I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The scale and significance of company takeovers and mergers in the last four years is unprecedented. The 4,500 mergers which took place last year can be seen as arising from four main sources. The first is the essential shake up and reorganisation of certain industries. The second is the influence of the American-based company in Britain. The third is the failure of traditional British firms to keep themselves in the big technological league. The fourth is Government intervention through the I.R.C.

Before this recent build-up of reorganisation, the rate of spending on acquisitions nearly trebled between the mid-1950s and early 1960s; yet that rise will be insignificant when we have complete figures for 1968 and when this year is through. Nevertheless, on the sketchy information that we have, the figures are impressive. In the middle 1950s, about £100 million was spent on merging. In the early 1960s, it reached £300 million. In 1967, it was £1,000 million. In 1968, the figure reached £3,000 million. Recently, the C.B.I. said that even this great increase will look like a jogtrot over the next 30 years because of the scale at which it is likely to develop.

I can touch only lightly on the national picture, because the figures still remain obscure. It is ludicrous that there is no systematic way of assessing the type and number of takeovers. A takeover of a company in the same industry group may represent "horizontal" integration in the same product field. It may also be concerned with widening the product range.

Nor do we know anything about the follow-up to take-overs and mergers. There is no method or system of Government to check on the original reason for merging and whether it is better or worse afterwards. Then again, there is no way of assessing the form that the rationalisation has taken. The whole subject is shrouded in mystery. In that connection, I welcome two inquiries which have been announced recently. The C.B.I. has decided to look into rationalisation, and then there is the Government inquiry which has been set up under the chairmanship of Professor Dennis Swann.

The Bill is concerned with security against this background of rationalisation and mergers.

One can think of employees' security under three heads. They are financial support at a time of redundancy, job choice, and information about company policy and intentions.

On the first point, the Redundancy Payments Act has made an important contribution to providing financial support. On the choice of job and alternative employment, stimulation has been provided by Department of Employment and Productivity policies offering easier mobility and retraining.

On the third, the Bill deals with extending systems of information so that real communication between management and employees takes place. It is the one area in employee security where there has been most weakness. I think, therefore, that we should take note of the pamphlet produced by the D.E.P. dealing with redundancies. While this may be of help to some companies and to some trade unions, it is merely advisory. It is a series of tips on what might be done at a time of redundancy. It goes nowhere near solving the real problems of establishing a commitment from management at a time of critical change within the organisation.

The Bill establishes a responsibility to formalise the informational processes so that communication begins to operate in industry. No one can speak with any certainty of knowing the answers to industrial relations problems, but research and experience can guide us.

On research, we in this country know that since 1945 there has been a greater appreciation of using the social scientists' methods to examine all manner of conflicts. Within industry, the classic studies were produced at the University of Liverpool with a study of "Joint Consultation—in three firms", "Industrial Leadership" and "Joint Consultation". We then had a further study dealing with the problems of consultation called "The Dock Worker" concerned with problems of organisational life in that industry. We also know from the United States that social scientists have made available a great deal of material about the way in which decisions are made in industry and how other countries can learn from this examination. From the point of view of the analysis and the research we are much wiser today than in 1945. I say "wiser", but we have not always learned from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is available.

We have had many reports—for instance, the P.E.P. report on the structure of British trade unions in 1964. One of its conclusions was:

"Whatever reforms the unions make in their own structure and administration, they cannot solve their organisational problems in the plant unless employers and management are also prepared to act. … The main initiative for change within the workplace must in the nature of things lie with management …"

A great deal has been heard over the last few years about the responsibilities of trade unions and the need for them to become much more co-operative and diplomatic. But if we are dealing with changes in the work environment the initiative must come from management. We can chart many courses. We can set up major legislation, but if management is not encouraged or required to take some positive action there can be serious difficulties and omissions. Therefore, a structure of consultation must be created. This is what the Bill is about.

More recently, a research paper by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions on "The rôle of shop stewards" also argued the case for more formal agreements. It said:

"It is unwise to have total reliance on informal agreements and understandings at shop floor level. It can cause confusion and uncertainty which might be removed if more agreements were written down."

I shall examine this matter in a moment. So much for the research study of this highly complex area of consultation and negotiation.

The second area which I think ought to be able to guide us in trying to solve these problems is experience. There has been a considerable amount of experience of mergers and their ramifications. If we take at random the figures and the impact made on certain industries in 1968, by looking at the value of the new groups which have been created, we can get some indication of the scale of mergers. For instance, in 1968 we had mergers as distinct from take-overs, in the electrical industry involving a group of £900 million: G.E.C.-A.E.I.-English Electric. There was another involving £400 million in the motor car industry: B.M.C.-Leyland Motors. There was another of over £100 million in computers involving I.C.I., part of English Electric and part of Plessey. In the construction industry there was another merger of £98 million involving Tarmac-Derbyshire Stone-William Briggs. In textiles we had one of £68 million between English Sewing and Calico Printers.

I will not list all the takeovers, but I will select some of the biggest which took place in 1968. Even on the basis of the five mergers which I have mentioned, we can see the enormous strengthening which this has meant to industry. I am not trying in the course of the debate or in the Bill to say that rationalisation in industry is not necessary. In certain cases it is essential. I am trying to argue that, alongside the critical decisions made on the ground of rationalisation, real human responsibilities have to be met.

Four major takeovers took place in 1968. One was in television, £155 million, involving Thorn Electrical and Radio Rentals. Another was in the general drinks industry which concerned Allied Breweries and Showerings, involving £100 million. Another, involving £60 million, concerned Rank Hovis and Cerebos. In the mining industry, involving Rio Tinto Zinc and Borax, the sum involved was £60 million. There are 15 others ranging down to the smaller takeovers. I wish to stress that in every case this has meant organisational change and major decision making.

One merger which created most interest was A.E.I.-G.E.C, where a staff of 5,500 at Woolwich was cut to 900 and the factory is to be dismantled by mid-May. We all recognise the anxiety in Chelmsford, without the merger taking place, about similar circumstances arising.

To sum up, we have sufficient practical experience and research knowledge to recognise the critical nature of company reorganisation to the staff required. That was appreciated by the Labour Party in a policy document last year, "Industrial Democracy", in which it said:

"There is a need to increase the protection afforded to workers, to shield them from the consequences of mergers and rationalisation … going far beyond the right to compensation for redundancy under the Redundancy Payments Act. This might be met by a Redundancy Procedures Act."

I suggest that the Board of Trade should use its scrutiny powers to ensure adequate warning to workers. It does not do so at the moment.

May I say what the Bill is not about. I make no claims that this is a cunning device by myself and other sponsors of the Bill to introduce worker control. The Bill is about participation, a subject which we in the Labour Party have emphasised at annual conferences, but then have the extraordinary tendency to forget all about between conferences.

Traditional workers' councils are all too often inadequate. The stimulus given by the Whitley Committee in 1917 to a number of firms was never seriously translated into meaningful meetings, or on any scale. The last war encouraged the establishment of more joint meetings, with the joint production committee meetings, but these and many of the works councils have never made the impact which was hoped for or met the needs of workers and management because of lack of serious subject matter. The subject matter was often related to minor domestic issues such as the quality of tea. They may well have met the requirements of a particular meeting, but they did nothing to enhance the serious nature of what the meetings should have been.

Nor was there any attempt to report back properly in many cases. One factor which contributed to the failure of works councils was the failure to build in proper reporting-back systems. One works council's representatives were prevented by the management from taking off 15 minutes after the meeting to explain what had taken place. The real value of reporting back was not taken up. Another failure of such meetings was the poor preparation by chairmen and secretaries.

The Bill does not attempt to alter the key managerial rôle in the enterprise. No committee can be a substitute for effective management. The intelligent, sensitive manager will be prepared to work with such committees proposed in the Bill, because the views and experience of employees, at all levels, can be a resource. In my experience both of running and participating in such industrial meetings, there is a tremendous pay-off if the management takes account of both the subject matter and the employees attending.

It was with great concern that one read the comments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on the need for a change in the collective bargaining structure in the Esso Petroleum Company. He was eventually told off for his intervention. There is no short-cut to industrial relations. Industrial relations are no place for the amateur or the academic anarchist.

The third thing which the Bill does not do is to upset any existing management—trade union balance. Jack Jones, now the General Secretary of the T.G.W.U., said:

"I wish it could be understood that workers will usually respect a law, but one that merely seems to tip the balance of advantage in the direction of the employer, who has already got great power, will never seem to them to be fair law."

This Bill is not an attempt to upset the existing balance between management and trade unions.

Two further comments may be made. First, and this is perhaps a reflection on hon. Members' inadequacy in drawing up the Bill, although the Title refers to a security fund, hon. Members will have seen, perhaps with some amusement, but I hope with interest, that there is no reference to a security fund in the Bill. The sponsors and I felt that we should concentrate on the smaller area of consultation, and therefore much that follows is directed to that. If we are successful today, in Committee such considerations will demand attention.

We have in Clause 1 the requirement and obligation on every employer to inform the Secretary of State at the Department of Employment and Productivity about organisational changes in consequence of industrial mergers. We are not talking about small organisational changes. It would be absurd to require the Department to be informed about these, and we are not suggesting that. What we have in mind are organisational changes consequent on mergers.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on having got his Bill so far, and I hope that he gets it to Committee and makes further progress with it. There are one or two points that I wish to make about it, and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary of State's answer because I feel that we shall get some guidance from him.

The hon. Member for Billericay rightly said that industrial relations are no place for the amateur, and therefore I tread somewhat delicately in following the hon. Gentleman. He made one important statement when he said that clear and frank statements to employees were needed at a time of crisis within a firm. British management, particularly at some lower levels, has been less than frank with its employees, and therefore greater consultation that is really understood is needed.

The hon. Gentleman was perfectly reasonable about his Bill. He said that giving facts and figures to employees might be misunderstood and misused, and therefore people were chary of doing so, but I think that we need a new look, not as a nation, but as a series of companies, at our trust in regular employees, both long service and comparatively short service.

It is for this reason that I have certain slight doubts about the Bill. Besides this lack of frank consultation with employees, one of our other weaknesses, as an industrial nation is that we are fossilised in our attitude to our jobs. I recollect working in an industrial firm in Coventry about 10 years after the trams were removed from that city. I inquired of a man who was very bad at his job what his passion in life was and he said, "I am a tram driver, and that is what I like doing". That was 10 years after the trams had been taken away. He should have become acclimatised to something else by then. He was thinking backwards. This fossilised attitude to our little, individualistic speciality can become too developed. We need a greater mobility of labour not only from place to place but across the frontiers of jobs.

Many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs can be picked up after a few days if there is good will and enthusiasm. We need to create an attitude among people which will not lead them to say, 10 years after the trams have gone, "I am a tram driver." It is too silly. I rather fear that by formalising working attitudes still further the hon. Member's Bill may cause greater fossilisation rather than the reverse. I know that the hon. Member is aiming at greater consultation but I fear the possibility of fossilisation.

Secondly, Clause 1 states that:

"It shall be an obligation on every employer …"

The hon. Member gave examples of the vast mergers that have taken place in the last few months, but I would point out that there are many small mergers in respect of which it is desirable that people should change their activities. If the Bill goes to Committee I hope that we shall be able to insert a kind of de minimis proviso in Clause 1 or some other suitable part of the Bill to the effect that only those employers who employ 100 workers or more—or whatever figure the Department may recommend—shall have this obligation placed upon them.

I am rather anxious about this extra Government interference with industry. The hon. Member attacked what he called "Powellism". He may make his attacks as he pleases, but I and many of my hon. Friends—and, I suspect, some hon. Members opposite—are just a little hesitant about the possibility of greater Government interference with industry.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on being successful in the Ballot and having the opportunity to introduce this Bill. I hope that the opinion of most hon. Members will be such that the Bill will be sent to Committee. One of the factors that prompts me to support my hon. Friend is my long experience in handling reorganisations, especially in the mining industry. I have played a leading part in the reorganisation of jobs of hundreds if not thousands of men. My experience is not applicable to the point of view which my hon. Friend was arguing, however, because the mining industry happens to have a better system of industrial relations and consultation. In that respect the trade union movement and the National Coal Board are to be congratulated.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) said that we must be careful not to involve the taxpayer when we introduce legislation. While my hon. Friend was speaking a thought occurred to me. Last Friday, as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Group's Industry and Employment Committee, I went to the West of Scotland to take part in a discussion arising out of a problem of reorganisation. The matter is still in the hands of the trade unions and I do not want to comment on it. The reorganisation in question involved asking the men concerned to travel many miles from an existing factory to another factory. They were querying whether the reorganisation should take place.

The strange point was that there would probably have been no redundancies. The reorganisation, as a result of a merger, was nevertheless raising serious problems. When I spoke to the men I was impressed by the fact that they were not obsessed by their own problems as work people. They were asking our opinion, and asking us for guidance because organisations and mergers often mean that since many people have to leave the district in which they have been living there is often a vast expenditure of social capital which otherwise might not have been spent. The men were referring to expenditure on housing, roads, health and schools.

These questions concern the nation, and not merely the employees of the firms concerned. A tremendous amount of capital is involved, and this factor requires to be taken into account. Moreover, the social pressures that may result from the mergers and reorganisations may seriously embarrass local authorities, who may have to impose an extra rate for the purpose.

In Scotland the question of mergers occupies much of the discussion that takes place. Recently, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) expressed great anxiety at the fact that the mergers taking place were creating difficulty because they brought about a great degree of centralisation. The Council argued that this made it more difficult for people with aspirations to achieve positions in higher management without leaving Scotland. This shows that we should be indebted to my hon. Friend, because there is a host of problems. I have always favoured industrial training. It would be inappropriate for me to try to show that the nation only started to gain strength through this means, but I am in favour of the T.U.C. being given more power in this respect. If we had more industrial trade unionism to deal with mergers, work people and the nation would benefit.

I am pleased that Clause 3 grasps the nettle of consultation. Far too often, when negotiating with management, we in the trade unions wanted to be helpful but were sometimes not as candid as we should have liked. When we pressed for answers about work conditions we were politely reminded that consultation did not mean management. I have had experience of negotiation in private as well as public enterprise and I always thought that this was an attempt by management to absolve itself of responsibility and that it did not show the concern for employees whose livelihood we were discussing.

This is not an individual problem: it concerns the whole nation. I never liked it when workpeople involved in mergers said, "We are becoming industrial Arabs, moving from one reorganisation to another. People do not understand the problems it creates for our families in education and housing." I hope that the Bill goes to Committee, where we can have a profitable discussion, because it would benefit not only workpeople but the whole nation.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on the introduction of this Bill, which faces up to a growing modern problem which legislation can help to solve. The House should be particularly concerned with this issue, mainly because of the cost of mergers to the public. The I.R.C. grants to facilitate mergers are a direct charge upon the Exchequer, which proves that our concept of the relationship between industry and Government has changed fundamentally this century from the idea that it was for the investor and entrepreneur to finance reconstruction to the idea that it is a legitimate rôle of public expenditure to restructure and create production facilities.

Our social attitudes to industry must change in a comparable way. We should set in the table of costs to the public of mergers not only I.R.C. grants but redundancy payments and resettlement grants, as well as wage-related unemployment benefits, when mergers bring unemployment. If this public cost is justified, we should consider the effect upon the economy of mergers, especially in the regions where we want a far higher rate of industrial development. In these areas, in particular, workers are not likely to be soothed by political phrases like "restructuring of industry" or "shake-out", if they see a Government-aided merger threatening their jobs. The Bill is very valuable because it will create machinery by which workers can become involved in decision taking which affects their work.

For far too long, we have tolerated a growing public expenditure in industry without creating the machinery by which those members of the public most directly-affected can be consulted. The Bill will enable some questionable decisions along these lines to be challenged. It is debatable whether they are, in the long term, in the public interest. Many of the mergers of the past few years are more likely to have been in the interests of a higher short-term return on capital than in the broad economic interest of seeing our production capacity increased. It is important that these decisions should be challenged by those who can most effectively challenge them.

My experience of a wide range of contacts with members of other unions since I entered the House is that those who are best qualified to make this challenge are often those who from their experience in the various levels of lower management, on the shop floor and in certain phases of production, can predict accurately the results of mergers and reorganisation.

These are people who often go unconsulted. In trying to research on this subject I have been appalled at the lack of available statistics. There are no comprehensive statistics to show the extent of redundancies due to mergers, as far as I know. All that we know is based upon the redundancy payments that have been made. In 1967 there were 230,000 such payments. We could not contend that these were all the result of mergers. In the first six months of 1968, 134,000 payments were made at a cost to the Exchequer of £30 million. When one tries to break this down to find out how many redundancies were due to mergers or changes in industry one finds that from 6th December, 1965, when redundancy payments came into force until 30th September, 1967, 42,672 redundancy payments were made in respect of workers in the electrical goods and engineering industries alone.

There were 22,000 redundancy payments made to those leaving the vehicle-building industry. In total, over the period there were over 318,000 redundancy payments. This shows that a tremendous number of people have been forced, for various reasons, to be declared redundant. We could be a little less concerned if we had any reason to believe that this initially high level of redundancy payments was tapering off rapidly. Such evidence as I can find leads me to believe that this is anything but the case. The latest figures I have show that from 1st October to 31st December, 1968, there were 11,800 redundancy payments made in respect of the engineering and electrical goods workers, and 8,700 in the construction and engineering industry. These figures tend to show that there are probably more people becoming redundant, rather than less, as mergers take place.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a further criticism of the present situation, where there is this lack of information, is that there is no special occupational breakdown, so that one can go along to a particular sector of employment where one is most needed? There is no occupational, managerial grouping.

I agree. If we had a breakdown on an occupational basis, as opposed to an industrial basis, it would probably give us a very good guide and enable the Government to take this factor into account when deciding whether an industrial change or merger should be aided by public funds. In the absence of this information it must be difficult to make a decision as to whether an industrial change should be aided from public funds, without any real regard for the social consequences.

The social consequence of redundancy is not dependent upon the number of people employed. It is dependent very largely on the skills and qualifications of those people. Throughout the country one can find a pattern of redundancy showing that a large number of skilled workers will find new jobs relatively quickly, but that certain branches of semi-skilled and unskilled workers have little or no opportunity of obtaining re-employment. This leads us to one of the essential features of the Bill, insofar as it challenges the old concept that it was a management function, or prerogative, to decide what industrial changes should take place, and that it was for the employees not regarded as management to accept the consequences without question. In this respect the Bill is very much to be welcomed.

It will go some way to dealing with the problem of social hardship resulting from industrial changes. It is fair that Government spokesmen should claim that the majority of mergers which have taken place aided by public funds have not created redundancies in the development areas. That is not a total defence of the policy, although I appreciate the claim. I would set against it the fact that the Government cannot produce statistics to show how many people have been made redundant by mergers in development areas. This is crucial to our policy in these areas and needs investigation.

The social hardship of being made redundant in a development area is much higher than in the non-development areas. There has been a change of attitude among workers towards these redundancies. This has been very noticeable over the last 18 months. Workers generally, and engineering workers in particular, are fighting back against this kind of redundancy. Whereas 18 months or two years ago, upon hearing that an industrial change which would render them redundant was to take place, they might have asked about redundancy pay, wage-related benefit and resettlement grant if they could move elsewhere, they are now digging in their heels and saying that they do not want to discuss those sort of things until they have first discussed whether the change is necessary, whether there are other ways in which it can be made, whether there are other products that can be made or other markets found.

In so far as the Bill gives them the ability to do this it is to be welcomed, because through this machinery we will find, not that industrial change will halt, but that better changes will come about. There will be fewer cases of workers being made redundant, because there will be more cases of workers showing that, through their knowledge of the industry, through their representatives in consultation with management, they can work out a far more satisfactory solution, which will increase the productive capacity of the country. To that extent the Bill will aid our progress and the House should give it a very warm welcome.

I do not intend to delay the House for long, but it would be wrong to let a Bill which raises such important and interesting issues go by without a contribution from this bench. Like other speakers, I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on bringing his Bill thus far. He proclaimed that it was a Bill about participation. Well, we are all participators today. It is a common slogan in all political parties and in all areas. I suppose that even the Home Secretary can be said to be participating in the Government at the moment, or even in the realm of industrial relations in the rôle that he is playing.

The Second Reading of a Bill of this kind might represent an attack on the whole principle of mergers and a resistance to industrial change, but, basically, I agree with the underlying principle that the hon. Member has tried to bring forward, which is the need for more consultation, and for more information to be given to those who will be affected by industrial change of all types. In so far as the Bill is an attempt to mitigate the impact of mergers on employees, I believe that an improved policy for industrial training and an improved and coherent policy for mobility of labour would probably be of more importance, but I do not say that, in its own particular sphere, the Bill may not have a contribution to make.

I am sure that we need an improved framework for consultation. Those hon. Members who have read "Fair Deal at Work", which has been discussed recently at some length in another context, will know that it proposes a code of industrial behaviour. Provision for consultative machinery should play an important part in any such code of industrial behaviour for both management and trade unions. Perhaps we need to think of some legal requirement for permanent consultative machinery in industry on a real basis.

I have two complaints to make about the Bill. The first is that it represents a temporary provision narrowly linked to the question of mergers. There are many types of industrial change which are just as profound in their impact upon employees as are mergers, and if one is to build any sort of consultative machinery it seems wrong that it should be drawn as narrowly as the hon. Gentleman does here.

Further, I think that in practice there would be great difficulty in establishing when the direct effects of a merger had come to an end. For instance, have we yet come to the end of the results of the merger 16 years ago of the Austin and the Morris motor car companies? The recent merger of B.M.C. and Leyland was almost a direct following-on of that earlier merger.

Is it intended that we should have civil servants sitting year after year on the committees envisaged in the Bill? One cannot but regret that though two years ago the previous Minister of Labour said that he hoped to reduce the number of civil servants in what is now the Department of Employment and Productivity, we have heard recently that the number is to go up by several hundreds in the coming months. Any provision requiring the employment of more civil servants should be looked at carefully.

My second major complaint against the Bill is that it goes on with a general interventionist philosophy. Like the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), we all recognise that the relationship between Government and industry has changed dramatically, not only in the last 60 years but in the last 10 years. Much of this was inevitable, and much of it was no doubt desirable, but my approach is that whereas the law may have a considerable rôle to play in industrial relations and in the establishment of this sort of machinery, the less we can leave to the discretion of the political heads of Ministries the better it is.

The real rôle of Parliament is to establish a basic framework within which both sides of the industry can get on with their job, negotiate, and achieve the best possible result for industry as a whole. The idea of the man from the Department of Employment and Productivity sitting in and holding the hands of employers and employees does not seem to me to be realistic or desirable, even if, in the light of the operation of the prices and incomes policy, the employees felt that the Department was particularly to be regarded as the guardian of their interests. As I say, the law has a rôle to play in establishing a basic framework, but those who have to do the work and operate the system should then be left to come to their own decisions.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) spoke of industrial trade unionism, the need for mergers of trade unions, in order to get a more rational union structure, and the Government, in their White Paper, have suggested that the Secretary of State might have power to make orders regarding recognition in order to achieve this end. In this field, as in that covered by the Bill, it seems better that such decisions should be left to those who will be affected; and that the approach of having a bargaining agent by means of which the workers themselves decided would be a very much better approach in both cases.

We on this side are in sympathy with the basic need for more information to be given earlier. We are agreed that the simple provision of early information is not enough, but that there should be real consultation in industry about decisions which affect the livelihood and lives of employees as well as of employers. That consultation is due to move away from complaints about the sausage rolls in the canteen to the real, basic decisions mentioned by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness.

I believe that any such move forward will need some lead by the Government and by Parliament, but I am not sure that the precise provisions of this Bill are what are needed. If we could cut down the rôle of the Secretary of State in this respect, if we could cut down the wide scope of regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, and if we could cut down the direct personal intervention of what I think would become hundreds of civil servants sitting on these committees, the Bill might provide a starting point for the sort of discussions we need in order to provide a proper system of consultation in industry.

I repeat my view that the duty of Parliament is to provide a basic framework; to decide what sort of consultation it wants industry to set up and to provide for it by law, and then to leave those directly involved to get on with the job and work the system, and not to have continual direct intervention by civil servants from the Department in the detailed negotiations, discussions and consultations.

First, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) for not following the convention in these matters. I hope that he will accept my assurance that it was not done with a view to outflanking him in any way.

Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on his good fortune in the Ballot, and on his acumen in selecting this topic as the subject of his Bill. A Bill of this sort, promoted either by a private Member or by the Government, is essential for the continued successful operation of the Government's regional development policy. It is not without significance that my hon. Friend represents a South-Eastern constituency, and that when we debated the same subject on a Private Member's Motion a few weeks ago that Motion was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), who also represents a constituency in the South-Eastern part of the country. If I may say so, we are at the sharp end of the Government's regional development policy, which I support entirely. It is sensible, and I hope that it goes forward successfully. But to some extent it requires some sacrifice in the short run from people who live in the Midlands and the South-East.

This may be a rather odd doctrine to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who comes from one of the development areas, but in looking at the South-East we should not be mesmerised by the general air of affluence. There are all sorts of complicated problems under the surface which are not apparent.

Along the South London river, we have an industrial belt within the general affluence of the region whose structure was created largely by our Victorian forefathers and it is ripe for renewal. This process of renewal is going on and has been stimulated by the Government's regional policies. We are thus having a tremendous number of changes, in some cases with detrimental effects on earnings and status of individuals in the South-East London area. We want to try to minimise these effects as much as possible.

As a South-East London Member, my general criticism of the Government's regional policy is that, whereas they have thought very much about directing Government aid, Government leadership and Government support into development areas, they have handed over implementation of their policy in so far as it affects the better-off areas of the country to the unregulated decisions of private enterprise, and I think that we must bring that situation to a close.

Only 12 months ago I was in the thick of one of these situations. Following the G.E.C.—A.E.I. merger in November, 1967, G.E.C. decided that the A.E.I. factories in South-East London would have to be closed and moved to a development area. I have spoken to the top management of G.E.C. and they impressed me with their desire to see this operation going forward with the minimum damage to the people living in the South-East London area. But what distressed me from my ringside seat was the great gap between the ambitions of the G.E.C. management and their achievement in practice, because the reorganisation situation in the earlier stages was almost a monument on how the operation should not have been carried out.

The A.E.I. factories in South-East London numbered three. The largest was at Woolwich and employed 5,500 people. There were two smaller establishments in the Lewisham area, a research laboratory with about 100 people, and the other a small factory employing about 450 people. First of all, the shop stewards at the Woolwich factory were summoned to meet the management one Friday afternoon. They were handed a couple of quarto sheets in which the closure of their factory and of the other two was announced to them. The quarto sheets were not so much a statement of the case as a statement of management intention with no supporting information as to why the decision was necessary.

The action removed all sense of trust that the shop stewards had in the management. This sort of thing is not good enough. The problem was further compounded by the fact that the 5,500 employees at the Woolwich factory learnt that they were to be sacked from a perfunctory announcement over the Tannoy system, which cannot be supported as good management practice. It ran to this effect, "We are sorry to announce that the A.E.I. factory at Lewisham will be shut. We are sorry to announce that the laboratory in Blackheath will be shut, and we are also sorry to announce that this particular factory is also to be shut." That was the first news which the employees of the old A.E.I. company had of the fact that their place of work was to be shut and moved to another part of the country.

The Members of Parliament for the area and the local councillors also got no more than a couple of quarto sheets which the management had handed to the shop stewards. This again gave no indication of the case for the closures or about what was to happen to the employees in detail or even in broad principle. It was just a statement of management intention. Following these two events, as can be expected, for the next few weeks in Woolwich and Lewisham there was a situation akin to panic at the thought of 6,000 people being thrown out on to the employment market within a short period.

The preparatory work which the Company had done for the closure was almost wholly inadequate,—and here I should like to commend Clause 3 (c) of my hon. Friend's Bill. The consultations which are required and which the Department of Employment and Productivity should promote are not only consultations with the employees of the firms concerned or with the employment exchanges. Consultations are necessary also with a number of other bodies. I come back to my example.

It is intended in the South-East London area of Thamesmead to erect a new town of 60,000 people. If these people are not going to overload the already creaking Southern Region transport system by travelling from Thamesmead to the centre of London to work, they will have to be given jobs in the locality, and the early pre-planning of Thamesmead was based on the assumption that a certain proportion of the Thamesmead dwellers would work locally. This in turn was based on the assumption that the A.E.I. factory would continue in the area and provide work. There was no consultation between the G.E.C. management or any of the planning authorities or with the G.L.C., the sponsoring body for Thamesmead, on the basis that the factory was to be closed and that other provisions would have to be made for local employment.

Of course, there had also been no consultation between the management and the South-East Economic Planning Council. The result was that people had a very limited idea at that time as to what sort of employment opportunities existed in the London area for these 6,000 employees who were to be thrown out of work. This again did not add to the community's sense of security. Thus, it is not only consultation with employees that we wish to see in these circumstances. There would have to be consultations with the planning authorities as well, so that the whole operation could be properly worked out and the contribution which planning authorities can make to the sense of security of the employees properly appreciated and brought into discussion at an early stage.

My hon. Friend therefore was on a very important point when he insists that the maximum information should be made available to all parties concerned—employees, local authorities, Members of Parliament, and so forth. One of the things I found was that, whereas the management were prepared to state their intention with regard to redeployment, they were not prepared to say what they would do in terms of compensating the employees in the firms. They were not prepared to give a really detailed case backed by facts and figures to support their contention that this was the only possibility which the company had for reorganising its operations successfully so as to make them profitable.

Other statements which the management made in the ultimate had to be taken on trust, and it was just this element of trust which the management had destroyed in the area by the way in which they had announced the reorganisation to the employees. There was a tremendous upheaval in the area. There were strikes and mass meetings and processions. Writs for libel and slander were flying around. People were worried sick about their future and this situation lasted for three weeks.

One of the things which G.E.C. did before introducing the reorganisation was to sack A.E.I.s top three personnel managers as a preparation for this major reorganisation. I am prepared to accept that as between the General Electric Co. and myself there is a difference of view on this matter. The General Electric Co. believes that the personnel manager is properly located at the factory, that that is all that his function requires, and that he can handle individual factory reorganisations from that point of view. I argue with the General Electric Co. management that reorganisation should take place within the context of an overall company policy and that a proper reorganisation cannot be effected without such a policy.

In any case, whether one takes one side of the argument or the other, I do not believe that three of the leading personnel managers of Associated Electrical Industries, who had a tremendous amount of experience of the way in which the company ran and of the context in which it ran, could not have made a significant contribution to the planning of the redundancy had they been retained on G.E.C.s payroll. We must get away from the idea that a massive reorganisation of this sort can be prepared for by sacking the three top personnel managers to start with.

What was the ultimate outcome? Three weeks after the announcement of the reorganisation and the redundancies and the ensuing panic the South-East Economic Planning Council was able to gather its forces together and announce that there was a considerable surplus of employment opportunities in London over the number of people available to fill them, that as a result of the economic situation in our part of the country there was a substantial amount of empty factory space which could not be utilised because there was not the labour to fill the vacancies. How much more appropriate that statement would have been if the General Electric Co. could have consulted the Planning Council before announcing its reorganisation, and how much more suitable it would have been if the announcement of the reorganisation could have been accompanied by a statement from the Planning Council outlining the job opportunities which there were for people who were to leave A.E.I. Much of the distress which is always caused when redundancy and reorganisation take place would have been avoided.

It is that sort of consultation and joint action which the Bill is calling for. The Government must have regard to this aspect of the affair. If people are to be continually thrown into a state of chaos when reorganisation is announced—a state of despair, perhaps, about their future—the Government's regional policy will be undermined gradually and surely in the Midlands and the South-East and a great national policy upon which this Government has embarked and which I think has tremendous opportunities for the future will, in the end, have to be cast aside because the necessary electoral support will not be forthcoming.

I believe that such a decision would in the ultimate redound to the disadvantage of my constituents, because we would have the same press of employment in our area, the same ever-lengthening lists of people waiting for council houses, the same over-loaded public transport system, the same continual pressure on our social services to keep running at top speed so as to stay in the same place. If the Government's regional policy goes forward, that type of problem for my constituents can be alleviated and solved. The Government must remember that in the short term the impact on our people in the South-East is, or could be thought to be, harsh. Unless they take steps such as those proposed in the Bill to alleviate matters, the very adventurous and daring policy of regional development upon which they have embarked will be in continual jeopardy.

I give my wholehearted support to the proposals in the Bill. I hope the Government will see their way either to supporting the Bill or to introducing a similar and possibly more comprehensive Measure in the not-too-distant future.

I want to support the Bill. I shall do so with the maximum brevity. The Long Title says that it is

"A Bill to Establish machinery for the regular supply of information by employers on all matters affecting or likely to affect employment".

This is an important and desirable aim. However, I am not sure that the Bill deals with "all matters". I do not greatly blame the sponsors of the Bill for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) spoke eloquently of the need for consultation and for the supply of information after a merger has occurred. He pointed out the problems which arose on a merger and the fears to which a merger gives rise. I do not want to add anything to what my hon. Friend said. I merely underwrite what he said and support him.

The supply of information about mergers is important, not only after the merger has occurred, but also before it occurs. There are difficulties about this, because we appreciate that in the negotiations leading up to a merger there may well be matters which cannot be bandied about in public. However, it is wrong that a merger can go through quietly, on tiptoes, secretly, without those who are mainly concerned in the firm being brought into the discussions.

We know that the top management are concerned in the discussions over a merger. We know that the shareholders, who have a substantial say in whether a merger will go through and who often profit from a merger, are taken into the confidence of those concerned. But the employees, who may number many thousands, are bystanders. They merely see the negotiations taking place in front of them, outside their control—through a glass darkly, it might be said. It is more important to them as employees, because their livelihood is bound up in the firm, than it is to the shareholders.

The employees' right to be involved at some stage in consultations on a proposed merger, even if in the end the merger does not take place, is clear and should be provided for in the Bill. I want to illustrate my contention by reference to Skefko, a firm in my constituency. Skefko is an important Scandinavian firm, one of the leading manufacturers in the world of ball bearings and roller bearings. It is a firm of key importance in supplying components of a high standard to many manufacturing industries in Britain, including what is perhaps its main customer—the motor manufacturing industry.

Skefko has been extremely good to Britain. In expanding its processes in Britain it did not fight against the Government's regional policy but expanded in Ayrshire, thus helping to promote development in that part of the world. The firm has taken a British attitude towards its responsibilities and activities. About a year ago Skefko attempted to merge with a British concern. Perhaps it would be unfair to say that this other concern was not so well known, but it was a British firm. In terms of the efficiency of this important component industry, I should have thought that this merger should have gone ahead. Unfortunately the I.R.C.—presumably with the approval of the D.E.A.—took a chauvinistic attitude, and the merger was stopped.

I have made a number of attempts to obtain from the D.E.A. the reasons for that decision. I will go no further than to say that I have been dissatisfied with the answers given to me. I can only get the Department to say, in effect, "The reasons were reasonable". I will decide, if I ever learn the reason, whether they were reasonable. At present I believe that they were unreasonable and it is up to the D.E.A. to convince me that I am wrong. Hon. Members will agree, from my attitude in other matters, that I am always open to conviction.

We must consider that the D.E.A. has made a mistake in this respect when we remember that industry is becoming more and more internationalised. The real competition between firms is not between companies in, say, Luton or even England, but across frontiers in an effort to gain world markets. The motor industry exports almost half of its production, which means that almost half of its entire output is sold in competition with foreign manufacturers. To meet this competition, the correct response is to internationalise concerns. This is happening throughout the world. It is happening in the Common Market; and the merger between Agfa and Gaevert in the photographic industry has been a recent example.

The ball bearing and roller bearing industry is of crucial importance to the prosperity of our engineering industry, which is an international industry. There must be international mergers across frontiers between firms. The chauvinistic attitude of the I.R.C., the activities of which I have supported in the past, particularly in connection with the George Kent-Cambridge Instruments merger, must lead one to conclude that it has taken a narrow attitude in this matter. It grieves me to be critical of the I.R.C. in view of its past record. There must be consultation with employees, and the Bill would be strengthened if it allowed for consultation to take place before, as well as after, mergers.

In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) accepted that the processes of rationalisation, reorganisation and amalgamation must go on. It is essential for the Government to echo that sentiment and to repeat that these are processes which we accept not merely as being simply inevitable or tolerable, but because we are actively promoting and encouraging them.

In many cases these processes are necessary for the long-term economic well-being of the nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) made clear, they are the sort of processes which underlie the problems to which the Bill seeks to offer some solutions. They are essential if the Government's regional policy—the policy of the relocation of industry from the South-East and Midlands to the development areas—is to succeed.

The necessity of rationalisation, reorganisation and amalgamation—these processes are increasing and are being encouraged by the Government—does not absolve anybody from the duty of cushioning the blow which sometimes falls on employees. It does not absolve us from the duty of allaying the anxieties which are bound to be caused by such a situation and of mitigating the hardships which may arise. The Government's commitment to the relocation of industry and the encouragement of mergers places on us an increasing duty to meet the needs and to do what we can to allay these anxieties.

The history of the last four years shows that the anxiety has occasionally been greater than the facts warrant and the evidence justifies. It is real, nevertheless, and on some occasions the literal hardship may be equally real; for example, the problem of finding a new job and perhaps having to take one with lower wages, the problem of adjusting to a new industrial environment which may be difficult for a man who has done the same job for 30 or 40 years, and the problem of accepting a necessary period of retraining. The Government understand these difficulties and have done what they can to reduce to a minimum both the hardship and the anxiety.

There has, for example, been an acceleration of the training and retraining programme. We have introduced the Redundancy Payments Scheme. Short-term wage-related unemployment benefits have been introduced and there has been the unspectacular but vital expansion of my Department's placing service. In addition to these positive matters, the Government have done what they can in terms of influence and example in an attempt to ensure that when redundancies are necessary, they occur in a way which is not arbitrary, inconsiderate, reckless or capricious. The avoidance of those errors is essential and is underlined in the message contained in my Department's booklet "Dealing With Redundancies". That booklet asks for substantial forward planning and for consultation between management and unions about the processes of redundancy.

The Government have great sympathy with the principle of the Bill. Appreciating the sinking feeling that that sort of remark engenders in a private Member who is presenting a Bill, I am happy to offer my hon. Friend a little more than the Government's sympathy. We see the objects of the Bill as part of a wider policy; the policy outlined in the White Paper "In Place of Strife", paragraph 16 of which stated:

"Too often employees have felt that major decisions directly concerning them were being taken at such a high level that the decision-makers were out of reach and unable to understand the human consequences of their actions. Decisions have been taken to close down plants without consultation and with inadequate forewarning to the employees."

I am sure that that echoes the feelings which motivated my hon. Friend and his fellow sponsors in introducing the Bill.

The problem to which my hon. Friend referred is essentially part of a wider problem, the solution of which must include management's duty to take intiatives in making proposals to improve the general machinery of collective bargaining. As part of those proposals, there must be negotiation for a formal, comprehensive and consistent system of collective agreements. The C.B.I. and T.U.C. initiative of 23rd October I believe represents the kind of approach welcomed in paragraph 28 of the White Paper. As a part of these formal, comprehensive, consistent collective agreements we would expect there to be some procedures laid down to cover all the major issues affecting the working lives of the employees. These must include a policy for redundancy. That means redundancy in all situations, including certainly mergers, and closures, but also contraction. Looking, as we do today at the problem as it affects the individual man and woman, we need to remember that whilst the redundancy which comes from mergers and amalgamations receives more Press headlines, to the individual made redundant it is no consolation for him to know that he is one of a few in, let us say, a Scottish company, as opposed to one of hundreds or thousands in the South-East or the Midlands.

Perhaps we overestimate the incidence of redundancy which comes about through mergers and amalgamations and their results as opposed to the results attributable to other sorts of action. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked for how long a merger and amalgamations might be said to affect redundancies in what is now called British Leyland. I cannot go back to make any judgment over the 14 years since that process began, but when one considers the history of those companies over the last five years it is, at least, I think, debatable whether more men were made redundant as a result of rationalisation which did not take the form of a merger or amalgamation than were made redundant as the result of two or more companies coming together.

Therefore, we certainly think that any system of redundancy procedures, any system by which redundancies are managed in a more effective and more humane way, should cover all situations. That was made very clear in paragraphs 39 to 41 of the White Paper in which we say that

"undertakings will initially be invited and eventually required to register their agreements with the Department".

We then say, and we intend to make sure, that the D.E.P. will find opportunity to advise undertakings on how their agreements can be improved. Paragraph 35 of the White Paper, in dealing with what may happen when the D.E.P. refers agreements to the Commission on Industrial relations, says:

"Consultations and discussions between the company and the C.I.R. will be concerned with ways of improving arrangements, for example … how to encourage effective and fair redundacy procedures. …"

Our belief, and my suggestion to my hon. Friend, is that that process, coming, as it will, in the Industrial Relations Bill foreshadowed in the White Paper, will meet one of the principal objects of this Bill today.

But we intend, too, to meet other suggestions which he has put before the House. The obligation of employers to provide information to the trade unions is, I would have thought, an essential feature of a modern system of collective bargaining. If we are calling on trade unions, as we are every day, to encourage more rational bargaining determined by a realistic understanding of the problems of firms and the needs of industries, then it is essential that the trade unions be provided with the sort of information which will enable them to make rational judgments. Clause 4(1) of the Bill provides for information to be made available to trade unions. Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the White Paper assure the House and the country that we intend to provide for that information to be made available in the same way. There are other areas in which the Bill and the White Paper overlap. Enforcement of the recommendations of the Commission on Industrial Relations, in so far as they affect trade union recognition and bargaining rights dealt with in paragraphs 57, 58 and 59, are central to the intentions of this Bill.

I hope, therefore, not only as the result of what I have said this morning but as the result of what we have said in the White Paper and on other occasions, that the hon. Member will take as very genuine and very well meant, our sympathy with the aims and principles of his Bill.

There are points of difference between us which it would be wrong of me not to draw to the attention of the House I have already dealt with our desire to have a system of redundancy arrangements and procedures which is common to redundancies whether arising from mergers or not.

Secondly, the Bill is, in our view, insufficiently precise about the way consultations should take place. In this field it is very difficult sometimes to distinguish between consultations and negotiations and whether consultations should be about the fact of redundancy or about the arrangements for redundancy. I am equally doubtful about the rôle the Bill would give to the Department of Employment and Productivity or at least my Department's representative. Several hon. Gentlemen, including the sponsor of the Bill himself, emphasised the need to place the initiative for good industrial relations in the hands of management.

I am by no means convinced that the new participation of the D.E.P. and civil servants on such occasions would encourage that initiative or develop the right sort of management policy. If I may take an example—it is, perhaps, not central to the Bill, but circumstances make it impossible for me to avoid—Clause 4 of the Bill which gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State certain regulatory powers, is not sufficiently well defined or easily interpreted as to allow one to know exactly what powers she would possess. Certainly that is so since at no place in the Bill is there any reference to sanctions to back up those powers, and it is my suspicion that Bills which give powers but do not specify sanctions by which those powers can be enforced are not likely to work.

But having said that I want to emphasise again that the main objects and the main purpose of the Bill are objects of which we all approve.

Let me summarise what we can promise for consideration. We can promise—of course, statements have already been made and hardly need re-emphasising by me since the White Paper was debated in the House three weeks ago—that the White Paper is to be converted into an Industrial Relations Bill to be presented to the House. I can add to that that it is part of that Bill that there will eventually be required of employers the registration of procedure agreements, which will include the principle of Clause 5 of the Bill.

Secondly, I can promise that, as part of that Bill, there will be an obligation on managements to supply information to employees, as recommended in Clause 3(b) of the Bill. Whilst making this promise I believe I can go a little further.

May I seek the leave of the House to speak a second time?

This has been an interesting debate in which hon. Members have called on their experience as well as on what they have read in periodicals and newspapers to give us their practical opinions. My hon. Friends the Members for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) have referred to the social cost of mergers and organisational change, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take full account of this.

In many debates on the economic structure and the problems of industry, the social cost has not always been treated as a major item in areas of decision-making. Enlightened companies recognise its importance, but we have been speaking today not only of the enlightened companies, progressive management and progressive trade unions, but about those companies where the circumstances are less happy and where there are considerable areas of anxiety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) has emphasised what may appear to be the harshness of some Government regional policies affecting the South-East, and, as he comes from that area, it is particularly significant that he should have raised this matter. He also emphasised something which I mentioned briefly, the importance of having an appreciation of all levels, operative, management and supervisory, which are affected by a merger. He referred to the sacking of personnel managers. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that at a time of merger or organisational change the concern felt is not confined merely to the shop floor. We are here talking about individuals at every level in the organisation. Although a person may have job security and know that his future within an organisation is certain, he nevertheless feels anxious and wonders whether he should make a move. My hon. Friend spoke also of the need for discussion with planning authorities, and I am sure that account will be taken of this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) referred to the necessity for information being available before mergers take place. This is a difficult point, but emphasis should be placed on joint consultative meetings, and the dissemination of private information, as part of a wider range of consultation within the company.

In considering the Bill, we have isolated mergers from other things which may happen within a company. In doing this the point has been dramatised. We have not exaggerated, but have tried to pinpoint our discussion on a particular area of anxiety. If there is value in management meeting employees at all levels at a time of crisis, this should be part of a continuing dialogue through all aspects of the company.

The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) questioned whether this was a narrow, limited area, and asked when the discussion would come to an end. I have partly answered this, and I hope it would not mean that a Government representative would be there all the time. This is the last thing which I would want. In setting up a communications system, management and employees would decide when the crisis had passed. The representative would come into the organisation to ensure that there was a system that worked. Although a company might argue that everything was all right and that there was a works council, the system might be defective; it might be phoney. During the seven years which I spent with the British Institute of Management I visited many companies, and one comment which I always took with a certain amount of scepticism was when I was told, "We are one big happy family here"; and within a fortnight there could be anything from a strike to a major dispute. It is necessary to assess the quality of the consultative procedures within the company.

My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary paid tribute to what the Government have done, and hon. Members on both sides recognised this. We have gone a long way towards job security, redundancy payments and relocation and training. As the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said, information about trends and the way in which men can be allocated to jobs, represent a tremendously searching area for future development.

To come to the crucial point of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning what the Government will accept from the Bill, he has not offered just tea and sympathy; at times it was rather like Irish coffee. Having known him personally for many years, this is the sort of drink I shall still want to examine in a few days' time. My job will be to keep reminding him of the commitments which he has given.

I recognise that there are practical difficulties in the Bill, but I also appreciate the imagination that he has shown, as is his way, in dealing with a problem raised by a back bencher. Acceptance of Clause 5 and Clause 1 is crucial. The need for the Department to have a register of agreements between management and employees is absolutely essential. This would be more than a piece of paper. It would establish a commitment.

In conclusion, managements who aid their employees need not fear what is in the Bill, and what my right hon. Friend has suggested. We are talking about industry in a general way and are saying that communication and consultation are matters of common sense, but communication and consultation must be organised. In offering a return drink of the Irish coffee, may I say that I hope that the Bill, to which we look forward anxiously, will deal more with the level of consultation and the working together of both sides of industry than with the punitive measures which are suggested in the White Paper and by other quarters. In this way the Labour Party, both as a party and in Government, will make a real return from some things which have happened overnight which may have distressed some people, and give an impetus towards bringing about the policies which are so necessary.

In view of the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Bill.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is a short one, and it sets out simply to establish a small advisory commission consisting of between four and six members who would consider the whole subject of disablement and then make recommendations on changes and additions to pensions and benefits for the disabled. The Bill does not seek to deal with the pensions, benefits or conditions of the disabled. All that it seeks to do is set up a commission which would then carry out certain tasks.

Those who have followed the subject will know that this short simple Bill is a further stage in what I and some other right hon. and hon. Members have been trying to do over a period of two or three years. I have been fortunate in two Ballots. I was first fortunate in a Ballot for Motions which meant that, a year ago, I was able to have a day's debate on the subject on the Floor of the House. Now I have been successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills and so have been able to bring in this Bill.

While disability of all kinds and of varying degrees raises problems, I have concentrated on the categories of the very severely disabled who at present fall outside our systems. We have systems for dealing with the war disabled and the industrially disabled, and we in this House are very much concerned to see that those systems operate efficiently, just as we are concerned about the adequacy of the pensions and benefits involved. But there are these other categories, most of them very severely disabled persons, who have been disabled either from birth or from early youth and, therefore, have never been able to work. They have never been employed or self-employed. For that reason, they have never entered the National Insurance system. They have never been contributors, and the Government have no record of them. If they were in the National Insurance system there would be records, so that the Government would know more about them, how many there were, and where they were in the country.

Similarly, another important group consists of housewives who have never been in paid employment, who have never been in the National Insurance system, and who have been struck down by some paralysing illness or other incapacity which makes them unable to look after their houses and families. This is another category of person who is not catered for in the present system.

Two years ago, I was pressing hard for a survey to be carried out with a view to compiling a register for the whole country of those who have been missed out of the system. It was not with a view to criticising. The National Insurance system and the National Health Service have been operating for over 20 years. Historically, when the National Insurance system was brought into existence, it was based on the Beveridge Report, which had employment and unemployment as the major factors in the background. It set up a system to assist people when they were out of work.

When one remembers the 1930s and the percentages of unemployment which Lord Beveridge would have been considering when compiling his Report during the war, it is not surprising that the system, whether for sickness benefits or retirement pension, was based on persons receiving benefits when they were out of work. Those who, for one reason or another, could never have been in employment were not catered for. That, basically, is the gap which has appeared in the system 20 years later.

When I was pressing for the survey, I put down a battery of Questions and raised the matter in other ways, and I succeeded in getting a statement in reply to a Question which I asked on 23rd October, 1967, that the Government's Social Survey was to start a study throughout the country in order to gain information on this subject. I can do no better than read what the Minister said in that reply:

"The Government's Social Survey will undertake next year a study of adults living at home who are substantially and permanently handicapped by limitations in their movements. The survey will show the extent to which they receive and need help from local authority services and will assist in the development of those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 1332.]

That study is going on, and I shall be glad if we can have from the Government the latest estimate of when it will be completed and the results made public.

In paragraph 91 of the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance, the Government stated that the action to be taken on the groups who were outside the National Insurance system must await the result of that study. In other words, all future action on this by the Government has to await the result of the study by the Government Social Survey, which I greatly welcomed when it was first announced in reply to my Question.

In a slightly different form, this Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) last summer. He introduced it under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, and he had supporters from all parts of the House. I was one of its sponsors. The hon. Gentleman has done a great deal for and on behalf of the disabled, and I am sorry that he cannot be here today though, of course, he is a supporter of my Bill. We all congratulate him on the way in which he has overcome his own disability and decided to stay in the House. We have all admired his decision and the way in which he has been so successful in carrying on.

Last summer, a crowded House gave the hon. Gentleman leave to bring in his Bill. There was a very full Treasury Bench that day. On that occasion and after it, the Government gave every impression that they were in favour of the Bill. When I was successful in the Ballot later last year, I thought that, in taking up and presenting it, I was bringing forward a non-controversial Bill which would be welcomed by the Government and by everyone else who was concerned about the plight of these disabled groups.

In the form in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South brought it in, the Bill could get no further. Under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, there was no possibility late in the summer of it's going through its stages and being completed before the end of that Session. Therefore, it was not surprising that I or some other Member who was successful in the Ballot should have brought it forward. Again, I have sponsors from all sides of the House for the Bill.

I made some changes to the context, because I wanted to make it, as a Private Member's Bill, more easy acceptable to the Government. For example, I took out that part of the Bill which would have cost money, because that was not necessary. I also consulted the Government to see whether there were any other ways in which I could make the Bill more easily acceptable to them.

Another point is that the Disablement Commission is entirely advisory. It will not take any decisions about pensions, benefits or conditions concerning the disabled. It is purely advisory to the Government. There is no question of it taking away decisions which rightly are those for the Government of the day to take. That is why it was surprising when the Government suddenly declared their hand and came out against the Bill. I hope that they have changed their mind today. But I must record the fact that, when I consulted them about it, they eventually told me that they could not support it. This surprised not only me but everybody else who had been working in this sphere.

An advisory commission of this kind would be able to help the Departments by studying the special problems of the disabled and making recommendations. The Government appeared to be presenting two faces: the one they presented last summer when the Bill first appeared with the general acclamation of this House, but which could go no further; and the other which they presented when my Bill appeared and they had to decide what they thought about it. It was a shock, in particular, to the organisation known as D.I.G.—the Disablement Income Group—which had been working very hard to bring to public attention the plight of these groups of severely disabled about whom I have been speaking.

In the last two years I have frequently been asked by the Press, in particular, and also on radio and television, why these problems have arisen now and why they did not arise earlier during the 20 years of the National Insurance system. I believe that one reason is that the persons involved are physically helpless individuals, most of whom are out of touch with each other. They are the very opposite of a pressure group. In the past it has been impossible for them to make known their existence even to the Government, because the Government still do not know in what numbers they exist or how they are dispersed throughout the country. It was extremely difficult for them to get together into any kind of organisation until the formulation of the Disablement Income Group.

Some of the people most concerned with the Disablement Income Group are themselves very severely disabled. It is remarkable that people in wheelchairs or from hospital beds should be able to organise a group through the post or by telephone. D.I.G. is particularly shocked at what apparently has been the Government's attitude to my Bill. I hastily add that I hope that the Government, on reconsideration, will have second thoughts today.

As I have mentioned, these people are either bedridden or have to spend their time sitting in chairs or wheelchairs in their houses. I am talking about the very severely disabled. Life for them can be very grim. Many of them have to be in hospitals or institutions being looked after, because there is no one outside who can give them the necessary help. Others are able to live outside because they are helped voluntarily by their families or others. It should be our intention to encourage as many as possible to live outside hospitals and institutions and to enable them to get the help that they need to live as normal a life as is possible.

The reason given by the Government in January when they informed me that they could not support what I thought was a non-contentious Bill was that Ministers and officials did not need the advice which this advisory commission would produce because they had to do the job and they knew all about the situation. I submit that they cannot know enough about it. I have already pointed out that because the particular groups about whom I am concerned are not in the National Insurance system, there are no records. The Government have had to start a study to try to find out where they are. There is a great deal more to be known about the different kinds of disability and how these people should be treated and helped. I am sure that this information is simply not available to the Departments.

In former existences I have been both a Minister and an official. I am well aware that Ministers and officials are very busy getting on with their jobs. They have a lot of work to do and they are busy doing it. Therefore, it is not easy for them to sit down and consider the whole sphere of the disabled and their disabilities in the way that the Commission which I propose would.

I should like to give one example of the difficulty of Ministers. In the debate on the White Paper on Proposals for Earnings-Related Social Security on 6th March this year, there was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and the Secretary of State for Social Services which I should like to read:

"Lord Balniel: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, it applies to the short-term sickness benefit—it cannot apply to a long-term civilian disabled pension, for which I was asking.

Mr. Crossman: It will apply to long-term sickness and long-term unemployment, as is stated briefly here. It is in that context that we are prepared to consider the problems of disability.

Lord Balniel: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that long-term sickness benefit applies only to people in the insurance scheme and the civilian disabled housewife who has never been in work is not in the insurance scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 729.]

Here is a major debate on the Floor of the House with the Minister concerned not recognising that the very groups about which we were talking were not in the National Insurance scheme. That was the whole point. All that the right hon. Gentleman was saying about disability benefits and allowances being considered in the short-term or the long-term sickness benefit had no effect on the people about whom I am talking. They could not benefit from that scheme because they are not eligible for sickness benefit whether in the short term or the long term. I found that exchange a real illustration of what I can only describe as the ignorance which can exist, and it shocked me.

I note that there are already no fewer than six—there may be more—advisory committees on health and social security, but the Ministers do not object to them. They do not seek to abolish them on the basis that Ministers and officials already know enough. These advisory committees cover other spheres. There is no committee dealing with the disabled and the problems which I have raised today.

If the Disablement Commission were set up as proposed in the Bill it would be in existence in time to help with the consideration of the results of the Government's Social Survey. If the results of the study became available towards the end of this year, the Commission would be established and ready to go ahead to help the Government sift and consider the information which would become available. I make it clear again that the Commission itself would not take decisions. It would merely make recommendations.

I should like, also, to make it clear to the Government that there is a lot of money to be saved in this business. By helping the disabled to live normal lives, or nearly normal lives, and so far as they can to do useful work, which is possible in many cases, a great deal of money could be saved. A little money thoughtfully spent in keeping a severely disabled person out of hospital could result in a great saving. If someone is in hospital permanently he costs very much more to public funds, and also uses a much needed bed and hospital resources.

We all know examples of very severely disabled persons who have been able to overcome their disabilities, but they need help and encouragement. At the moment not enough is being done for what are described as the civilian disabled. They are not being given the encouragement they need.

The Bill gives the Commission the duty of reviewing pensions and benefits and making recommendations. In order to do that properly, the Commission would have to go into all these matters. It would study how very severely disabled persons could be assisted. In this way they could come out of hospital and live in their own homes, and would be able to pay for the help which they need, which may mean for two or three hours a day. In that way people would be able to be outside a hospital or an institution, instead of being permanently inside it.

The Government surely cannot object to the Bill on the grounds that it would add to public expenditure. The Minister will have seen that it is proposed that the members of the Commission should be unpaid. That is one of the changes which I made from the original Bill. I did sc because my inquiries showed that then; was no shortage—and I assure the Government of this—of qualified persons who would be only too glad to give their services part-time on this Commission. Any other expenditure which would arise under the Bill would be derisory—purely small administrative expenditure.

If the Government feel that the task of the Commision should be better described, I am not wedded to the wording of the terms of reference. If the Government accept the principle of an advisory Disablement Commission, the terms of reference could be spelled out differently if the Government so wished.

The Minister will also have noticed that in the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very much brought into the picture, as is the Secretary of State for Social Services. This recognises that anything done to help these people is something with which the Treasury must be concerned, because eventually if benefits and pensions are to be affected the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the last say. Both these Ministers will be interested in reducing the burden on the hospital services.

The burden on the National Health Service and on the hospital services can be reduced if there is a more progressive attitude to the severely disabled in our community. Ways of enabling the disabled to fend for themselves, and enabling them to pay the comparatively small amounts which may be needed for other people to help them in their own homes, are matters which ought to be looked into but about which too little is being done. If such help were given, it could lead to a considerable easing of the burden on the National Health Service

I should like to ask the Minister about the Government's Social Survey. Paragraph 91 of the White Paper suggests that the Government have in mind some kind of supplementary benefit for the very severely disabled who are not in the National Insurance Scheme. Supplementary benefit is the old National Assistance benefit, so it is clear that in the Government's view as set out in the White Paper these people would not be part of the National Insurance Scheme, and they may never have contributed to it.

The statement in paragraph 91 is extremely vague and those bodies outside the House who are working on behalf of the disabled are worried about the vagueness of it. The main categories of people outside the National Insurance Scheme are those who have been severely disabled from birth or youth and housewives who later in life have been struck down with incapacity. Do the Government intend to compile a register from the results of the Social Survey? The Minister may say that the study is not to be comprehensive and therefore will not produce all the facts and figures for the country. In that event will the Government take any further steps to compile a register for the whole country?

Questions which I and my hon. Friends have put down over the last two or three years have revealed that some local authorities try to keep records of the disabled in their areas. There is no obligation on them to do so, and therefore the only picture that we can get is that of the situation in some areas. The Government might have been able to produce the figures themselves if these disabled people had been in the National Insurance Scheme because there would then have been records for them.

As there are no Government records, what do the Government intend to do about compiling a register? So far I have been unable to get this information. I continue this questioning of the Government whenever I get the opportunity, and gradually I manage to extract information. The Government have moved gradually, otherwise we should not have the Social Survey going on at the moment, but, looking to the next stage, I hope that today the Minister will say that it is the Government's intention to have a proper register.

As I said, the Government's attitude to the Bill in January caused great dismay, because it was compared with their apparent support for it when it was introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South in the summer. The Government's attitude has caused disillusionment and I therefore ask the Minister to change his mind, if he has not already done so. While the Government are awaiting the results of the study, and while they are later considering them, which will take some time, the Commission could be being set up.

It would be the one action which the Government could now take which would be very heartening, not only to the severely disabled but to all those who are working on behalf of them, and to the bodies who represent them. This action would not involve any public expenditure but it would show that the Government meant business. It would demonstrate to the country and the world that this Parliament and the Government wish to be fully informed and to make progress in dealing with this important subject.

The Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has introduced should have the sympathy and understanding of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It reflects an anxiety which many people have in respect of one of the many problems of the disabled. In the past other hon. Members have introduced Bills of various sorts in this connection and it is to be hoped, following what my hon. Friend has said, that the Government will tell us the results of their survey and what they intend to do on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

I support the Bill wholeheartedly, and hope that it will receive a Second Reading. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I go on to say that I shall ask him to extend the Bill to cover other aspects of the problems of disabled people. My hon. Friend normally speaks for Scotland. I normally speak for Wales. On a Friday we can all speak as private Members on a matter which is relevant to all parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales.

In dealing with this problem we are dealing not only with the war disabled and the industrially disabled but also with the mentally disabled. I should therefore like to see an increase in the size of the Commission suggested in the Bill. If it is limited to six members I do not think that it will be able to deal with those other problems of the disabled that I want the Bill to cover.

I say this for two reasons. Estimable as is my hon. Friend's Bill in bringing to the fore the plight of the disabled—in the home and in institutions—I doubt if the country appreciates the size of the problem and the numbers involved, it would be possible to extend the Bill's provisions to those who are also mentally disabled.

Only yesterday we heard a very unpleasant and significant report on the Ely Hospital in Cardiff. In introducing the report the Minister made no bones about the conditions in the hospital and the failures of those responsible. He said:

"Responsibility for serious deficiencies in the standards of medical and nursing services and of administration is attributed to the senior staff of the hospital, to the Hospital Management Committee and to the Welsh Hospital Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1809.]

I do not wish to take up too much time of the House on this Welsh matter and I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to it but the deficiencies mentioned in the report show a state of affairs which is far from happy. I wonder what the Welsh Hospital Board and the hospital management committee will do. They should examine their own positions. Will any of their members resign? Many people in Wales feel ashamed of what has happened in that hospital.

This touches upon the fact that many people, especially in their old age, go to this type of hospital. Some of the people are disabled and some are purely geriatric cases. Today I shall not go into the question of the provision which Governments of all hues have made in respect of old people's homes and sheltered accommodation outside hospitals. I still think it is insufficient. This is one reason why so many geriatric patients are in these institutions today. It greatly complicates the job of those who have to look after people in institutions, hospitals and homes of this sort, and whose work and care for them is so praiseworthy.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I hope that the scope of the Commission's work can be extended. If such a Commission had been in existence some years ago it is possible that the conditions which prevailed in Ely Hospital in Cardiff would never have occurred.

My hon. Friend has mentioned his desire to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover mental disability. He will see that at the end of Clause 4 disability is defined as being mental as well as physical. Severe disability of a mental kind as well as of a physical kind would be included.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing this out. To that extent I do not seek to extend the facilities provided by the Bill.

This fact is important, because in many cases the difference between physical disability and mental disability are not easily definable. This is a huge subject. The unemployment figures for South Wales, under any Government in the past, are higher than the national average, and this reflects the high percentage of industrially injured people. This applies to any other coalfields area. That is one of the factors that we are up against all the time, and shows how these areas have suffered.

My hon. Friend was right in what he said above Beveridge. It is now widely recognised that conditions have changed, but that we have not yet got away from the old concept. We have to recognise the fact that Beveridge was based upon the unemployment figures of the 'thirties. We have not yet sufficiently understood the change that has taken place, and that this should be reflected in a change of approach to our social problems.

It is not my habit to make a long speech, but debates on Private Members' Bills on Friday mornings produce the sort of atmosphere in which it is possible to discuss the problems of this sort concerning the disabled. This is a good Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it and that I shall be honoured to serve on the Committee. The Bill should receive the wholehearted support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will accede to my hon. Friend's request that the Government should tell us the results of the survey to which he has referred, and that the Government will give the Bill their support.

I want to give all-party support to what has been said, because I believe this is one of the subjects which should be taken out of party politics. It is a more important matter than party politics. That view is widely shared by the public generally. The massive abstentions which we saw in yesterday's by-elections reflect the disillusionment with all three parties, and in particular it can be traced to the fault of politicians in so often trying to make party capital from real problems. One of the problems, not only of Governments but of all parties in the past, has been neglect of the conditions for mental health patients and for our disabled people.

This is no fault of these disabled people. They have no sponsored Members to speak for them. It therefore behoves us who are lucky enough not to be disabled to act as their trustees and to be both doubly conscientious and doubly active. And I say "active" because they need action, not platitudes which they have received from politicians of all parties for so long. The disabled are one of the groups in our society, like the mentally ill, who can exert no powerful pressure at election time. Unlike the B.O.A.C. pilots or the dock workers, they cannot form a pressure group. Recently, largely thanks to the efforts of Mrs. Du Boisson, they have started a nucleus of an organisation, the Disablement Income Group. This has been helped by hon. Members of all parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who I am glad to see is here, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who is not, unfortunately, able to be here today.

We should not shield from the public that what is necessary is a considerable injection of money to right the conditions for disabled people which they suffer through no fault of their own. We also need a massive amount of money to rectify the years of neglect of the mentally disabled. It is the job of all of us, and the Government, to persuade public opinion—who are fortunate enough not to share these disabilities—to make sacrifices instead of, as is so often the case, leaving the disabled out of sight and out of mind, like the mentally ill, until there is some shocking exposure of a scandal like yesterday's report on Ely Hospital which reactivates public concern momentarily. When it comes to voting taxes, so often people tend to ignore issues like this which should be real priorities.

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) upon introducing this Bill. I apologise to him for missing his opening remarks. Since I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions, I will not speak at great length or repeat what I have said.

I agree very much with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) that this is in no way a party political matter. All parties have been guilty, over the years, of neglecting the needs of the disabled. I hope that there will not be a party vote on this Bill; I hope that it will be supported on all sides. I was rather disappointed, when my hon. Friend brought it forward in late January, that it was refused a Second Reading. I was surprised because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) had introduced a similar Bill during the summer which had been received with great enthusiasm in all parts of the House.

With all respect to my hon. Friend this is a rather modest Bill, but modesty has certain virtues. One is that it is not expensive, and the Bill would not involve any additional cost to the Government. Even if it is only modest, we should welcome anything which will help solve the problems of disabled people. I understand that one of the arguments against the proposed Commission is that the Minister already has a number of advisory bodies giving him all the advice he wants. I am sure that many people are always prepared to give advice to Governments. However effective these advisory bodies may be in certain areas, it is clear that the disabled have been neglected.

One of the reasons always given for not taking more prompt action to help the disabled is that not enough is known about the extent and scope of the problems. In the past there has been a great lack of information. This advisory body can help fill that gap. But for the efforts of disabled people it is probable that this problem would not be so prominent and attracting so much attention. The person who inspired the Disablement Income Group is a disabled person. When she came face to face with the problems she was appalled to find this gap in the welfare services. This Group has done a tremendous amount to educate the public and to persuade hon. Members and members of the Government to help. It is unlikely that the welcome announcement in the recent White Paper about an attendance allowance would have been introduced but for the fact that the Group was able to present its case to the Government, which took note of it.

In my speech I omitted to refer to the excellent work that the British Legion has done in this sphere. Would my hon. Friend agree that they have played a great part in putting forward the case for the disabled?

I entirely agree. The British Legion has done a great deal, but my thoughts are oriented more to the civilian disabled. The Commission would not usurp the Government's responsibilities. It would be able only to give advice. It could analyse the many and varied problems associated with disablement. Some of the more obvious are the need for extra electricity to keep people warm, attendants to look after them and telephones in case of emergency. Often it is a matter of life and death. They may be dependent entirely on a machine. What happens if it breaks down? Unless someone is there with a hand-pump or a standby plant is available, a few minutes electricity cut could have disastrous effects.

There are many such problems, and every disabled person has to meet a different problem in his individual family circumstances if he is to continue living at home. It is important that, wherever possible on medical grounds, disabled people should be able to continue living at home with their families. They need a tremendous amount of courage to overcome their handicaps, and they can be greatly helped if they are surrounded by the love and affection of their families.

This is not a one-way traffic, because the disabled person also contributes to the activities of the family. I know of a severely disabled mother of two children who is permanently confined to bed, but she has played a vital part in keeping the family united and bringing up her two sons. My hon. Friend mentioned that it is much more economical for people to live at home rather than to be cared for in an expensive hospital bed.

I understand that the results of the Government survey will be coming out fairly soon. This Commission should reinforce any evidence in it and give valuable advice. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Bill as a step forward and a real contribution to helping the disabled.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) for his continued attack on this problem. There seems to be a theory that a Private Member's Bill succeeds at the first attempt, but in earlier years many took several debates and several years to go through. My hon. Friend's attacks are certainly consistent and he has proved himself a skilful manager of the Order Paper by the fact that, although in bottom place in the Ballot, he has gained a Second Reading debate for the Bill. I hope that we will shortly see it in Committee.

When, on 21st February, the Government rejected the Disabled Persons' Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary told us the numbers of people involved—170,000 sick and disabled under pension age, 412,000 war wounded and 219,000 industrial injured. He went on to say that in the Government's opinion, the services which these people got from local authorities were just as important as cash and supplementary benefits.

One of the most worrying things is the varying standards of local authority services. In the County of Lindsey, the welfare services for the disabled are as good as in any other county in England because, in a large rural area, we are fortunate in having a large number of people who can give voluntary time and help. But one of the most disturbing facts brought out by the Local Government Commission a few years ago was the differences in local authority services, which it used to back up its argument for some change in local government boundaries.

The important thing about the Bill and the reason that it is better than the Bill which the House rejected on 21st February, is not only that it will not cost the taxpayer much but that it will reinforce work now being done by the advisory committee which the Government set up to consider the health and welfare of handicapped people. The Commission which the Bill proposes will have power to recommend an annual review of pension levels for the disabled.

The Government rejected the earlier Bill because they felt that the economic circumstances did not justify it, but those very circumstances make it even more urgent to do something for disabled people. If the disabled, by help and supplementary payments, can continue to lead a normal life at home, this is very expensive, for instance, in housing, because the house must be adapted with a lift or some other device, there must be wide doorways and slopes instead of stairs. It is also expensive in transport, whether through the specialised adaptation of a motor car or simply because they have to use public transport and avoid the rush hours. It is also expensive in clothing. So there is a real case for this Commission looking annually at the plight of the disabled and advising the Government at what level their pensions should be made.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hampstead, Mr. Whitaker) have paid tribute to the tremendous amount of work which has been done by the Disablement Income Group and it is significant that we have had two debates in private Members' time on this subject already this year. This shows how public opinion is at last being awakened to this problem. It is significant, perhaps, that there is some small improvement in the Government's White Paper on superannuation. However, I hope that today we will have an indication of one other success in the mobilisation of public opinion through the Disablement Income Group when the Parliamentary Secretary says that he will accept my hon. Friend's Bill.

In supporting the Bill warmly and commending the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) I also support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) that more people should be put on this Commission. The problems and difficulties of the disabled are not covered by pensions and benefits. There are many more problems. Since this Commission will be looking at these problems, it should open up and recognise the other problems.

I want to give three short examples of ways in which it is necessary for this provision to be opened up. The first relates to taxation. I find it extraordinary that, if a man has a disabled wife who is totally incapacitated, he can claim a tax allowance for a housekeeper, but that if the positions are reversed, if it is the husband who is totally disabled and the wife who must go out to work to support them both, she can claim nothing.

It is not always recognised that the disabled have a particular difficulty in some areas. One instance is the care of deaf children, the situation of which in Birmingham is severe. I am sure that this is not the only area where this applies. I should like the Commission to examine what facilities are available in that area for afflicted persons and try to see that something is done, or at least that the problem is posed.

Disabled people suffer many difficulties. For instance, a great difficulty for some of them is access for their wheelchairs in various cities. These people have a wide range of problems in which, if it is set up, the Commission should interest itself, but a Commission quite as small as that suggested might not be able to study the full range.

It should be made clear that attendance in the Chamber today is not indicative of the House's support for this principle. We all know that hon. Members often face great difficulties on Fridays—constituency arrangements cannot always be altered—and the public might imagine that small attendance meant a lack of interest by the House. That is certainly not the case on this occasion. Hon. Members on both sides and of all parties have a great interest in this subject.

We cannot continue merely paying lip-service to the needs of this group, and the Bill has been framed in the most general way in order to cover the various difficulties which the Government might find themselves facing. My hon. Friend has leant over backwards to make the Bill acceptable to the Government. I warmly support him, and I hope that if the Bill goes to a Standing Committee all the points that have been mentioned in this debate will be most carefully considered.

The Bill deals with a very poignant subject, and I very much agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) when she says that Parliament has a responsibility. The fact is that Parliament has shown its concern for the disabled perhaps more in the past few years than for many a year before, and for this the Government can claim great credit.

We should acknowledge that much of what has been done has its roots in the National Health Service. I was born in an area afflicted by great industrial upheavals such as mining and shipping disasters in which people were disabled and left incapable of following their normal employment. In addition, there were those more gruesomely afflicted by being born disabled. One of the brutal blotches on our pre-war society was that no one seemed to care; that no one was concerned. The country did not appear to want to be involved in the problems of the disabled until the advent of the National Health Service. From that time on, we have made remarkable progress.

I cannot agree with the hon. Lady, though I do not think that she really meant it in this way, that we have been paying only lip-service since the war. In the last four or five years we have done much more than that, though I confess that the progress so far made does not satisfy me. But the contribution of our people via this House has been not; inconsiderable. The introduction of various supplementary benefits has made a marked contribution to the lives of disabled people, and particularly to their families.

In all the sad and poignant story, I am desperately concerned about the situation of the disabled mother. In what might be called the ordinary working-class family, the rôle of the housewife with, perhaps, half a dozen children can be pretty grim, but when that same woman is disabled, life indeed becomes very grim. I have such mothers in my constituency.

One can only marvel at their courage in combating their affliction, and at the wonderful example they show to others in caring for their families, moving around in a wheelchair from kitchen to living-room. Various rooms have to be altered in order to eliminate steps and enable the wheelchair to be manipulated. They are, indeed, proud of their ability to manipulate their wheelchairs. Yet we have not so far taken real cognisance of the fact that these people bear an additional burden. A mother so afflicted is often compelled to seek additional help in running the home. We should concentrate some attention on this aspect.

I know the feelings of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). I have had the privilege of sharing with him platforms, if that is the word, at demonstrations to call attention to the plight of the disabled. I know that he will agree with me that the work that has been done by the Disablement Income Group is quite remarkable. It is a comparatively new group, but it has certainly made its mark. It has been led by a remarkable woman, Mrs. Du Boisson, who has been its inspiring force. Those who previously had no interest in the disabled now have an interest because of this lady's determination and charm. She herself is disabled. If a permanent Commission such as that envisaged in the Bill should ever be established, I see no reason at all why someone with such remarkable and specific knowledge should not be a member.

The Government outlined their intentions in the White Paper "Proposals for Earnings-related Social Security", and legislation on those lines will further assist these people. In the past four or five years, hon. Members of all parties have done much to support various organisations seeking to put the case of the disabled on the agenda of our political hares, and I have been proud to associate myself with their endeavours.

I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) on his luck in the Ballot and on his persistence in this subject for many years. I suppose that I should declare a marginal interest in that I am in receipt of a war disability pension and am also a member of the British Legion. I am glad that the British Legion has been mentioned, but the House will, I am sure, also wish to pay tribute to the other organisations, both statutory and voluntary, which do so much good work in social service.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be as struck in this debate as in the previous debate, which we had only on 21st February on a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), by the unanimous opinion of all the speeches on the need for action, and early action, on this issue. It is equally striking that, as shown both today and on 21st February, there is the growing view not only in the House but outside that, in modern conditions and with the knowledge which we have about the disabled, we need to look increasingly to the extent of the disability rather than to the cause if we are to deal with the gaps which exist and to try to overcome the anomalies of which we are all well aware.

I was sorry, as I am sure were many hon. Members, that, on the last occasion, there having been an almost unanimous view in favour of the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, it was voted down and did not have a chance to be considered in detail in Committee. I hope that that will not be the fate of this Bill, which was introduced so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Government gave every indication last summer, when a similar Bill was introduced, that they were interested in the proposal and, indeed, welcomed it. I hope that we are not to be disappointed again today by the Under-Secretary of State's reply.

There is disappointment not only in the House about the Government's apparent change of attitude. Our disappointment is shared by those outside who are particularly interested in this matter. This morning I received Newsletter No. 11 from D.I.G. referring to correspondence which it has been having with the Secretary of State about the proposed Commission. The Newsletter said:

"… to our surprise and disappointment, Mr. Crossman set his face resolutely against any Disablement Commission or advisory body, declaring that he and his colleagues are 'responsible for ensuring that the right things are done for the right people at the right time and in the right way'. We find this a curious declaration of paternalism when in so many public utterances Mr. Crossman comes out strongly in favour of participation".

The Newsletter goes on to say that D.I.G. hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will change his mind. I am sure that the House hopes so, too.

I will give briefly some of the reasons, in addition to and in amplification of those given by my hon. Friend, why I believe that the Bill, with its proposal for a Commission, is so valuable and timely. In saying this, I show no disrespect to any of the organisations which already exist—for example, the Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons. We know that it has done a splendid job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) said, it is significant that the committees which advise the Minister have not been able, possibly because they have not had time, to focus attention on this problem. It has been done only when organisations like D.I.G. have done it.

Another very good reason is that it is generally accepted that we must get the health and welfare services locked in very much more closely together and that we must get a complete picture of the needs of the individual and his family. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of disablement where, as my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) pointed out, such a wide variety of the services is required by disabled people.

In the first place, the whole family is inevitably affected. It may well be that another member of the family who would otherwise be earning has to stay at home in order to look after the disabled person. Many of the health and welfare services are affected. The severely disabled are in close touch all the time with their family doctors, with the supporting services provided by the local authorities—home nursing, home helps and the rest—and with similar services provided by voluntary bodies, and they also need the services of the hospitals on many occasions. The first important thing which such a Commission could do is help to see the picture as a whole. It could equally help to supplement our knowledge. Some of the gaps are being filled but many are still left in our knowledge as to the extent and causes of disability and the best and most economic way in which we can help the disabled.

The third and one of the most important reasons is that new information is coming forward on the problems of the disabled. We are soon to have the Government's Social Survey. Indeed, if I recall correctly, we were told on 21st February that it was coming in the spring. I need not remind the Under-Secretary of State that it is now spring. The weather does not suggest it, but it is nevertheless spring. I hope that he will be able to tell us when the Survey will be available to the Government, so that the Department can start work on it, and when it will be published and available to the House. The Commission can assist in assessing the implications of the new information coming forward and could help the Government in deciding what action is required.

Another reason is that the administration of the social services as a whole is very much in a state of flux. We have the Department of Health and Social Security. We had a Green Paper on the structure of the National Health Service which, we understand, is being withdrawn, with another to take its place. We have the Seebohm Report on Local Authority Personal Services. We have the Royal Commission on Medical Education, with important implications particularly for the rôle of the family doctor. Finally, we have the Maud Commission on Local Government. Thus, all the administrative aspects which are of interest and relevance to the disabled are in a state of flux, and that is surely another strong reason for having the Commission proposed.

The final reason, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), is the disturbing report which came out yesterday about Ely Hospital, Cardiff. One of the points of interest in this discussion is the attention which it draws to the need for having integrated services for the mentally subnormal, and what the Report says with regard to (the mentally subnormal is equally important in our dealings with disablement. Paragraph 456 of the Report said:

"Our conclusion—which lacks any novelty by now—is that the present tripartite administrative structure of the health service has not, so far as Ely is concerned, done enough consciously to encourage a more integrated service and pattern of care for the mentally sub-normal. Despite the best efforts of those concerned to interlock their activities, the gaps and the difficulties remain. A final solution will only be found within a new and more closely integrated administrative structure."

The same arguments which come out in that Report and which the Secretary of State welcomed yesterday apply to the disabled and constitute another compellingly good reason for a Disablement Commission, a Commission which can view the picture as a whole, which can advise and recommend, and whose reports can be available to Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn made it quite clear that he is asking for a very modest step. The Bill would involve no Government expenditure and would commit the Government to nothing. Surely that is not too much to ask, particularly as these reports which are coming forward require to be examined from the point of view of people whose job it is to try to see the whole picture concerning the disabled.

I want briefly to ask the Government whether they will take this opportunity to tell us a little more about their intentions, both on the Bill and on the issues with regard to benefits which arise under the Bill. We welcome, as we have welcomed before, the proposal for a constant attendance allowance. This seems to us to be the first and most urgent step to assist the very severely disabled. We recognise, and again welcome, the fact that under the proposals which the Government have put forward this will cover wives on their husbands' insurance; and because it will be available under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme, it will also cover those who are not actually in insurance.

I hope that the Under-Secretary—I pressed him on this point on 21st February—will be able to tell us a little more about when the constant attendance allowance will be introduced. He hinted broadly on that occasion that there would be no need for this scheme to wait until the introduction of the earnings-related scheme in the Spring of 1972. I hope that he will be able to be a little more specific and to tell us at least when the Government propose that this new constant attendance allowance will be introduced. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman probably will not be able to tell us today at what rate it will be or exactly who will be covered. He will want time to study the result of the Government's survey. Surely he should now be able to tell us when it will be introduced. I press him particularly on this because since the last debate, when the hon. Gentleman was not able to give us an indication of the time, we have had a clear indication from the Government that pensions will be increased in the autumn.

Although we welcome the constant attendance allowance, it will cover only a very small number of the disabled, so that there is a need to take the matter forward to a disability pension. I am sorry to say that it looks as though the Government have rejected the concept of a disability pension to cover all the groups about whom we are concerned in this debate. The White Paper on the earnings-related scheme says that long-term sickness benefit will be, in effect, an invalidity pension. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn quoted the exchange which took place on that matter in the debate on 6th March.

This is not an invalidity pension. This is playing with words, because, first, the invalidity pension as the Government appear to be envisaging it would exclude those very two categories which my hon. Friend mentioned—those two categories which are not covered by the National Insurance scheme at present. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) mentioned one category, namely, the disabled housewife. It is clear from the proposals in the White Paper that the disabled housewife will be excluded and that those who are disabled from birth will be excluded. It also appears that the so-called invalidity pension will not take into account the degree of disability.

It is not good enough to say that long-term sickness benefit is in effect an invalidity pension, when it excludes two categories about which we are most concerned and when it takes no account of the degree of disability involved. I therefore hope that the Government will think again about this, or at least that they will keep open minds until they have had an opportunity to study the result of the social survey due in the spring—in other words, due new.

Another point which the Under-Secretary will no doubt make, as he did on 21st February, is that the cost of a disability pension would be very substantial. It would depend upon the rate of it, on who was covered, and on the degree of disability which was eligible. Whatever decisions are made on details, there are the offsetting factors which have been mentioned time and time again in this debate. For want of an adequate disability pension, many disabled housewives are in hospital at the cost of possibly £50 a week or more. Many children who are in care at the cost of £10 a week or more for want of that additional cash support would probably be able to keep the family together in the home. When we are considering these matters we must take into account the total cost of disability to the community at present.

There is also the social and psychological cost involved in splitting up families and in removing them from the community. If the statement on the Ely Hospital did nothing else, it emphasised the need to keep down the numbers of people who are in long-stay hospitals and to avoid those hospitals being overcrowded.

I believe, then, that the debate, which has shown the unanimous view of both sides of the House, is one which the Government must heed. I give the Government credit for wanting to take action to deal with disability. I believe that they want to do so. However, it is disturbing that they appear to be changing their mind; they appeared to welcome a Bill very much on these lines last summer but now appear to be rejecting it. This is bound to be disturbing and it does not do the Government credit when they put themselves in a position of that kind.

The Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, is modest. It would cost nothing. It merely asks the Government to accept some expert advice. It would not even commit the Government to be bound to carry out the recommendations which the Commission might make. It merely asks that a Commission of this kind should be made available to the Government of the day. Surely that is not too much to ask, particularly at a time like this, when the social survey is coming forward, along with new information about the disabled! Surely no government, if they are wise, will reject the possibility of advice in this all-important sphere.

One of the saddest things I ever had to do when I was at the Bar was to interview a client who had been severely injured as a result of a serious accident and made into a paraplegic. He was virtually a human cabbage. There was difficulty in his corresponding with the members of his family, because he had virtually lost the power of speech. He was incontinent, he found it difficult to have any interest in anything, and reading was fearfully difficult for him. The result was that this put an enormous strain upon his wife who had to give him devoted attention in the home.

The alternative was that he should go into some kind of long-stay hospital, perhaps of a geriatric nature, where he would be in the company of people considerably older than himself. We decided that it was a kind of case in which we might be, able to get damages and we took it to court. There were some weaknesses in the case and, in the end, it was compromised. As a novel departure for pleading in such a case, I decided to try to evaluate what would be the cost of giving him the services which would enable him to live in his own home and to enjoy, as far as he could, the fullness of life. I had the solicitor instruct an architect to draw up plans for the kind of house suitable for a man of his nature to move about in, so that he could propel himself, to the lavatory, for example, and so that he would be able to be as independent as was possible, given his disability.

Advice was sought from electricians who manufacture aids for the disabled, to find out what would be the cost of fitting out this house to ease the difficulties with which he was faced. The total cost of such a house amounted to a little less than £10,000. This was a man living in a normal semi-detached house which, in that part of the country, was costing, then, something like £3,500. The disparity between the two figures is an indication of the additional cost which falls upon the disabled if they are to try to live anything like a normal life, a cost falling upon them as a result of their disability.

It is this disparity which is at the root of much of the objections to the present rate of compensation by State allowances of one kind or another. The State allowances are designed, imperfectly as we all know, to bring up the level of income to something like the level of earnings of a person before he met the disability. The same thing is true of pensions and sickness. Under the scheme which this Government have introduced these allowances are now much more in line with normal earning capacity. The difficulty about the disabled person is that he wants, not simply to be brought back to the level of income that he had, but he has to be taken to a level of income greater than he had ever hoped to achieve. It is this that is the real difficulty, if he is to maintain anything like a viable and full life. My sympathies are very much with the disabled.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that, in his example of a person who was severely disabled, his requirements to live as near to normal as possible are much more expensive than those of a normal person? Would he not further agree that, for a housewife, who may never have been gainfully employed, merely to carry out her functions as a mother, if she has children, and as a housewife, for which there is no comparable job in industry, it is much more expensive?

I agree. It is the point to which I was coming, that if a housewife, for instance, is not equipped with modern labour-saving devices when she suffers disability, the supply of those modern labour-saving devices to give her any kind of hope of independence is to put on her a burden which normally she would not have thought of shouldering. That simply underlines the point I was making, that this is a burden over and above the normal burdens of normal, everyday life. In this sense disability is different from retirement; it is different from sickness; it is different even from redundancy. Those are difficulties which can be compensated to the extent of raising incomes to the normal level of earnings, but that is not so with disability. Disability is a greater burden on the individual, and it is this which is really at the crux of the whole problem.

How are we to determine how much of the nation's resources ought to be channelled to help those who are disabled, as against the amount to be channelled into all the other items of public expenditure? I hope I have indicated sufficiently my sympathy with the plight of the disabled. In my view, a society which is as rich as ours, whatever its balance of payments difficulties, whatever the economic future, ought to be able to provide efficiently and well for disability. When one recognises the standard of living which most of us enjoy, so much higher than the standards of living enjoyed by two-thirds of the world, we ought to be able, out of that munificence, to provide for people of this kind who have fallen on times not only of difficulty but of added burdens which otherwise they would not have had to shoulder. I believe passionately that society ought to do just that.

Before we can do it we are going to have to take out of the pockets of the private consumers that amount which is required in public expenditure. This is the real moral question for the House. This is why this side of the House constantly says that it is desirable to increase public expenditure, and this is why we are attacked constantly by the other side of the House, which says that we should cut public expenditure, we should leave as much as can be to the private consumers to provide for themselves. If we were to pursue that philosophy of social action the result would be that the disabled would never get the standard of living to which they are entitled. Once we face up to that central fact of this social problem we do not need a Disablement Commission to decide it.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) declaiming the virtues of this Commission. I wondered if he had read the Bill. From what he was saying it would seem that this Commission is to investigate ways in which disability should be lightened, the ways in which the disabled could take advantage of the new technology to overcome their disabilities, the ways in which they suffer by disability and could be helped by Government advice.

None of that, as I understand it, is within the remit of this Commission which is proposed in this Bill. All that is proposed, as the duty of this Commission, is that it should

"keep under continuous review all pensions and benefits for the disabled"

and make appropriate recommendations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services. If that be the case, all that we are talking about is a group of wise men who are likely to tell the Chancellor how much he ought to be giving to the disabled. That is taking the matter no further.

The hon. Gentleman is under-emphasising the importance of Clause 2(1)(b) which refers specifically to:

"… any changes or additions to the existing system …"

I am not only under-estimating it, but I have read on a little further to the words:

"… the existing system of pensions and benefits for the disabled …"

We are talking about money and not about aids, services, advice, techniques. The money situation is a constant moral and economic problem for any government and for the country at large. What are the priorities for public expenditure? If we say that the disabled are entitled to the relief which I believe they need, and which it is our moral obligation to give them, and if we are to continue with the present level of public expenditure, public expenditure must increase. If it is not to increase by constant economic growth, which we have not so far achieved, then it must be increased by taxation, either by contributions to National Health Insurance or by contributions in Income Tax and other forms of direct and indirect taxation.

If the country faces up to that problem, then the debate will be a valid one. To think that the country can achieve the suggested living standards for the disabled by simply tinkering about with a few men on a Commission which will cost nothing is to pursue a hypocritical line of reasoning. I do not mind facing my electorate and telling them that they must pay more to help the disabled, but I am sick of these constant debates on Fridays when back benchers opposite, who did nothing about it in the 13 years of the Tory Government, tell us what we ought to do about increasing benefits, while at the same time decrying the Government because the present level of public expenditure is too high. Once it is admitted that this is the central dilemma, then progress might be made.

I believe there is a case for increasing public expenditure, and it does not need three wise men or anybody else to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that. We should review our present system of public expenditure and decide whether there is room for the relief of the disabled. At present there is very limited room. If the present state of the economy allows of no increase in consumer purchase for the next year or so, which is the Chancellor's analysis with which none of us disagrees, and if the prospect for growth can come only by limiting public and private expenditure over the next year or so, then the possibility of early relief is limited. The Government are doing all they can in the promises which they have made in the White Paper about constant attendance allowances and invalidity pensions to contribute to the relief which is required.

When it is possible to increase public expenditure, when priorities can be reviewed, when there is constant economic growth and when there is a hope of using public expenditure for other purposes, this issue must be decided, and must be decided in favour of the disabled. With all that I know about the economic situation, I cannot urge upon the Government that they should deal with this as a matter of early priority. At the moment, none of us is in an easy position to urge increases in public expenditure. However, as soon as the economic situation permits, this should be one of the top priorities, if not the top priority.

Since the introduction of the National Insurance Scheme in 1948, the disabled have had the rough end of the stick. They have been fobbed off with all kinds of excuses. They have been provided with different standards of recompense for their disability, according to how the disability was caused. But it does not matter whether a disablement has been caused by an accident at work arising from the negligence of an employer, by an accident at work not due to an employer's negligence, by an accident on the road, or by normal debilitating disease. The fact is that a person has been disabled. He has been robbed of the chance of living a full life. Every member of the community has a moral obligation to see that he can live as full a life as possible. When it becomes possible to review the limits of public expenditure—and I believe that it will not be long—there is a very strong case for seeing that relief is afforded to the disabled.

I should like to pursue the line which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has taken. The problem of the handicapped and disabled is not solved by giving them a few extra shillings in pension or even by introducing a new pension scheme. What we as a nation have to consider is how we can bring the handicapped and disabled back into normal society by providing them with modern aids so that they can lead a full and useful life in the community.

I want to illustrate the point by citing three examples. The youth officer in my constituency is a blind person. At the Young Socialists' conference, which is to be held over Easter weekend, he will be moving a motion drawing the attention of the Government to the problems of the handicapped and disabled. Hon. Members will be interested to know that this young man has been accepted into Sheffield University to pursue a degree course which is to begin in the coming October. I think that his case illustrates the fact that, with modern techniques which are available and others which may be developed, there is no reason why a blind person should not be trained to pursue a normal job and to play a full part in society.

My second example illustrates the neglect and double-thinking on the part of the authorities. A disabled person is provided with a three-wheeled carriage. If his wife is also disabled, I gather that, as an alternative, he is entitled to a normal car in which he can take a passenger. I put a case to the Minister some time ago concerning the case of a disabled man and his disabled sister. He is not allowed a four-wheeled vehicle in which he can take her as a passenger.

My third example concerns a housewife who is confined in the main to a wheelchair. Generally speaking, local authorities have been slow to provide suitable accommodation with adequate access for wheelchairs to flats and bungalows. Such a person needs equipment in the home at such a level that she can manage the cooker, the washing up and so on from her wheelchair.

There is much which could be done to improve the lot of the disabled and handicapped, not only by increasing their pensions but by adopting the techniques which have been developed. When we consider that there is an Early Day Motion congratulating Russia and America on their exploration of space and congratulating this country and France on producing such a wonderful aircraft as the Concorde, it seems extraordinary that we cannot apply some of these advanced techniques in technology to providing the disabled and the handicapped of this country, and indeed of the world, with the means to come back into society and lead a normal useful life.

I hope that the debate will prove to the nation that it is not sufficient to say, "We feel very sorry for you because you are blind or deaf or confined to a wheelchair, but we want to lock you away in a home which caters for this type of disability." Our main object should be to bring them back into society. We should not say to our disabled and handicapped, "For the rest of your life we want you to work in a workshop making wicker baskets or making brooms." If we get to the disabled or handicapped person at an early age and train him, I feel certain that he can be brought back into society and can lead a full and useful life.

The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), said, quite properly, that this is the second debate that we have had in recent weeks on the problems facing the disabled. This in itself is an indication of the serious concern shown by hon. Members on all sides of the House towards the problems facing the disabled in this country.

I begin my speech with two rather intimidating disadvantages. The first is that, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has ably shown, there are attractions in the idea of a Disablement Commission, and objections to the idea might seem to stem simply from a fear that the Commission's advice might be unpalatable.

My second disadvantage is that my right hon. Friend's views on the proposal to set up a Commission have already received some Press publicity, and some hon. Members may be more ready to expect a negative reply from me than to listen to the reason.

I should like to look in some detail at what the job of the proposed Commission would be. Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who has unfortunately had to leave the Chamber. I follow the line that he took in his description and understanding of what is embodied in the Bill.

The Commission's job is described in the long title as

"… to review pensions and benefits for the disabled and to make recommendations on changes and additions."

The disabled are defined as those who suffer from a long-term defect, medically ascertainable, which prevents them doing normal work, substantially reduces their ability to do normal work, or involves them in significant extra expense in order to do normal work. Normal work as such is not defined. I must point out that by limiting the Bill to people of working age the old are forgotten.

As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn explained, the benefits which such disabled people may receive at the moment are benefits under the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes, National Insurance sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, widow's benefit, retirement pension, and so on; and benefits under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. I think it is important to recognise that the disabled are not in a ghetto, to be treated in isolation or ignored in isolation. They are spread among the population, and their circumstances are even more diverse than their disabilities. In passing, I note that the hon. Member's definition of disablement is essentially a loss of earnings definition. Those of us with experience of disablement in industry may have reservations about how comprehensive and satisfactory this definition is.

Reviewing existing benefits for the disabled is therefore a matter of looking at virtually the entire range of our social security provisions and saying whether the rates of benefit are high enough and whether we are spending enough money on them. I am glad that the hon. Member has not followed the suggestion that I have seen made elsewhere, and it has been made again today, that a new advisory body should be made responsible for the health and welfare provisions for the disabled as well as the cash benefits. We already have expert bodies to advise us on those other matters. I have always been led to understand that expertise is concerned with a specific subject, and I confess at once that I have a certain suspicion of universal experts.

However, the absence of an advisory body on the level and range of cash benefits is not accidental. I should be surprised if any Government felt able to welcome the setting up of a body with the specific function of telling them how to spend several million £s of public money, and, in effect, what their public expenditure priorities should be. And if the Government had to take their own decisions in the light of very much wider considerations than the advisory body could properly apply itself to, as they certainly would, I see little point in setting up the advisory body.

I suspect that the Disablement Commission Bill was a more forthright Measure when it appeared in its earlier guise as the Disablement Income Commission Bill. The change of name is a perfectly fair way of making it more difficult for the Government to object to the Measure, and I do not criticise that, but it masks to some extent the fact that the underlying aim is to provide a new special cash benefit for the disabled, and to achieve this by imposing upon the Government something called an advisory body but which would in fact be a pressure group.

I have put this bluntly, but I ask the House to consider whether supporters of the Measure, including those outside the House, would be interested in having a special body which supported the existing rates and range of benefits, or even contented itself with proposals no more generous and radical than those the Government could be expected to make in any case, of its own volition. I am afraid that in switching the emphasis from looking at the possibility of a new benefit, to looking at the level of existing benefits, the sponsors have made the Bill much more unrealistic. If ever there was a decision which a Government must take on the strength of its own responsibility to the country as a whole, it is in respect of the amount of an uprating of social security benefits.

I have recently re-read the speech made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn on 21st February during the Second Reading debate on the Disabled Persons Pensions Bill. I note that he seemed to envisage that a Commission would help to end what he described as the present "piecemeal and haphazard" way of dealing with the disabled. I, and others, would be interested to know whether it is correct to interpret this as meaning that the Commission would be expected to consider winding up the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes.

The Minister should realise that I was speaking about the groups which are outside the National Insurance Scheme. I was not referring to the industrially injured, but to the anomalies which the Government agree exist in the present system, and which the White Paper says the Government will do something about in the future.

Ironing out the alleged "anomalies", "arbitrary provisions", "piecemeal arrangements" as they are variously termed, must mean either treating everyone in the same way as disabled people are treated under the special Schemes or else simply taking away all the preference enjoyed to varying degrees by the war and industrially disabled. I should be interested to know how it is proposed to administer or pay for the one course, or defend the other.

In rejecting one way of making progress, I fully accept that we are in duty bound to find another. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I suggest that judged by the measures we have already taken, which benefit the disabled generally, and by the further measures we have proposed, our record as a Government is not one of which we need be ashamed. The level of cash benefits has been maintained and improved; earnings-related short-term sickness and unemployment benefits have been introduced; there is a new Supplementary Benefits Scheme. Our review of the health and welfare services is designed to ensure a better, and a better co-ordinated, service for disabled people and everybody else too.

Finally, in the recently published White Paper we have outlined proposals for a number of radical improvements, including a new attendance allowance for the very severely disabled, and we have promised biennial reviews of rates of benefit. Public opinion has undoubtedly played a part in all this.

In reply to the hon. Member for Somerset, North who asked me a direct question on the constant attendance allowance, I am afraid that at the moment I cannot go any further than the White Paper. However, I can assure him, as I did in the debate on 21st February, that the Government recognise that there is a widespread desire for this change to be introduced at an early date. Naturally the Government and particularly my right hon. Friend will take this into account.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn asked me about the survey, and when we might expect its results. We shall be getting results from the major survey of the disabled during the course of this year, though the full results will not be generally available until next year. This will give us a much better idea of the total number of disabled people in the country, the range of severity of disablement, the financial position of the disabled, and how far the health and welfare services are measuring up to the needs they are there to meet. We shall be studying carefully the implications of the results as we get them, and in total. To a much greater extent than any previous Government, we have been ready to call in independent experts either on an ad hoc basis or as members of a team working with professional civil servants.

Is it the Government's intention—this was my question as well—that a register should be started once these results have come in?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I took a note of that. I have made some investigation. The survey is a sample survey, so a complete and comprehensive register could be compiled only by making it compulsory for people to put forward their names. Compulsion is hardly possible, but we hope that the publicity accompanying the attendance allowance will be adequate enough to encourage people to claim it.

As research develops, we are very ready to make use of the research facilities offered by the universities. This exchange of ideas is very healthy, and in opposing this Bill we are certainly not refusing to listen to people who are able to help us. The point I am making is simply that it is no good asking people, whose time is valuable to them and to the community, questions which are so highly charged politically, economically, and socially, that they can only be answered by Ministers.

I note that the Bill seeks to involve the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as my right hon. Friend. I hope I am not being too critical if I suggest that both these Ministers have to take into account a very wide range of considerations, among which the very natural and proper sense of priorities of those concerned with the problems of disablement is only one. Equally, hon. Members would still have their own views about the level of public expenditure, the proper priorities within public expenditure, and the most pressing needs in the social services, whatever a Disablement Commission might have to say about these matters.

Quite frankly, on a question such as whether the basic rate of national insurance benefit for sick and disabled people should be £4 10s. or some other figure, I personally would respect the views of an hon. Member who knows his constituents at least as much as the views of any outside expert. I am sure my right hon. Friends would feel the same.

I respect the hon. Member's keen and continuing interest in the survey, and the sympathy and concern for justice which has prompted this Bill. But we cannot see that the idea of a Disablement Commission makes real sense; and the Government is unable to give support to this Bill.

I apologise for intervening late in the debate. What worries me as an economist is that the Treasury seem to take only one side of a balance sheet and to say. "It costs us so much". Regrettably, they do not look at the other side and say, "We save this much."

For the last 18 months I have been studying the question of technological aid for the disabled. At no time have I found evidence to show that this aid to the disabled costs the country money. On the contrary, all my studies nave revealed that aid in terms of technology given to disabled people results in the country being saved money.

I appreciate that to pursue this line one must have opinion on one's side. I also appreciate that we are in an extremely difficult economic situation. However, in discussing this matter with hon. Members generally I have found it hard to persuade them that if only one will look at the matter in terms of pure economics, one can see how great savings can be made.

I could give many examples of what I have in mind. Instead of delaying the House, I will cite only two. First, a man contracted polio in Malaya 15 years ago. Being a compassionate society, we provided him with a respirator, since he cannot otherwise breathe. There is an incision in his throat and he is permanently horizontal. If this man goes into hospital he will cost the State between £80 and £100 a week. As a result of technology being brought to his assistance, he is able to pay Income Tax. That one example shows that the sooner we get down to conducting a survey into the concept of what the Disablement Commission should be doing, the better.

My second example is of a spastic who seemingly could not communicate. This man, aged 34, is unable to speak and merely shakes. By the compassionate use of technology, however, he has obtained his first job. He is now a programmer earning £30 a week.

I have great respect for the House of Commons, but I get the impression when speaking on this subject that hon. Members think that people of this type are exceptional. They are not. It is simply a problem of communication and technology can allow these people to help themselves.

The trouble is that the Treasury always want to look at only one side of a balance sheet. Perhaps our entire public accounting system is wrong, but I should be out of order in going into that. After closely examining about 400 cases in 18 months—the Ministry is welcome to my casebook—I have yet to find evidence that the disabled cost the State anything; that is, unless we want to be extravagant and do not want to help them to help themselves.

It is the easiest thing in the world to shed tears when examining a problem of this type. I belong to one of the most emotional races under the sun. We shed tears at the drop of a hat. The disabled do not want our sympathy. They want help to help themselves and there are three main ways in which we can help.

The first is to give them the right to gain and sustain independence; no more and no less. People get hooked on drugs and cigarettes. I am completely hooked on the application of technology to this type of person, for it can enable them to earn their own livelihood. If people in the Ministry say that it cannot be done, they are deluding themselves. These people can earn their living, and they should be given the chance to do so.

I have quoted the case of a man who has suffered from the results of polio for 15 years. Intensive care and treatment would have cost the State £100 a week, and £100 a week for 15 years is a lot of money. The State is prepared to spend that amount, but what the man wants is his independence. I can produce case after case of people who can earn their living if they are allowed access to proper technology.

There is a second side that concerns me intensely. On Monday I received a letter from my hon. Friend's Department saying that it did not want any value analysis studies made. Why? It is because the Department is completely convinced that the disabled should be given help without regard to value analysis. My right hon. Friend gave an open-ended undertaking. I am convinced that what I suggest is not extravagant, but that, with its proper application, we can save money.

I am quite delighted to see on the Front Bench today a representative of the Treasury—an old friend of mine. I hope that I can convince him, too, that if we use these schemes wisely the State saves money. The most expensive form of care for the individual today is to put him in hospital. That costs a lot of money. Therefore, any device that can be used to keep him out of hospital—and I hope that the proposed commission would investigate that type of case—is from, the Treasury point of view, a net saving, but the difference for the individual is quite incredible.

I am a rugby enthusiast. Last Saturday, I wanted to see on television the match between Scotland and England. A consultant whom I know has multiple sclerosis. He spent all his working life up to the age of 53 caring for children. He is paralysed, and in a wheelchair. When I visited him, I said, "I can't stay long—I must see the match." He replied, "You can see the match here." I was with a completely paralysed man who yet was able to turn on his television, and tune it in, and let us see the match. Incidentally, the match was between England and Scotland, but he is an Irishman and I am a Welshman and I must say that neither of us thought much of either side.

The great tribute to technology is that that man had recovered some of his self-respect. He felt independent, and no longer had to send for his wife to turn on the television——

Perhaps I can say——

Order. If one hon. Member wishes to address another hon. Member, he should do so through the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I turned away from the Chair. I am very interested in my hon. Friend's argument, and I certainly meant no discourtesy to you.

I have been particularly interested in the problem of the housewife, whose work cannot be evaluated in industrial terms as a fitter, or a designer, or the like. Her job is bringing up the family. My hon. Friend spoke of someone who now did not need to ask his wife to turn on the television for him, but I know of many housewives who could not have turned it on, because they, too, are paralysed. If the same technological efforts could be made to help those housewives to move around the home that, too, would be a great contribution.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has anticipated the third part of my argument. My argument is that, first, we should let the disabled earn a living. Let us not waste our sympathy or shed tears. Let them earn their living, because it can be done. Secondly, give them a sense of independence and enable them to stay out of hospital.

Thirdly, the whole of my research started because of the circumstances of a fit man, working in a mine, who had been married for 23 years. His wife contracted multiple sclerosis, and he said, "I shall not have her go to hospital. I will leave work and look after her."

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise the long overdue case for authors' public lending rights. I do so not only because of the many writers who live in my own constituency. I am, in fact, hesitant to do so because I must declare myself a modest interest as a writer—less than that of your own self, Mr. Speaker. But I equally declare an interest in that since childhood I have been a keen and grateful user of public libraries in this country. Recently we were very glad to celebrate National Library Week and I am sure that many Members in this House are grateful to the late Andrew Carnegie for the excellent system which I think he started of public libraries in this country, which are, probably rightly, claimed to be the best in the world.

What I cannot agree with is that it is right that these libraries should be in large measure subsidised—involuntarily—by authors. It is true that we in this House are aware of many other categories of deserving people, but that, I submit, does not excuse authors having to pay without their consent a special tax in order to help a very excellent and necessary public service.

Playwrights and composers, for example, have had their similar rights granted to them a long time ago. Authors have families and widows as much as anybody else. A survey by Richard Findlater found that five-sixths of writers earn less than £1,000 a year, and some writers are, indeed, existing, with their families, on less than 30s. a week.

Books are the form of art enjoyed by most people. Public library lending in this country has increased by 40 per cent. in the last ten years, and now amounts to between 550 million and 600 million volumes lent annually. Everyone is very pleased indeed at this growth and many people, including myself, hope that the free principle will be maintained.

In the past a few librarians were worried lest the subject of public lending rights should lead to any reduction of public libraries expenditure. I certainly do not want that, nor that it should be taken out of the present Arts Council fund, nor, equally, that the expenditure should fall in any way on local authorities. On the contrary, I wish that there were much more money for both public libraries and for the arts.

I am pleased to say that many librarians are now in sympathy with the case for P.L.R., and soon, I am glad to say, some of them will be trying, voluntarily, an experiment with the scheme which the Arts Council has drawn up. I think it is now true that only a minority of unrepresentative librarians from among the more elderly ones retain their opposition to the case for the public lending rights for writers.

It is not for authors to suggest how the money should be raised because they are asking not for a favour, nor for charity, but for a simple entitlement. It is, I think, now widely accepted that it is unjust that, whereas the dramatists and the composer has a royalty every time his work is performed, the writer may have his book, which may be the single result of perhaps many years of work, borrowed perhaps 50 times and then re-bound and lent another 50 times without his receiving any royalty for it.

Sir Alan Herbert, and Mr. Benn Levy among many others have been urging this for over 15 years. There are and there have been innumerable proposals, working parties, and committees about this, but, unfortunately, the one thing missing so far has been anything which can be called positive action.

The scheme for distribution, which was worked out by the Arts Council and the Society of Authors over a year ago and which was published in January, 1968, seems as good a scheme as possible. The Libraries' Association was invited to contribute to the deliberations but unfortunately chose not to attend. However, I am told that several librarians have recently approved the scheme.

Put simply, the scheme is based on a sampling from three local authorities' libraries. This sampling method will cause librarians the minimum of work. It is based on the stock in libraries rather than on the number of lendings. It is also based on a descending scale after the first 2,000 copies. It is, therefore, weighted against those authors who are the writers of best sellers, such as the late Ian Fleming or James Hadley Chase. The result would work out at about £85 per year per book in libraries. Income Tax and Surtax would claw back money from the richest writers and the scheme would therefore help the poorest writers, those who are most in need of help.

The only remaining question is how the cost of this scheme, which would be perhaps £2 million a year, could be most painlessly met. The writers urge that their case is a matter of justice and that how it is financed is not their responsibility. It is not, as I have suggested, their case that it should be met at the expense of either the arts in this country or the public libraries.

It has been suggested that one means of resolving this difficulty would be to raise the money through a lottery, but this idea would run into opposition. But whatever the answer, I feel that the Government cannot block proposals without themselves providing a solution. I have come to the conclusion that much the most painless way of raising this money would be by extending copyright on the books of dead authors, which at present expires 50 years after an author's death.

Order. I am listening sympathetically to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I suggest that what he is now proposing could not be achieved without legislation.

I appreciate the point of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was about to suggest that this could be done voluntarily. Interestingly, the French have been successful in operating a similar system. Their Caisse nationale des lettres is financed by extending the copyright period in this context for only 15 years. They do not operate a public lending right but devote the money to, for example, pensions for writers' widows, loans, bursaries and grants to writers.

I believe that it would be possible that only one-quarter of the ordinary living authors' royalties would be sufficient, leaving publishers with the other three-quarters. Only a penny from the books of dead authors might pay for public lending rights and the Arts Council as well. One hopes that this would be achieved voluntarily and quickly; Lord Goodman, with whom I have discussed the idea, is sympathetic to it in principle.

This is a matter of right and not of charity for a small minority in this country; for writers and their families whose needs are the same as those of anybody else. The present inequitable situation is that everybody connected with books seems to be able to make a living out of books, except for the writers of them. It is true that libraries have helped by spreading literacy, but the other argument used about writers' earnings, the paperback revolution, is not a strong one. For example, I may cite that the 20,000 copies of my book which were sold in Penguin form resulted in my receiving £250, before deducting the £300 expenses for writing the book. I was fortunate in that I had another job, but of writers who make this their chief or full-time occupation, Mr. Findlater found that only half were able to make £500 a year and that one in three of all writers were earning less than 30s. a week. The Arts Council has recently tried a policy of giving grants to a few selected writers, but both the selection and the principle was criticised in, for example, The Times Literary Supplement.

Writers labour under another disadvantage, which we cannot discuss now, in that they are not able to spread their tax load over fat and lean years.

Other ideas have been canvassed to help. Professor Vaisey suggested to me that public libraries might be encouraged to have book shops in them selling books.

What cannot be defended after so many years of patient waiting by authors is any further inaction on the subject; nor, one hopes, will there be any further committees, commissions, study groups or working parties. We recognise the economic problems facing the country at the moment, but, if the Treasury is unable to help, some other way must be found. What cannot be justified is any further delay in the matter.

The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) has done us a service by raising this matter, and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene for a few minutes.

As the hon. Gentleman said, this subject has been under discussion for a very long time. I remember the Public Libraries and Museums Bill when you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair in a less exalted capacity than now and when we debated the matter very fully.

It is fair to say that, throughout the years, the authors have been extremely moderate in putting forward their case, with which many hon. Members on all sides of the House have great sympathy, and it would be interesting to know the Government's reaction to the Arts Council's Report. The Minister must admit that she has had the Report since the end of 1967. It was published in January, 1968, but we have had no reply to it. I do not wish to be critical, but no one can say that there have been undue haste in replying to it. Indeed, had it not been for Mr. Holroyd's article, I wonder whether we should have had any reply at all.

On 6th March, I asked the Minister if consideration could be given to a detailed experiment within a library or number of libraries to see whether the scheme put forward by the Arts Council is viable. She replied that there were alternative ideas and alternative proposals affecting copyright. She added that a working party is to be set up. The hon. Member for Hampstead is due for a disappointment if he thinks that there will be no more study groups. On 13th March, TheTimes reported that the Government may set up another working party to examine copyright, and that this may recommend the financing of P.L.R. along the lines which the hon. Gentleman suggested or along similar lines.

It is plain that the stumbling block at the moment is cash. In spite of that, there are four questions which I would be grateful if the Minister could answer. Have the Government now set up their working party to consider public lending rights? If they have, can we be told its terms of reference and, if it is a public body, who is the chairman and who are the members—or is it a Departmental inquiry? If it has not been set up, when will it be?

Secondly, what alternatives have been considered to the State meeting the cost of P.L.R., and will the working party be free to look at alternatives to the Arts Council's scheme or a Government-financed scheme?

Thirdly, has the Minister any proposals to bring together the local authority associations, the Library Association and the authors to discuss the problem, and are representatives of those interests to be included on the working party? What shape will all this take? In a way, it is sad that, for reasons that I will not go into now, the Arts Council inquiry did not have the benefit of the libraries' advice on that occasion.

Fourthly, while I realise that the Minister obviously cannot tell us the results of the working party's deliberations now, can she give an indication of the likely timetable, so that we may know when to expect a final decision one way or the other?

I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) for raising this matter. I only wish that we had more time at our disposal.

The working party that I have in mind is a Departmental one, because the Report from the Arts Council has set off a great deal of public controversy—most of it useful public controversy—and it has resulted in a number of proposals and schemes being brought for-ward. One scheme is that books are too cheap. As 80 per cent. of the hard-backed books are bought by the public libraries, an increase of 6d. on each of those would produce £1½ million. That is one scheme which has been brought forward.

Another scheme concerns copyright which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled out of order. I cannot pursue that, because anything that was done in the copyright sphere would be a matter for the Board of Trade, not for my Department.

Is the Board of Trade represented on the working party?

No. The working party at this stage is a Departmental Inquiry. In other words, we are examining the various proposals that have been brought forward and the type of public response to them.

There is no doubt that many people feel that the authors ought to get more help than they are getting. I am on record again and again as stating that point of view. But, as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said, it was a pity that the librarians were not represented on the Arts Council inquiry. This happened because they felt it was improper for them to be represented if the local authorities were not represented. As three different local authority associations are concerned with library services, the Arts Council felt that this might be overburdening it a little. So what we have from the Arts Council is the point of view of not all, but of a great volume of writers and publishers.

Some people say that there is a case for helping the authors, but not for raising public money in any form to go directly to the publishers. Various schemes have been under consideration for a very long time, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, West very cogently said, at the root of this problem is cost and priorities in public expenditure.

I think that when addressing the Librarians' Conference last autumn I helped to reduce their fears. One of their fears was that there would be a charge on the public libraries. I am totally opposed to that. I think that both the Government and the Opposition are totally opposed to it.

But there is another fear. The Arts Council scheme suggests that 15 per cent. of Government money allocated for the buying of books should be paid into the Public Lending Rights scheme. The librarians point out that we spend £44 million on libraries in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but only a quarter of that goes towards buying books. Their fear at the moment is that other costs go up automatically—rent, rates and labour charges—and that they might find themselves in an even more difficult position than at the moment. I think that we would all agree that there is an urgent need for more expenditure on the buying of books rather than any curtailment. While no one who has advocated the various schemes to assist authors wishes that this should be at the expense of the buying of books or of the librarians, I must point out that many librarians are reluctant to cooperate because they have this fear.

Another thing is that they are now asked to buy books for various categories: adult non-fiction, reference books, adult fiction, children's books and foreign books. The growth in the number of sixth-form children and the great expansion of higher education means that the librarians will have to provide more and more for the intelligent reader. More money is urgently required here. It is obviously a matter of Government priority to know which comes first.

There is a great deal of sympathy with the case that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and by the hon. Member for Southend, West, but there is also a great deal of controversy about how the money should be raised. I hope that we will rule out any suggestion that it should come by a charge on public libraries. Quite clearly the local authorities do not want it to fall on the rates. We are driven back to the position that if a scheme is brought forward the money will either have to be paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer directly or in so me form of copyright. That is really as much as I can say to the House this afternoon.

I venture to add that the Arts Council deserves a great deal more gratitude than it has received in certain quarters for the aid which it is giving to authors. A few years ago there was no Literature Panel, only a Poetry Panel. There is now a Literature Panel. The Arts Council went to the rescue of the London library. It has helped the P.E.N. Club at a very difficult time. It has been responsible for giving grants, subsidies and encouragement of various kinds to Literature, because its intention is to sustain the best in the Arts and to make the best more generally available.

I was rather dismayed to find a distinguished writer saying that the Arts Council's bursary scheme was a waste of public money. In fact, he said that the money was going to the brewers. I hope that he will find an opportunity to retract that statement. In the same Press it was reported that £6,000 had been spent in Wales this year to help all kinds of modest but very worth-while writers.

From the Government's point of view there is a great controversy about how best the Arts Council can help to sustain and to encourage high standards of literature. I can hold out no hope that money for any scheme will be available in the coming year, but I hope that in the following year, when these matters are pursued within the Ministry and in public discussion, it will be clearly understood that it is not for any political Minister to tell the Arts Council how it will allocate its funds to help authors who are struggling to maintain high standards of literature. I look forward in the next year to a continuation of the public discussion which is now going on.

I remember many years ago my old friend Alan Herbert, when he was a Member of the House, advocating a scheme and receiving the support of many hon. Members. I remember, too, that Benn Levy, when he was a Member, advocated a copyright scheme. There is nothing new in any of the ideas being brought forward now. All I venture to say is that now, for the first time, we have a Government who are actively concerned in the matter.

The Government invited the Arts Council to ascertain the views of authors and publishers. I am involved in assembling the views not only of authors and publishers but of librarians and local authorities. I am by nature an optimist and I think that we should find an answer to this problem but it would be wrong for me to say to the House this afternoon that this project has such a high priority for all authors that we can look forward to it being implemented in the very near future, but in the days ahead I hope that we shall be able to work out a suitable scheme.

Do the Government accept in principle the justice of P.L.R. and can the right hon. Lady give some forecast of when she expects to resolve the present consultations and produce a scheme?

I made it clear in the autumn when I spoke to the Librarians' Conference that there has been no official acceptance in principle.

In terms of Government priorities we are in a difficult situation. We cannot just about treble the help that we are giving to literature, painting, poetry, all the arts and find something more for authors as well. In an easier financial situation I am optimistic enough to believe that there will be a firm promise in principle, but if I said that this afternoon I should be going beyond what I am entitled to say.