terms of imprisonment. But that most emphatically does not mean that those convicted repeatedly in the courts and who miss being sent to prison by the slimmest of margins are appropriate people to serve on juries. That many do so is, in my view, deeply objectionable. It is wrong in itself.
It is also wrong because I believe that such people provide a tempting target for the jury nobblers. Many inevitably are well-known to the criminal community. Some, unhappily, see themselves as serving some form of apprenticeship in crime. Others are sad, inadequate people, who find themselves quite unable to resist temptation. When, after they have been empanelled on a jury, a man whom they know slightly approaches them in an Underground station near to the Old Bailey—I understand that St. Paul's is a particularly favourite spot for this; the Underground station, I may hurriedly say, rather than the cathedral—and tells them that by chance they are sitting on a case in which a friend of theirs is a defendant (a person whom, it goes without saying, is entirely innocent) and then presses a bundle of bank notes into their hand, who believes that necessarily their first instinct will be to report the approach to the police? In perhaps the odd case they may well do so; and of course in a number of cases such corrupt approaches have been reported to the police. But many of these people, with substantial records of criminal convictions are, for perfectly understandable reasons, bitterly anti-police. Many also have pressing financial problems. The risk is—and it is a clear risk—that they will pocket the money and be influenced in favour of the defendant in the case.
It has been said, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that this is not a new

607
problem. Indeed, as he rightly said, it provided one of the principal reasons for the introduction of majority verdicts in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Mr. Jenkins, who was then the Home Secretary, received evidence that a number of sophisticated London criminals were using the unanimity rule to threaten relatives. It was not at that stage by and large the offer of financial inducements, but rather direct threats, which were employed against the relatives of individual jurors, that harm would befall them if a verdict of guilty were returned in a particular case. For that reason, and for a number of other reasons, Mr. Jenkins decided to introduce the majority verdict.
It was a decision that was fiercely attacked by The Times and the Sunday Times. I am not sure whether they used the term "over-reaction", but from what I can recall of the controversy, I suspect that they used language rather more extravagant than that. The proposal was opposed by some members of the criminal Bar and by a number of Members on both sides of another place. However, thanks in part—and this I believe should be said—to the redoubtable support that we received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, this important change in the jury system was carried through both Houses of Parliament. I believe that the rather extravagant fears that were entertained by some of our critics at the time of the passage of that section of the Act have since been proved to be unjustified. Indeed, today I know of no serious commentator who believes that we should now revert to the old unanimity rule. However, I am bound to say that the evidence that we had on that occasion was considerably less than the evidence that is now available of the form of grave improprieties as have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.
Of course, we know that, despite the introduction of majority verdicts, the jury nobblers are once again hard at work—and as I have indicated, on a scale far exceeding anything that we knew to be the position before the passage of the 1967 Act. The reason is not hard to find. It is exceptionally difficult to catch them. There take place every year at the Central Criminal Court scores of trials in which it is possible that approaches can be made to individual jurors. In any event it is a mistake to believe that the problem relates exclusively to the Old Bailey. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, in a particular television programme which he watched, as I did, it was suggested that the problem was far more significant. I know of experienced judges and members of the Bar who believe that this form of corruption is now appearing in other courts—some others certainly in London.
I believe that in the light of that situation it is, frankly, fanciful to claim, as did one of our opponents in another place, that it is a problem that can safely and securely be left to the police. The police simply do not have the resources to protect every juryman in every trial at which nobblers may be at work.
In one recent trial which took place, I believe at the Central Criminal Court, no fewer than 48 police officers had to be employed to give protection to the jury, and on the basis of elementary mathematics it is easy to work out the sheer resource implications of that kind of jury protection. It would require a force of
608
many hundreds of police officers, working full-time, to deal with the problem, and even then it might not be effective.
Certainly I repeat that I would not suggest that the Bill before the House would end the problem, but I believe that it would make a significant contribution towards limiting the growth of this deeply disquieting development. I very much hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replies he will give us not only some indication that the Government share our anxieties—I am sure that they do; that has been made clear by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and the Attorney-General. What we also hope to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is a clear indication that the Goverment themselves are prepared to take some action in this matter. In saying that I would repeat that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for having introduced the Bill, and I very warmly welcome it and wish it well on its way.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for introducing the Bill. Certainly it is a Bill the objective of which is very well supported. My anxiety would be whether there are any teeth with which to enforce it. The right to trial by jury is of course fundamental—trial by 12 men good and true, not by eight men good and true and four crooks and criminals.
I should like to touch on the history of the matter, for just a moment. At common law there was no difficulty. Every jury was kept separate without meat, drink, fire, or candle, until they were agreed. That happened in the trial of the seven bishops, when they were acquitted after the jury had been confined all night. The result was that there was no jury nobbling, no chance to nobble them at all. They were always unanimous because they had been kept together until they were agreed. That went on for centuries.
Then there was the next stage, which is very important—the question of majority verdicts, which I remember well. For many years now instead of being kept together throughout the trial all night, jurors have been allowed to separate, to go and have their lunch at tables next to the witnesses or the friends of the accused, to go home at night and be followed by the accused or their relatives, or whoever it may be. They have been completely separate, with no protection or guard over them, with every opportunity for jury nobbling, for payments to be made, for bribes to be made. That, it is said, is what led to majority verdicts. I remember it well. Cases at the Old Bailey went on for three or four weeks and then at the end one man would disagree. He would not agree to a verdict of guilty, and the whole case had to be tried over again. That was the reason why majority verdicts were introduced. I agree that I was wrong then. I opposed it. I supported the old principle of unanimity, and I voted against the change. But I was wrong. Majority verdicts have proved their worth; they have been entirely successful, and I was wrong in those days. Majority verdicts were the first way of curing the evil.
But now we have this position. It should be realised that everything has been changed as a result of the

609
report of the committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, under which every person on the parliamentary voting list is entitled to be on a jury. In the old days, in which I was brought up, there was always the householder qualification. The sheriff's officer would summon them, and those householders were all good men and true. Never did we have this trouble in those days, when there was the householder qualification—no nobbling or anything of that kind. But now it is open to everybody on the voters' list, nobody—not the court, the sheriff's officer nor the police—knows anything about those individuals; everyone is there on the panel and may be called.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest realised that there was a danger in this. How were you to find out those who were not worthy to be on a jury? He quoted the very words of Blackstone, that the members of the jury should be "superior to suspicion". How are you to ensure that when you take their names from the whole voters' list? What they said—and they recommended it—was that there should be a questionnaire put to every person who was to be on the jury panel, and in that questionnaire they should be asked such questions as, "Have you been convicted of any crime?", or in this particular case, following what my noble friend is saying, "Have you been convicted of any indictable offence?" That is the way to find out.
That questionnaire has never been authorised by statute. You ought to be able to ask the individual whether he has been convicted of any indictable offence. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest considered this very question which the noble Lord has put today of the indictable offence, and his committee said that that was not a question which any individual could properly answer. If he is asked, "What is an indictable offence?", he does not know; he has to go to the schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act. There you have three or four pages of sections of Acts of Parliament and many offences within those Acts. The number of indictable offences is innumerable—thousands of them, one might say—and, of those, thousands upon thousands are tried summarily by the magistrates.
What the committee of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest feared was that it was not practicable to enforce it. It certainly was not practicable to ask prospective jurors the question, or for a man to know whether or not he was breaking the law. Suppose a man had been convicted of a motoring offence—dangerous driving, perhaps—by the magistrates; he could have been tried by a jury, but he was not. When he was asked, "Was that an indictable offence?", he would simply say, "I do not know". In other words, on the test in this Bill the individual concerned would not know whether or not he was disqualified. Who is to tell him whether it is an indictable offence?
What Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and his committee said on this very subject about indictable offences—it is paragraph 141—was:
"The best way of excluding persons who are subject to disqualification is to require them to declare the fact to the summoning officer. It follows that the criterion of disqualification must be a simple one which can be quickly understood by prospective jurors. This seems to us to rule out any proposal to disqualify persons convicted of indictable offences, since such offences are often tried summarily, and an individual can hardly be expected to know whether a particular offence is indictable or not".
610
So this very point was considered by the committee of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, after hearing all the evidence and many proposals, and they rejected it because they said, "No individual, no ordinary chap, can know whether or not he has been found guilty of an indictable offence."
That is why I said we want some teeth in this Bill. How can you prove a man is disqualified under this test when you cannot tell him whether it is an indictable offence, or what offences are indictable? There is the trouble and the weakness of it. If I may say so, I should like to see Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest's recommendation of a questionnaire adopted, or the other alternative—and one does not like this—is for the police to be able to go through the list of names on the jury panel, put it on the computer and see how many have been convicted; but one does not like the idea of jury vetting of that kind. So all I would say is that there are grave practical difficulties, although I would sympathise entirely with the object of this Bill, which is to have all these people disqualified. I would disqualify the lot; the difficulty is the enforcement of it. Whether it can be dealt with in Committee or by means of a Government Bill is another matter.
I would end with this. Surely the time is right, in view of the modern problems which have arisen since everybody on the voting list has been eligible to serve on a jury, with no means of checking whether that person is good or bad, to give further consideration to the matter, in particular to the suggestion of the questionnaire which Lord Morris's committee recommended, to jury nobbling and to jury vetting—and, I would add, to peremptory challenges. The time is right—and it should be done quickly—for there to be a reform of this branch of the law as to juries. Lord Wigoder has started on the way, and I hope the Government will take it up and do something urgently to deal with this most important problem.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I intervene, very briefly, in this debate. With six legal luminaries, a former Minister at the Home Office and a present Minister at the Home Office speaking, I presume to speak for ordinary people, for the ordinary man in the street. During the time I was working, I counted among my friends and acquaintances a number who had committed offences and who had been found guilty but had not been in prison. I was called to jury service. It was quite wrong that I should have been called, I think, and I was exempted under Section 9(2) of the Jury Act 1974, on the grounds that I would know those coming before the courts. Indeed, had I served on the jury I would have known as my acquaintances and friends several of those who were being charged.
At the time I was working with a number of young men, all of whom had been before the courts and had been found guilty but not imprisoned. I said to them, "If I had been on the jury, what would you have thought?". One young man said, "I would not have liked you to be on the jury, Miss; you would have known too much about me". Another young man said, "I would have liked you to be on the jury; you could have spoken up for me". Another one said, "I do not think it would have been fair if you had been

611
on the jury because it would have put a strain on you, because you certainly would have spoken for us, wouldn't you, and found us innocent?" These were the reactions of these young men.
Perhaps I have criminal tendencies, but I am sure the Minister would agree that I have not committed two offences within a certain number of years. Now, if they say those things to me, this is what they say among themselves—and I need hardly say so to your Lordships because, of course, it is well known. But certain of them feel that justice is not done if there is somebody on the jury who knows them and with whom they have been mixing, because he might belong to another gang and might find them guilty when in fact they were not guilty and when he knew them not to be guilty—and this is particularly so with drugs. The other set of young men would expect of their friends on the jury who themselves had been convicted that, moving in that circle, they would be found guilty. When one is talking to these young men, one finds that they are quite honest and realistic. Of course, they would like somebody on the jury who would get them off, but they are honest enough to say that it would not be right.
Then there is the third type of man, a man who was convicted perhaps many years ago. I think that sometimes one thinks: "Well, if it is many years ago, it is past history and therefore let us take no notice of it". But a young man said to me only the other day, "If I were called to a jury, I can never forget what happened to me five years ago and I should always find somebody not guilty if I were on a jury". The fact that they have themselves been before a court and have been found guilty does colour their feelings for a very long time. Therefore, I support this Bill. I cannot pretend to argue the legal points, but I support the principle of the Bill and the objective of the Bill, in that the kind of people whom I have mixed with, who have been my acquaintances and friends, as much as anybody else, want justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to be associated with the expressions of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, whose Bill, as to objective and as to general method, I heartily support. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred to the Morris Report. The Morris Committee identified as the two particular purposes of criminal procedure, first—and they emphasised "first", as I think all your Lordships would—the acquittal of the innocent; but, secondly, not to be forgotten, the conviction of the guilty. It is that latter consideration which really lies behind the Bill. It certainly does not mean that we do not put first the acquittal of the innocent.
My noble and learned friend also cited a famous phrase, "Twelve good men and true". There was another famous phrase relating to the jury. When an accused pleaded not guilty he was said (and he is still said) to put himself "upon his country". That is an illuminating phrase because it identifies the jury as a microcosm of democratic society. If that is right, it is itself a vindication of this Bill because no one would pretend that a jury containing a person subject to the
612
disqualification imposed by this Bill was a microcosm of our democratic society. That is the first consideration.
The second is that a jury is part of a tribunal of justice; and that means that it must not only act fairly and act justly but be seen to act fairly and justly. It is because of those two considerations that the 1974 Act—or, rather, its predecessors, because it was a consolidation Act—excluded the extremes of this whole spectrum of society. On the one hand, there were excluded persons concerned with the administration of justice—a great many of them, a great many classes; but it is sufficient to mention persons who have been police officers of any sort during the previous 10 years. That previous 10 years is important because it is paralleled by the disqualification imposed by this Bill. Police officers are, and were, excluded not because they were necessarily thought to be incapable of judging fairly and dispassionately. They remain disqualified notwithstanding the system of majority verdicts referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. They were and remain disqualified because their presence on a jury would prevent the jury having total appearance of impartiality and justice.
The other extreme is that there are excluded those who were identified by the Morris Report. I venture to cite two short passages from paragraph 134. The first is this:
"… it seems to us that confidence in the administration of justice is bound to suffer if a person with a recent and serious criminal record is allowed to serve as a juror".
The second is:
"It is wrong that the functions of jurors should be carried out by persons who may themselves be enemies of society. In maintaining law and order reliance should not be placed on those who have shown that they pay no heed either to law or to order. It would be wrong to depend upon those whose own understanding of the line that divides right from wrong may be defective; or to entrust the fate of accused persons and the parties in civil suits"—
because this Bill also extends to civil suits—
"to those whose own behaviour shows a lack of any proper understanding and recognition of decent behaviour".
When the Morris Committee reported in 1965—even as late as 1974 when the consolidation Act was passed—the custodial sentence provided a reasonable criterion which vindicated the sentiments which I have just ventured to draw to your Lordships' attention. But, for the reasons that were so clearly and cogently given yesterday in the press by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and again today in your Lordships' House, that is no longer so. Serious offences may well in these days have no custodial sentence imposed. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning suggested that the problem could be dealt with by a questionnaire; but that was considered by the Morris Committee. It was not recommended by them. On the contrary, it was turned down for practical reasons which are as cogent today as they were at that time. I venture to think that this Bill carries out entirely the spirit and intention of those passages to which I have referred, and I shall support the noble Lord.
9 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, although indebted to my noble friend Lord Wigoder, I must

613
assure the House that I am not a paid-up member of the Amalgamated Society of Burglars and Housebreakers. I only wish I were, because then my insurance policy premium would be very much lower than it is. Membership of that association, I can assure the House, is not an essential prequisite to practice at the Central Criminal Court.
It is indeed a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I only wish that more lay members of this House took part, as she does, with such great value in debates of this kind. It is also a great privilege of course to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—if I may say so, one of our greatest judges of the time.
If I pour a little tepid water on this Bill, I hope that my noble friend Lord Harris will not accuse me of accusing him and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, of making a dastardly attack on the jury system. My noble friend's article in The Times seemed to me to be a little strident, and his statistics a little suspect.
May I say something about the statistics and the exent of this problem of nobbling of juries? The mischief seems to be realistically limited to the Central Criminal Court. I have often and for long wondered why it was. Perhaps one of the reasons is, as we have heard tonight, that St. Paul's Underground station seems to be such a convenient place for doing this. But it is limited to cases where very large sums of money are concerned, and where very long potential sentences are in view. I have checked these statistics at the Central Criminal Court: the 13 trials where there was some possible approach to juries were not all stopped. Of the 13, five—and five only—were stopped. The eight others all continued to their end without incident. Of those five, three involved jurors who had been corrupted, and in two there was sufficient evidence to doubt the jurors' integrity and therefore the case was stopped.
In the other eight there had been approaches of the kind that we have already heard tonight where somebody may come up to a juror in a caf??—and indeed did—and use the words: "Do show a favour to Charlie, mate. He's an innocent fellow, you know". Another man was approached on the Underground and someone said: "The man you are trying in that court you know is not guilty". In the other case there was a phone call of the same kind. In another case there had been similar approaches.
After investigations, the view was taken by everybody concerned in the case that no harm had been done and that that kind of situation, sometimes from relatives and sometimes from friends, under great stress, happens. It may also of course be a preliminary approach to do something more serious.
All approaches of any kind to members of the jury must be treated very seriously. Efforts to corrupt, successful or not, are clear criminal offences and every effort must be made to arrest such persons and charge them, as indeed happened in two of the three cases where this was shown at the Central Criminal Court. But let us not exaggerate the extent of this problem, which does not exist at all in the vast majority of criminal trials taking place all over this country.
When my noble friend Lord Harris refers to nobbling, saying nobblers are at work, and so on, it really is, if I may say so with the greatest respect, an
614
exaggeration of what is a very serious matter but a very limited matter and really almost entirely at the Central Criminal Court. At the same time, of course jurymen do not report to the police; jurymen report to the court. They report to the judge and they report to the court official. It is from there that the matter of the police is taken up.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, there have been cases where juries did take the money which they had been given and took it into police stations in the Metropolitan police district.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Of course, I accept that that happens from time to time. Certainly in all these cases that I have checked in the Central Criminal Court the correct and proper course was followed of the jurymen reporting to the judge in the court.
May I add a warning note as to approaches to jurymen. Such approaches may be directed to the verdict; but they may also be directed—and are in the majority of cases—to aborting the trial and obtaining a retrial when things are going badly. Then you get what may be called fake nobbling. I personally know of a case where a bogus letter was dropped in the cells area, and the letter was found. Also there have been cases where threatening phone calls have been made to a juryman and where gestures have been made from the public part of the court or in the passages of the court and where jurymen have been approached on the way home in the hope that the juryman will do his duty and report the matter to the court and that the judge will then stop the trial. That is not because of nobbling but because, in the view of the judge—and maybe of counsel—the remainder of the jury will be prejudiced against the accused. The obvious inference would be drawn, and very possibly quite wrongly, that some approach has been made and therefore the jury will be prejudiced against him. A large part of the so-called "nobbling" can fall into that class.
Such stratagems, of course, are not always defence orientated. One knows cases—I know them myself—where corruption and dishonesty are about to be revealed in court on the part of prosecution witnesses, when suddenly a juryman will report an approach and there can be an incentive just as strong in those circumstances on the side of the police as the incentive on the side of the defendant not to continue the case to verdict. So there are other ways of looking at this and it is essential to keep a balanced view. That danger, of course, is particularly relevant in the "super-grass" case, where the police and the criminal are working together. It is an added reason for bringing that appalling type of case to an end.
The reason for keeping persons with convictions off juries is because, as has already been said, they will be prejudiced and they will be vulnerable. But, as another note of warning, are not security officers, private detectives, store detectives and ex-policemen (even after 10 years) prejudiced when serving on a jury? Are not the victims of crime—the woman who has been assaulted, the housewife who has been burgled—prejudiced when they come into the jury box? Are not those who have been injured by drunken drivers prejudiced? Are not teetotallers and heavy drinkers prejudiced? All sorts of groups are severely prejudiced

615
people when they go into the jury box; but the great joy of the system is that of course those who are concerned in the administration of justice—judges and those who take part—in this country succeed in removing those prejudices during the course of the trial.
I might add, because of what has been said this evening by my noble friend Lord Wigoder: What about the woman who has been through all that process of shoplifting? What happens if she is acquitted? What happens to all the people who have been acquitted, who have heard lying statements made about them by police officers or anyone else, and who are then acquitted? Are they going to be prejudiced when they go into the jury box? The argument is so easily put always on one side, and because of that one must be particularly careful as to the basis on which one disqualifies people from service.
Indeed, on the question of being vulnerable and open to bribery, the families of persons who have been convicted are even more vulnerable, I would suggest, than the criminals themselves. The wives, children, families and so on of people who have been sent to prison will be just as prejudiced or as vulnerable when they go into the jury box to try other cases. So, as one who believes that jury trial is one, if not the essential, guarantee of our liberties, I want the system itself to be guaranteed, with the support and confidence of the general public. That is indeed why I, for one, throughout supported the introduction of majority verdicts.
Therefore, the rules governing qualification must be sensible, acceptable and all-embracing and they must be properly enforced. This Bill does not fulfil those criteria, in my view. The second indictable offence criteria, if I may say so without offence, is somewhat half-baked and amounts really to what I might call "the two milk bottles syndrome". In other words, if you steal a milk bottle when you are at college going home in the early hours of the morning and 10 years later you do the same thing in other circumstances, you are not fit to try someone for bank robbery at the Central Criminal Court. Indeed, under this Bill woe betide that person. Woe betide the postman who, on two occasions, fails to deliver a letter which he ought to deliver. Woe betide the porter on the railway station who, on two occasions, endangers the safety of a passenger. Woe betide the person on a census who, on two occasions, lets out some of the information which he has heard when taking the census and so on. These criteria are somewhat ludicrous.
Of course, as my noble friend Lord Harris said in his article, it is the person convicted of the serious crime who has to be kept out of the jury box. How do we define the serious crime? Should it be the conviction, should it be the sentence or both? Should it be a prison sentence, should it be a served prison sentence or a suspended one? Should it be a substantial fine and, if so, how much? Should it be a custodial sentence of a certain length? How many convictions? How long ago?
I do not know the answer. I want to hear the argument, I want to know whether my own views are practical and sufficiently administrable and whether they would stand up. But I want to hear that. Personally, I think that any custodial sentence when convicted on indictment, and any immediate custodial sentence when convicted summarily might be the sort
616
of basis on which one might start, with a 10-years ban and a life ban for a sentence over so many years. But I do not myself have sufficient arrogance to believe that I am right about that until the matter has been properly argued, sifted out and considered.
As to monitoring, I suggest that on reporting for service at the Central Criminal Court, a juryman should be given a form requiring a signature to a formal declaration of his eligibility for service; in other words, a modern form of the questionnaire which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. These forms could easily be collected, a spot check could be made on them from time to time and, if it was found that someone had misinformed the court, he could be most healthily prosecuted. I understand that such a scheme might well be acceptable at the Old Bailey.
I do not like instant legislation on matters profoundly affecting this most sensitive part of the criminal process. I do not like tinkering with the jury, as we have heard already, about challenges, about vetting and about removing their occupations from the jury panel. I do not think that that is the way to deal with matters of this importance. If this Bill, which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will encourage the Minister to come forward with some properly thought-out proposals for reform, then I would give a gentle puff towards giving it a fair wind.
9.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am certain that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for bringing forward this Bill. He has given us an opportunity to debate a matter which is causing increasing anxiety to many people concerned with the administration of justice, and also an opportunity to listen to a remarkable debate illuminated by a concentration of legal wisdom and marked by speeches of not only a lucidity but also a brevity which I think are unusual even in your Lordships' House, and for which I myself am very grateful.
The noble Lord has explained, with his customary clarity and conviction, the disturbing developments which have led him to conclude that we should extend the criteria for disqualification from jury service. It is a conclusion with which—as noble Lords are probably aware—the Government fully agree, although our own approach differs somewhat from that in his Bill, for reasons which I shall explain.
The jury system is designed to be operated by people who believe in it—and who believe in it not as a means of swinging a case in which they identify with the accused, but as a means of holding the scales of justice impartially in their hands and declaring a verdict strictly in accordance with the weight of the evidence and the arguments presented before them. It also goes without saying—and yet it appears that it needs to be said—that they shall believe in the system of laws under which this country is governed, that they respect those laws and that, accordingly, they keep them. Peccadillos are one thing, but the commission of crimes is quite another. Very minor offences can be properly ignored—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, proposes to ignore them in his Bill. But the commission of crime

617
is an attack upon the very fabric which the jury system is designed to protect. The appointment of a serious offender as a juror would therefore seem to me to be the clear establishment of a contradiction in terms.
That may be too bald a statement, but it enshrines an important principle that already has its place in the Bill. To render it less bald, without adulterating the principle, it is necessary to add a qualification, and that is this: to say that a person who once commits a crime becomes a criminal for life and that he should therefore be disqualified from jury service for life is to go too far. It is to ignore what theologians call repentance and penologists call rehabilitation. I therefore entirely agree with the principle, which is also already enshrined in the Bill, that there should be a limit to the period of disqualification imposed.
The test of a satisfactory jury system is, therefore, that it should embrace people who support our framework of laws and who observe it—those, in the words of Blackstone, quoted indirectly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who are superior to suspicion—and that conversely it should exclude those who commit more than merely trifling offences against it, whom the sadly late Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest described, in a quotation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as respecting neither law nor order.
There is another reason for disqualifying such people from jury service, one that bears directly on the anxiety to which recent disturbing cases have given rise, and it is this. We have all read of, and your Lordships have recently referred to, attempts to nobble jurors—that is, to influence them in their verdicts by threats, or intimidation, or the offer of bribes. This has been amply illustrated by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, from whom I learned that St. Paul's is on the road to perversion rather than Damascus: whether the motive lies with the defence, following most of your Lordships, or with the prosecution, following, if I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. According to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, it seems that necessarily there is much prejudice in all juries. The noble Lord referred to many cases and my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to others. It would almost seem, from them, that what one needs to find is a balance of prejudice, but I do not want to be drawn down that path at this stage.
It is the case that such attempts have come to light because the jurors concerned are in no doubt about their public duty and immediately report the matter to court staff or to the trial judge. But it must (must it not?) be open to question whether jurors who do not wholeheartedly support our framework of laws would be so quick to report such an approach or to refuse to take advantage of money, if it were offered, or to resist íntímídatíon directed against them. It is with these criteria and considerations in mind that we should look at the system that at present exists. Here we find that the existing categories for disqualification do not exclude all those whose history of offending clearly renders them unsuitable to sit as jurors. There is indeed provision in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 which excludes some of them and does so permanently. They, in effect, are those who have
618
received either indeterminate sentences, or sentences of more than five years' imprisonment. There is also a provision which disqualifies anyone who, at any time within the last 10 years, has served any part of a sentence of three months' imprisonment or more.
These provisions were originally introduced in 1967. They followed the report of the Departmental Committee on Juries which has been referred to as the Morris Committee. They were intended to disqualify, and at the time when they were introduced I am sure that they did disqualify, those in the habit of committing other than the most minor offences. Since then, as noble Lords have already made very clear, there has been an important change in sentencing practice. I refer to the trend towards the use, wherever possible, of non-custodial disposals. The 1967 Act, which instituted these disqualifications, also provided, for the first time, for the suspended sentence. Since the suspended sentence was introduced, an average of slightly more than 10 per cent. of adult males convicted of other than purely summary offences have received this sentence. Many of them would previously have been sent straight to prison and might therefore have been disqualified from jury service. As it is, they are not. Then we had, in 1972, the introduction of community service orders. They do not disqualify but they, too, in many cases are imposed in place of immediate prison sentences, which do.
This is all part of a pattern. Successive Governments have encouraged the use of non-custodial disposals by the courts in cases they consider to be appropriate, and the present Government have been at pains to do so too—not least by means of the Criminal Justice Act which was so recently passed by your Lordships' House. The intention has been to prevent people being sent into custody when that is thought not to be necessary either as a deterrent or for their own treatment, or for the protection of society. However, an unintended effect has been that, overall, many people now escape disqualification from jury service who were never intended to be eligible for it.
I have a list of examples, but your Lordships have exceeded and excelled me, both in this House and in the press—and therefore I will not bring out my own catalogue. But these are, of course, individual cases; the sort of information that it is fashionable to dismiss as anecdotal if one happens to be on the other side of the argument from the person providing it. There is no doubt in the minds of those responsible for the criminal justice system that there are many similar cases. Surely, it cannot be right that people with the kind of histories described by your Lordships should be eligible to serve as jurors just because the courts have found it possible to avoid sending them to prison.
The noble Lord's Bill, therefore, is concerned with a major point of principle; the need to maintain the integrity of the jury system. The Government share this objective and agree that action is needed. Against that background we should applaud the intentions of the noble Lord's Bill. The fact that the Government have reservations about its detailed provisions should not obscure the common ground that we do share. There are, however, points of substance on which we differ.
The first and most fundamental of these is that we doubt whether the noble Lord's proposal goes far enough. I have noted the reservations about

619
marginality expressed by the learned and noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the "two milk bottle syndrome", quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I have also noted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already indicated in another place that our own preferred approach would, broadly, be to add to the present list of disqualifications another category. This would comprise those who, within the last 10 years, have been convicted of any offence punishable with a sentence of imprisonment, whether or not such a sentence of imprisonment was actually imposed.
Offences which would count towards disqualification under our proposals, but not under the proposals in the noble Lord's Bill, are only those triable summarily which are punishable with imprisonment. These include such offences as assault on a constable and aggravated assault, which carry a liability of up to six months' imprisonment and must in my view, and I believe in any view, be regarded as potentially serious offences. Another example is trespass with a firearm, for which the maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment. I suggest to your Lordships that it is very desirable that any disqualification provision should cover offences of this nature and that the distinction which the noble Lord seeks to draw between indictable and non-indictable offences is not perhaps sufficiently sensitive for this particular purpose.
Another respect in which this Bill may be too narrowly drawn is that it could not disqualify those who have been convicted of just one serious offence, but who have received, say, a suspended sentence. In 1981, for example, more than 1,800 people received a suspended sentence having been convicted in the Crown Court of wounding offences, as did nearly 200 people having been convicted of robbery. More than 6,000 people received suspended sentences that year in all courts for various burglary offences and, under the proposals in the noble Lord's Bill, such people would remain eligible to serve. They would not be disqualified unless they were caught and convicted of another indictable offence—the second milk bottle, my Lords. But offences such as these are hardly committed on impulse in a moment of indiscretion, and they are hardly liable to figure in an otherwise blameless life. They will not, to use a phrase I used earlier, be committed by people who support and observe the framework of laws by which the country is governed. We therefore think that such crimes should disqualify their perpetrators from jury service for a time, regardless of whether or not another conviction ensues. I recognise that this is harsher than what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, proposes, but I think it is right. We do accept, nonetheless, that that disqualification could be allowed to lapse after a time, provided that the time was sufficient to allow for repentance or rehabilitation.
I think I have made it clear that we generally approve the noble Lord's Bill. I hope I have also shown how our preferred approach differs in certain aspects from that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and his noble ally Lord Harris, if I may so term him. Those differences do not suffice to make us wish to stand in
620
the way of this Bill tonight. The Bill draws timely attention to a problem which is a source of concern to all who are concerned to preserve the integrity of our judicial system, and I welcome this opportunity to take the views of the House as a whole on this subject. I have listened with very great interest to the wide range of views your Lordships have expressed, and I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will give careful consideration to them himself.
Before—if I may coin a phrase—I sit down, I would respond to a couple of points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as to what goes on at present. He was kind enough to give me an indication of his general interest shortly before this debate, and as a result I have in my hand a jury summons in the Crown Court. In it there is a note that,
"You"
—that is the person to whom the form is addressed—
"are ineligible if you are or have been employed in certain occupations"
—and I will not read them out—
"and you may be disqualified if you have served a sentence of imprisonment or detention. See list 2 on the back of this form".
On the back of this form we have something remarkably like the questionnaire referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning:
"A person who has at any time been sentenced in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man (a) to imprisonment for life . . ."
and so on. I will not read it out. It is there for all these noble and learned Lords who frequent the courts to pick up at their leisure.
As to the jury vetting which the noble and learned Lord asked me about, I would refer him to the statement made in another place on 6th July 1981 by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in which he sets out at greater length than I will his general satisfaction with the way in which this is proceeding. I return now to the theme which I was bringing to a conclusion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. He has dealt very adequately with the various points raised in the debate. He may be about to come to this particular point, and if so I apologise. The noble Lord has indicated the Government's general approach to this issue. Is he going to indicate whether the Government propose to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament to deal with this matter?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's noted eloquence is never absolutely matched by his patience. I hope he will be able to get the knowledge he wants from what I am about to say. If the Bill were to proceed to its further stages we should, of course, wish to propose amendments to it. Whether it should proceed to those later stages is a matter for later judgment, as the noble Lord has himself suggested. There is, I think, general agreement that legislation broadly on these lines is needed. There is also general agreement that its best chance of success is if it is launched in another place by a Member successful in the ballot for Private Members' Bills. So far, although the ballot has taken place, it is not yet apparent what

621
Bills the successful parents will adopt and table. In the happy event of the noble and learned Lord's progeny being picked by an adoptive parent in another place, placed with at least a reasonable chance of completing the course there, I hope that he will not pursue his own Bill beyond Second Reading in this House; and that is, I think, what he has indicated his intention would be. Our aims and those of the noble Lord are so nearly the same that I think under the circumstances he would agree to stay his hand. Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will have gathered that it is our intention to proceed by a Private Member's Bill rather than a Government Bill.
In the meantime, I should like to thank him for his timely action. The weight of the authority that he has attracted to this debate cannot go unmarked by those considering private legislation. I thank him for this timely action and also thank your Lordships for the advice which you have been able to give the Government in this important matter, due note of which will be taken in due course by myself and by my right honourable friend.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone in your Lordships' House who has contributed to this interesting and fascinating discussion. There appear to be three separate strands of opinion. There are those who believe that the proposal in the Bill is about right. There are those who believe that it goes somewhat too far, and there are those who, like the Government, apparently believe that it does not go far enough. I would only say on the very helpful observations of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the proposals of the Government, as they stand, appear to involve disqualifying a very large number of people who on a single occasion have committed a motoring offence of no great gravity. I cannot believe that that would be a proper approach to this problem.
I said that there were three strands. There was nearly a fourth, because my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington with that persuasive ingenuity with which he has charmed so many jurors in the past, of both good and bad characters, appeared at one time to be suggesting that there was a formidable case against having any sort of disqualification whatever for any form of jury.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, not for the first time I seem to have misled the jury.
Lord Wigoder: I am happy to be able to report, I hope accurately, that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, made it clear later that there was perhaps a case for strengthening the law to some extent, although perhaps not in quite the way that this Bill now proposes.
It is not unfair to say that there was a general consensus in the House that the law needs strengthening. I entirely accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that there is the whole question of enforcement of such provisions to be borne carefully in mind. It may well be that the existing provisions of the present Act are not being
622
adequately enforced. It is, of course, vital that any new proposals should be enforceable.
I had pondered in advance the difficulty which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, raised as to whether using the phrase "indictable offence" might cause practical problems. I can only make two comments about that. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, there is a form sent out with the jury summons explaining the circumstances in which a juror may be disqualified. It seems to me that there would be no difficulty in saying on that form that a person is disqualified if he has had two indictable convictions recorded within the last 10 years. The meaning of "indictable offence" can be given, broadly, on the form and a statement to the effect that if the person is in any doubt he should telephone a given number or address for information. Nor do I see any problem in due course in the clerk to the court notifying a defendant after conviction that, as a result of that conviction, he has now committed two indictable offences within such-and-such a period and that he is not eligible for jury service until such-and-such a date. I believe the problems of enforcement can be surmounted, perhaps largely by administrative means, although they would perhaps require a separate discussion.
Having heard all that your Lordships have had to say and, in particular, the view that the Government have formed about this matter, I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be desirable that the pressure should be kept up by your Lordships' House and that public opinion should continue to be drawn to this matter until such time as action is taken, as I hope it will very speedily be taken, in another place. I accept that there are differences of opinion between us that might appropriately be resolved at a later stage in this Bill, but for the moment I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) (Requirements) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1982
9.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I confess that I do that as a pale substitute—a pale and inadequate substitute—for my noble friend Lord Lyell, who had proposed to move these regulations but unhappily is detained in Switzerland at a football match.
Your Lordships will recall that housing benefit brings together the two current schemes of help with housing costs—local authority rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes and supplementary benefit. The regulations providing for the implementation of housing benefit and the necessary amendments to the supplementary benefit scheme in relation to housing costs were considered by your Lordships last July. I referred then to the difficulties inherent in amending

623
regulations which remove or alter existing provisions. These regulations are a good example of this, as their sole purpose is to rectify a technical defect in the previous set of amendments to the Supplementary Benefit Requirements Regulations. I must apologise to your Lordships for taking up your time once again on this matter and I shall keep my explanation as brief as possible.
The introduction of housing benefit caused us to review the way in which assistance was given through supplementary benefit to people who pay a specified charge to their landlord for full heating or other amenity charges. Currently such a person receives an addition to his supplementary benefit of the excess over a specified amount—currently £5·10 a week—for heating. If the person is entitled to a heating addition because of disablement or age, he receives the appropriate addition if it is higher than his excess charge. The main point is that the claimant receives help by way of supplementary benefit of at least the excess over the standard amount. The change to housing benefit provided an opportunity to simplify these arrangements. Supplementary benefit recipients will have their rent rebated in full. We therefore made provision in the Housing Benefit Regulations for charges in excess of the standard amount to be included in the rebate where the rent included full heating or other amenity charges. The effect is that the claimant has his heating costs in excess of the standard amount met in full. The change is procedural. Instead of the tenant receiving help by way of additions to his supplementary benefit, the local authority rebates the excess and claims from the department.
We believed that we had achieved this change in the previous set of regulations but it transpires that there is a technical defect, the result of which will be that claimants covered by the new housing benefit arrangement will also continue to be eligible for assistance through supplementary benefit. It would clearly be wrong to allow such double provision of public funds to occur and the draft regulations are designed to prevent this happening. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, this is a question of tidying up and of consequential amendments. Therefore, I will only delay your Lordships to say that, having discussed the principles of this matter at earlier stages, we accept and acknowledge that this tidying-up process is essential. We hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to all these heating problems and that the technical changes in the regulations will go through as speedily as possible and will be helpful to all concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: RELIEF OPERATIONS
  NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS: RELIEF OPERATIONS
  EYE-TESTING: MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PATIENTS
  EYE-TESTING: MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PATIENTS
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS
  CATEGORY A PRISONERS