HL Deb 24 March 1983 vol 440 cc1321-32

9.20 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that the fall in the purchase of library books for universities, colleges, polytechnics and public libraries will be halted; whether they will outline the measures that they will take to ensure both a restoration of and an improvement upon the levels of 1978–79; and whether, in view of their commitment to the expansion of scientific and technical education, they will indicate their plans for the provision of increased stocks of the essential scientific and technical reference books.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when one asks an Unstarred Question in this House, one does not expect to be listened to, but rather to elicit some information from the Government and, perhaps, to be read later. We have a limited subject and a small but distinguished cast, and I think we can get through our work efficiently and fairly fast. I welcome my old friend and colleague Lady David, who is the Labour spokesman in this House on education, and we are both of us very glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, who has many distinctions. But I think of him as the last man in history to combine the jobs of Director of the British Museum with Principal Librarian of the British Museum Library. That was a unique position and we are very glad to have him here.

I put down this Question to seek information and not to attack the Government. If the information is unsatisfactory, to be sure attacks may follow. But I refuse to believe that any Government can, for one moment, be complacent about the supply of books in general, and of educational books in particular, and, to particularise still further, about the alleged scarcity in supply of essential scientific and reference books. No intelligent person questions the importance of books in education, so I shall not labour the point, but will assume that it is common ground to all of us. The Bullock Report can supply arguments, if anybody needs them, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, pointed out in his admirable assault on the Government's education policy last January. But I repeat that this Question is not setting out as an assault and it will be the Government's fault if it ends up as one.

The importance of books in education, then, we can take for granted. The importance of the ready availability of essential scientific and reference books we can equally take for granted; and, in particular, their vital importance not only to tertiary, polytechnic and university students, but also to that unhappy majority of young men and women who have done with their education and have no prospects whatever of a job in front of them. There are various schemes for helping them to continue in education and receive training, and every one of such schemes demands a full supply of the relevant books.

In such a situation, we must seek an explanation of how anything so obviously bad as the slump in public and academic book-buying can have been allowed to happen, and I propose to challenge the Government in a friendly way by putting forward my own explanation. Noble Lords will, perhaps, remember an essay by Bertrand Russell entitled The Harm that Good Men Do. He was attacking good Christians rather than good monetarists, but the phrase is apt for either. I think this failure to provide the young with what they need to equip themselves to face a most difficult future falls into this category.

I do not for a moment think that the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who so often has to defend their policies to us, are anything but good men sincerely trying to do what they think is right. But the harm that we are talking about tonight is certainly a result of their policies—an unforeseen consequence of sweeping actions of a certain kind which the Government are much too fond of. They set their cash limits with one idea only—of spending less, with no detailed study of what the inevitable results will be. True to the age-old Treasury slogan, which echoes round the corridors of Great George Street, Never buy today what you can pay more for tomorrow", they fail to maintain a position until it costs very much more in time and money to restore it to an efficient level than if it had been kept up in the first place.

Libraries, whether public, university, college or school, are obvious examples of this. If the efficient quota of new books to be bought each year is, say, 100 and you cut it to 70, then, as books last something like 10 years or more, you will be short by 30 not for one year, but for all 10. Clearly, this is cumulative. What may not be very serious after one year can become crippling if it is repeated several years in succession.

There is a further fact about books. They are very easy to cut. All you have to do is not order them. So in those organisations which have other things to concern them beside books, such as local authorities and universities, the cuts tend to fall on the books. I should like to give an instance of this from outside the scope of my particular Question. The British Council has been in existence for nearly 50 years and has been severely cut at least five times since the war. Each time, in order to keep going, it has felt obliged to meet the cuts by disproportionate cuts in its books and libraries, which many think its most effective weapons for the job it does as a council for cultural relations.

In 1980 it was again faced with massive cuts. Later, I am glad to say, the Government relented somewhat. But the first reaction to an overall cut which was threatened to be 25 per cent. was to cut by no less than 48 per cent. the £1½ million odd put aside for book purchases and to plan to close four libraries overseas. As I have said, the Government relented somewhat, and things were not quite so bad as expected. But every time cuts of this kind are made it takes years to restore them and restoration is never complete. It is worth noting that cuts of this kind are invariably immediate and at short notice, and, as funds already allocated are impossible to cut, so the burden once again falls on the books.

We must now satisfy ourselves as to the reality and extent of the harm being done. I wonder whether the Government will accept my figures. They come to me from the most respectable sources—the Publishers' Association, the Library Association, the National Book League. Even if some estimates can be disputed in detail, I shall be very much surprised if the general trend which is alleged can be quarrelled with. I shall be speaking in averages, which conceal the most alarming discrepancies from one institution to another, but I shall spare your Lordships these detailed statistics as it is the trend that I am concerned to establish.

First, let me deal with the public library authorities, the pride of our welfare state, which lend 600 million books a year free of charge—about a book a month for every literate citizen in the country. These public libraries are the most relevant for the unemployed young, who will often no longer have the use of university or polytechnic libraries. Figures for the 119 authorities in England and Wales which control over 15,000 service points, branch libraries and mobile libraries show that the money set aside for book purchases has fallen by 19 per cent. in the last five years.

Turning next to the 42 university libraries, here let it be said that the University Grants Committee admitted that university book spending had slumped by 33 per cent. in three years, up to 1981, and ventured the hope that universities would protect "library materials"—which must mean mainly books—from the 1980–81 cuts. But a good many failed to do so, so fierce was the pressure. Confronted with the rise in the price of books and the cost of obtaining periodicals and Government publications, which is up 56 per cent. since 1980, many have failed to raise their book purchase funds to keep pace with inflation, and report, in real terms, cuts of 20, 30 and 40 per cent. over the last five years. The 31 polytechnic libraries show a similar trend, as do the college libraries. The same slump in book buying is visible in schools, both primary and secondary. These are strictly outside the terms of my question, though Miss Passmore in The Times Educational Supplement has estimated a shortfall in schools of £30 million for this year.

By and large, one can say that the book buying of the public libraries has dropped by one-fifth over the last five years. For the strictly educational libraries the fall is similar but more precipitate and has happened in no more than one year. An equal economy has taken place in trained staff, so not only are books in short supply but so is advice. The effects, as I said earlier, are cumulative, and we are building up for an all-round deterioration in our libraries which will take years to put right. I assume the Government will admit two things: first, that the trend is there and, second, that its cumulative effect is getting more serious and is in fact already very serious.

What I fear the noble Earl in reply will say is that he minds just as much as we do, but that there is very little he can do about it. He will say that he is powerless to intervene because Governments cannot dictate to local authorities or universities how they should spend their money. This, I think, will be the noble Earl's first answer. But a year or two ago the Secretary of State, admitting the situation, said that he would allocate £20 million extra to help textbook purchases for schools. Can the noble Earl tell us how much of this was in fact used for the purpose stated, and how much for other purposes? In any case, this sum, even if all spent on books, has not been enough to stop the rot, as my figures show clearly.

The situation is so bad that an exception must be made and a further sum granted to be spent on books and only on books. If it can be done for schools, it can surely be done for further education. I know there are many arguments against interference of this kind, but the situation is so bad that effective action must be taken. I can think of no other action which will be effective. It is the job of statesmen to find ways of doing that which has to be done in spite of the opposition it may stir up. There is a way, and probably only one way, and the Secretary of State, to his credit, has used it in a limited way already. I beg him to see if he cannot do so again before the cost of putting things right becomes impossibly high.

I know very well that I myself have often had to use the standard argument that inflation is a fundamental evil and can be stopped only by ruthless economy in all directions. What I am asking the Government to do is to stop and think. Economising on books has already gone much too far and must be reversed. I beg the Government to accept that there must be some exceptions to their ruthless approach and that the supply of books—particularly books for further education—should be one of them.

I wonder my Lords, as there are so few, if I may end with an old and, I think, good—though your Lordships may think it bad—joke. I very much hope that the noble Earl will not give me the famous answer which appeared in the old New Yorker cartoon in which a fond mother is asking her five year-old son, "What are you giving Daddy for Christmas, my love?" The boy replies, "I'm giving my Daddy a book for Christmas, Mummy". She replies, "Oh, no! I shouldn't do 'that. He's got a book". We look forward to a more understanding answer than that from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.

9.32 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for putting down this Question, even late on a Thursday, about the very important matter of books. I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, but i have recently succeeded Lord Roll of Ipsden as chairman of the National Book Committee and my husband is a retired publisher. I was very proud to have myself described as "a friend of the book" when I opened an exhibition of children's books at the National Book League last summer.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has clearly established that in all educational establishments, whether they be in the university or the maintained sector, in the strictly educational world or in the world of public libraries, expenditure in real terms is down by one-fifth from the figure of five years ago. The situation is deteriorating annually. Unless the Government are wise enough to reverse their policies, matters will grow progressively worse for those using the various library services.

I am told that an additional £6.3 million is needed to restore the position to the level of 1978–79. The educational need of those libraries is greater with every year that passes. The Government have not allowed the student grant to keep up with inflation, so that at a time when accommodation costs are rising at a rate much faster than inflation, the student's ability to buy books essential to his studies is being eroded. Therefore, his need for the university, polytechnic or college library has grown—as has his need for the public library; greater use of public libraries by students is reported.

I want to spend a little time on the public library, which was mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Since 1850 the public library service has been freely available to all those wishing to use it. It is now used not only for borrowing books but for so much else: newspapers and periodicals are there to be read, reference books of all kinds are there to be consulted; good libraries have children's corners for children to browse and sample books, with a trained children's librarian to give advice to them and to their parents. The unemployed can scan the advertising pages of the papers for job vacancies and advice can be given to them on employment and welfare services. They can find relief from the tedium of their lives by reading and exploring in a warm place which is a change from home, as can the old. In many libraries records, cassettes and video films are lent.

Good libraries again have an exhibition space, where paintings, drawings, china, hangings, et cetera, can be displayed, ideal for introducing people to the arts when they might not be tempted to venture into an art gallery or exhibition. You may just catch them and their interest if the exhibition space is in the right place in the library which they have to pass by to get to the books. There are newer services providing information to commerce and industry through Viewdata and other information systems. Financial information, I am told, is updated as much as 12 times a day. A number of libraries are helping the shopper by having programmes showing where the best buys can be obtained. Gateshead, and maybe other places, provide a service whereby an order can be put through to Tesco and Tesco will deliver to the house. How valuable for an old-age pensioner who cannot get around but can ask a friend going to the library to put the order in, at virtually no trouble to herself. I rather look forward to using this service myself as I come to dislike shopping more and more. I hope I have said enough to show what an infinite amount of good a public library can do to an infinite variety of people, young and old.

Yet 472 libraries have closed in five years, a reduction of 11 per cent. The number of staff employed has been reduced by over 5 per cent. in the same time. Moreover, 36 mobile libraries, giving enjoyment and succour to those least able to travel, for either financial or family reasons, have been taken off the road: The Book Fund has been reduced by 15 per cent.—I believe Lord Donaldson said 19 per cent., so maybe we got our figures from different places. There is a great disparity in the amounts spent by different authorities on their public libraries. A recent pamphlet, Public Library Spending in England and Wales, produced by the Publishers' Association, is worth looking at. Those members of the public who feel they are getting an inadequate service can learn the facts about what their local authority is up to by how much the spending has gone down, and then tackle their local councillors. I understand that Barnet Council, when it was pointed out that it had cut its book spending by 50 per cent., immediately upped it by 11 per cent.

I want to emphasise for a moment the effects of the cuts on children. There is, of course, the reduced capitation allowance in schools, but schools are not today the subject of debate. There is the reduction in the public library service, fewer books, fewer qualified children's librarians, reduced support for the school library service which is heavily dependent on the public library service. Less than 50p per head, not enough to buy even half of one of the cheapest paperbacks, is spent on school libraries in six counties. Some publishers are giving up their children's departments or drastically reducing them. Children's books sales, depending very much on public library sales, went down by 14 per cent. in one year. I find that extremely sad, because, being very old-fashioned, I am a great believer in reading to children and getting them used to listening and handling books and using them from a very early age. I fear that that may be lost if we are not careful.

The Minister for the Arts is required by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to produce an annual report to Parliament. In the Annexe to the 1982 report the widespread concern over the deterioration in both the quality and quantity of the services provided is referred to. It continues: It is … so extensive and severe that the viability and effectiveness of library and information services are being eroded. There is fear that these bodies may cease to be able to provide the information services essential to the country's economic technological, social and cultural wellbeing". I understand they are to set up a study, but I hope they hurry up and report on it, otherwise it will be too late.

In the Governments's expenditure plans for 1983–84 to 1985–86 there is a sum, under local authority expenditure in Great Britain, of just over £1 million which is not allocated to any particular service. This is in recognition, they say, of the fact that some authorities need more time to moderate their spending. There was no such sum in the 1982–83 budget. This unallocated sum is again referred to in the section on arts and libraries—2.10.A on page 51. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended that a portion of that £1 million is to cover some expenditure on the public library service in recognition that there is a very strong public demand and need for that service which has suffered so much diminution in the past five years?

I have spoken of the educational effects of the fall in the purchase of library books by libraries of all kinds—university, college, and public—and I should like to speak a little of the economic effects. A large proportion of the books and journals in our libraries come from a major exporting British industry—publishing. When its home market base of university and college libraries is so rapidly eroded, its export business is threatened. The Government constantly tell us that exports are vital to us. The academic book publishing industry exported in 1981 £50.6 million-worth of books. That is one-third of its total sales figure. In 1980, 42 per cent. of scientific hardback books produced here were exported, and 38 per cent. of scientific paper backs. Britain's expertise in the writing and publishing of hooks on scientific subjects is earning vital revenue for the country as well of course as a reputation.

A further result of a forced decline in the industry is that authors cannot get their research findings disseminated. This is a loss to the British economy not only because of lost export sales but also because of the loss of British influence overseas. I repeat, a buoyant home market is essential as a base. A policy that simultaneously undermines the quality of our education and training and weakens the international competitiveness of a significant British industry just cannot make sense.

There is a further danger. If publishers do find themselves in some financial difficulty they are going to be very wary about taking on new authors, novelists or poets where sales can be very low. This is sad for a nation which is justifiably proud of its literature and depressing for young aspirants to literary fame. I hope that the Arts Council is giving this matter sufficient attention.

I am sure the case is established that the Government's policies are doing significant harm to both education and industry. There is the education argument and the economic argument, both demanding change. I hope that the Minister can offer us rather more than sympathy when he replies, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked him. We do not want to listen to the usual excuses about reducing the PSBR.

9.43 p.m.

Lord Wolfenden

My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for raising these very important questions this evening. After the noble Lord's comprehensive and persuasive speech and the penetrating comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, there is very little left for me to say; but perhaps I may be allowed very briefly, and perhaps from a rather different angle, to underline just two points.

For the past few months I have been trying to fill the office of honorary chairman of the University, College and Professional Publications Council of the Publishers' Association—that is quite a mouthful, my Lords. In that capacity I have become aware of many facts about which I knew very little before. For instance, how many of your Lordships knew that in 1981 the academic book publishing industry exported—we all know now because we heard it from the noble Baroness—more than £50 million-worth of books representing exactly one-third of total sales?

This figure seems to me to be important for three reasons. First, it is a modest but presumably not unwelcome contribution to our export trade which I imagine everybody would wish to encourage. Secondly, these export transactions help to make publishing a viable operation in this country. Thirdly, they provide a world-wide dissemination of the writings and researches of this country's academics, which surely is good both for international scholarship and for our own reputation in the world.

But, as has been said, these exports and their advantages cannot continue unless the publishing industry has a solid base here at home. Publishers have to make a living or else they have to stop publishing. Sometimes they take a wild risk or even let their hearts rule their heads—among them they have nobly enabled half a dozen of my own writings to see the light of day—hut obviously they cannot do that indefinitely. So, in relation to exports, a viable home-based publishing industry is vital for the reasons that I have tried to give.

It is precisely the viability of this home-based industry which is being put rapidly and dangerously at risk. Some of us, when we were students (as we should be called nowadays), had the good fortune to be able to rely on our college and university libraries for practically all our academic major reading matter. There were of course books that we had to buy for ourselves so that we could annotate or otherwise disfigure our own property. Sometimes, indeed, we bought them because we fell for them and actually wanted to possess them for a lifetime's enjoyment. I still have, and still read, a good many books which came under this description; and I am sure that many of your Lordships are in the same fortunate position. Very few students today can afford book purchases of this kind out of their grants.

I wonder whether what has been the effect of recent cuts in library expenditure in our universities, polytechnics and colleges of further and higher education is sufficiently appreciated. Figures have been mentioned already. Those that I am about to quote come from the National Book League. As between 1980–81 and 1981–82 there was a decline in cash terms of something like 21 per cent. And the University Grants Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, has stated to a Select Committee in another place that before 1980–81 university book spending had slumped by 33 per cent. in three years. What can we call this but terrifying, devastating and catastrophic?

My Lords, I hope that you will not think that I have concentrated inappropriately on the money side of all this. I spent nearly 20 years of my adult life in university teaching and administration, and, later on, five years, at the University Grants Committee. What I am pleading for is that the students of this and succeeding generations should not be intellectually deprived and starved. The publishing of books and learned journals is a means to an end; and the end is the intellectual nourishing of the individual student and of the academic community as a living whole. Whether we are talking about the precious life-blood of a master spirit or about the latest earth-shaking findings in the laboratory, neither can have any impact unless the words in which they are enshrined are available to a reader.

As things are, the students of our higher education institutions are being progressively denied the opportunity to read. Is this the way to lead Britain back to a position of leadership? The young people in our universities, polytechnics and other colleges—the brightest and best of their generation—are being deprived of their intellectual life-blood. My Lords, this is no way to invest in Britain's future.

9.39 p.m.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for affording us an opportunity to discuss this very important question of the level of library provision in universities, colleges and polytechnics and in the public library service. I think that at the beginning the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that this was not to be a battle tonight but perhaps a preliminary skirmish where we see where the troops are deployed. I am not going to take any of the lines of defence which the noble Lord thought that I should be taking. I am going to produce some figures of my own which I think show a slight difference from what he and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, mentioned. If he thinks that this is something of a display of the ammunition that might be used in a future battle, I hope that he is wrong and that the future battle does not take place.

It is extremely important to the educational and cultural well-being of the country that an adequate level of provision of books in libraries should be maintained. At the same time, given the Government's central commitment to restrain public expenditure, it cannot be expected that library services will be wholly exempt from the requirements to make economies and streamline services which are operating in every other field.

Let me make it quite clear, however, that it is not and has not been the Government's intention to prescribe to the universities and local authorities what they should spend on books and related items. It is for universities and local authorities to set their own priorities for expenditure within the limits on total expenditure set by the Government. They must themselves determine in the light of local needs and other calls on resources what level of library provision can be maintained, and they must also scrutinise expenditure in this area, as in others, to see where economies may be possible.

If we consider library provision within the universities, we see that between 1978–79 and 1980–81—that is the last year for which figures are available—expenditure on libraries rose from £44.8 million to £62.7 million. In 1980–81 £65 was spent on each student on library acquisitions. It should also be borne in mind that some £165 per year of the students' maintenance grant is for books and equipment and that increased paper back publications have brought a large number of volumes within reach of the student's pocket. The amount spent on the purchase of library books by universities is a matter for individual institutions. It is for each university to decide how to distribute the grant made available by the University Grants Committee between their various activities, including library acquisitions, after taking account of any general or specific guidance offered by the committee.

In the present period of reduction in funding, the need for economies and for the ordering of priorities extends to the purchasing of library books as to all other activities of universities. The Government are, however, aware that at a time when institutions are having to make reductions, expenditure on such items as library acquisitions might be disproportionately at risk. The Government, therefore, endorse the advice offered by the UGC to universities about expenditure on libraries and in particular the need for them to pay specific attention in their forward planning to maintaining such expenditure at a sufficient level. This advice applies equally to all areas of library acquisitions, including the purchase of scientific and technical reference books.

For the future, the recent public expenditure White Paper indicated that the present phase of contraction for higher education is expected to be completed in 1984–85. The Government's plans allow sufficient cash, provided costs are contained, to maintain the level of provision in the universities in 1984–85 and 1985–86. This should assist universities in providing adequate library services. Levels of provision are of course a matter for the individual university, but the University Grants Committee has on various occasions reminded the universities of the importance of libraries to research and teaching and the need to maintain expenditure on library acquisitions at a reasonable level, despite the temptation which undoubtedly exists to make easy economies in this area.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, will he allow me to ask a question, because we have no right of reply and we must clear things up as we go? Is the noble Earl denying the trend of the figures that all three speakers have quoted? I am quite prepared to accept the figures which he gives about certain money being spent. We are talking about a trend which is downwards—we think catastrophically downwards. Is the noble Earl saying that that is simply not true?

The Earl of Swinton

No, My Lords, I am not saying that that is true. There is a trend and it may well be downwards but I would take issue with whether it is quite so downwards and quite so steep as some of the figures mentioned by noble Lords would suggest.

In the polytechnics, local authorities' expenditure on books has risen from £6.9 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £9.1 million in 1981–82 or £62 per full-time student equivalent in 1981–82. Those figures, as I am sure noble Lords will note, are one year later than those for the universities. In other major further education establishments expenditure has risen from £8.1 million in 1979–80 to £8.7 million in 1981–82. I must repeat that in respect of polytechnics and colleges it is for the local authority and then the individual institutions to determine where their spending priorities lie. The Government's expenditure plans for local authority higher education since 1980–81 have taken account of the considerable scope within the system for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the use of resources without a lowering of standards. The method of distributing to local authorities resources for current expenditure on higher education in their polytechnics and colleges gives a common level of funding for common areas of work. A special allowance is made for scientific and technical provision, to reflect its higher costs. The method also ensures that the rate of reduction in spending for individual institutions is kept within reasonable bounds. It should therefore be possible for institutions to make reductions in spending asked of them without detriment to the provision of books, in scientific and technical areas or elsewhere. The fact that the real level of annual expenditure per student in polytechnics was maintained in 1981–82 compared with 1980–81 suggests that institutions are exercising discretion in the allocation of resources.

For the future, the National Advisory Body will be advising on how the provision of academic programmes of higher education in the local authority sector can best be planned so that available resources are used to the best advantage and high standards maintained.

For the public library services, as for the eduational libraries I have mentioned, the final decisions about funding are taken not by central Government but at local level—by the shire counties, metropolitan districts and London boroughs, who act as library authorities. Central Government's role in the sector, as in the others, has been to warn against cutting library services disproportionately, and successive Ministers for the Arts have urged authorities not to look for easy savings in this area. It is a mark of their success, and of local commitment to and appreciation of the value of public library services, that, despite the particular short-term vulnerability of much library spending (especially on acquisitions) this temptation has been in general avoided.

The noble Lord is concerned about the acquisition of scientific and technical volumes, which of course present a particular problem for public libraries which seek to provide collections for users who range vastly in age and interests. The investment which can be made in any one type of literature is necessarily restricted, and the high cost of much scientific material is a further constraint on this area of provision, although some major city libraries do maintain impressive scientific collections.

Because of the need to balance a wide range of demand, librarians are constantly examining how far the need to acquire and keep large local collections—the "holdings" approach—can be modified by making better arrangements for users also to reach central, complementary stores of knowledge—the "access" philosophy. "Access" can be achieved in several ways: for example, the inter-lending of books from core collections.

One new development in improving access to information—and this was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady David—especially in the scientific and technical field, is the use of on-line computer services. At this late hour of the night I shall not go in to all the various technical methods which are coming in to libraries, but this is a field which may lead to considerable savings in the future.

Your Lordships will see from all this that the correlation between acquisitions expenditure and the quality of a public library service is not as close as might be expected. We would, therefore, regard any arbitrary target merely based on the number of volumes purchased in 1978–79 as both irrelevant and backward-looking.

I should like to make one or two comments on the individual speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised the question of the famous, or infamous, £20 million. I think that he was the first to admit that this was for use in schools, and so technically does not come under this Question. I cannot satisfy him over how much of the £20 million to which he referred was spent on books by the schools, because detailed expenditure by local authorities in 1982–83 is not yet available. But I take his point that these things tend to get lost. I am not saying that this £20 million was, but I am most aware of what may happen.

I was also very interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, said about books being published and about exports. The noble Baroness. Lady David, admitted that her husband was a publisher. I really think that the publishers must take their share of the blame here. I know that this House has rather a lot of them, but I am sure noble Lords would like to know that the price of books in fact exceeded the retail price index by some 13 per cent. between 1978 and 1981. Therefore, I think a lot of their difficulties they have brought on themselves by putting up the cost of their books.

Baroness David

My Lords, may I interrupt the Minister for a moment? For a long time the price of books was kept below the general cost of inflation. It was only in the rather desperate situation of the last year or two that it caught up. It was kept down for a number of years.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I am sure that I take the noble Baroness's word for that. I hope she is not trying to blame that on this Government.

In conclusion, therefore, I would ask noble Lords to remember that benefits as well as short-term difficulties will arise from the careful reappraisal of priorities which this Government's policy of restraining public expenditure has entailed in higher education and public services. For example, there are the possibilities of improved cost effectiveness opened by new technological developments. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this Government are doing much to encourage institutions and local authorities to make sensible decisions about the allocation of resources, so that value for money is maximised and standards of provision are maintained so far as possible within the limits of what the country can afford.

House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.