Lords Sitting of 9 November 1988

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

Lord Butterfield
Sir William John Hughes Butterfield, Knight, OBE, having been created Baron Butterfield, of Stechford in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Birk and the Lord Marshall of Leeds.

Exports and the Balance of Payments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the present adverse trend in the balance of payments, they contemplate giving greater support to export promotion.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the White Paper DTI: The Department for Enterprise which was published in January stated that in the light of advice from the British Overseas Trade Board the department's export services would be reorganised later this year to reflect exporters' needs better. As I told my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on 7th November, I am continuing to examine ways in which our export services can be improved including increasing the role played by private sector organisations. I hope to announce the result of the review shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, can I ask how he reconciles the Government's evident intention of promoting exports with the fact that expenditure on export promotion has fallen in the last three years from £27·7 million in 1985–86 to an estimated £25·3 million last year? Would it not have been more desirable to have had increased effort in this sector in view of our present position?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the quality of the spend is, we believe, more relevant than absolute quantity. Export figures actually reached a record last August and manufacturing industry continues to perform well. In the three months to August exports of manufactures including erratics were 8½ per cent. higher than a year ago, while manufacturing output was over 6½ per cent. higher. It is more important that we see the performance of our manufacturers improved than that we worry about government assistance to industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Autumn Statement forecasts that in volume terms our share of world trade in manufactures will
618
go down both in 1988 and in 1989? How can that prospect be described as anything other than very depressing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, simply, it matters little that the volume share of world trade goes down so long as the absolute share and performance of the United Kingdom go up. If world trade is expanding faster than that of the United Kingdom, our concern is to see British exports continuing to expand and manufacturers making their contribution towards solving the present problems we have with the balance of payments.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that a most important factor in improving the balance between imports and exports is for manufacturing companies to invest more in new product development? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to stimulate that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the simple truth is that the most important single factor, not only for improving our exports performance but also for ensuring that more British manufactured goods are bought by the British people, is that those goods are better designed and more reliable and that they are delivered to time and work well. That is the secret of improving all these figures.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that import substitution is as important as export promotion? Is he aware that this year's total bill for timber imports is £6 billion and that as a result of government policy tree planting in this country is diminishing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware of occasional complaints from some Members of your Lordships' House who live north of the Border that too many parts of the country are being planted with trees. The balance is difficult. We must ensure that we produce the goods and the products that we buy at home. There has been a vast increase in the amount of timber required for paper and other purposes. I hope that in the fullness of time we shall narrow the gap; but we shall never close it.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, Japanese companies which have established manufacturing bases in this country are increasingly concerned that entry of their products into the European Community is being stemmed. The noble Lord knows of the problems with Nissan. Can he assure such companies that they will receive the full protection of Her Majesty's Government once they are British companies and that they will share in the benefits of export promotion?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, goods manufactured in this country, whether in factories owned by British resident companies, British companies, Japanese or other foreign-owned companies, providing that over 60 per cent. of the content is of European origin, are free to be sold throughout the Community. The Government stand

619
by that decision, and I am sure that in one particular instance the Government of France will also stand by it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if it is important to buy goods manufactured in this country, can the Minister say how one can discover where a motor car is built?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in a world of integrated plants with parts of cars being manufactured in different countries, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly where the vehicles are manufactured. It is important that products, whether components or finished items, are made by British companies to standards that customers want to buy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in answering my Question the noble Lord said that the quantum of government support and export promotion was not the only factor; that another was the effort made by the private sector. Can he assure the House that, in respect of export promotion, the combined efforts of government and the private sector are rising year by year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assure all noble Lords that the efforts of government will be more effective year by year. The quantum of spend is different from the quality of spend. Too many people concentrate on inputs and not on outputs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that British industry's competitors have a tremendous advantage in that they pay reasonable interest rates? Have there not been many calls from the CBI conference for the Government to tackle overspending in another way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have heard many siren songs emanating from the vicinity of Torquay. But the figures do not stand up. In examining long-term interest rates relative to rates of inflation, noble Lords will realise that ours are among the cheapest terms of interest in the top seven countries. In respect of shorter term interest rates, we are about halfway there. We must compare our rates of interest with the rate of inflation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it does not matter that we were losing out in the share of world markets if our volume of exports is rising. Does that not bode ill for our future competitive position because it must mean that our competitors are doing even better?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, because more countries in the world are exporting more manufactured goods. All Members of your Lordships' House occasionally forget the fact that we live by invisible exports as well as by the sale of manufactured goods. It is important that sales of British goods continue to expand in absolute terms. If we ensure that they continue to rise at the present rate we shall soon solve our problems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that we are also losing our share of world invisible trade?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, not to my knowledge.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some noble Lords who are associated with companies exporting to West Africa—both British and French ex-colonies—have noted with interest that the ex-French empire is now interested in buying from Britain and that ex-British colonies, which have been independent for 30 years, are also entering the market? Is the Minister aware that we are most grateful for the help we are receiving from the Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suggest that, rather than studying debating points within your Lordships' House, we look at the reputation around the world of British goods and services. That reputation stands infinitely higher than it did 10 years ago: it is my hope that it continues to rise.

Veterinary Students: Intake
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to increase the number of veterinary students.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the current pattern of provision reflects the outcome of the Government's last manpower review in 1985, conducted in conjuction with the veterinary profession. We shall, again in consultation, be considering whether a further review is needed and, if so, when.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer and for the assurance that he has given. Perhaps I may point out that the number of vacancies advertised in the BVA journal is unprecedented. There is a desperate shortage of vets in the North, the West, and particularly in Scotland, and there is no possibility of sufficient vets being trained in our universities to fill these vacancies. Is the Minister aware that if we do not investigate the situation earnestly it will become worse?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the recommendation that the annual intake of students by veterinary schools between 1986 and 1990 should be reduced from 335 to 302 was recognised by the review body to be fine-tuning of the highest order. Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association are concerned that there may be an increasing shortfall against demand.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that vets who are now being trained will have insufficient specialist qualifications when the market is opened to vets from all countries in 1992?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no; I believe that the opposite will occur. The working party is considering the provision of veterinary education in the six veterinary schools and the scope for rationalisation.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I was chairman of the review body in 1983–84. Is my noble friend aware that the review body found great difficulty in trying to forecast the number of veterinary surgeons required in the early 1990s? Is he also aware that despite that difficulty, the review body recommended a reduction in the intake of students and that one of the factors considered was the continuing rise in the percentage of passes among the original entry of students?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston chaired the last review body and I am grateful for his comments. The Departments of Agriculture and of Education and Science, in consultation with the University Grants Committee and representatives of the veterinary profession, will discuss the need for a further review and, if one is required, when it should take place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there any danger that the faster we turn out veterinary surgeons the faster they will be absorbed on to popular television programmes?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is another Question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify the educational aspects of the issue? Is it right that the quality of students entering degree courses is of the highest level and that there is an enormous demand for young people to take the courses? Given that there is no unemployment among veterinary graduates, why do not the Government respond by providing the appropriate number of places?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the average student-staff ratio is approximately five to two. It is comparable with those in clinical medicine and clinical dentistry. Departmental university expenditure per full-time equivalent student is in the order of £8,500 per year, which is slightly higher than for clinical medicine and dentistry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in addition to the points I have made, the BVA is concerned that countries such as Italy, Spain and Belgium are now producing more vets than is the United Kingdom? The time will come when veterinary surgeons from Europe and the EC will dominate our agricultural areas. It is vital that we keep pace in producing vets from our universities to match the possible intake which has already been mentioned and which could swamp us.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord said. Subject to satisfying certain requirements, including registration with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, veterinary surgeons
622
from other countries may practise in the United Kingdom and I have not received any complaints on that score.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have a nephew whose academic qualifications were not high enough for him to become a vet and he has now qualified as a doctor of medicine?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was not aware of that but I am now.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the Minister throw any light on the rather persistent feeling among veterinary surgeons that there are plans for the closure of one or more of the six veterinary colleges?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, not at present.

Nursing Auxiliaries: Duties
3 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are any set proportions or quotas of particular grades for nursing auxiliaries which are being imposed on the service.
Lord Hesketh: No, my Lords.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer to that Question, and bearing in mind how admirable and devoted these nursing auxiliaries are, perhaps I may ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that they frequently work unsupervised and do work for which they are neither trained nor paid. Are the Government aware of that problem and are they thinking of doing anything about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that nursing auxiliaries are being used inappropriately or asked to undertake tasks for which they are not properly trained.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister say to what extent the current shortage of nurses could be met by a bigger influx of auxiliaries? Does he also accept that inadequate pay of auxiliary nurses is one factor which mitigates against the enrolment of nurses at present?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House are aware, there has just been a record pay deal for the nurses. As regards auxiliary nurses, their pay has increased by between 7·6 per cent. and 8·9 per cent. in the most recent settlement. That is above the average for both the public and the private sector.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to return to the theme, but bearing in mind that I am extremely disappointed at the noble Lord's statement as regards lack of evidence will he accept from me that the situation which I have described is certainly the case in mental hospitals, for example? Will he accept from

623
me and others evidence of precisely the kind I have mentioned; namely, that these excellent people are having to work unsupervised wards and do work for which they are not trained?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go beyond my second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which was that we believe there is no evidence to suggest that nursing auxiliaries are being used inappropriately.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was once a nursing auxiliary in a casualty department and I did jobs that were way beyond the training which I had received? I am sure that still persists today.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was unaware of that position of the noble Countess, but I assure your Lordships that I would have had the utmost confidence had I been in her hands.

Crime Prevention: Initiatives
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives have been taken and what progress has been made on crime prevention.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, a range of initiatives are under way and encouraging progress is being made. Three areas have now agreed to take part in the safer cities programme, and six others have been invited to participate. The first phase of the Government's crime prevention publicity campaign with the new crime prevention handbook has received a very encouraging response from the public and the second phase of the campaign was launched this morning. Advertisements will appear in the national press from tomorrow.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. I should like to congratulate him on the way in which this scheme has grown. I hope we shall continue to produce as much propaganda for it as possible so that we have more and more of these schemes and more and more attempts to prevent the horrible crimes which we presently have in this country.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last weekend 200 young people from junior crime prevention panels met at a national conference in Wales organised by the police and commerce? It was very successful. No Minister of the Government had the time or ability to attend that conference. Can he explain why that was so?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot answer in particular regarding the conference referred to by the noble Baroness. However, I assure her that my right honourable friend and all his colleagues are taking extremely seriously the whole area of crime prevention.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I must press this matter. When I was a Minister in the Government there was no way that the government of the time would have allowed an important conference like that, organised voluntarily by the police and commerce, to have no representation at all from Her Majesty's Government.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, yes, I heard that. Perhaps I may say that in passing.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that all citizens, particularly young citizens, have a part to play in crime prevention? Has he been able to persuade local councils and authorities, in particular ILEA, to allow the police to go into all schools so as to spread knowledge and enthusiasm for crime prevention among our young people?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes. I can reassure my noble friend that crime prevention with young people is very much a matter which the Government are bearing in mind and they will do all that they can to embrace all related initiatives.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the admirable work which is being done all over the country in the name of intermediate treatment? Is he also aware—I am sure he is—of the intermediate treatment fund, which is now in its tenth year and has already funded some 11,000 projects which include not only young people who have been referred from the courts but many other young people who are at risk of getting into trouble with the law, and young people generally? That is one of the most promising avenues in which to approach and deal with the prevention of crime.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in what he says and I am grateful to him for mentioning intermediate treatment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not very noticeable that in almost all the supplementary questions asked on this very important matter, youth has featured as the main item? In view of the fact that at the root of crime prevention one has to look at the cause of crime, would it not be a very good idea, in view of the seriousness of the proportion of youngsters in crime figures, for the Government to set up a commission to look specifically into the matter of youth and crime, its causes and cures?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, of an objective look into the causes of problems concerning young people. Exactly how one goes about dealing with the problem is another matter and that is of course for my right honourale friend to decide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, is my noble friend the Minister aware that under the common law all citizens had a

625
duty to arrest people who had committed felonies, which are now understood to be arrestable offences? Will the Government take full advantage of that obligation and remind people at large of that duty?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am interested in what my noble friend said and I shall pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips, who has considerable experience in this field, sought to put a question to the noble Earl about an important conference called by the police and industry. She asked the noble Earl why no Minister was present. Were the Government aware of that conference? If so, why did they not take steps to see that they were properly represented there?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot comment on the thrust of the matter to which he alludes, but I shall certainly pass on his remarks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his courteous reply but will he be good enough to write to my noble friend on this matter?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl again consider the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? A great many of us are extremely concerned about the increase in crime especially among young people. We know that the age at which there is a serious likelihood of crime being committed has fallen, and that has extremely serious implications. The Minister should again consider what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. At the same time, I ask the Minister to consider better aftercare provision for young people on completion of custodial sentences. It makes the greatest possible difference if there is adequate aftercare.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness in regard to the earlier supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course, I shall pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on student top-up loans.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Lyell to advance the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 from Monday, 14th November to Thursday, 10th November.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Integration of Disabled People: ECC Report
3.12 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my colleagues on the sub-committee for their co-operation in what proved to be a not very straightforward inquiry. I also thank our witnesses. some of whom were quite severely disabled; it must have been a considerable strain for them to come and give evidence to the sub-committee. We are indeed most grateful to them.
Behind the somewhat cool and detached prose of this report, there lie some deep human problems affecting the lives of many of our less fortunate citizens. It so happens that we are coming to the end of a Session in which the fortunes of the disabled in this country have been rather mixed. The Minister will be able to point, among other things, to the recent uprating exercise and the concession on the Housing Bill. Conversely, we have seen the rejection of a proposal which would have improved the prospects of the disabled being employed by contractors to local authorities.
We have experienced great delays over the implementation of the 1986 disabled persons Act and, indeed, the Griffiths Report. We have seen a not very satisfactory cobbling together of a non-statutory fund to try and plug one of the gaps left in the social security legislation and during the passage of the poll tax Bill there was the sad reversal of a decision taken by this House on behalf of the poor and the disabled. Now, as the Session draws to a close, we embark today on discussing what is possibly the European Commission's first approach to social policy in its rather narrow sense.
The subject on which the Treaty of Rome is silent and on which there must be some doubts about vires is touched upon in our report. The approach by the Commission has been a somewhat halting one, as I shall seek to show. It is an approach which lumps together the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under one general heading. However, leaving all that aside, and while I do not think there is any problem here for the Government about the Community enlarging its jurisdiction and encroaching cn national responsibilities, it is an approach which in a modest way raises questions of what kind of Community we are heading for and what kind of social provision we wish to see provided in that Community.
I turn to the report itself. It is a substantial and somewhat complicated document but at some risk of oversimplifying I shall try to pick out what I think are the main issues. The Community's first action

627
programme for the disabled was a four-year programme which should have run out at the end of last year but, in the event, was extended for some months into the early part of 1988. It concentrated on vocational aspects. In addition to some beefing-up of existing Community enterprises—in particular the network of rehabilitation centres—it introduced two new elements. The first—the kind of flagship of the programme—was a network of 19 local projects designed to pioneer ways of promoting the vocational opportunities for the disabled. The second was the development of a project for making information available to the disabled; first, on technical aids and, subsequently, over a wider field. This piece of information technology came to be blessed with the name of "Handynet"—a word to which your Lordships will, I fear, have to become accustomed as the debate proceeds.
The issue to which our report is addressed is the proposal that this first programme should be followed by a second action programme, again for four years but this time embracing not only vocational aspects but also, for the first time, social integration and independent living; phrases which are not all that easy to define. Again there were proposals for local projects and for the development of Handynet and it is to these two proposals that I propose to devote the remainder of my remarks.
I first refer to the local projects. To assess the new proposals we obviously needed to look at how this part of the first programme had worked out. Out of the total of 19 projects two were in this country—one in Lambeth and one in West Berkshire. There was a central liaison committee in Brussels and a national advisory committee here under the chairmanship of the DHSS, as it then was.
The two English schemes were considerably different from each other. Berkshire concentrated on vocational training for employment of the disabled in the field of information technology. Lambeth was more ambitious and sought to enable the disabled to take part in the decision-making processes, both of the project itself and of the local authority. As far as we could ascertain, both projects were reasonably successful and I should like to pay tribute to the help given by the Manpower Services Commission, as it then was, both to the projects and to the inquiry conducted by the sub-committee. I fear it is not possible to hand out bouquets of quite the same size to the Commission or to the DHSS.
The part of the Brussels directorate concerned is staffed by devoted and highly intelligent people but there is only a tiny number of them and their resources are very limited. It is not altogether surprising that they never managed to make it clear what was expected of the individual schemes. We formed the view that they did not do enough to consult interested bodies before arranging for the setting up of the schemes or during their operation. One touch of genius was to arrange for a seminar for those concerned to be held in an hotel which turned out to have no facilities for the disabled.
The Commission's representatives agreed that the liaison committee in Brussels had not been a success
628
and though it arranged for the appointment of assessors it did not give them much guidance as to how to set about evaluating the projects. For its part I fear that the DHSS failed to put any life into the national advisory committee here with the result that the two schemes received precious little help. The committee failed also to take any steps to give publicity to these two schemes—we soon learned that the members of the sub-committee were not alone in never having heard of them—or to see that what lessons were learned were widely disseminated.
We were also told that the department looked to an assessor appointed from Brunel to tell it what his judgment was on the success of the schemes whereas that same assessor told us that the department had approved his plan of campaign which specifically excluded making any such judgment.
How successful would be the second programme, we wondered, in overcoming these difficulties. This second programme was adopted by the council in April of this year at about the time that we were polishing off our report. It was christened the Helios programme. As I understand it, the individual schemes to be helped this time are not necessarily to be new schemes like those of Lambeth and Berkshire, but existing arrangements which may benefit from some boosting. We did not dissent from this approach but it will be interesting to learn from the Minister how matters are working out. As I understand it, applications have been sought for three projects in this country with what is described as an innovative approach to vocational rehabilitation and training and, this time, for four projects with a similar approach to social integration and independent living. The hope was to select the successful applicants in early October. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that this proved to be possible.
I believe that the training commission also sought applications for new rehabilitation centres; and there is a slightly mysterious proposition, falling outside the Helios programme for two projects to promote the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how all this stands and whether it is proposed to publish a list of the successful applicants. Perhaps the Minister can also say whether the voluntary bodies, the employers and trade unions, are this time to be represented on a new liaison group in Brussels. Most important of all, I ask whether on this round the Government will themselves put more effort into helping and guiding these local projects; spreading the results of any lessons that are learned and, in short, getting value for money.
There is one additional point affecting Northern Ireland as regards these schemes and of which I gave notice to the Minister. However, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will be speaking about it and so I need not pursue the matter further. Instead I shall turn much more briefly to Handynet. Here the concept is that of a central computerised unit which, by linking up with national databases and by building in a multilingual translation, will make information available throughout the Community relevant to the needs of disabled people. A number of areas will be

629
covered in the plans; namely, access to buildings and to transport; aids and equipment; education; employment; and so on. If it were in operation and if, for example, one needed a special type of wheelchair one could get particulars of all the available types within the Community—there are a great many of them—with details of the after service provided. There may be the incidental advantage that the best products might then achieve rather longer production runs than they do now, and become cheaper.
If one were travelling to, say, Italy or Portugal, one could find out in advance what facilities were available on the aircraft and at the airport instead of being left to discover what they amounted to by bitter experience, as I know that three Members of this House have had to do. If one were posted to a service job in Germany or one's firm sent one to live in France, one could learn what facilities were available for the education, training and employment of one's handicapped children. But attractive though this prospect is, it is obviously quite elaborate and expensive and going well beyond the four years of the Helios programme, without any indication at present of where the necessary money would come from.
The United Kingdom Government have said in a pragmatic way that they will go along with an initial experiment called Handyaids, limited to technical aids and equipment, and that it would be best to wait and see how that works out. We on the sub-committee thought that that was a perfectly reasonable approach. However, we are aware that there is a good deal of experimentation going on, and perhaps the Minister can tell us how matters stand and whether I am right in thinking that there has been a successful test. Perhaps he can also say what are the prospects of a comprehensive UK database and of that base being compatible with similar bases in other member states.
There are many other aspects that I have not touched upon, but I have been talking quite long enough. I believe that there is an increasing, if a somewhat faltering, awareness of the needs of the disabled in this country. We now have some fresh information about the numbers of the disabled, and among other recent additions to knowledge about the problems of the physically disabled, the recent report of the Prince of Wales's advisory group on disability deserves special mention.
In conclusion, let me say this. One thing that stood out from our evidence was that even the experts did not know a great deal of what was going on in Europe. They were very much better informed about the United States of America and Scandinavia. Equally, there was a widely-held feeling that we should know more and that there are matters that we can learn from others and also show to others. If we are to be full and active members of the Community with extensive free movement, there should be a greater awareness and a greater pooling of experience in these matters. Although I have tried to show that the approach of the Community in Brussels has hitherto been somewhat halting and although the reaction of this country in the past has perhaps not been all that it might have been, there is a real issue
630
here about the future of the Community in its approach to social issues and about the kind of Community we want. It is no bad thing to be reminded of what we ought to do in this country about the disabled. These are the reasons why we thought it right to put forward the report for debate in the House today. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I must reluctantly start with an apology. Due to a longstanding commitment to be speaker at a nurses' graduation ceremony this evening, I am afraid that I must leave by six o'clock. If I have to miss the final stages of the debate I apologise most profusely. I shall read the proceedings with great interest.
Perhaps I may express very deep appreciation, which I am sure is shared by all members of the committee, of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We valued the masterly way in which he elicited so much important evidence and helped to shape it into a degree of coherence. This enabled us to draw the conclusions which form the substance of the report and of today's debate. This was no mean achievement, given the fact, as the report points out on page 8, that,
"the background to the enquiry embarked upon by the Committee was not only complicated but also somewhat confused and it took some effort on the part of the Committee to clarify the main issues".
I quote that masterly piece of tactful official understatement in order to highlight the difficulties we faced. They included confusion over definitions. paucity of comparitive data from other European countries and a lack of measurable outcomes from the evaluation of local projects in this country.
However, offsetting these problems, we were greatly helped, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, by the informative and often very moving evidence of witnesses, many with direct experience of various disabilities and also many with front-line experience of attempts to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people into the wider society.
Such witnesses gave many examples of good practices which merit recognition. As the noble Lord said, we believe that it would be very beneficial if information about these achievements were more widely disseminated throughout the Community. I should like to take this opportunity therefore to highlight one area where considerable progress has been made. The subject has already been touched upon, but I should like to develop it. I refer to the ideas and practices concerning independent living.
I wish to concentrate on this area because it is so important. Opportunities for independent living can do much to enhance the quality of life of disabled people, enabling many to live in the community who in previous times would almost certainly have been admitted to a residential institution. Independent living is also a challenge both to the disabled person and to those who care for him or her; and it may be fraught with risks for all concerned.

631
Before addressing the benefits and problems of policies designed to promote independent living, it is necessary to define the term. And here we immediately run into an illustration of one of the problems I mentioned earlier—the lack of a clear definition. The report, in paragraph 81 on page 18, points out:
"The Committee welcome the identification in the Second Action Programme of independent living as the overall aim of the Commission's initiatives. But they were surprised to learn that the Commission had not defined what it meant by independent living in the context of the many different types and degrees of disability. From the evidence they received it is clear that witnesses employed the term in different senses usually applicable only to one discrete group of disabled people".
This confusion over definition may lead to problems in the development of policies. We therefore urge that clarification of definition must be a priority. However, all definitions relating to groups of disabled people seem to include two essential criteria: first, an appropriate degree of autonomy for disabled people to control important aspects of their lives; and secondly, the availability of genuine choice.
The committee was not in favour of developing policy guidelines. However, we believe in the value of sharing ideas and information on good practice. One example from this country which we felt might be of interest to other countries is the use of volunteer workers to provide personal care in independent living schemes. This care is often given by volunteer workers on a one-to-one basis with the volunteers living in the homes of disabled people and providing intimate round-the-clock personal care. Without this help a disabled person might be obliged to leave home and be admitted to a residential institution. The organisation which has done so much to pioneer and promote these schemes is now famous for its work. I refer to the Community Service Volunteers, best known by its CSV initials.
Such work is clearly to be commended both for its highly beneficial effects in promoting independent living and for the opportunities it provides for the volunteers themselves to give this valuable form of service. However, precisely because the schemes draw on the generosity and goodwill of volunteers, many of whom are relatively young—often schooleavers—we believe that great care should be taken to ensure that they are adequately prepared for the demanding work they will undertake. We believe that they should be appropriately placed and adequately supported and supervised. The committee expressed concern, for example, that volunteers should receive adequate training in lifting techniques in order to help them to avoid back injuries. I know a number of young people who have gone to work in the homes of disabled people but who have not been given preparation before going. That is a dangerous position in which to place young people. They could injure their backs and give themselves a consequent disadvantage for life.
We believe also that there should be continuing emotional support for the volunteers as they confront situations which must at times be harrowing. It is also suggested that the successful completion of a period of service as a CSV worker should attract recognised credits which could be taken into account should the
632
volunteer subsquently apply to join a caring profession. Perhaps I may add a question. It does not appear in the committee's report; it has occurred to me subsequently. Will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of some arrangement whereby the experience of a volunteer could be combined with some educational input and count towards a qualification recognised by the NCVQ?
I know several young people who have served with CSV. I know a little about the quality of their work, the contribution they make, the enhancement of the quality of life of the disabled people for whom they have cared, and the enormous demands made on them. The fall in the number of schooleavers inevitably means there will be a problem in continuing to recruit the same numbers of young people into this kind of voluntary work which requires such total commitment. Therefore, if anything could be done to recognise and reward the value of their work, it would not only be well deserved but also desirable as a way of helping to encourage more recruits.
I should like to conclude on this note of appreciation of the work of CSV and other voluntary workers. They are an inspiration to us all. We talk a great deal now about community care. I have often expressed my reservations concerning this concept, with the premise that the community does care. I have voiced my concerns about the danger of neglect and the isolation of many vulnerable people who are least able to help and assert themselves. The wider issues of community care are the subject of a debate for another day. Suffice it to say today that among the more encouraging aspects of our work was evidence of the dedication of so many people in voluntary organisations of many kinds whose vision, commitment and hard work have done so much to help disabled people to be more fully integrated into the wider society and thereby to contribute to it.
It has been well said that a country is judged by the quality of care it provides for its most vulnerable citizens. I believe that as a nation we owe a great debt of gratitude to the countless volunteers who give so generously of themselves to help those in need, and thereby make our country a more humane and civilised place. They are an inspiration and an example; they make me feel very humble.

Student Top-Up Loans
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about future arrangements for student support.
"Two years ago I set up a review of student support to examine how the maintenance needs of students may be met. We have the most generous system of student support in the Western world, yet fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries.

633
"In our 1987 election manifesto we said that the purpose of the review was to improve the overall prospects of students so that more are encouraged to enter higher education. We specifically mentioned top-up loans to supplement grants as one way of bringing in new finance to help students and to relieve pressure on their parents.
"The review has now been completed. We believe that the cost of student maintenance should be shared more equitably between students themselves, their parents and the taxpayer. The Government are therefore today publishing a White Paper which sets out our proposals to introduce a scheme of top-up loans for students. We propose that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education, except postgraduates, will be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year.
"This top-up loan facility will not be means-tested. Students will be able to take up as much or as little of it as they wish. The present grant arrangements will continue, but the overall levels of grant will be frozen in cash terms at their 1990 levels. As the grant also incorporates in most cases a parental contribution this means that over time the average parent will be paying less in real terms. From 1990, students' total resources in grant and top-up loan will continue to be reviewed annually. Any uprating to reflect cost increases will be applied only to the top-up loan facility until the top-up loan has risen to the same level as the grant and parental contribution taken together.
"The top-up loans will not bear a commercial rate of interest. Under the Government's proposals, top-up loans will be offered at a real interest rate of zero. The principle to be repaid will be uprated each year in line with inflation. Repayments will not start until the April after students complete their courses. Furthermore, repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason.
"In 1985 the Government announced their intention to remove students from the social security system. Accordingly the Government will end the general eligibility of students for social security benefits whether or not they qualify for top-up loans. Benefits will, however, continue to be available for students who are disabled or single parents, and for student's dependents.
"The level of the top-up loan will more than compensate the great majority of students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the average level of social security benefit which would otherwise be claimed in 1990–91 is about £150: that compares with our loan facility of £420 in that year.
"I recognise, however, that there may be local circumstances where some further help may be needed; and postgraduate and further education students will not have access to loans. I will establish therefore three access funds, each of £5 million, to provide support on a discretionary basis to students in special financial need. The funds will be for postgraduates, other students in higher education, and students in further education. Their operation will be reviewed after three years. They
634
will be administered by the colleges, central institutions, polytechnics and universities throughout the United Kingdom: they are best placed to understand the circumstances of their students.
"The terms of the top-up loan scheme we are proposing are much more favourable than those of the borrowing on which many students rely at present. And instead of students having to rely on a social security system which was never designed for them, we shall be providing appropriate discretionary arrangements to help those in real need. This is a major step forward to achieving our target of more young people going into higher education.
"In the Government's view, the top-up loan scheme is best administered by the financial institutions. I am now embarking on discussons with them. I shall also consult the funding councils and representatives of the local authorities and the higher and further education institutions about other aspects of my proposals. The Government will bring forward a short Bill to allow the new regime to be introduced from autumn 1990.
"These proposals represent an important step away from the dependency culture. Students will have a financial stake in their own future, and this will encourage greater economic awareness and self-reliance. The burden of student support on taxpayers and parents will be reduced, For the first time there will be a guaranteed extra source of income for students over and above their grants and parental contributions. By introducing top-up loans, we fulfil the undertaking we gave in our manifesto at the last election."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which is being given in another place by his right honourable friend. The Statement on the financing of students in higher education, for which we have been waiting for two years, has clearly been a very hot potato to handle.
Our first reaction is that access to higher education will not be encouraged by the Statement. Students, even with loans not bearing a commercial rate of interest, will be building up debt to be repaid at the beginning of their earning careers. Moreover, as the loan becomes larger and the percentage of grant less as the years go by, that debt will increase. There will be many young people from working class families, many women, and many family men and women who will be highly nervous of taking on the burden of debt involved.
It seems that parents will have their contribution reduced and that the burden will be put on the young person. At present, the richer the parents the higher the parental contribution. But, under the proposed plan, the richer the parent the more they will benefit from the new system, because instead of paying their child the young person will take out a loan.
It seems that costs in year one will be £120 million. The savings to the public purse will be £200 million in future years. Is that sum to be used elsewhere in

635
higher education?—because there seems to be no evidence of that. I ask the Minister whether that is correct. Further, what will be the position of those on discretionary grants from LEAs? Is the £5 million in the access fund supposed to cover students on discretionary grant, because surely it is totally inadequate for that?
My final comment is that the Statement seems to fit in with the Government's philosophy of getting rid of the "dependency culture", as they say, and especially with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as we have seen in the last few days—that money should be targeted. The result will inevitably be that the poorer members of the community will come off worst and the better off will come off best.
The need for more people in higher education is recognised by industry, the professions and the commercial world; but not, it seems, by the Government. What is there to encourage greater access and to create new places? Why is there nothing to encourage 16 year-olds to stay on at school or further education colleges? It is the wastage here that must be faced if the numbers in higher education are to be substantially increased.
Finally, can the Minister reassure us that tuition fees will remain as they are at present?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. We do not take a doctrinaire view of the question of loans for students, but our test is whether in fact it will have the effect of increasing access to higher education for a larger proportion of the population than at present. Of course, that means increasing access for people from working class families, especially social classes four and five, who are greatly unrepresented in the universities at present. It also means increasing access for women and girls and also for mature students.
In the future, because of the backlog of people who are capable of benefiting from higher education in this country, but who have not had it, we must pay a great deal of attention to mature students of both sexes. The question is: does the scheme make it more or less likely that people from those categories will go into higher education? If it does, we welcome it; but, if it does not, then we do not welcome it. I must say that I am not convinced that the scheme, as it stands, will have that effect.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, that inevitably means that students will build up a burden of debt. It is all very well to say that more money will be available from the loan than from social security, which is another aspect of the matter. Of course the loan is a loan, and the grant, whether it came from social security payments, the DHSS, the Department of Education and Science or the parent, did not have to be repaid. A greater amount of the money will be a loan.
The Government say that the loan has to be repaid but that it will be deferred if the graduate is earning below a certain amount. Deferred implies that the loan must ultimately be repaid. Is that the case if the graduate never reaches the higher levels of payments
636
implied by the scheme? In particular, how will that provision apply to a woman who takes a university course, builds up a debt, works for three or four years in a low-paid job, and then spends five or six years at home bringing up a family and not earning? Has she at some future date still to repay the money? If that is the case, there will be fewer and not more women entering higher education. That is the question to which we need an urgent answer before we can give any support to the scheme.
I should like to ask about the exclusion of postgraduates. We in this country have a shorter period of higher education than any other comparable country. We compress undergraduate work into three years. If we are to have the level of trained people for the higher grades that we increasingly need, we must encourage and not discourage a variety of postgraduate work; and yet the Statement says that postgraduates are not to have access to the loan scheme. The postgraduate will have access to a total of £5 million which has to cover a large number of people. As outlined in the Statement, access to that money will be means tested. That is what the Statement means. That surely implies that the large number of people who are capable of doing postgraduate work but whose incomes are not at such a low level that will justify a loan or who may not at that stage wish to take a loan, will not take the postgraduate courses which the economy will require them to take.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, for receiving the Statement in the manner that they did. I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all the questions here and now. Most of the answers to the noble Baronesses' questions are contained in the White Paper.
I shall take one or two points. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about fees. The loan system relates only to student maintenance. There is no proposal to change the present system by which fees are paid as part of the mandatory award. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the responsibility of spouses. The repayment will be individually calculated on the basis of personal earnings. A spouse's income will not be taken into account. A woman or a man who interrupts her or his career while raising children may make no repayments during that period until income rises to the repayment threshold on return to employment.
The postgraduate grant is not affected. Postgraduates will still receive grant and will have access to the access fund in addition.
The need is for an extra form of support. The present system cannot meet students' needs without burdening parents and taxpayers unreasonably. More money in grant is not an option. We are offering extra money. For most, the £420 loan facility in 1990–91 is over and above the present grant. It will be a substantial net addition to students' resources, especially in the 35 per cent. of cases where parents do not pay their full contribution.
By sharing the cost we shall relieve the burden on parents and taxpayers. The parental contribution will

637
come down by nearly half over time, and if the noble Baroness looks at the White Paper she will see that in chart 8 on page 15.
For 30 years Britain has had the most generous student support system in the world, but participation in higher education continues to be relatively poor. A smaller proportion of our young people (32 per cent.) enters higher education than in the countries of many of our main competitors. The socioeconomic groups C2, D and E constitute 61 per cent. of our 18 year-old population, but supply only 21 per cent. of university entrants and 27 per cent. of polytechnic entrants. Therefore, they are considerably under-represented in higher education. Our plans are that they will be better represented in higher education in the future.
The Government aim to expand higher education, which has already risen by 180,000 students since 1979. We need a more flexible student support system to underpin that expansion and the broadening of entry which we seek. Loans will be available to all full-time higher education students, except postgraduates who will be covered by the other scheme, irrespective of their entitlement to grant. Students will also be able to seek help from one of the three access funds.
As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, he is establishing three new access funds totalling £15 million to be administered by the institutions. It will he up to the institutions to decide how to target the money. The funds will provide discretionary bursaries in cases of special financial need. All students, including those without grants, will be eligible. That will enable institutions to attract more students.
I cannot go further than that at the moment, but I commend to your Lordships the White Paper which contains the answers to many of the points that have been raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in taking this decision, has consideration been given to the possibility that the fact that graduates will start their working life with an obligation to repay a debt may be an inducement to some of them to work abroad, from where it may be difficult to recover the debt?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that point has been considered. It will be up to the financial institution providing the loan to ensure that the loan is repaid.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we too should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating that important Statement. The urgent need in higher education, as has been said by all speakers so far, is to widen access and to increase the age participation rate. Despite its relative generosity compared with other countries, the present grant system has not succeeded in encouraging participation by lower income families. The parental contribution element often causes family friction in higher income groups. To restore the eroded value of grants and expand higher education at the same time would be enormously expensive. We therefore accept that some reform is necessary.
638
If the desired expansion is to take place it will clearly have to be through some system of contribution by students to their own careers. The question is: what system? Which is the fairest? At first sight, the Government's proposal does not seem to do anything to encourage the student from the poorer family as the basic grant element is to be frozen from 1990, leading presumably to a larger loan element which will eventually form 50 per cent. of the complete package. Is my interpretation correct? In the long run, will it be 50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. loan? I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would let me know if that is correct.
The Statement also mentions that further repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason. Will the noble Viscount define "low"? What does he mean by that term? Does he mean that the person is on unemployment benefit, on the national average wage, or will there be some other measure? That point is crucial to the system.
Finally, have the Government completely ruled out the Australian Government's plans for a more generous grant to be partly recouped by a postgraduate tax? Under that scheme, the repayment would be deferred when the graduate's income falls below the national average. Has that scheme been completely ruled out?
I repeat access is the main consideration. The access funds do not seem to be generous. The effect of the Statement will be judged by its effect upon access in the long run.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Australian scheme has been considered, but, as the noble Lord said, the repayment will be liable to tax. I think that I shall have to write to the noble Lord as regards the amount of the build-up and the discharge of the debt of the student commencing a three-year course in 1990. I recommend the noble Lord to look at Chart 9 on page 16 of the White Paper which sets this out. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a copy of the White Paper. It sets out the answer in a much better way than I can.
As regards the 50 per cent. grant and the 50 per cent. loan, the answer is yes. If the income is low, that will be defined in discussion with the banks. I repeat that there still have to be discussions with the banks as to the details of the loans and how they are to be worked out. My right honourable friend will be holding discussions with the financial institutions over the next year.
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount has not answered my question about the repayment. If at no time people reach a high or adequate level of earning in order to repay the loan, is the debt ever cancelled? Do they carry the debt to the grave? That is the point I am trying to get at.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is deferred, I think, until the age of 50.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am probably one of the few and maybe

639
the only Member of your Lordships' House who went on to college on a local authority loan instead of a grant? I can tell your Lordships that I was impoverished for the first few years of my working life. That is what this Government will re-introduce.
Has the noble Viscount really considered the financial burden that this will place on new graduates, especially those going into poorer paid jobs such as teaching and social work? All the Minister can offer is to extend the misery for a longer period. Has he considered—because he has not replied to the question—the extremely valid and important point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the negative dowry? There is the case of the woman graduate who, for very good family reasons, cannot stay in continuous employment. What about her? She will be burdened with this negative dowry for many years.
Does the noble Viscount deny the evidence from other countries that student loans are a greater deterrent to young people from poorer families entering higher education than to those from better off families? Does he deny that? All the evidence points to it.
Who ultimately will pay the cost? These loans will increase the demand and increase the pressure for higher graduate salaries in commerce and industry. The noble Viscount may find this a joke. It is not a joke to the young chap leaving education and having to pay for it. It is not a joke at all. It is not a joke to the thousands of students who cannot make ends meet now because of this dreadful Government. Ultimately this will lead to higher pressure on salaries which will add to the costs of commerce and industry. It will distort the labour market by driving graduates from socially necessary but less well paid jobs such as teaching into better paid jobs. This appalling, dreadful, discredited and miserable Government are once more putting the clock back 50 years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, had to pay interest on his loan. The point about these loans is that they are interest free. It is nothing new for students to borrow money. One important finding of the survey of undergraduate income and expenditure was that almost half the students covered expected to have debts outstanding at the end of the year surveyed. The average amount which those students owed was £341. About 40 per cent. of the students had overdrafts; 15 per cent. had credit card debts; 6 per cent. borrowed from friends or relatives; and just under 2 per cent. had commercial loans averaging £662.
The whole point of the scheme is that these will be top-up loans. They will average £420 per year, with repayment of the capital after the graduate has found a job. If he cannot afford the repayment immediately, that repayment will be deferred until he can afford it. It must surely be right that those who receive the benefit of higher education should at some stage pay back to the country what they have derived from that higher education.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that the contents of the Bill will not be decided upon by the Government until the White Paper has been fully discussed in both Houses?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am quite sure that there will be an opportunity to discuss the White Paper in both Houses. Of course I cannot speak for another place and indeed I cannot speak for this place. The matter has to be decided through the usual channels. However, I shall make my best endeavours to ensure that it will be discussed.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount for not being in my place when he rose. I got here as soon as possible. I shall read his opening remarks in Hansard with the greatest of interest.
Have the noble Viscount and the department in their thinking taken into account a most remarkable publication by Barr and Barnes, two academics at the London School of Economics, under the title of The Alternative White Paper? They have worked out an extremely closely reasoned scheme of a mixture, according to the heart's desire, of different ways of going about the problems with which we are faced. When I read the publication, it seemed to me to open new horizons in my own thinking. I wish to ask the noble Viscount whether he has had any regard to this publication. If not, I shall be delighted to provide him with a copy in order that his department may look at it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend and the department will have read this publication. I personally have not; I shall be very happy to receive a copy from the noble Earl.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, I had no intention, when he and I exchanged words earlier, of speaking this afternoon. I had not then heard the Statement. I had no means of knowing its significance. I believe that the noble Viscount is old enough to remember the post-1945 era in education in this country. It was the period when the bipartisan development of an education scheme for the country had produced a wholly new mood in education. We went into our classrooms—those of us who were in education—with joy and with a commitment because the country had borne the expense (not a very great expense either in relative terms) of our education. We were being given the opportunity to pass it on to others. Some of us, for all our lives thereafter in the classroom, tried to improve that education. It was a positive bipartisan approach to the education of the children of this nation.
At this time, when we know that the classrooms are in chaos and that the people in the staffrooms are feeling miserable about their future, is there really any need to make the situation worse?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the simple answer is that we are not planning to make it worse. We are planning to make it better.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, even at this early stage of the matter could I ask the Minister to be more specific as to why he thinks it will encourage the children of weekly wage earners to go into higher education? That is one of the most crucial issues in higher education. I am not totally opposed to loans in all circumstances. However, I fail entirely to see why they should encourage a working class family to send its children into higher education.
Secondly, when, on his own evidence, people are already heavily in debt, does the noble Viscount think that this is the moment to encourage them to get even further into debt? Surely, we are a debt ridden society. We do not want to encourage people to think that debt is a normal feature of life.
Thirdly, can the noble Viscount say a little about the extra burden that will be placed on universities' administration? The universities are already heavily burdened with administration. Are the Government going to pursue the laggards who do not pay? Are the universities going to be responsible in any way for these loans? Who is going to undertake the whole burdensome business of collecting the loans and organising the entire scheme which the noble Viscount has outlined?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as regards the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I have already said that discussions are taking place with the banking institutions to see how the scheme can best be administered by them. There is no evidence that use of loans in student support systems elsewhere has in practice had the effect of reducing the representation of lower social and economic groups. In any case, like others they will be protected by the income-responsive repayment scheme. Loans will reduce the dependence of less advantaged children on parents who are hard pressed to help them.
I must repeat that these are interest free loans. They will not be liable to means testing. Therefore they should be acceptable to all students in higher education. They do not have to be taken up in full; they can be taken up in part. It will be up to the individual student to decide on his financial future with this advantage to start him off.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not doubt that some changes are needed in the system of student support, if only because a great many students are now living in very considerable hardship. I say that both as a principal of a higher education institution and as a parent trying to discourage the bank overdraft. We cannot continue with a situation in which students cannot afford to buy enough books and sometimes cannot even afford to eat properly.
The noble Viscount speaking on behalf of the Government admitted in the Statement that,
"fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries".
I see absolutely nothing in the Statement which will alter that disgraceful situation. Where are the proposals to use the longer-term savings that will eventually be derived from the proposed changes to expand the overall numbers in higher education? Where are the proposals to provide access and
642
return-to-study courses? Where are the proposals to support the 16 to 19 year-olds staying on in full-time education whose parents have to bear the cost despite being extremely hard up? Where are the proposals to help those on courses which do not benefit from mandatory awards at present? I assure noble Lords that many students on such courses are currently struggling because they cannot obtain discretionary grants.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, why should postgraduate students be omitted from these proposals? It is increasingly difficult for talented young people who want to come back to do a postgraduate course to obtain a grant. Where are the proposals to make it easier for mature students to study? There is nothing in this document about that. What is to be done to help part-time students who appear yet again to be excluded? Part-time students make very considerable sacrifices to come back into higher education. They have to bear the costs of their travel, their books, their examination fees and other things, as well as paying fees for tuition out of taxed income. Will they benefit from the access funds? It appears not.
Instead, we have here a scheme which seems to be kowtowing to the Conservative Back-Benchers in another place, allowing well-off parents with children in higher education, such as myself, who are paying the full parental contribution, to pay a reduced parental contribution because of the availability of loans. Is that really justice or fairness? It seems to me to be highly regressive. Is it conducive to expanding opportunities and the creation of more qualified manpower in this country? I submit that it is not. Will the noble Viscount please answer my specific questions?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords, I cannot. There were far too many of them. I believe the noble Baroness knows that. I can tell the noble Baroness that part-time students are not covered by the scheme. Access funds will help those on courses for which there are no grants available. The postgraduate grant will continue unchanged.
Three access funds will provide additional support for full-time students in further education, higher education, and postgraduates in the form of discretionary bursaries. Those will be available in cases where access to further and higher education might be inhibited by real financial difficulties. From that point of view loans and bursaries will be available.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I share with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, considerable admiration for the paper produced in the London School of Economics. It offers, I believe, the possibility of an advance from a system of student funding which sooner or later, in one way or another, will be reformed. However, that enthusiasm does not spread to the scheme before us this evening. As this is an educational occasion, perhaps Latin may be permitted: parturiunt Jackson nascetur ricliculus mus.

643
We have here an alteration in the way the existing student body is to be financed. One could say that it is an improvement for parents or even for students, but nothing has been said by the noble Viscount to infer that any additional students will be brought into the system. This is not an access move: it is simply a recasting of the current form of student finance. That, after two years, is a very great disappointment.
We had thought that two years of the employment of Mr. Jackson's ingenuity would produce something really interesting in the way of an expansion, which this country badly needs, at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate level. To take one particular point, after two years we are told that the Government are now going to ask the banks how they propose to administer a scheme. Questions have already been raised about how the Government propose to get people to pay back. We know of the experience in other countries. One would have thought that if the scheme is to be administered through the banks, the Government might have asked the banks before they produced their White Paper. How do we know that the banks will not say that they are not accustomed to interest-free loans? They may say that it is not a normal part of their high street business. They may tell the Government to go away. Where will the Government be then?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of everything my noble friend says. All I can say is that I shall make sure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I have no intention of making a speech. I merely wish to ask a question, or perhaps two. Will the noble Viscount tell us whether there is any encouragement in the Government's programme for students to be able to earn money in addition to receiving loans? Or will they, if they earn money, find that they are not eligible for loans? I say that because it is well known that in America it is perfectly customary for students to—as it is put—work their way through college. Students hold jobs in libraries, and in administration; they wash up dishes. They do not regard that in any way as derogatory to their status.
Will the Government bear that in mind and, if necessary, hold consultations with the unions concerned—with ASTMS, NUPE and NALGO? Will the noble Viscount also reply to the point about postgraduates which has been made by a number of noble Lords? The point is simply this: is there not a contradiction between what the noble Viscount said about savings to the taxpayer and this desire for more access to higher education?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in answer to the latter part of the question of the noble Lord, I said that postgraduate grants would not be affected. Postgraduates will still receive the grant, and they will get the access fund on top of that. As regards students who work during the long vacations, that situation will not change in any respect whatever. They will all be entitled to borrow up to £420 a year, on top of any
644
other earnings that they might make. I know that the Government will encourage that, as they have done in the past.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, may I presume that the noble Viscount is not aware that I share with my noble friend Lord Glenamara the somewhat dubious distinction of having gone to university in part funded by a loan—in my case from a local ironmaker rather than from a local authority. Does the noble Viscount accept my view that far from making me feel that I thereby escaped the dependency culture, it made me feel very dependent indeed? It made me feel more of a second-class academic citizen compared to those who had come from local authorities where funding of a more generous character was available. Does not the noble Viscount agree with me that the best way to recoup the value to the individual of a university education is by a more progressive income tax structure than we have at the present time?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that last point is, I think, another question. I am not surprised that the noble Lord agrees with his noble friend Lord Glenamara. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he paid interest on his loan when he was studying. The whole point of the scheme is that the loans are interest free and available to everybody.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noted that all the remarks made so far have been either critically questioning or downright hostile and that no spark of enthusiasm has been aroused in any part of the House? Will he make that clear to his ministerial colleagues?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that I am usually quite observant and I shall certainly report to my right honourable friend who I am sure will read this exchange in Hansard with interest. I shall make sure that he is aware of it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite gets up—and I shall not ask him not to—I should point out that we have been debating this issue for 35 minutes. Your Lordships are masters of your own procedures and have recommended through your Procedures Committee that questions on Statements should last for 20 minutes. We have now gone on for 35 minutes. I wonder—if the noble Lord opposite asks his question and makes his point—whether the House would consider that it was then time to proceed with the rest of the business.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the Government Chief Whip. He was not here earlier and did not hear the suggestion that we might debate the subject in its entirety.
Perhaps I may introduce a slightly acerbic note into our proceedings by asking the noble Viscount whether he realises how insulting some parts of the Statement are, in particular the sentence in the concluding paragraph about students and the dependency culture.

645
Many noble Lords were once students. Some of us were students from very poor backgrounds. When I received my full grant—which I seem to recall was £100—I was not under the impression that I was a parasite. I am also not under the impression that I have failed to repay to our country everything I received when I was a student. I believe that those remarks are extremely insulting.
In relation to the remark that students will "have a financial stake", what does the noble Viscount believe students have done for years? They have met a large part of the cost of their education for a great many years. They are perfectly well aware of the costs and the economic aspects of this matter.
To suggest that students lack self-reliance is also insulting. How does the noble Viscount think that we achieve such extraordinarily high standards in our higher education in this country if our students lack self-reliance? It seems to me that this is a most insulting document and one the Government would do well to withdraw.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is referring when he talks about an insulting document. Is he referring to the White Paper or to the Statement in another place which I have repeated?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was referring to the final paragraph of the Statement which seems to me to set the tone of this whole business, as other noble Lords have pointed out.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that point. I repeated a Statement which was made in another place and I do not agree that it is insulting. I am surprised by the reaction on the Benches opposite. I should have thought that any scheme which allows any person in higher education to borrow £420 per annum over five years without paying any interest is something that should be welcomed and not thrown away.

Integration of Disabled People: ECC Report
4.24 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in returning to the report on the integration of disabled people I should like to begin by adding my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the way in which he chaired the committee and also for his very comprehensive introduction to the report this afternoon.
In my remarks I do not intend to talk about the problems of disabled people as such nor about some of the excellent schemes that were outlined to the committee. I say that not because I am not aware of the deep human problems that were presented to us and to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred but because I believe that some of my colleagues on the committee will concentrate on those issues.
For my part I want to look at the problem the committee found in putting the subject into a
646
European context. Again I do so because I believe that there is a general problem in this regard, not one which is related to the area of this particular inquiry alone but a more general problem. That means that I shall be dealing with constitutional competence, structures, common objectives and ways and means of transferring experience.
The issue of constitutional competence of the Community in social affairs is likely to recur time and time again. The report before the House this afternoon refers to that point at paragraph 69:
"The European Community has not hitherto been involved to any significant degree in social welfare problems and other aspects of social policy except in so far as they affect employment policies and opportunities. Indeed, it can be argued that those who drafted the Treaty of Rome never contemplated that it should".
The second action programme which was the subject of our report was based on two separate proposed decisions. The first proposed decision dealt with the vocational rehabilitation of disabled people, the second with their social integration. The question of competence arose in relation to the latter. However, given the nature of the issue; namely, the integration of disabled people, it was not difficult to blur the boundaries of competence.
To provide vocational rehabilitation of the disabled immediately drives one to the provision of welfare facilities in order to buttress the employability of such people. The more disabled a person is the more necessary the second objective becomes. For example, for a lone person who is severely disabled there can be no possibility of vocational rehabilitation without either institutional care or care in the community. Therefore the dilemma of extension into the social sphere by the Community is likely to occur in different situations as the Community progresses.
So I should like to draw attention to the second part of paragraph 69, which I think is of tremendous importance. It reads:
"However, as this Committee have already said in a previous report, they believe that in the long term there can be no real Community if Member States adopt totally different solutions to common social problems".
Although the first action programme had not been systematically appraised before we moved on to the second action programme it was quite clear that there were many structural weaknesses that needed to be corrected. That was true both at Community and at national level. The most glaring example at both levels seemed to be the failure to involve fully both the disabled themselves and voluntary agencies in the policy and planning of the programme, in other words, not to take fully into consideration the views of those who would be at the receiving or the giving end of the work at grass-roots level. Structures for communication in the Community upwards, downwards and across appeared to he deficient and the committee were not fully convinced from the evidence that that problem had been put right.
Turning to common objectives, the report says at paragraph 56 that:
"The witnesses were more or less unanimous in confirming the primary importance of the issue of independent living".
That was one of the principal objectives in the second action programme.

647
Both the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the difficulties of defining objectives. Indeed, the noble Baroness quite rightly said that when there is confusion about defining objectives there is also subsequent confusion in determining policies. However, it was difficult, on the committee, to get a definition that had been previously agreed. Mr. Derek Prag, the MEP witness who appeared before the committee, gave us a definition of independent living at Question 383. He said:
"To me it is enabling a disabled person to do things for himself or herself, rather than being dependent on able-bodied people to do them for him or her".
He went on to say that meant, in terms of transport and of access, that much more needed to be done than is being done currently. Here again we see the relationship between the definition of common objectives and the policies which flow from them.
However, it seems to me that there should be no problem about the Community sharing common objectives even if we have diverse ways of realising those objectives. There is a parallel with the principle of equal opportunities for women and men which the Community has espoused. While each country has its own laws, structures and policies on the subject, simultaneously common European case law is being developed and common strategies within the Community are being built. The same process, I suggest, could and should happen with the integration of disabled people.
There is already one area, we were told, where there is a common move across Europe: that is, towards care in the community. This is not just a British initiative. It is not only a Community initiative but one which occurs in different parts of the world; but within the Community it seems that this is a general trend. Equally, it was clear from the witnesses that there is a shared acceptance of the fact that care in the community is not a cheap alternative to institutional care. So we are conscious, at Community level as well as at national level, of the cost that will be involved in this kind of care.
In this whole area there is scope for exchanging experiences and in some cases transferring the benefit of those experiences from one country to another. However, this process depends on channels of communication and on networks in each country and in Europe. Again, the evidence conveyed to the committee was that these networks are inadequate. Even in the United Kingdom it seemed that for the first action programme adequate channels of communication were lacking, and even more so at the European level.
As the chairman has indicated, the committee found itself in an extremely difficult situation over obtaining information about what was happening in other European countries. Nobody had collated information on any aspect either of the extent of the differences between groups of the disabled or on the activities of the different groups of disabled. We were told it is estimated that between 5 per cent. and 9 per cent. of the Community's population are handicapped. The Commission itself put this figure at around 30 million, but the vagueness of those
648
statistics speaks for itself. We do not know whether it is 5 per cent. or 9 per cent. That is in terms of numbers. There is also nothing about the intensity or nature of disability.
The DHSS witnesses, in response to Question 136 on care in the community, said there was quite a lot of information in their department on various databases about what goes on in other countries and that it could be assembled, but that they were not sure if that had ever been done. I feel sure they would have known if such data had been collated and assembled. So although information may exist we are not utilising it to the full, and the valuable area of learning from each other and sharing experiences is being neglected. Clearly it would be much easier for us to develop common approaches if we had adequate data on which to do so. That is why the committee, without fully committing itself to the Handynet proposal, felt there was need for such a system to be brought into existence.
This inquiry has underlined the importance of knowing the extent of common problems within the Community, how those problems are being dealt with and how far other countries' solutions can help us. As well as throwing light on this particularly difficult issue we have been considering, which arouses so much sympathy across the board, it has also demonstrated that some of the recurring problems in this whole process will appear from time to time as we move towards a strengthening of the Community.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, as I did not serve on the committee, I should like to begin by thanking its members for producing this most interesting and informative report. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the thoughtful way in which he introduced it to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The committee has been concerned with the success or otherwise of the first action programme and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Allen, the first action programme consisted of three main elements: the work of the European Communities employment rehabilitation network, the 19 direct projects, two of which were in the United Kingdom (one in Lambeth and one in Berkshire) and Handynet, the plan to link the databases dealing with disability throughout the Community.
When one tries to assess the results of the programme and the achievements under these three headings, I think one is quite clear at the outset that the rehabilitation network is successful, but of course it has been in operation for some 13 years—a longer period by three times than the actual period of the programme. One wonders how far what has happened during the period of the programme would have happened in any event; but certainly we can say that the rehabilitation network is successful.
Looking at the projects—and the evidence in the report is mainly about the two projects in this country: one co-ordinating services for the disabled in Lambeth and the other training the disabled for employment in information technology in

649
Berkshire—I think we must accept that both have considerable achievements to their credit. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said so in his opening remarks.
When one turns to Handynet, it is much more open to question. It is clear that Her Majesty's Government are sceptical and concerned about expense. I was very impressed by the evidence of Mr. Waring, the Berkshire project leader, and Mr. Daunt, the former head of the European Commission bureau, for action in favour of disabled people. They both felt that this was the age of information technology and if we could not achieve this network of databases on disability within Europe we were failing to meet the challenge of the times. I very much hope that the project will develop satisfactorily, even if slowly. In the long run it could be of great potential.
In looking at these three elements within the first programme, we see that there are successes; but there are also some clear lessons for the future for the second action programme. The structure of the plan of the programme comes in for a great deal of criticism. The committee says that the management structure is defective in several respects. A more executive-type leadership seems to be necessary. The national steering committee certainly does not seem to have impressed anyone. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was not very impressed by the community liaison committee. Reform of the structure committee is obviously essential.
Secondly, all speakers in the debate so far have made it clear that there is a need for a better and wider flow of information. Too many of the participants knew only a little of what was going on in other parts of the Community, and many of the people with a direct interest in the subject knew almost nothing about what was happening. This leads one on to the need for greater consultation. It is extraordinary that organisations of and for the disabled very often figured among those who knew little or nothing about what was going on in regard to the programme. Therefore, a better flow of information and more emphasis on consultation are necessary.
The need for participation of disabled people appears not to have been taken into consideration very deeply by the organisers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, a seminar in connection with the programme was held in a place where the accommodation was unsuitable for disabled people.
The problem of evaluation and assessment had a good deal of attention from the committee. It was concerned about the diversity of evaluation as between one country and another and about who appointed the national evaluator in each country. When Mr. Daunt explained the relationship between the community level of evaluation and national level it seemed not so unreasonable, but I think that that relationship was not widely understood lower down the scale, and not enough guidance was given to national evaluators. Some effort must be made to assess the whole operation to ascertain whether the original objective has been achieved. There must be some estimate of the positive outcome.
650
What happens to projects at the end of the programme is a point that also arose in the committee discussions. I understand that two projects in this country are still in existence. One has moved to Hampshire. I do not know about the position of the other. At the time of the completion of the report both were determined to continue in operation, but were experiencing considerable funding difficulties, having come to the end of their original funding. The second action programme will probably be better in this respect than the first because it is to be based on projects already in existence when the programme began.
The second action programme was originally intended to be based on two decisions of the Community, one to deal with vocational rehabilitation, the other with social integration. The main theme running through it is to be idependent living, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. I wonder whether "independence" is the best word in this connection. The word "autonomous" may be nearer to what we are trying to say. We want to ensure that disabled people can make decisions about their own lives. They may not be able to achieve the kind of independence that able-bodied people have because they need to rely on others for simple domestic tasks. Thus they are not freely independent in that sense. The noble Baroness spoke of the work that volunteers do in this connection. I think that the word "autonomous" comes closer to what we mean to say.
I was interested in the evidence of Mr. Peter Large of the disablement income group. He put the spotlight on benefits and pointed out that in this country we have a fit or sick policy in regard to invalidity pensions but no partial pensions for different degrees of disability like many other countries in the Community. He also expressed fears about the operation of the new social security regime in this country in April. That is of particular significance in the week when the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have produced their report on how the new system has been working in the early stages. They claim that as a result of the change 82 per cent. of the poorest recipients of social security are worse off than they were before. I saw no mention of that evidence in the main report, possibly because it deals with matters beyond the scope of the first and second action programmes. For all that, it is well worth reading and I commend it to the House.
A certain amount of discussion has taken place about whether the programmes should be based on resolutions that are not binding, as was the first programme; or, as proposed in the second, on a decision binding on member states. The committee thinks that it should be done by resolution. I do not believe that the United Kingdom Government are particularly worried about the use of decisions. That was my impression from reading the evidence. I wonder whether that is correct.
If action is taken on the various points of criticism that have emerged from the inquiry as set out in the report, to some of which I have referred, I am sure that we may hope for another stimulating report in four years' time.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has led us through somewhat difficult pastures with his usual skill and charm, and I pay tribute to him.
I should like to make a number of comments about the changing background of the first and second action programmes which has been occurring quite independently of the proposals in the European programmes, and to make one suggestion for the future. The committee was taken aback to discover that important bodies in this country such as the Cheshire Foundation had never been consulted when the original programme was drawn up. However, it was then even more surprised to discover that there was not close contact between members of the same charity working in this country and in Europe.
It is interesting and relevant that the Community began with a great worry about youth unemployment which was shared in many countries. This led to the movement towards thinking together about youth information. There is now a Europe-wide network of people influencing each other about youth work, working with young people through youth information exchanges. This all began with youth unemployment. I wonder whether it would be possible to link the need for Europe to share thinking and research in the area about which we are now talking to problems that are common and are being faced individually at the moment by member states in Europe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, one of the great and important developments of the past 20 years has been the development of a range of voluntary agencies concerned with the sick and the disabled. This investigation has taught us that there seems to be little contact between these agencies in different countries of the Community, and the Commission does not seem to be aware of the importance of involving them in its planning.
There is strong support for non-governmental organisations for greater exchange of information, experience and innovatory ideas between the statutory and voluntary organisations of the member states. However, there was not much evidence of action having been taken in this regard. There are limits to what charitable and voluntary organisations can do with their available resources. The committee noted that there was a low level of communication for which there had not been compensation by the Commission or the United Kingdom Government either in publicising experiments and initiatives which the Community has sponsored and developed or to widen the discussion of the issues raised by the action programme beyond the small group of people who were already directly involved.
One wonders whether a three-point public health programme of information exchange involving personal health, care of the sick and disabled, and the adaptation to work programmes is needed. This is a point to which I shall come a little later.
One of the most important proposals in the second programme is that there should be a proper management structure. The inadequacies of the liaison group on disabilities were very evident in the
652
first programme. With hindsight, much could have been done in the first programme by dealing through an effective steering group both in Community headquarters and nationally. The United Kingdom steering group failed miserably. The responsibility must rest with the Department of Health and Social Security and failure to evaluate properly must be attributed to the weaknesses of the steering group. Even within the United Kingdom Government there was no clear policy or agreement between the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security. However, the committee believes, I think rightly, that the second action programme along the lines proposed would offer possibilities for more effective central and national co-ordination.
What are the needs of the disabled? Much has been said about this already. Historically most countries have been concerned with the blind and the deaf and those with physical disabilities. They are only now beginning to face up to the complex and different problems of the mentally handicapped and mentally disabled and how provision can be made for their care in the community as well as their possible employment. The difficulties are that the kind of medical and social provision that has to be made for one disability may be totally different from another. If one adds to those difficulties the complex social and traditional attitudes of the different countries within the Community one begins to wonder whether any progress, organised or co-ordinated centrally, is possible.
There is an extraordinary degree of sensitivity, as your Lordships know, in most countries in the Community about the organisation of their social and domestic structure, which they sincerely believe is a matter for them and not for the Community. But somehow or other it must be made possible to introduce and apply important social and medical facilities for the disabled against this varying background. There can be no argument at this time and at this stage to legislate centrally and the maximum use should be made of other measures to facilitate and encourage change in different situations, as happened with the young unemployed.
I believe that international co-operation between members of the Community in relation to the new public health may be an important instrument. It could be run by a public health commission and a public health authority which had powers only to present results to constituent members and on occasion when it was felt appropriate to submit proposals to the council through the Commission. The use of such an authority might well produce proposals which countries felt they could introduce and dovetail into their own social and domestic structure. It seems to me that in these early days, and in the face of rapid change, legislation centrally is not the right way to proceed. One would wish to see the domestic programmes in a substantial number of countries of the Community tried and their worth proved before there was any question of legislation throughout the Community.
One of the most difficult examples of what not to do is not before us today. It is the use of videos. Legislation seems to have been undertaken by the

653
Commission in the light of mounting concern among the members of the public that something must be done to protect people from the adverse effects of videos. It is proposed to introduce this when the evidence to support such a course of action does not exist. The difficulty about this situation is that the standing and reputation of the legislation and legislators is cast into doubt.
Against this complex background it is not surprising that the committee welcomes the second action programme as a significant step forward, involving volunteers, non-government organisations, and experts, and the important communications which will result from the development of Handynet. This will improve the quality and exchange of information. It is an ambitious scheme which depends for its success on the data basis at national level. Any developments in future, here or abroad, should be compatible with Handynet.
I do not believe that the proposals for the disabled will succeed unless they are introduced against the broad background of the public health and their worth is proven before measures are taken to legislate.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and to the committee for the work that it has done under his guidance. The noble Lord told us that the report is of increasing importance as we approach 1992. Over the past 10 or 15 years there has developed a pressure group, a consumer body, of handicapped people, themselves articulate, who speak for themselves and their peers. Indeed, they are not underrepresented in this House.
The clear message of the report is that disabled people, their representatives, and organisations working with and for them, must have a major role in the development of the action programmes. Therefore the wide publicity about the second programme, which has been mentioned several times, is essential.
That brings me to the participation of the handicapped in the community. People with disabilities, as we well know, are often denied the opportunity to participate fully in the life of the community because of the physical, social and economic barriers that society has created. The handicapped are frustrated because of inaccessible buildings and transport. They are limited by low income and inadequate benefits and their difficulties are compounded by the extra costs of disability; segregation in education, cultural and recreational facilities that are not designed for them; denial of the right to form normal human relationships and, perhaps most important of all, the right to express their sexuality as human beings.
For people with a mental handicap these barriers are made worse by ignorance and prejudice, which go hand in hand with poverty and under-education. The action programme provides an opportunity to increase knowledge and understanding of the nature and needs of mentally handicapped people, their families and their carers.
654
The second action programme will concentrate on independent living. What does "independent living" mean for mentally handicapped people? MENCAP, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, was one of the organisations which gave evidence to the inquiry. indeed Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the Committee, is MENCAP's president. Mrs. Mary Holland, who has done so much to articulate the concerns of the handicapped, formerly at the Spastics Society and now at MENCAP, is in your Lordships' House today and she has briefed me and probably some others for this debate.
MENCAP pointed out that successive governments have promoted policies of care in the community and recent years have seen increased emphasis on closing long stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped and moving people into the community. However, it should be remembered that the vast majority of people with mental handicap have always lived in the community until their parents could no longer cope with the care. We all know that the major worry of the parents of a severely handicapped child is, "What will happen to our dear one when we can no longer care for him?" They are admitted, of course, to long stay hospitals or to hostels provided for them. It should also be recognised that simply living in the community does not ensure participation in the life of the community, much less enjoyment of it.
Mental handicap covers a wide range of ability or disability. Many people with mild mental handicap are apparently not significantly affected—it does not show; but many have considerable problems in managing their lives as my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff pointed out to the House last week. Others with moderate to severe mental handicap will need support and guidance throughout their lives. Independent living will, therefore, for many mean dependence upon physical, social and financial supports throughout life.
Let us consider the financial support. The main source of income for mentally handicapped people is non-contributory benefits which carry a highly devalued image. We had an example of that this afternoon. Why else should White Papers before your Lordships' House refer scathingly to the "dependency culture"? We know, do we not, that the wage someone is paid for the job he does is an index of his value in our society. In a predominantly market economy where pride is taken in the market economy and in the profits syndrome, it is money which will give access to a wide range of experiences and opportunities. How realistic is it for people with a mental handicap to expect to find paid jobs? The short answer is "Not as realistic as it should be". Nor, in times of high general unemployment. is there as much good will towards their doing so. Competition for jobs that bring the fit into competition with the handicapped does not do much favour for the handicapped.
But there are imaginative projects such as MENCAP's Pathway employment scheme. That scheme was set up by MENCAP in 1975 as a pilot project in South Wales in response to parents who were expressing concern about the lack of work

655
opportunities in the area as the industrial base declined. The scheme's innovative approach paid off and there are now 27 Pathway employment officers providing services in 31 cities, boroughs or counties. By December 1987, 1,187 people with mental handicap had been placed in open employment with a success rate of 80 per cent. In addition, 1,051 people had been placed on work experience programmes which are used as stepping stones into work, into a job.
Employment officers in the Pathway schemes are responsible in the first place for seeking out work opportunities. Then they persuade employers to hire people with mental handicap. Their third duty is matching people into their jobs and, fourthly, they support individuals in the work place. Starting work for the first time is an intimidating experience for everyone, even for the very fit and very lively. The Pathway scheme has developed a way of helping with this transition into work. A foster worker is appointed to help the new employee with on-the-job training and with all aspects of the work routine. I would suggest that the Pathway scheme is an excellent example of good practice—one which could be adopted by countries throughout the EC.
But we must remember that for the majority of mentally handicapped people non-contributory benefits will be their only income. The report has highlighted a number of inadequacies of our benefit system. A significant, and I believe demeaning fact, is that a partial pension is payable for partial incapacity to work in all EC member countries except Ireland and the United Kingdom. This is not a political point; it is a personal point. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that can be justified? He knows that income and independence are inextricably linked. It is hoped the second action programme will produce recommendations that will lead to a benefit system that will increase opportunities for part-time employment without financial penalty through loss of benefit.
What of social supports? Sharing leisure time is an excellent way of promoting integration. Again MENCAP's National Federation of Gateway Clubs provides a good model for our European neighbours. Founded in 1966 Gateway now has over 700 clubs throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These clubs give some 40,000 people a chance to take part in a range of leisure activities which encourage movement towards independence, self-awareness and self-esteem through participation, the exercise of choice and decision-making. The success of this national voluntary youth and community organisation is largely dependent on the skills and interests that 20,000 volunteers contribute. Already Gateway has established links with colleagues in France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Holland and Belgium.
The basis of Gateway's success is the partnership between people with a mental handicap and volunteer helpers—partners in pursuit of shared leisure, recreation and social activities. All people who have volunteered to give such help have almost always found the quality of their own lives very much enriched.
656
Finally, do we need further legislation to promote independent living and integration for people with disabilities? My answer is "Yes". It is deplorable that today in the United Kingdom employers and others can discriminate on the grounds of disability. Anti-discrimination legislation in my opinion is long overdue.
Equally important is the implementation of the legislation we already have: specifically the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. That Act is fundamental to a better quality of life for people with disabilities. There can be no good reason for the delay in bringing it fully into force.
As ever, it is a privilege to be associated with the noble and caring Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in this debate, as it is to be among those others who have contributed to it. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who cares too as I well know, will emphasise to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this Motion has united many people in this House regardless of their chosen politics.
5.10 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the debate on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities has been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the committee. It heard interesting and informative evidence from various groups concerned with disablement and independent living, or living in the community. It appears that there is no criteria for defining handicap which can be accepted throughout the Community. Precise estimates of the number of disabled people are difficult to establish because no up-to-date statistics are available for all member states.
The first action programme was intended to coordinate the activities in which member states were already involved and to encourage their efforts in promoting the social and economic integration of disabled people. The second action programme was adopted by the EC Council of Ministers on 18th April 1988. Organisations for disabled people are concerned that the mistakes which were made in the first action programme should not be repeated in the second.
Disabled people wish to participate actively in European society and therefore wish to be equally represented in all the talks which concern them. It was noticed that when disabled people were directly involved there was marked progress. That applies particularly to the Lambeth Accord project. The network of local projects established by the Commission under the first action programme was set up in each member state. Each had at least one such project but the United Kingdom had two; the Lambeth Accord project, which I have already mentioned, and the West Berkshire Interface. Unfortunately the projects had little publicity. According to the report, the United Kingdom steering group did not consider that publishing the action programme in the United Kingdom was part of its role. That was a pity because it is one way in

657
which the public at large might reach a more sympathetic understanding of the needs of the disabled.
It appears clear from the report that both the Lambeth Accord and the West Berkshire Interface projects have done well. The West Berkshire project has a high proportion of people passing through its training programmes and gaining open employment as a result. Those responsible in both projects believe that they have advanced the independence of disabled people.
As regards independent living, policy guidance must be broad in order to be flexible. In accordance with paragraphs 112 to 119 of the World Programme of Action, it is recommended that, in the areas of benefits and service provision, the demands of disabled people regarding their needs should be given a high priority. The Greenwich Association of Disabled People—GAD—is an organisation of disabled people working for the equal participation of disabled people within the community. Greenwich is an area where consultation has occurred between statutory authorities and consumer groups and that has led to a redirection of services. It was found that community care in the borough had improved and expanded to include short-term domiciliary care, a care attendance scheme and independent living schemes using community service volunteers. It has meant that over 38 severely disabled people are being kept in the community. Two are in full-time employment, one is at university and three work as volunteers in a local organisation. Surely it is to be congratulated on the success story.
The use of community service volunteers should be only an option. Problems can arise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already mentioned. The committee noted the practice in the EC whereby any volunteer successfully completing a period of approved volunteer service automatically attracts credits which can be taken into account should the young volunteer wish to join a caring profession. That could be useful in the United Kingdom as a means of easing the shortage of volunteers.
A problem with the community service volunteers is that, in general, they stay in one place for only six months and therefore the disabled person is always in a state of reorganising his or her life. However, many are truly grateful to the CSVs who do a wonderful job.
While recognising the wide field which the second community action programme for disabled people seeks to cover, the RNIB and its sister organisation in Europe (the European Blind Union) welcome the positive impact which the action programmes have had. Under the auspices of the first action programme the European Blind Union has organised conferences on such subjects as low vision, barriers to access, mobility, social legislation, rehabilitation and the needs of deaf blind people. Therefore the RNIB was pleased to learn that the second action programme had been agreed.
The results of the action programmes must be measured not only by individual projects but also by their capacity for increasing awareness and stimulating development in the field of economic,
658
social and cultural integration generally. Most organisations find that the increased European exchange of experience and co-operation has been most helpful.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have a central mechanism for co-ordinating and disseminating information on the various projects. If not, should there not be such a mechanism? Can the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to those programmes?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this important and timely debate. I also wish to express my appreciation of the work of the Select Committee which produced a constructive and challenging report. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has indicated, the report and this debate have generated considerable interest in Northern Ireland among organisations and those directly concerned with the needs of the disabled. In that connection I have noted in particular the cogent opinion of the Select Committee contained in paragraph 71, of the report. It clearly underscores matters relayed to me by the Northern Ireland Council on Disability (NICD). It encountered serious difficulties arising from the general lack of awareness and the ineffective communications concerning the EC's action for disabled people, especially in respect of projects directed towards the promotion of integration.
Paragraph 71 has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and I quote from it because the text should be placed on the Official Report. It contains the nub of the issue; the dichotomy between words and action. It states:
"The Committee note that this low level of communication has not been compensated by any real efforts by the Commission or by the United Kingdom Government either to publicise the experiments and initiatives which the Community has sponsored and developed or to widen the discussion of the issues raised by the Action Programme beyond the small group of people who were already directly involved. If an intention of the First Action Programme was to raise the general level of awareness, then in this regard in the United Kingdom it must be said to have failed".
I quote also from paragraph 72. It states:
"The Committee believe that there is scope for strengthening and extending the exchange of information relevant to the needs of people with disabilities throughout the Community. The development of the Second Action Programme could be seen as a touchstone of the way the European Community tackles social problems".
I have referred to the Northern Ireland Council on Disability. That organisation is the central coordinating and representative body in the Province for the disabled. A quotation taken from one of its publications will indicate that the organisation is making strong efforts to promote integration.
"The Northern Ireland Council on Disability is a registered charity providing advice, information and support for disabled people, carers, professionals working in the field of disability and disability groups. The Council represents all aspects of disability—physical, mental, sensory and hidden and comprises of over 120 member groups".
The publication lists the number of services which the organisation provides, including transport and professional advice to builders on matters of access. It continues:

659
"The Council provides information on benefits, education, employment, mobility, fund raising, recreation, access and housing and produces a wide range of booklets … It acts as a focal point for disability issues, for an estimated 150,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland".
I understand that those 150,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland represent about 10 per cent. of the total population, which is about the average of the number of disabled people throughout the whole of the EC. Therefore, we have a problem concerning not merely isolated issues but 10 per cent. of the population who wish and deserve to have the quality of their lives improved.
One of the main functions of the NICD is to promote in every way possible the integration of disabled people. In June this year when the council became aware of a second community action programme for disabled people, it inquired about details of a programme from a number of sources, including United Kingdom departmental levels, in Brussels at EC level and in the Northern Ireland area. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has already mentioned that he received correspondence from Northern Ireland about the difficulties which the NICD was having in that respect.
I have received a number of letters about the manner in which the council sought to glean information about how it could co-operate and participate in a particular programme. I wish to quote from part of a letter which has been sent to me. It says:
"I have contacted the Training Commission and DHSS in London, who confirmed that no group in Northern Ireland had been asked for nominations, and that the closing dates were 1st September and 16th September 1988.
My Council finds the above totally unacceptable.
We would have thought that if Northern Ireland has been designated a priority region within the EEC, then there ought to be an effective mechanism within the UK to ensure that our interests are adequately represented. We feel it is essential that Northern Ireland is part of the EC network and can contribute to, and benefit from, the Second Action Programme.
We have suggested to the Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, that a Working Group be established in Northern Ireland to co-ordinate the views of the various Government departments with an interest in the Second Action Programme i.e. Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Economic Development, Department of Education for Northern Ireland and Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which should then makes its views known to the two UK representatives. The group would have responsibility for collating and disseminating information in respect to the programme. We feel also that the voluntary sector should be represented on such a group".
I regret that I may appear to be taking a narrow, provincial attitude. I believe it underscores and presents to the House what the committee found as evidence. There has been a sad lack of communication throughout the whole exercise. Perhaps I may say that that has created serious and critical concern in Northern Ireland. There is concern and anger manifest there about the apparent neglect by the Government to give practical recognition to the Northern Ireland constitutional position within the United Kingdom in regard to this programme. That has been put to me in no uncertain terms.
Whatever are the reasons, it is obvious that the omission actively to associate Northern Ireland with the European Community's programmes for the disabled is the denial of opportunities and rights to
660
United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. Reference has been made to the letter sent by the council to Mr. Tom King, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I understand that he would not have had time to reply to that before this debate and I am sure that the council will receive a reply in due course.
I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister who is to respond to this debate, but perhaps I may ask him whether he will use his good offices to draw these points to the attention of his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues in the hope of having the matters clarified and remedied to some degree.
I repeat that it is not my intention to take a narrow, provincial attitude on this report. Indeed, I support and commend the 17 main conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. I believe that if genuine efforts are made by the United Kingdom Government along the lines contained in the report, such efforts would greatly influence the European Community's action programme for the integration of disabled people. Such concerted action at EC levels could greatly improve the quality of life for millions of disabled people and give them much hope and happiness.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as a so-called disabled person, I should like to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the report on integration of disabled people.
When reading the report I came to the conclusion that the committee could not have had an easy task in coming to some of its conclusions and recommendations. When discussing so many disabilities all of which have wide variations, it is understandable that there are difficulties. The committee found one problem as regards the first project—namely, that there were no accepted criteria for defining handicap throughout the Community. Article 2 of the amended proposal for a second action programme defines disabled people as:
"all those with heavy disabilities resulting from physical, mental or psychological impairments".
I was interested to see that the Commission's proposal for a first action programme was the response of its Bureau for Action in Favour of Disabled People to the International Year of Disabled People 1981. So there came about a network of projects throughout the member states to pioneer ways of promoting the economic and social integration of disabled people. That was delayed until 1983. So often one has to contend with frustrations and delays when there is any sort of action involving handicapped people. However, I am sure that many people worked exceedingly hard to get these projects off the ground. The biggest problem must have been getting member states to agree when there were such variations involving so many different handicaps.
Paragraph 14 of the report states:
"One area of activity which the Action Programme sought to co-ordinate was the European network of rehabilitation centres set up by

661
Council Resolution of 9th July 1974. These centres promote the exchange of ideas and information and the disseminaton of good practice in rehabilitation techniques".
As regards good practice in rehabilitation techniques, from what I have seen in certain member states, some of them have a long way to go and much must be done to improve the present situation for some disabled people and their families suffer greatly.
To take the speciality of spinal injuries as an example, these are all too common in developed countries with industries and large volumes of traffic but some member states have no facilities for treatment and rehabilitation. In 1960 Italy had a very good spinal centre for workers. It no longer has. The special unit closed when its director retired. Now Italy sends some patients to France for treatment, a long way from their families. A lucky few spinal patients from Greece are sent to other countries such as Britain, but have to pay vast amounts, as these arrangements are very expensive.
Earlier this year the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who is a Euro MP, contacted me as she had met in Spain the mother of a tetraplegic—it was a neck injury—who had a serous complication. I was able to put the family in contact with the correct place of treatment in England, and because they could afford to pay, we were able to save one life.
There is an immense amount to do. One aim should be to encourage governments to do much more for their disabled people so that they will have adequate places of treatment. That should come first, because people cannot be integrated into the community unless they have first been treated and rehabilitated.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, briefly mentioned Handynet, but I should like to hear more about it. The report says it was expanded to include the dissemination of a wide range of information to facilitate the greater choice and independence of disabled people. I had not heard about Handynet before reading this report. Information is vital and should be made available for everyone who needs it, not just professionals. I hope the Minister can tell us who runs Handynet and from where it operates. I hear that Northern Ireland has just launched a directory on disability needs. Provided they are kept up to date directories are most useful.
My noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) asked me to apologise on her behalf, as she was a member of the committee whose report we are debating but is unable to be here. She had a hospital appointment today. Disabled people who are integrated into society must keep themselves fit, and my noble friend had to keep her appointment. Like myself, my noble friend knows that most disabled people wish above all else to be able to live independent lives. This independence depends on how much help they are able to get should their disability require it. The committee had some difficulty in understanding that point. Disabled people who are able to do so, with or without help, would like at least the choice of being able to control their own lives.
There has been a great move to try to get all handicapped people who can be integrated into the community out of institutions. That must be done
662
with proper facilities such as housIng, access to necessary places, adequate care, transport, education, employment and recreation facilities. If the community is to take integration seriously it cannot be complacent. The community must itself involve disabled people, and I am pleased that many noble Lords have said that.
Paragraph 97 of the report states that disabled people cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. I agree that there is a wide variety of types and degrees of handicap, but they all need some degree of help and, with that, they can be homogeneous. All the needs should be tackled but of course that cannot be done without resources. Having the correct facilities is an insurance policy because nobody can say when or where disability will strike.
Nor does anybody really know what will develop in 1992. I hope that there have been some improvements since I visited the Commission's head office at Berlaymont in Brussels some years ago. There was no lavatory which was accessible to a wheelchair. The doors were all too narrow and the basin was the only solution.
It is important to encourage European Members of Parliament to take an interest in matters relating to disability. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, told me that she was able to get the disabled persons' car park badge recognised on a national basis throughout the Community. She also told me that Mr. Daunt, who runs the bureau for disability, had helped a great deal with the Reading project. There is now a European parliamentary disability group which meets every month in Strasbourg. Already structural alterations have been made to improve facilities. I hope that there will soon be some disabled Members of the European Parliament. There should certainly be building regulations and codes of practice to assist with the integration of all disabled people who wish to be active members of the community throughout all Community member states.
I conclude by saying that it is unwise to put restrictions on the potential of individuals. Who knows what can be achieved with developing technical aids and personal drive? One young pilot who broke his neck diving during a rest period from carrying out mercy flights during the Vietnam war was told that because of his impaired hands he would never be able to drive a car. Some time after leaving the rehabilitation centre he took pleasure in driving back and showing the doctor concerned what he could do. We should never make judgments for people. They should be assisted to find their own parameters and potentials.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too commence by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and his committee for this report. I am particularly interested in the concept of Handynet. I understand that it is not likely to start for some nine months or a year. If for any reason it does not start in the EC I hope that my noble friend will ensure that a similar arrangement will be set up in this country from which we could expand later into Europe.

663
It is absolutely essential for disabled people and for organisations which look after them to have access to all the information that they need. Although able-bodied people may look different and we can tell them apart, as a group they are one and the same. They might as well all be turned out of the same mould. Physically disabled people, however, are all individually different. They have different handicaps. The handicap may appear to be the same but, for example, the length of reach will be different, or the amount that the person can turn will be different.
The handicapped have very much greater individual requirements than do able-bodied people. If an able-bodied person goes into a room to do a task and he cannot reach that which he requires he can fetch a stool, steps or a chair. He can improvise and do the job. A disabled person is stuck and must ask for help. That is the handicap.
Can the Minister tell me what is likely to happen at the end of the initial four-year period. It strikes me that it will be a most terrible shame if this programme is allowed to lapse because it is absolutely essential. We have an ageing population in this country and I assume that it is the same in Europe, but I do not know. With an ageing population we have a greater degree of disability throughout the population as a whole. There is a greater chance of people being injured and becoming disabled and of more people becoming disabled purely through age. The need is growing.
Where will the funds for Handynet come from? How much will they be and will they be enough? Will Handynet be adequately staffed? If it does not have enough funds, the right quality of staff and enough of them, it will go off at half cock. It will not be properly used and therefore it will not develop as it should. In addition, will my noble friend ensure that all voluntary and statutory organisations in this country are given proper information about Handynet so that they can make use of it from the very beginning. It is no use having a tool that is locked away and no one knows where it is. That is an awful waste of time and money.
There is no real definition of living independently and I hope that no one will try to produce one. The vast majority of people are married with a family. If one is married with a family or even without one, one cannot be independent because one has dependants or one depends upon someone else. If we are talking about living independently in terms of a disabled person, it must mean that within his own ability the individual disabled person has control and choice over his own lifestyle. There should not be a blueprint for independent living, but there should be a range of choices to suit individual needs. In order to help them with that choice it is necessary to ensure that there is a proper assessment of their physical needs; their care needs and also their financial needs.
Perhaps I may give three examples of three groups of young people who have recently left one of John Grooms' establishments where they have spent two years training to be independent. They consider that they are independent. They are independent because they consider that they are independent. The first is a
664
young man and though he does not always need to use a wheelchair, he has to use one whenever he is out of his own flat. He can do everything for himself now that he is in a flat that is properly designed for him. He does not need any help. The vast majority of us would say that as we see it he is independent.
The next example is of a young girl who is severely crippled with arthritis. She lives independently. She needs help twice a day; in the morning when she gets up to dress and in the evening when she undresses to go to bed. That is the only help that she needs, but she is independent because she is able to arrange for the help that she needs. The other example is that of a young married couple who are both spastics. The husband has no control over any of his limbs above the waist. The wife is very much more disabled. Between the two of them they need somewhere in the region of eight-and-a-half hours' help a day. They are living independently in their own council house specially adapted to suit their needs. We might not think that they are independent because they need so much help during the day, but they are independent. They are no longer living in a home. Before they were living in a home they were both living in separate hospitals and they were unable to get married until they were able to move into a home. They are independent in comparison with what life was like before.
When thinking of independence it is important that individuals are able to buy their own care. When assessing how to help them to become independent we must assess how much care they need and help them to get the right financial assistance. We must not forget that it is cheaper to live independently out of a home in one's own dwelling than it is to live in a home. Again, it is cheaper still than living in a hospital. A good deal has been said about volunteers and I do not decry them in the least. But for a disabled person living independently, part of that independence is buying one's own care package and paying oneself those who come to help, negotiating with them the cost and when they are to come.
As a final point—and this has been mentioned already, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Parry—we in this country seem to decide whether someone is able-bodied and able to work full-time or disabled and therefore not fit to work at all. In my view we have to adapt the allowances that we make so that people who are able to do some work can do so within their capabilities and still, at the same time, have the allowances that permit them to be financially independent.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate I begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his committee for a most interesting and valuable report and for providing the opportunity for this debate today. The report deals with the social and economic integration of people with disabilities, and those are the two aspects that I wish to discuss.
Before one can look at the question of the integration of disabled people in the European

665
Community, I believe that we should take a long and hard look at home to see how we are faring in this respect. I shall deal first with the social integration of people with disabilities. It is a matter of attitude. So much of the attitude of our society towards the disabled is to treat them either as the brave hero or the helpless victim. We tend to define people by their disability when the disability itself is completely irrelevant. We refer to the blind author or the wheelchair-bound broadcaster when the ability to write or to broadcast is completely irrelevant to the disability.
I believe that there is a subtle change in the attitude towards disability. We seem to be moving towards a situation where somehow the disabled have to prove their worthiness in order to be helped. I believe that there is a danger of a return to Victorian attitudes where there is reliance upon philanthropy or charity to undertake what is and what should always be the responsibility of the whole community. We may contrast this with the European experience and particularly that of Scandinavia, where there are moves towards a comprehensive allowance for disability.
Perhaps I may refer again to the matter of attitudes and the question of children in need or the children of courage syndrome. This may be an unpopular view but it needs stating. I am referring to the telethons that are used to raise money for the disabled and others. The report estimates that there are some 30 million people in the EC who are disabled. A recent OPCS survey in the United Kingdom stated that there are 6 million people with disabilities.
We know all the problems over definition. In the United Kingdom three-quarters of the disabled are pensioners, but the telethons focus almost exclusively on children. There is a total mismatch between the age of disabled people who appear on television and the age of most people with disabilities in the general population. There is a concentration on raising money which ignores or refuses to acknowledge the social needs which have created the problem in the first place. The programmes somehow imply that the disabled poor not only have to be worthy of help but have to be attractive in terms of television and emotion.
I shall quote from the experience of somebody who appeared on one of these programmes. He said:
"In order to get their money, they have to humiliate me … to me, a wheelchair is a solution, not a sentence. Because I use a wheelchair, I am able to do so many things I otherwise could not. I am not 'confined to a wheelchair'. I don't 'face a life without meaning', and I'm not a 'poor, unfortunate cripple who needs your help' ".
In the public sector I can give three examples of where social integration is made more difficult. There is a phrase in the parliamentary draftsman's handbook. Organisations mentioned in various Acts of Parliament set out grounds on which the relevant Minister can debar people from membership. The phrase singles out those who are "incapacitated by physical or mental illness". This is absent-mindedly offensive. We managed to remove this phraseology from the Education Reform Bill and the Housing Bill.
We all know that the Government have spent an enormous amount of money on refurbishing
666
Richmond Terrace for the former Department of Health and Social Security. I am sure that its architecture would meet with the full approval of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I wonder whether His Royal Highness would be so impressed if he knew that the two departments having most to do with disability were given a headquarters which I am told is internally inaccessible to wheelchairs. I am informed that that is the case. There are now plans to put this right.
The Department of Employment recently issued a leaflet on employment opportunities. The photograph on the front showed people who were available for the schemes—the young and coloured people; and there was somebody in a wheelchair. The person in the wheelchair was able-bodied. He was asked to sit in the wheelchair in order to create the photograph. These are examples of Elle attitude of society towards the disabled.
Paragraph 89 of the report mentions with approval a number of initiatives taken by member countries of the EC. In my view our target should be a comprehensive disability allowance to compensate for the extra costs of disability, and a disability pension to bring the income of the disabled person up to a decent standard. Several countries of the EC and some outside it are well ahead of us in this respect. I am extremely pleased that the Labour Party Conference in 1987 adopted such an arrangement as an objective of policy.
The prospects of economic integration in this country are bedevilled by the anomalies which are found in our treatment of disabled people. I shall give as an example the circumstances of four people. They are all aged around 35. They are unmarried but not living alone and they are all double amputees. The first has never worked because he has had the disability from early childhood. The second had worked but lost his legs through an accident unrelated to his work. The third lost his legs through a work accident. The fourth lost his legs in the Falklands.
The first has an income of £46 per week; the second has an income of £58 per week; the third has an income of £151 per week; and the Fourth has an income of £137 per week. I have rounded up the figures to the nearest pound. All of them have the same condition. All face the same problems and all have the same costs. There is a difference between the highest and the lowest income of £105 a week.
I have another example of four people. They are aged 35, are unmarried, are not living alone and are tetraplegic. They receive mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The first receives an income of £102 per week; the second receives £106 per week; the third receives £248 per week; and the fourth receives £252 per week. All have the same condition. All have the same problems and face the same costs. There is a difference between the highest and the lowest income of £150 per week. This is not a political point. These anomalies have existed under all governments. I think we would all agree that it is extremely hard to think in terms of the economic integration of disabled people while such problems exist.

667
I should like to look outside the EC to see the range of policies for dealing with disability. Perhaps the two approaches most dramatically different are to be found in America and Sweden. Sweden has adopted a social welfare approach. It identifies the needs of particular groups of disabled people and then tries to compensate them for their degree of disability. They are moving towards the disability allowance and the disability pension.
In the United States the approach is pure Thatcherism. However, it is logical and it is followed through to the final degree. Legislation provides for equal opportunity under the law and therefore those rights are established in the constitution. All new buildings and any old buildings being modified must not provide an architectural barrier. If it prevents anyone from entering, the structure is closed to the public and has to be reopened after adjustments have been made. Employers must not discriminate on grounds of disability or colour. What is more, they have to be seen to take affirmative action and go out of their way to give jobs to disabled people. Disabled Americans are confident under the law. According to the World Institute of Disability, incomes in work for disabled people are no different from those of able-bodied people.
In Europe, the Germans operate a quota scheme in employment of 6 per cent. Failure to meet it results in an automatic levy which goes into a fund to pay for the training of disabled people to get the job which the employer says they cannot do. France and Sweden have Ministers for disabled people who themselves are disabled. America, Canada, South Australia and Scandinavia all have some form of anti-discrimination legislation.
In debates in the past on the disabled I have referred to the phrase "the disabled divide", which is the gap between the income, the expectations and the opportunities of the disabled and the rest of the population. The committee's report has gone some way towards helping to close that divide.
5.58 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, one of the problems of being one of the last speakers in the debate is that many noble Lords will already have said what I plan to say. However, I make no apologies for repeating gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for enabling us to debate this report today. It encompasses matters to which I attach a great deal of importance. The report highlights two major problems, both of which have seriously affected the efficacy of the Government's Care in the Community policy and, it would appear, the policies of other countries within the European Community. One is communication, the other is funding.
On the positive side, there is a good exchange of ideas and practices between the many voluntary organisations which provide care for the disabled. Unfortunately, government departments seem to be incapable of hearing, though they make some pretence of listening to, the advice of the disabled or those ideally suited to represent them. The difficulties
668
the committee encountered when trying to obtain evidence in a European context are described in paragraph 22. How can a uniform policy for the integration of disabled people be formulated when there is no clear definition of disability? As other speakers have already asked, what is disablement? What is independence? Until these are clarified there can be no concerted efforts to give disabled people a sense of belonging to the community.
Obviously the degree of disability will affect the extent to which an individual can become independent. Some people can be helped to live independently provided they receive assistance with mobility. Others will only be able to live in the community with a high degree of care, such as that provided by community service volunteers. Some may be able to earn their own living; others may only be able to contribute a part of the money required for their needs; and yet others may never be capable of working for financial reward. The fact that disabled people cannot be categorised conveniently should not inhibit those responsible for formulating policies from considering their individual needs. Therefore those who provide the services for the disabled must listen to the disabled, whatever the extent of their disability, to ascertain their needs.
The Coopers and Lybrand study which is mentioned in paragraph 30 pointed to the inadequate dissemination of information by Government to the disabled, their carers and service providers. Over and over again we see, hear and read of the tremendous problems encountered by the disabled and their carers, problems which could be overcome if they were told of services, aids and funds which could lighten their burdens. Can the Minister say what progress is being made by the Department of Social Security to improve communication?
The recruitment of volunteers, both as carers and advocates, is likely to become more difficult as unemployment falls, as well as for the reason given in paragraph 64. I suspect that an inhibiting factor might also be a fear of the unknown. Community service volunteers tend to be thrown in at the deep end. The disabled person for whom they are to care is expected to train them. The disabled obviously know what they need; but they are not trainers.
I am chairman of a steering committee for a local collaborative project with the Evesham College of Further Education in conjunction with a training commission (originally MSC) to develop modular courses for carers to be approved by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications—I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not present to hear this. The collaborative partners have found it much more difficult to define the qualities and skills necessary for a good carer than they had anticipated. They have gone out and asked existing carers and those being cared for in nursing and residential homes, and in their own homes, what they expect.
The exercise has been enlightening to the extent that the priorities of the able-bodied are not necessarily those of the disabled. Initially the course will be for mature students, but I am hoping that if it proves successful it can be extended to younger volunteers. Will the Minister therefore give some

669
thought to asking those in his department who are responsible for community care to converse with the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science to explore other ways of encouraging voluntary service in this field?
The County of Hereford and Worcester was the first in the Midlands to develop an advocacy service. Priming funds from the DHSS were allocated for three years and the scheme is expected to be self-supporting by July 1989. At present there arc more than 20 partnerships between advocates and those who suffer from mental handicap. Advocates are carefully selected and trained but, as with all volunteers, they are difficult to come by. However, they provide a most valuable service and it seems a pity that central government appear to be unwilling to promote this and other schemes more widely and to provide publicity so that volunteers will come forward.
One of the points made by those witnesses representing the Lambeth Accord was that a number of candidates presenting for training for employment were simply not ready. They needed to be properly settled in the community before venturing into the employment field. There should be a co-ordinated government policy to ensure that patients newly discharged from long-stay hospitals are suitably housed and their social and financial needs adequately provided for.
In the past I have accused the Government of paying lip-service to the concept of care in the community. Some very successful projects have been developed but it must be conceded that their success is due rather more to the energy and enthusiasm of voluntary organisations and enlightened local authorities than to the thrust of central government. In far too many instances fiscal measures and the lack of co-ordination between departments responsible for discharge and subsequent care of patients from long-stay hospitals thwart the development of proper integration of the disabled into the community.
The first action programme was flawed because too much emphasis was placed upon the vocational aspects of integration. Insufficient attention was paid to the needs of the disabled; the limits to the resources of charitable and voluntary organisations were not recognised; and there was a failure of communication between, and within, member states and a dearth of funding.
For the second action programme to succeed in the United Kingdom, and its fellows in the Community, the Government must observe the recommendations of the noble Lords who compiled this comprehensive report. It would be a tragedy if it were left to gather dust on the bureaucratic shelves beside so many others.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like first, as other noble Lords have done, to express my warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, not only for chairing the committee but also for presenting the report and for opening an extremely important and valuable debate this afternoon. I should also like to thank those noble Lords who served on the
670
committee, some of whom gave of their experience during the course of today's debate.
I certainly warmly commend the report and its conclusions. Indeed, I think it was the quality of the report which heightened the value of today's debate. I must say that I agree with so much that has been said. However, there is one matter upon which I think I ought to defend myself. My noble friend Lord Carter made some criticisms about the telethon. I only do that as chairman of the Anglia Telethon. We sought to be as sensitive as we could in the presentation of the problems of disabled people and in allocating funds, though I fully recognise the problems which he presented.
Reading the report suggests to me that those involved in this important study experienced a good deal of frustration as they went through the task of taking down the formal written evidence and also the oral evidence. Perhaps I may give just one or two examples from the Minutes of the meetings. On 9th December 1987 they were exploring the policies with the officers of the DHSS. They were exploring the liaison between various projects within the UK and between countries in Europe. The official said—I am paraphrasing—that the DHSS had not been invited to visit any of the district projects in the United Kingdom, and that liaison in terms of exchanging information about projects in different parts of the community had been negligible. He said there seemed to be little consumer participation in the assessment of the various projects. I think that all those matters will be of as much concern to the Minister as they were to members of the select committee.
When the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked why Her Majesty's Government did not emulate other countries in terms of linking disabled pensions to employment capacities, one official said that it was not his responsibility— which is fair enough—while another, whose responsibility it was, said that he could not answer the question. I hope that this is a problem to which the Minister and his colleagues will give serious attention. Indeed, it has been touched upon by several noble Lords in the course of today's debate.
The Government's evidence to the committee seemed to me to lack any sense of urgency and any degree of priority. Indeed, I thought it reeked of indecision. Some of the ground covered in the committee's discussion was the same as that covered by Sir Roy Griffiths in his own study of community care—to which the Government have so far refused to respond. I shall not ask them again today to do so, because I have already done so many times in your Lordships' House.
It is to me no wonder that the committee's conclusions—which in my view are very sound—reflect a good deal of disappointment at the situation with which it was dealing. For example, the social and economic integration of disabled people is hampered by a lack of precision in formulating the first and the second action programmes. Further, the management studies of the first action programme were defective, it said, and weakened by inadequate government supervision. The committee said that the UK had missed some of the potential benefits of the

671
first action programme, and that there was no effective definition, as noble Lords have mentioned, of either the term "disabled people" or the objective of independent living. However, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, went a long way towards providing a very good definition in his speech to us this evening.
The committee referred to there being no adequate system of exchanging information and ideas. I make no criticism of the committee's report. My concern is that there seems to be little leadership from the Government, despite the active involvement of non-governmental organisations. It was their evidence which provided much of the vital information and ideas which enlightened the committee's report. I welcome the approval of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, of the work of voluntary organisations in that field. It is of great importance that so many of your Lordships who took part in the debate are involved with organisations of and for disabled people.
In the wake of the publication of the Select Committee's report comes a companion volume from Kensington Palace with the imprint of His Royal Highness Prince Charles, who was referrred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in his opening speech. I should like to touch on some of the conclusions because they are relevant to those reached by the committee's report. Incidentally, Prince Charles is making a name for himself by speaking out with clarity and courage on matters of public concern. More power to his elbow! He stirs up an interest with the freshness of his own approach which most of us here welcome. His report on housing and support services for people with severe physical disabilities is an outspoken and searing commentary on community responsibility, or lack of responsibility, for the integration of severely disabled people.
The living options project was launched by the Prince of Wales' advisory group on disability with a brief to document good practice in the way the housing and care support services are provided for people with severe disabilities. The reality of housing and care support options revealed by the project's investigations is alarming. Direct evidence from service users throughout England and Wales shows that few people obtain the flexible and dependable services essential for personal autonomy. I like the phrase "personal autonomy" and I shall return to it.
The amount and kind of help a disabled person receives are determined less by need than by chance. That is how the report is introduced. It is called a "Living options lottery". It says that disabled people are rarely involved in planning or managing the services they use, and that most live restricted, isolated lives at home dependent on family or friends, or remain in institutions. Inappropriate residential facilities continue to be built. In many authorities the needs of that client group are not yet even on the agenda.
I should like to give one or two examples of what the report says as a result of the study:
"quality housing and care support services for severely disabled people were few and far between … the housing and support requirements of people with severe physical disabilities remain unacknowledged by those with the power and resources to bring
672
about change. Services for 'younger disabled' adults with severe disabilities were felt to be particularly neglected. Expanding and improving services for this group will have a positive impact for people of all age groups and all levels of physical disability. Despite the emphasis on community care for the past decade, and considerable documentation of service needs, there has been little resulting benefit for younger people with severe physical disabilities. Few authorities contacted through the living options project claim to know either the numbers or needs of the severely disabled adults for whom they are responsible. For some disabled people, the level of care support has decreased during the past 10 years, as a result of funding cuts and diversion of funds to other priority areas (e.g. children at risk). For others, the need for even small amounts of additional support cannot be met".
I give just two other quotes. The report states:
"More than three-quarters of a million physically disabled people in Britain are inadequately housed. With little suitable and financially accessible private sector housing, most disabled people look to the public sector for help, but there is a shortage of at least 150,000 purpose-built or adapted rented public sector dwellings. Some housing authorities are adopting policies of building all new housing to mobility standard plus a proportion to wheelchair standard. The Housing Corporation regulations require that new housing association dwellings are built to mobility standard where possible. Lack of aids, adaptations, and equipment makes even a well designed home a prison. Many disabled people have little idea of what is now available that might help them live more independently".
One could continue. This is a document which your Lordships with a special interest in disability should study because it is perceptive and its conclusions are similar to those reached by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. It points the way forward.
I want to pick on the evidence given to the Select Committee by one of the voluntary organisations (MIND). I do so unashamedly as its chairman, because it made the point which has been made by a number of noble Lords. I quote from the report:
"Disabled people should be involved in the planning, development and management of care … The second and third action programmes will only be successful if they can demonstrate at a local level how each of the components of independent living can fit together, and how that integration promotes true independence for the individual. True independence is more than simply a home of one's own, important as that is. Independence means the ability and the income to make choices, and have control over one's own life".
That is the message that I want to emphasise from the evidence given in your Lordships' report and from so many of the speeches made by noble Lords today, especially by my noble friend Lord Parry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Disabled people have had enough of people doing things for them. They want to be enabled to take control of their own lives. They need to be revalued and empowered to become real people, making decisions for themselves. It is time that that message got through to the European Community, to governments, including our own, and to the community at large. That is the message of the report. I warmly commend it.
6.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his committee for the hard work that they have put into investigating the second action programme for the integration of disabled people. I have to tell the House—and on this occasion it does not mean that your Lordships will not like what is coming—that

673
these are no idle words and that the Government welcome the report—even the hard hitting comments on the carrying out of the first action programme to be found in paras. 74–78, upon which many noble Lords, and most recently the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have commented. I take it on the chin because your Lordships' committee is absolutely right. I do not believe that it is profitable to spend too much time on the latter point beyond saying that we and the Commission are determined to learn from our mistakes. One of those was that there was no complete co-ordinated oversight of the programme, which dealt only with two district projects whose aim was to promote pioneering ways of ensuring the economic and social integration of disabled people.
The programme, as we all know, had as a laudable aim the co-ordination of a community-wide network of district projects to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people. In addition, it had a separate community-wide network of rehabilitation centres to promote the exchange of ideas and information and to disseminate good practice in rehabilitation techniques. However the report on social integration proves inconclusive since no yardstick was used to measure results. The underlying problem here was that the national steering group lacked any authority to influence the district projects' management because the projects were Community-authorised and funded, of course, by the Community from the beginning. This was made worse by the lack of a clear mechanism for co-ordinating the various activities being undertaken in the first action programme.
The committee has rightly zeroed-in on the agreement on the objectives as being the only way to make the evaluation work, especially where we have local projects. Again, I agree, although perhaps I should remind your Lordships that it was not the Government who were responsible either for the projects or for the management of the evaluation. This responsibility fell on the Commission and the project leaders themselves. The same also applies to the continuation of the funding of the two local projects.
The objective of the second action programme is to carry on and expand the work of the first one without losing momentum. It goes by the intriguing name of the Greek sun god, semi-accidentally, I assume. Helios is actually an acronym standing for Handicapped People in the European Community Living Independently in an Open Society, whatever that means. Noble Lords have alluded to that point and I shall say something about it later on.
The Helios or second action programme also addresses a point that the committee made in relation to the first action programme; namely, that there was a low level of knowledge of the programme outside those directly involved. At the beginning of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, sought a reassurance that the Government would do more this time to help local projects and get value for money from the whole exercise. I am very glad to give that reassurance, although clearly our resources for these activities are limited. We had a very interesting speech on the limitation of resources yesterday from
674
my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, so I do not have to make that point too forcefully.
As a start, the Government have arranged a conference for all the local projects which will be held in Preston at the beginning of December. Perhaps I should say for the avoidance of doubt—bearing in mind one of the questions during Question Time at the start of your Lordships' business today—that I think it is very unlikely that any Minister will be going to that conference.
The Commission intends there to be two community-wide networks of local model activities representing, first, good practice in the field of vocational training and economic integration; and secondly, covering social integration and independent living. In addition there will be a further development of the network of rehabilitation centres. The management of these objectives within the networks is under active consideration by the Government, as are the resources required for this activity.
Side by side with this was the complaint that not enough was done to involve other voluntary organisations in the programme. I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that we Faye consulted widely on the Helios programme and invited applications from a wide variety of organisations throughout the United Kingdom. There is no excuse this time for anyone who wants to know not knowing. We have made it clear—and this has been welcomed by the committee—that we want to concentrate on achieving a better balance between the various elements of the programme by concentrating on encouraging innovation within existing programmes of activity rather than setting up new projects. An example of this is the inclusion of the disability resource centre at Waltham Forest which covers a wide range of disabilities and attempts to develop collaboration and co-ordination of services across a wide area at both local and national levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked how schemes had been selected for local projects. The projects have been selected to cover the various disability interests and to achieve a good geographical spread. That point will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, and I shall come to him in a minute. The Commission and the projects selected have now been informed and of course we shall be happy to publish a list of successful projects.
Not surprisingly, the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen, himself and indeed one other noble Lord, mentioned—and I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I call them this—a subset of disabled people, those who are unfortunately mentally handicapped. I know of the direct interest in this of noble Lords. Of course it is vital to include the mentally handicapped in the scope of these action programmes. They were included within the scope of the local projects in the first programme and will also be included within the scope of the second programme.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who also spoke on this subject, that the value of MENCAP's work is of course recognised. Anyone who has gone through approximately the last 16 months opposite

675
the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at the various Dispatch Boxes will be well aware of the invaluable work of MENCAP. The centre run by MENCAP at Pengwern Hall in North Wales for young people with mental handicaps has been selected for the network of rehabilitation centres. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, will be glad of that.
I feel mildly injured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, not because he did not discuss what he was going to say with me in advance but when he was remarking about the involvement of Northern Ireland in the action programmes, he clearly did not know that a project in Northern Ireland has been included in the vocational training network. However, I note and will of course pass on the noble Lord's remarks on the Province being represented on the national co-ordinating committee because I agree with him that this is most important.
Over and above these projects that I have been talking about, the multi-lingual database for disabled people known as Handynet which was begun but hardly got off the ground as part of the first action programme is to be carried forward, with priority given to the first part of this database, the Handyaids module on technical aids and equipment. The Commission intends to prepare a report to the Council of Ministers on the progess of Handyaids up to the end of June next year. The United Kingdom Government see this report as a way forward in identifying the need for and feasibility of the Handynet project and we shall reserve our position on this until then.
I would add in partial answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen that Handynet as such does not exist at present, as it is still very much in the developmental stage. The management and ownership of Handynet is an issue to be resolved at the end of the four-year programme. Its development at present is being funded through the Helios programme to which the United Kingdom has contributed its share.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked, why not go ahead with Handynet in the United Kingdom? I can tell him that the DHSS commissioned a consultancy study on the information needs of disabled people which was completed in the spring of this year. We are considering how to carry forward its conclusions at the local and national levels in the United Kingdom. I must say that we shall not wait for Handynet before carrying forward national developments, but clearly they should eventually be compatible.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He mentioned disabled people. Is he also including in that the voluntary organisations that help disabled people?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course I shall be coming to the voluntary organisations in a minute but they are most certainly to be included. I was interested to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has acted as a partial Handynet system herself. We all try to do this in our own particular and
676
peculiar ways. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has been able to help someone in Italy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, Spain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, Spain. Alongside the Handynet programme, the Commission intends to promote projects and award prizes for good practice in mobility and transport; access to public buildings, facilities and housing, including support for people living in independent accommodation. I agree with your Lordships' committee that in this country our objectives in taking Helios forward should be to overcome the problems that arose in the first action programme and to set out a clear and agreed working mechanism for overseeing the whole programme.
Clearly, we want to encourage maximum participation, to facilitate wide dissemination of information on good practice and to encourage the involvement of the public and voluntary sectors in the programme. These are all laudable aims and objectives and I hope that no one doubts that we in the United Kingdom will play our part. I suppose, though, that one of the reasons we are debating this report today is whether the treaty provides an adequate legal basis for binding Community measures on social integration. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised that point.
The Government made strenuous efforts to have this action programme adopted as a resolution rather than as a decision. In the end a compromise solution was adopted whereby the programme was accepted on the basis that social integration continued to lie with member states. I should like to make it quite clear that this Government will continue to resist proposals for Community action which are not practicable or desirable, particularly where they would deprive the United Kingdom of the ability to introduce measures better fitted to our own requirements.
In paragraph 73 the committee supported the aim of the action programmes to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people, but pointed out that a lack of precision when formulating them reduces their value. In general I accept this view, though I am sure the committee would agree with me that this recommendation should not carry the implication that the existing innovative schemes are automatically suitable for carrying forward. There has to be a limit to the time that any project can be seen to be innovative. Also, the degree to which the Government can manage their part of the programme will depend on the resources that can be made available. This applies also to the extent to which we can involve non-governmental organisations.
While the Government agree that the voluntary bodies should be involved, this should not be taken to mean any award of Section 64 grants would automatically follow for those bodies. Nonetheless, I would agree that efforts, such as exchange visits, should be made to protect and promote the important contribution of volunteers in assisting disabled people to live independently. The

677
Commission is prepared within the programme to pay for certain networking activities, including the provision of information and advice as well as study visits, seminars and so on, up to certain specified amounts.
The committee welcomed the greater involvement of non-governmental organisations, and as a strong supporter of voluntary bodies myself I am glad that it did. It also suggested that this could provide a forum for consultation. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will have observed, a two-tier structure has already been set up at Community level. He will be glad that a national structure to involve the voluntary bodies in the United Kingdom is under active consideration. The Government thus believe that the European Community has also addressed the issue of the role of non-governmental oganisations and experts being strengthened in both the planning and implementation of future Community initiatives. While we generally accept this for the United Kingdom part of the programme as well, the noble Lord will agree with me that the normal constraints that apply on public expenditure should mean that this activity will not get out of hand.
I am very pleased that the committee took the view that disabled people are not a homogeneous group. Indeed, a rapid reading of the recent OPCS survey on disability in Great Britain entitled Report No. 1, Prevalence of. Disability Among Adults, bears this out. Nonetheless, I do not see the same difficulty as the committee does in defining disability as a particular problem within what the action programme seeks to achieve. The main objective is to cover all disability groups, and as far as I can see this has been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a group of specific examples of different incomes from benefits for disabled people. I do not wish to make snap remarks and snap judgments on them, because clearly it is most difficult to comment on the figures for benefit entitlement mentioned by the noble Lord without knowing more about the circumstances of the people whom he cites as examples. I should be very interested to know the details and the evidence on which he made his remarks. The noble Lord clearly has such evidence.
Having said that, it is clear initially that there was a division in the unfortunate circumstances which led to some people receiving non-contributory benefits, some people receiving contributory benefits and some people even receiving state pensions; from the MoD, for example, in the last case. The OPCS report will, when it is complete, present us with an unprecedented volume of information about people with disabilities. We shall use that to examine the performance of our existing benefit system.
The definition of disability is one thing; that of independent living is quite another. Indeed, I would question whether a common definition of independent living is required at either national or European level. I understand that the problem of defining independent living caused particular difficulties at the time that the discussions took place on the Helios programme. At one stage it caused hilarity to the Spanish delegation, who explained that the translation into their language implied the programme was concerned with gypsies!
678
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, confirmed my suspicion that the committee found this a difficult subject area. The problem is that independent living means different things to different people. My noble friend Lord Swinfen movingly described degrees of independent living. I have no doubt that it would be very difficult to achieve a common definition here. I am not even sure that it is worth the bother. However, it is possible that common factors will emerge and our approach has been to include a range of activities as examples of how independent living can be interpreted. I do not know whether we shall achieve a common consensus on this point. We shall have to wait and see as the results of the programmes come before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, was to an extent answered by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I believe it must be recognised that the needs of disabled people vary greatly. Some are well able to work and to follow successful careers by overcoming the effects of their disability; others require different degrees of help. So it is difficult for governments to prescribe common solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will remember that many years ago when he was very much in command of his subject and before, I must confess, I was in a position to take—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must finish what I was going to say, before I am accused of being patronising. I was pointing out that the noble Lord was a distinguished doctor well before I took much interest in the affairs of disabled people. I do not think that is patronising at all.
The noble Lord will remember that in those days the phrase as regards disabled people used to be "sick and disabled people". I believe that it thereby distinguished between the two groups. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made what thought was a devastating point in this connection when she referred to the fact that disabled people needed to be fit in order to cope as well as they could with their particular disability. If one needs to be fit, by definition one cannot be sick.
What in my roundabout way I am coming to say is that I feel that because of that it would be quite wrong for disabled people to be looked after by a public health commission, though I fully understand—we have had discussions about this—that a public health commission could have other valuable roles.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that there are different solutions to common social problems in the Community. Clearly, we need to develop practical and desirable solutions. However, we see the main responsibility as being within the member states, who are best placed to judge on national needs and priorities. Certainly in taking forward national policies we recognise the importance of taking account of what is happening elsewhere in the Community.
My noble friend Lady Cox was backed up, as it were, by another noble Lord. I can say that as my noble friend is absent. She talked of what she called

679
the paucity of evidence in other EC states. I note that the committee comments that the evidence it received contained examples of good practice within the United Kingdom, and it describes some interesting ideas concerning benefits for disabled people. I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Parry, said about partial pensions according to the degree of disability. We already incorporate that concept into our thinking and indeed actions in the war pension scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will remember that.
I believe that we need to do everything that we can to encourage disabled people into more productive lifestyles, whether that means direct employment, partial employment or even the volunteering which noble Lords have talked about. However, with 16 months' experience of responsibility for the war pensions scheme behind me I am sceptical, to say the least, about extending it more widely to disabled people. I would add that until we have the full set of OPCS surveys we shall not be able to judge whether the substantial resources already allocated to benefits and services for people with disabilities are properly targeted. I accept that the Government do indeed need to see whether there are better ways of providing help for those who need it most, and further thought will have to be given to that matter.
In partial answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, of course the Government are aware of the development of advocacy schemes and support those initiatives. We recognise the possibility for further development as a result of provisions relating to authorised representatives being introduced into the Disabled Persons Act 1986. However, a lot of work is required before the specific sections of that Act can be implemented, as I have explained on numerous occasions to the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
I should like to say briefly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I am aware of the report Living Options Lottery by Barrie Fiedler, which he will remember was funded jointly by the Department of Health and Social Security and the King's Fund. We recently received the report and are considering it. The study shows that there is still a long way to go to achieve full independence for all disabled people. We welcome the many examples of good practice which it highlights and the fact that it demonstrates how even severely physically disabled people, given the right support, can live independent, fulfilled lives within the community. I agree with him on that point.
I hope that the whole House will agree with me that this has been a most constructive debate. Many noble Lords have paid tribute today to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The subject of social affairs across Europe and today's sub-set of issues in the socioeconomics of disabled people is very diverse indeed. I believe that we are all indebted to the noble Lord for exercising the wisdom of Solomon in this matter. Clearly, it was a most difficult report to draw up and put together. I hope that I shall not be accused again of being patronising.
Your Lordships have again targeted your thoughts on an area of social and economic policy by means of which the European Community is making a
680
valuable contribution to developing awareness of the needs of disabled people. The United Kingdom Government are playing their full part and our aim is to ensure that the programmes redound to the benefit of disabled people in the United Kingdom. The Government will keep that aim clearly in view.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is now some three and a half hours since we started this debate and I do not propose to prolong it, appreciative as I am of the amount of business still to be done. Being astounded at my own moderation, although there has been so much talk of independent living I do not even intend to talk about the possible effect of the poll tax on that concept.
I have not felt patronised by the Minister and I should like to thank him for his most informative reply. It seems to me that lessons have been learnt from the first action programme, and the assurances the noble Lord has given hold out much better prospects for the second programme although we may possibly inquire about progress from time to time. My only slight disappointment is to learn of such a prosaic explanation of the Greek-flavoured title of the new programme.
I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. It seems to me that the numbers of those who have chosen to speak about what was certainly quite a difficult report and the wide variety of points which have been raised are some indication of the interest and care which this House feels for the disabled in our society.
As I am on my feet there is one thing I should like to say. It seems to me most unfortunate that this debate, which I think is of some importance, was interrupted for so long by a Statement repeating something that was said in the other place. I know that it was an important topic and some interesting speeches were made during the debate, rather long though they were. However, it seems to me that it would have been very much better had it been possible to arrange for the Statement to be made between the two debates, as happens when short debates on Wednesday afternoons are in progress. I hope that there may be some opportunity for taking that up with the Procedure Committee.
Having said all that, I shall content myself with adding that there is a great deal to be read and studied in Hansard and repeating my thanks to all those who contributed to the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Price Review 1988–89: ECC Report
6.46 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Farm Price Review 1988–89 (15th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 85).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the normal course of events to be discussing the common agricultural policy farm price review midway through

681
the year to which the review itself relates would be considered in most polite circles a doubtful use of time. However, I believe that the special nature of this year's farm price review and the background against which it took place justify us in giving some consideration to the matter and in particular in taking note of the report on the proposals made for 1988–89 which your Lordships' Select Committee prepared at the material time.
The year 1988–89 was in a sense unique for farm prices in the Community. First, it was the year in which financial disciplines agreed at the European Council of Heads of State in February 1988 were applied to farm prices. That was reflected in the nature of the proposals made by the Commission. In effect we had a standstill arrangement so far as prices were concerned. The standstill was necessary to conform to the new financial disciplines to which the farm budget is now subject.
Because of that special factor, the Select Committee decided to take evidence from the Treasury on the matter. At page 17 of the report noble Lords will see elaborated the five safeguards which the Treasury now consider should be sufficient to prevent any repetition of settlements far exceeding the capacity of the Community to pay for them within its existing financial ability.
At the same time, I believe that it is necessary where farming is concerned to make it clear that there are no absolute safeguards even for expenditure under the common agricultural policy. There will always be factors such as the weather worldwide, the special relationship between the dollar and the ecu so far as pricing is concerned and harvest variations in the 12 member states of the Community, covering as they do such a wide geographical area and representing very significant differences in climate.
As I said, the price proposals themselves were for a standstill arrangement. We have summarised those briefly—and I hope adequately—in Appendix 3 of the report. In that beloved phrase "real terms" the standstill arrangement represented a 2·8 per cent. decrease in prices. Because of the standstill nature of the proposals, your Lordships' Select Committee decided to concentrate on what the report describes as "related measures" as well as the agri-monetary proposals contained in the Commission's original proposition. These related measures included the incorporation of a premium for cereals, the extension of milk quotas until 1992 and a decision not to extend the variable premium for beef beyond 1988. We did not consider the sugar proposals at all because the view of the sub-committee was that it will be necessary at some time for us to have a comprehensive look at the sugar position within the Community. The only agri-monetary proposal originally put forward was one for a 10 per cent. cut in the monetary compensation amounts for Greece.
We took evidence as usual from farmers, from food manufacturers, from the Home Grown Cereals Authority, from environmental groups and from consumers. There was inevitably, in such a wide spectrum of evidence-giving, some conflict of views notwithstanding the limited nature of the changes proposed. We are grateful, as always, to the bodies
682
which submitted evidence to us and in particular to those witnesses who came along to give us oral evidence as well as their written submisssions.
The committee very quickly found itself forming a view against the incorporation premium for cereals. We reluctantly accepted the need for milk quotas to be extended until 1992. On beef, we decided to defer detailed consideration because it was obvious even at that time that the Commission was due to produce new proposals for a beef regime, as the existing regime will expire on the 31st December this year.
So far as agri-monetary measures are concerned, strong representations were made to us for and against a devaluation of the green pound, as well as of the Greek drachma. The farmers favoured a very large devaluation, the Ministry of Agriculture was in favour of a small one and consumers were against any devaluation, because they said it would lead to some increase in prices and prices were already high enough.
With the then current appreciation of sterling—that is to say, at May 1988—details of which are given at page 49 of our report, the value of the United Kingdom monetary compensation amounts had fallen by almost 40 per cent. This reduced significantly the distortions caused by monetary compensation amounts, and that was especially so in the case of pig meat.
Monetary compensation amounts themselves are due to be eliminated by stages by 1992, and the committee supports this proposal but doubts whether it is achievable within such a tight time scale. Meanwhile, having to choose between the evidence given to us and the submissions made, the committee supported the concept of a modest green pound devaluation, provided that savings could be achieved elsewhere in the budget and provided that it did not give rise to any necessity for fudging the proposals. In fact the outcome of the negotiations, as I am sure the Minister will tell us, was that a 3.2 per cent. devaluation was agreed for Britain, resulting in a small increase in shop prices. Other member states also got devaluations, but I notice that France and Ireland received smaller devaluations than the United Kingdom. The settlement of the proposals for the year was stymied for a while by the Greeks, who wanted a devaluation in excess of 10 per cent. In the end they got it and, as I say, others managed to get devaluations as well.
So far as co-responsibility levies, which are currently applicable to milk and cereals, are concerned, the Select Committee has never been enamoured of such levies in principle. In particular, we have never been especially fond of the rules for levying these amounts, because the exemptions granted under the co-responsibility arrangements tend to favour small producers and, to that extent, are discriminatory so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
We are also concerned, as a committee, about the way in which the milk and cereal levies so raised are used by the Commission. The Commission is naturally reluctant to give up a lucrative revenue source. We believe that the future of co-responsiblity levies needs discussion in the light of the decision to

683
continue the dairy quota until 1992 and of the introduction of stabilisers for cereals. We favour a reduction in co-responsibility levy rates as a prelude to their abolition. If the Minister has time when replying, we should welcome a view on this proposition.
So far as the incorporation premium for cereals in animal feedstuffs is concerned, we give detailed reasons for our criticism of this idea at page 7 of the report. It is basically a device to increase the use of cereals and feedingstuffs by means of subsidy of the cereals so used. As there is little scope for this in the United Kingdom because our feedingstuffs already contain, so we are told, a very high proportion of cereals, we think that the scheme is of little value to the United Kingdom and, as drafted, it would be difficult to administer and likely to be cost-ineffective. However, it gives member states who use cereal substitutes an option of switching from things like manioc to animal feedstuffs incorporating cereals at a cheaper rate. That did not console us particularly and seemed another reason for being critical of the proposition as such.
We understand that a decision on this question has been deferred, and it may be that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight whether there is any movement so far as the idea is concerned, or whether it is likely to be consigned to the category of something that was started but has not been acted upon because of the criticisms made of it.
So far as dairy quotas are concerned, we agreed reluctantly to a continuation of quotas until 1992, in accordance with the recommendation. At the same time we have added a rider to our acceptance, to the effect that we do not see quotas as being an answer to the long-term problems of the dairy industry. The phrase we use is that it may, "fossilise patterns of production". I am aware, of course, that there are those who disagree sharply with this view. They are of the opinion that because quotas are transferable fossilisation is not likely to be a problem.
I think it is very difficult to argue coherently one way or the other, without looking at a much broader picture than was possible during our review of the Commission's proposals. For example, Members will be aware that the 1988 importation of milk regulations take effect from 16th November this year. It seems to me that by any reckoning these will have a long-term effect on the dairy industry in the United Kingdom, and may possibly have a very serious effect on doorstep deliveries in the United Kingdom, because at first glance they seem to permit member states to send a very wide variety of milk and milk products to this country without let or hindrance, provided that they satisfy the necessary standards. That is a position we have always known would arise. It now seems to be very much a fact of life and I think it indicates that no fixed position can be taken up on the question of whether or not dairy quotas, which have worked so well so far, can be regarded as a permanent solution to the problems of the dairy industry throughout the Community.
In this regard, I might mention that the stock position of butter in the European Community has,
684
as a result of the imposition of quotas, fallen by two-thirds and now stands at 400,000 tonnes, of which the United Kingdom's stock is a mere 70,000 tonnes. I use the word "mere" in the context of the days that were. The stock of skimmed milk powder in the Community, which amounted to 1 million tonnes, is now virtually nil.
This clearance of stock is something that always brings a great sigh of relief to those who have been associated with the problems of overstocking, but it is necessary to mention in passing that the stock clearance has been achieved at considerable cost to the Community and has indeed been of little benefit to consumers within the Community. One fervently hopes that the measures now taken, particularly by the Heads of Government Meeting in Brussels last February, will prevent any recurrence of major buildups of stock, because they greatly discredit the concept of the common agriculture policy as such.
So far as the beef buying-in price is concerned, the Commission proposed removing provisions in calculating the beef buying-in price to save money on sales to intervention. We supported this proposition because it seemed to us that the modifications to the beef regime made in 1986 have not had any significant impact in reducing the volume of beef sold to intervention. We understand that an adjustment of the buying-in price has been made. I wonder whether this has had any effect on the intervention position so far. Perhaps the Minister would mention this in replying to the debate.
We made no comment on the proposals for wine, fruit and vegetables, protein crops, tobacco and olive oil. The proposals for these commodities were in line with those for other commodities which I have mentioned. However, the continuing need for evenhanded treatment of crops produced in the southern half of the European Community remains quite serious. This is particularly true in view of the enhanced opportunities that southern member states now have to increase their sales in northern states of the Community. Those noble Lords who study the labels on canned fruit will be hard put these days to find very much in the shops from South Africa. On the other hand, great quantities come from Greece, Italy and Spain. It is important that the southern states should be reminded of the fact that the northern half of the Community gives them an opportunity for selling their products and taking advantage of the situation.
At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned that the settlement was overshadowed by the financial disciplines imposed by the Brussels summit. I think that we can say that the future of the common agricultural policy looks considerably brighter than it did a few years ago. There is a reasonable balance between money available and the amount of food being produced. The limits on budget increases, the use of stabilisers with maximum guaranteed quantities in place, the use of quotas for milk and the use of market management, which are all important factors, have combined if not to transform the CAP then at least to make it appear a more favourable policy than it was three or four years ago.
I am too old a hand to imagine that no other problems exist, but I think that I can say truthfully that major steps have been taken towards a solution of existing problems. The regimes that apply in the Community are still far too complex as such and are certainly not understood by all those directly affected by them. Some attempt should be made to make the structure of the CAP more intelligible to farmers and shoppers. It is a considerable intellectual exercise at present to achieve the foggiest idea of how the system works.
I remain convinced that the common agricultural policy is at the heart of the European Community. Without a common agricultural policy I believe that there would have been no free movement of manufactured goods in the European Community in the first place, and so in a sense there might not have been a Community at all. The prospect of achieving total free movement of goods by 1992 would be considerably more remote than it now is. I look forward to the achievement of the full Community by 1992, not only for the reason that it may take the heat off the CAP, but because there will be in Europe a new focal point for the opinion of the people who are citizens of the European Community. Having said that, I advise those concerned with agricultural matters to maintain the strictest vigilance, which I think will always be necessary where assistance to farming is concerned. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Farm Price Review 1988–89 (15th Report, 1987–88, HL paper 85).—(Lord Gallacher.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, when we reported on the 1987–88 farm price proposals in April last year we summarised the difficulties involved in reducing the expense of the common agricultural policy arising out of surplus production by saying:
"The Community's problems are aggravated by the conflict between the objectives of the Treaty of Rome in terms of maintaining farm income and the insupportable burden that would be placed on the budget were the agricultural support to have remained open ended".
The Community has taken belated but strong measures to curb spending. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, the milk quota imposed in 1984 was reduced in 1986 and again for 1988–89.
Following an effective 7 per cent. cut in cereal prices in the previous year, last year's price fixing and related measures amounted to a further drop in support of the order of 9 per cent. for bread wheat, 12 per cent. for feed grains and a slashing 25 per cent. for oil seed rape. This year's price fixing has to be seen as part of a package consisting of three elements: first, the freeze on prices which, as the noble Lord reminded us, in real terms means a further cut of 3 per cent., secondly, stabilisers; and thirdly, the imposition of a ceiling on total agricultural spending. As we saw when we debated stabilisers last February, support prices for cereals are to be reduced whenever production exceeds a guaranteed threshold of 160 million tonnes.
686
I am always mystified about how the Commission thinks that it is going to get accurate cereal production figures from all the member states. Estimates for the 1988 harvest vary. The one that we used in the report was for a 1988 harvest of 162·5 million tonnes of cereals. On that basis, next year's corn prices would be cut by another 3 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the co-responsibility levy. That is the part of the stabiliser mechanism which affects farmers most obviously and is additional to any price cuts. I see that I am just now paying £7 per tonne on barley so that amounts approximately to another 7 per cent. reduction.
The Minister of Agriculture said in a debate in another place in May this year:
"I hope that no one will be in any doubt about the potentially severe impact of stabilisers and hence pressure on farmers if production continues to rise … But in cereals, if Community production exceeds the maximum guaranteed quantity of 160 million tonnes by whatever amount regularly over the next four years, intervention and buying—in prices will automatically be cut by as much as 12 per cent., coming on top of reductions in recent years.
Cumulatively, that could mean that by 1983 the common level of support for cereal producers could be as much as one third lower than it was in its peak in 1983–84".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/5/88; col. 1038.]
All this adds up to a substantial reduction in support.
Furthermore, as the report points out and as the noble Lord reminded us, UK farmers are still disadvantaged in comparison with our European competitors through the operation of MCAs, although this burden has been lightened to some extent by the appreciation of sterling and by our Minister's achievement in obtaining for the United Kingdom a further reduction in the monetary gap of 3·2 points starting next year.
It is probably too soon to make an assessment of the effect of this year's February agreement on re-launching the Community budget, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the general picture in November 1988 is different from that which we contemplated when debating last year's price proposals 15 months ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has referred to the weather. The vagaries of the world's climate remind us once again that annual world production of grain does not always exceed consumption. This year's drought in large areas of North America and in Asia is likely to cause an excess of consumption of 150 million tonnes. For the first time since 1973 strategic grain reserves are in danger of falling below the FAO target level of 250 million tonnes.
In Europe there has been a significant rundown in intervention stocks. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to milk powder, the stocks of which have disappeared. Butter stocks are down by nearly 70 per cent. The wheat mountain is smaller by 34 per cent. and the beef mountain is beginning to shrink. Oil seed rape production, probably due to the cut in 1987, has this year fallen by an estimated 600.000 tonnes. Because of the reduction in spending on export refunds due to higher world cereal and oil seed prices and to the reduction in intervention stocks, Community spending on agricultural market support is running well below forecast levels. In budgetary terms, 1989 spending is now thought to be 1·7 billion

687
ecus below the agricultural framework level. A great deal has therefore been done to reduce the burden on the budget. Surplus stocks have been reduced, partly for this reason and partly because of the weather, and the Community's finances are in a healthier state.
Perhaps I may now turn to the other objective of the Treaty of Rome to which I referred earlier: maintaining farm income. We noted last year that over 10 years there had been an average fall in the purchasing power of net farm income in the Community of just over 25 per cent. In the UK it had been just under 40 per cent. When we debated stabilisers earlier this year I drew attention to the very depressing figures relating to average net farm income in the UK contained in MAFF's 1988 review. To the dismal figures for the previous five years was added a gloomy forecast, and I quoted MAFF's 90 per cent. drop in projected 1987–88 net income for English cereal growers compared with 1982–83. I refer again to MAFF's 1988 review. Although farm output has risen by 20 per cent. in the last 10 years, bank indebtedness mounted fivefold over the same period.
All over the country there is a strong feeling among farmers that they are under pressure. These figures would seem to give some substance to their worries. The hard fact is that the process of getting the CAP under control is bound to be a painful one for farmers. All noble Lords who spoke in debates on last year's prices and on stabilisers acknowledged this.
I believe that somewhere in the report we refer to the necessity in the long term for a more market-oriented agriculture. To achieve this will make great demands on farmers as they strive to produce at lower cost. As I have said before, the brakes are being applied very sharply. If the metaphor used is that of the curb, I would say that the effect on a horse is similar to that of brakes on a motor vehicle: sharp application throws it off balance. I make this point because the Commission, having taken strong corrective action to curb farm production for budgetary reasons, is now proposing new measures that would place restrictions on agricultural production for environmental reasons. Some of these proposals are to come forward this year.
If farmers are in danger of being thrown off balance by the budgetary controls—and I have indicated that this may be happening now—then any additional proposed controls should be scrutinised with the utmost care.
It is fashionable at present to worry about the environment; and it is right to do so. I care very deeply about such matters. However, we must make sure that the very best scientific advice is taken on environmental matters. Here I believe that your Lordships' Select Committee could have a significant part to play in eliciting such opinion. There is nothing that will damage the British countryside more than an agricultural depression. Noble Lords who are as old as I am will remember how horrible some parts of the country looked in the 1930s. A balance has to be struck between the maintenance of food production by an efficient home industry on the one hand and, on the other hand, the best and most sensitive use and
688
management of the environment. We must not allow the balance to be tipped the wrong way in either direction.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we are discussing a report, published some time ago, which has been overtaken by events. However, it is a very good time to discuss it because we are seeing the effects of the measures proposed and taken. There has been a certain amount of success as regards the Commission's main objective in the last few years at the hand of the council and of those who have taken part in the common agricultural policy: that objective being to bring the surpluses under control. Without doubt we have had some success. Ten years ago subcommittee D said that we had to have a restrictive price policy, that we had to give warnings to farmers, and that forward planning was needed. Unfortunately, nothing happened. The Council kept putting up prices for political reasons. Nothing was done, and now we have to take very sharp action, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has stated.
There is little doubt that there has been much success with the milk quota. It has reduced the surpluses enormously. No doubt my noble friend Lord Walston will be citing this. He has long said that the quota, or some such device, is the way to bring the surplus under control. That has been proven with milk.
I do not agree with the general opinion of the committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Gallagher, that it is desirable to do away with quotas. I simply say that the system is working. Although the dairy farmers' income has dropped, along with others, they are among the better off sections of the agricultural community, and the surpluses are coming under control. That must be success.
I believe that beef will probably cure its surplus because of the policy for dairy farming. There are already signs that we need more suckler cows in this country and in Europe if we are to keep up the supply of beef which the people are eating in increasing quantities.
As regards cereals, we are experiencing some savage and unfair-to-farmers practices after the encouragement that they have been given to grow cereals. I believe that they are working. The one that works best is the simple fact that the Commission can now control intervention. It can cut intervention at certain times and it can bring it in at other times. By doing so, it can keep the price down and thereby drive the farmers on the poorer land out of cereal production and back into the stock farming that perhaps they should be undertaking.
I agree entirely with my excellent chairman the noble Lord, Lord Gallacherwho has been a very good chairman of Sub-Committee D—that the co-responsibility payment is a mess, grossly unfair, does not do anything for consumption, is awkward to apply and everything else. The incorporation scheme I believe is even worse. I cannot see it working with any degree of success whatsoever, and I hope that the Government will do all in their power to see that it does not come into being in this country.

689
Price discipline will bring cereals both in this country and in the Community into line. The use of intervention powers and the use of stabilisers will bring our cereal production on to the kind of land that should be producing it and will bring cereals under control.
The fact is that the £27½ billion—a lovely phrase, "billion pounds"—which goes to supporting agricultural prices, does not go to the farmer. The people I know in our part of the world who have made a lot of money have been the people who have built stores. They have become extremely prosperous, and some of them have now sold the stores and moved back into farming. That is very sensible and very good, but it is not a long-term policy for agriculture in Europe. That ties up with what we have been talking about regarding milk. If production can be restricted and at the same time a fair price is paid then we shall start to get somewhere. We are not really in a position where the world is rolling with food. We quote the surpluses in the States and in Europe, but quite small and quite usual natural disasters suddenly reduce the stocks. For example, in the States stocks of wheat in 1989 will be half the 1988 stocks. Feed grains are down by 36 per cent. These are enormous figures. It means that we have to look after agriculture in this country. It is still a great industry, an enormous contributor to our extraordinarily bad balance of payments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, agriculture is the mainstay of a beautiful, interesting and alive countryside. We do not require any more savage attacks on the living of the farmers and their men on the land. I am sure that much thinking still has to be done about extensification. If the food is produced off more land then that land is waiting if one gets into trouble and one can return to more extensive cultivation.
I am glad to see that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is coming round to this point of view. I hope that, whichever Minister replies, he or she will give us the benefit of the Government's thinking along these lines. There is little doubt in my mind that if we preserve the land and the fabric of the industry that will be a wise move because all over the world man is destroying the natural environment. We have examples of what has been done in Africa which, from one end to another, is an example of land going out of production—"desertification" is a ridiculous word, but it is not a funny word in terms of the millions of acres going out of production. We have—we hear about it, and rightly so—the destruction of rain forests all over the world, not only in the Amazon and Africa, but in the Far East as well. The human race is so clever, so sharp, that we shall cut ourselves. The least we can do in Europe is to see that we preserve a balanced agriculture which may be needed very greatly in the future.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, as always the Select Committee has produced an admirable report. We have now been accustomed for many years to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, presiding over a wise and objective committee. He has expounded what the
690
committee has produced in his usual clear and concise manner.
What is less usual about this debate is that while we normally can agree on what I have just said year after year, it is usual for us and certainly for me to criticise in very many respects what Brussels has produced and what it is proposing. However, on this occasion I am happy— indeed, somewhat surprised—to be able to say that it has at last produced the outline of a policy which has some chance of success. Brussels appears to have succeeded in limiting the amount of its expenditure on the common agricultural policy. If it really has succeeded by the end of the year I think one can say that it will be the first time, ever since the common agricultural policy first came into being.
What is more, and possibly more significant, it has now at last followed the advice which your Lordships have frequently given, and other people too, of attempting to produce a moderately long-term policy for agriculture to explain to farmers throughout the whole of the Community what they are being asked to produce, not simply for the current year—when obviously it is far too late to have any effect on what they are doing—but for two or three years ahead.
Let us hope that all will be encouraged by that and will produce an even longer-term policy for at least five years ahead. In the meantime, by all means let us be grateful for mercies which are not all that small in the context of the Community.
I pick two specific points out of the report. My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has already mentioned one of them, and so has the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher; that is, the milk quotas. As my noble friend has reminded the House, this is something that I have for long advocated. However, I have always been aware of its dangers and the fact that it can, if left unfettered, produce in certain areas a relatively small privileged class of farmers who, having acquired the quota, are able to continue producing milk regardless of their efficiency, rather than letting a controlled degree of market forces eventually squeeze out the less efficient and those in the less suitable areas and encourage newcomers to come in who are more suitable or existing farmers to expand. We do not want to have a frozen pattern of milk production or any other kind of production.
One of the tasks confronting those concerned with the long term of the common agricultural policy is to work out methods by which the quotas for milk, sugar beet and other products can be modified so that production will go to those who are most efficient and favourably placed.
My second point has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and I should like to re-emphasise it; it is MCAs. They are a complete nonsense and a grave disadvantage to British farmers. Paragraph 34 of the report states:
"Prices in France and Ireland were about 9 per cent. higher and those of the Netherlands up to 17 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom".
To a large extent that is due to MCAs.
Table 4 in paragraph 50 shows the difference between the national currency value of CAP support prices applied in Germany and the United Kingdom

691
up to 13th March and from 2nd May. For cereal intervention prices the difference was 21 per cent. and 14 per cent.; for dairy product intervention prices it was 21 per cent. and 13 per cent.; for beef guide prices it was 12 per cent. and 5 per cent.
They are significant differences in price. To put it mildly, it is misleading to say that we have a common agricultural policy when the prices which are paid to farmers in the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Germany differ to such a marked extent from those paid to British farmers. It is because of the exchange mechanism.
I ask noble Lords to take seriously paragraph 57 of the report . It states:
"The difficulty of mca abolition is much greater for those Members States whose currencies are not participating in the EMS exchange rate mechanism—i.e. Greece, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom".
Although it is far from this debate, if any additional argument were needed that is a reason why we should move into the exchange rate mechanism with the least possible delay. Without that, such disparities and divergencies cannot be overcome.
Two further points have been touched upon by other noble Lords. I shall not detain the House for long by mentioning them but they are of importance. For a long time we have been used to discussing agriculture in the Community and in this country in terms of surpluses, mountains, lakes, and so forth. We have forgotten that there were times, and that there could be times, when food was short. We have also forgotten the need that was so great in the 1950s for conserving foreign exchange by growing more food at home. Therefore we must not be misled by the surpluses.
I agree with those who say that they must be reduced, that they have been a great drain and that the common agricultural policy has many faults which are slowly being overcome. However, we must not think that life will be easy in the future, that come what may we shall never be short of food and that it will always be cheaper on the world market than within the EC. We must remember that a drought in the United States, a cold winter in the Soviet Union, floods in China, or whatever, can have a profound effect on world food supplies and world prices. It is not inconceivable that the years are not far distant when, if we pursue a policy of reducing domestic production too severely, we may find ourselves importing food not at the cheap world prices which we know today but at the inflated prices which occur when demand exceeds supply.
We must bear in mind an additional factor. It is that, apart from rising standards of nutrition throughout the world for which one hopes, the population of the world is rising at an alarming rate. By the end of the century there may be 1 billion more mouths to feed and the food must come from somewhere. It will be no good suddenly waking up to that fact when surpluses have disappeared and shortages have reappeared and saying, "Let us produce more". Everyone, even non-farmers, knows that farming is a long-term process. I am not arguing for a level which entails vast surpluses, but whatever
692
the level may be we must keep going an efficient agriculture in this country; we must keep good people on the land, both farmers and farmworkers; we must keep good scientists working to promote efficiency; and the infrastructure must be maintained.
Finally, I should like to reinforce what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Middleton, about the effect on the environment and the countryside of the declining prosperity in agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, claims to know what it was like in the 1930s. I claim to be considerably older than he and my experience of those days is still vivid. It is of overgrown hedges, silted-up ditches, rusting corrugated iron, thistles, nettles and brambles. It was an environment which today would create outcries of protest from the urban dweller. We have not yet reached that stage and I hope that we never shall; we are a long way from it. However, it is a picture which we must keep in the back of our minds. We can avoid it only by having a prosperous agriculture with profits for good farmers on good land producing what the community requires. In order to promote that kind of policy we must exert all our forces.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I spent a considerable amount of time composing a speech which I now find to be almost entirely inappropriate to the debate. However, my confidence is marginally restored by the observation that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has taken his place. Perhaps I may be permitted to confine myself to a few remarks on a local level. I am sure that the noble Lord will listen to them with his usual sympathy, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, finds that they are not entirely relevant to her reply.
It seems to me that the whole situation is overshadowed by the varying value of the green pound and the variation in price support. Pitching the matter at a local level, the differential between UK support prices in the dairy industry and those in the Republic of Ireland is approximately 6 per cent. That means that an exporter of butter in the Republic of Ireland receives a net MCA subsidy of £105 sterling per tonne if he is exporting to the UK and, indeed, an export refund of over £115 per tonne higher than that which would be received by a similar UK exporter if the butter was going to a third country.
That clearly discriminates against the UK and particularly so against Northern Ireland which is in a peculiar position; namely, it is the only part of the UK which has a land boundary with a different part of the EC with this differential applying. Therefore, smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland continues to take place and I envisage that it will go on taking place until those differentials have been eliminated. While the discrepancies exist, there will be this continuing situation of smuggling backwards and forwards and fortunes will be made by certain people out of that illicit activity.
I wonder whether or not that is an area on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement could take constructive

693
and concerted action. As we have said before—and I know this is not pertinent to the debate—the Anglo-Irish Agreement has come in for much criticism because it always seems to discuss political matters. If it were to address itself to matters of common interest which would make it acceptable to all sections of the community with the exception of the smugglers, would that not raise the profile, acceptability and desirability of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the eyes of people of all shades of opinion in the community? I throw that out as a suggestion.
Perhaps I may return to the status of the green pound in the EC. Representations have been made by the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and others for a devaluation of significant proportions. In the event, the 3.2 per cent. reduction in MCAs and devaluation of the green pound is welcome and will help but it will only go part of the way towards reducing the sort of discrepancies of which we are speaking. Therefore, one hopes that Her Majesty's Government will press for further devaluation sufficient to move towards elimination of MCAs. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, MCAs are undesirable and something which ideally we should do much better without.
That leads on to the question of what will happen as regards the green pound and MCAs with effect from 1st January 1993. Perhaps it would be a slight understatement to say that Her Majesty's Government have shown a certain disinclination to join the EMS. I wonder how much difference that would make. I have asked various people who are well informed but who have not received a clear reply about that and who could not read any clear reply in this report. If the noble Baroness, in replying, can throw any further light on that, I should be very interested indeed to hear it.
On the subject of the co-responsibility levy which has already been mentioned, I cannot help wondering in the case of milk why it is still necessary to have the co-responsibility levy at the level at which it is at the moment. After all, its original purpose was to discourage milk production but we now have a quota situation whereby farmers are heavily penalised if they overproduce. In fact the cost of a medium to large herd of 300 cows could be £5,000 to £7,000 in co-responsibility levy each year. That seems to be excessive and can make the difference between profitability and non-profitability. I wonder why that is still necessary in a quota situation. Indeed, we know that part of the purpose of the co-responsibility levy was for publicity and promotion of milk products but surely that was only a small fraction of it. I wonder why the levy has to be continued at as high a level as is proposed at present.
On the subject of milk quotas, there still seem to be some unfair elements in the administration of the system. Arising from the Mulder case, other producers are suffering from the fact that those producers who voluntarily opted to go out of milk production in the 1970s and early 1980s and received monetary compensation for so doing, have been granted quotas after all. That has resulted in not a large but a significant penalty being laid on other producers who remained in milk production during that period.
694
Again, many UK producers have not received their tribunal awards in full. Perhaps I may quote Northern Ireland figures. Those who were due development awards—in other words farmers who happened in 1983 to be building up a herd and therefore their milk production was not up to the level which they were anticipating—have only received 95 per cent. of their award. Hardship cases, farmers whose herds were suffering from brucellosis or something of that sort in 1983, have only received 85 per cent. I feel that I must almost apologise for again referring to the 65,000 tonnes of extra quota which were originally awarded to Northern Ireland but which were not received and were distributed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. A certain recovery of that has been made but the full 65,000 tonnes have not yet been appropriated for Northern Ireland as was originally intended. I am sorry to say that that is something about which there is still resentment.
In conclusion, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his exposition of the report to which I listened with great interest.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, discussion of this report enables those of us who served on the committee to thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher for his chairmanship of that committee which l believe ends at the end of this Session. The combination of wit, firmness and courtesy which he showed from the Chair made service on the committee a positive pleasure.
The farming world has moved on, as is its wont, since the committee reported. On reading again the paragraphs which deal with the budgetary costs of the CAP, one is reminded of the effect of what I would describe as the constant farming variable; namely, the weather. I understand that the Commission is now heading for an underspend approaching £1 billion. That reminds us that one season's shortage of rain does more to save money on the CAP than years of the Prime Minister harangueing her European colleagues.
The report concentrated on three areas—the green pound, MCAs and incorporation premium. I deal with the premium first. We are all agreed that this is an absurd proposal and I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will resist it as hard as they can. As regards the green pound and MCAs (which have been discussed already), are the Government still committed to the abolition of the whole paraphernalia of the green pound and MCAs by 1992?
The discussion on the report provides the opportunity for a more general agricultural debate. We should remind ourselves that however much the Government congratulate themselves on the control of the CAP budget, we should not forget that farm incomes have declined by more than 40 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. Farm incomes are at their second lowest level in real terms since the war. There is also the knock-on effect on the rural economy. Farmers spend about £9 billion in the rural community through wages and the purchase of goods

695
and services. We hear a great deal about the Government's economic success and are told that there is a budgetary surplus of some £10 billion. We are therefore entitled to ask: what are the Government's plans to deal with the real and depressing problem of depressed farm incomes?
This major industry, with an output of about £16 billion, is in serious recession. Jobs are being lost and there is now more uncertainty in the industry than I have known in my 31 years as an agricultural adviser. As I said, we are entitled to ask the Government to tell us their plans to restore the confidence of farmers and produce an increase in farm incomes in real terms.
We know that there are a number of issues concerning farming and the countryside. It is obvious from the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society that the environment, however defined, is clearly going to be the flavour of the decade. We also now have the Commission document on the future of the countryside. I understand that government proposals are due shortly on the extensification plan which is required by the Community. When will those proposals be produced? What is the timetable?
In the context of extensification, is the Minister aware of the interesting work which is being done at Aberystwyth? This shows that Government encouragement of organic farming through grant-aid may, on certain assumptions, be a cheaper policy in terms of its budgetary costs then either a set-aside programme or export refunds. Are the Government considering these options in the extensification proposals?
We should remind ourselves that as regards extensification and set-aside we have a surplus of food and not a surplus of land. By that I mean that we could use all the land we have by producing our food less intensively. We would thereby maintain employment in the countryside. It is a surplus of food which is our problem—and that is fast disappearing —and not, as it is often said, a surplus of land.
In the context of set-aside there is of course the effect on jobs which has been mentioned by several noble Lords in debates in the past. Even with the very limited take-up which we have seen for the first season (which we all expected) this almost certainly means a loss of about 750 full-time jobs without any form of compensation for the workers apart from statutory redundancy payments. There is also the effect among farm tenancies. I understand from a number of land agents that landlords are wondering whether they should re-let farms or take set-aside money.
I raise two points relating to farmers' costs and returns. The first is the problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. We know that the Government have agreed a level of compensation of 50 per cent. of market value. Are the Government aware of the dangers of unscrupulous producers who put suspect animals into the food chain in order to get their full cull value rather than take the 50 per cent. compensation offered by the Government? That is an example of shortsighted Treasury accounting for candle ends and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider policy in that respect.
696
There is another problem which I have already mentioned to the Minister outside the Chamber. This affects the input costs of farmers. There is a delay in granting licences of right for approval of chemicals, some of which have reached the end of the period under which they are protected by patent. Some of these chemicals have been on the market for a number of years. If they could be sold under licence of right that would reduce farmers' costs. Have the Government any plans to speed up the process of granting licences and to give some priority to products which have been on the market for a long time?
I conclude on a point that has been made by a number of speakers in this debate. We should reflect how quickly the farming picture can change and remind ourselves of the fragility of world food supplies. World wheat stocks have halved in two years. We are told that for sugar the supply and demand balance will be tight. The forecast is that beef production in the EC will be down by 5 per cent. World pigmeat production has declined for the first time in 10 years. As a pig producer I regard that as good news. There is nothing I enjoy so much as selling into a short market.
The increase in commodity prices generally indicates a very close supply and demand balance. We are now told that the greenhouse effect could be affecting us by the mid-1990s. That is only seven years away—the length of one farming rotation. I made my maiden speech in this House on the 1987 review. I conclude now with the same remark that I concluded with then. I quoted the wise remark by the late Arthur Street. He pointed out—and we learnt the wisdom of it this year—that all the efforts of the politicians and the bureaucrats are as nothing in their effect on farmers as the simple question of whether or not it rains tomorrow.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I take this opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, this morning chaired Sub-Committee D for the last time, of thanking him and again paying tribute to the wonderful way and to the good humour with which he led us through the complexities of the CAP.
I should like to take your Lordships a little on to the world stage in the context of this price settlement. Earlier this year I was lucky enough to attend a conference on world agriculture in Munich organised by Chatham House and three other organisations. From that it seemed to me that we are being a little parochial in thinking that the importance of reducing surpluses must be seen only in the context of the enormous cost to the EC budget. In fact, it is a major world problem. If we do not solve that problem it could seriously jeopardise the GATT round of discussions now being conducted and which will come to a head at the mid-term review next month in Canada.
The problem is that of subsidised over-production specifically in the United States, the Community and Japan. Hunger in the third world is not caused by lack of food but by poverty. The dumping of surplus food on the world market, which is a product of the

697
surpluses produced in the three countries mentioned, causes poverty in the rural communities of the third world—and a high proportion of the people in the third world depend on a rural economy. It also causes anger and economic crises in countries such as New Zealand.
My view is that the present situation is immoral. Whether or not is is immoral, unless the problem is solved it will cause real risk of breakdown in the GATT negotiations. A solution must therefore be found. The USA has proposed what it calls a zero option. In effect, this is a move towards free trade by the year 2000, though the USA has now retracted that precise date. At the meeting I attended, the US representatives were extremely aggressive, even offensive, towards the EC because the representatives of the Community were not prepared to follow that plan.
Whether the American Administration would be able to deliver free trade, I very much doubt, however. The alternative solution being suggested by the Community is a much more staged move towards a degree of free trade over a period of years. In this context I believe that it is worth mentioning the very interesting suggestion that the first move must be to arrive at a measurement of subsidy. This is needed because there are so many different forms of concealed subsidy which countries apply in order to benefit their farming communities. The Community has developed a concept called the PSE or producer subsidy equivalent. The idea is that if the subsidies of every kind provided by different countries could be reduced to some units of simple equivalence then it might be possible to move effectively and fairly towards a staged reduction in subsidy.
Whatever the plan, the surpluses must be reduced. It is against this background that we have to look at the settlement under discussion. Of course the price settlement is only a part of the package. There are the stabilisers and quotas that have been discussed this evening and there is also set-aside. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England made an interesting point in the paper which was sent to some of us that the most damaging aspect of set-aside is the philosophy that it has created. That is the idea that there is a surplus of land. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to this. There is not a surplus of land if we can think of something else to do with it. I am not entirely convinced that in every case we can.
Undoubtedly there is a surplus of food. The alternative to set-aside, which is the rather useless way of coping with apparently surplus land, is the possibility of extensification. The danger of this is that we end up with a countryside that is a museum. Extensification must be justified in the less favoured areas. It may be that it can be justified elsewhere—certainly, for example, where farmers wish to undertake organic farming. It would seem reasonable that they should receive the subsidy for doing so because they are in effect saving money by producing at a much lower rate of output per acre.
I believe that extensification can probably be achieved in terms of rotation, but whether it can be achieved effectively in terms of agricultural practices such as using smaller quantities of fertilisers, I am less
698
convinced. We have to see the present surplus situation and the present price review in the context of the inexorable technological advance in yields. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not giving full weight to the 3 per cent. increase in yield capacity of our crops which we are told we are likely to see over the next decade.
Against this we have to set the political reality. Most people, and not only those who live in the countryside, are keen to avoid destroying the rural environment. This means also not destroying the rural community. I believe that some figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, suggest that if we do not want to destroy the rural community the reductions in price support that have taken place over the past few years will have to be offset by income aids which do not stimulate production. That is known as decoupling in EC jargon.
In this context, European farmers have said that they do not want to be paid for doing nothing and they do not want to be paid for being park keepers. British landowners and farmers have a very proud tradition of beautifying and looking after the countryside that they love. I believe that, as pressures increase for access to the countryside by a largely urban population, we may perhaps have to learn to enjoy doing as a job what in the past we did for love.
8.7 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the problem with being the last speaker before the Minister replies is that practically everything has been said. My noble kinsman who often follows me always makes that complaint and says that I have said exactly what he was going to say. That is slightly unfair. But that is just the way of things.
The problem with the report is the interval between the decisions of the EC, the committee si udying them and the writing of the report, and now our debating it. A period of over eight months have passed. Quite frankly, a good deal of it is almost academic. This is not in any way a criticism of the report because it was very necessary to look into the whole subject.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his committee have done a good job in putting into the report all the details, outside the price, that affect the farming community in the EC and other places as well. On page 20 there is a list broken by two items, such as tobacco and something else, that do not grow in this country. One then turns to page 51 and looks at the wheat prices. I had to do many calculations to convert ecus into pounds and I hope that I have got it right.
I was in company with a few big cereal farmers at the weekend. They are selling wheat forward at prices that are much higher than the £112 which is the intervention price for feed wheat in the EC. Bread wheat is making much more than that. I believe that some very high quality bread wheat is almost approaching the target price. From that point of view it is a pity that this matter was not discussed a little earlier or that we did not have a debate on agriculture, because, basically, that is what this Unstarred Question is.

699
Another small point is that the table shows our inflation at 3·9 per cent. That is very much out of date and inflation will be almost double that figure by the end of the year if all that we are told is true. That rather spoils the arguments put foward in the table. All these matters emphasise the volatile nature of food production. Quite a few noble Lords have emphasised this, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who also referred to other matters that create this situation.
I believe it is dangerous to make too many presumptions about food surpluses or food stocks. The FAO maintains—I believe this figure was quoted—that anything below a 17 per cent. reduction in stocks is too low. I believe it is now down to 16 per cent. and still falling. The argument that this situation can be rectified very quickly is not too strong. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has just sat down, said that we have many people setting aside for at least three years if not five. I spoke with some Canadian and American farmers and it appears that some of the larger producers of cereals in other countries are not too keen to go back to higher production after the so-called lessons of the past.
The main issue is this. The world population is steadily rising and if industrial production increases and the standard of living in developing countries continues to rise, the demand for food will rise very fast indeed. Today I had quite a long talk with the new Indian High Commissioner on this subject. He maintained, as have various other people in this debate, that the issue is not the lack of food but the lack of money: it is poverty that creates hunger.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised this point but I think he is wrong in one respect. At present, putting cheap food into some of these countries depresses prices for local peasants who are by no manner or means feeding the population. This happened 20 years ago when barley prices fell in this country. The deficiency payment was created to raise prices in this country to local farmers. At that time we were buying a great deal of food from abroad but we managed to bring it in without destroying the incomes of home farmers. We have to teach those governments to do just that. They should not starve their people for the sake of keeping going a low standard of production. This point should be emphasised.
I discussed my next point with the Indian High Commissioner. At present consumption per capita of all grains in India is only about 202 kilos. In the United States consumption per capita is 845 kilos. He emphasised that most of the American consumption is left on plates because that 845 kilos is converted into meats and so on. A decent standard of nutrition requires about 450 kilos, which is about the consumption figure in this country. Half the world's population consumes below that figure. There is still a tremendous demand for food, a point emphasised by nearly every speaker today. We must watch carefully what we do in terms of cutting back production, setting aside land and so on. I agree that there is a local EC problem of surpluses and stocks
700
and the cost of getting rid of them. Nevertheless we can solve that problem and still watch our step carefully. The rise in the world's population is quite fantastic. A very well documented report in The Lancet said that, because population control is not working, the world's population by 2030 will be 7,500 million. One can imagine how much food such a population will require. There will be an unlimited demand for food in the very near future.
I mentioned a price freeze and I referred to a table in the report. As to incorporating more cereals into feed, I do not know who thought of that one but I hope to goodness that it will be dropped with a clang. I cannot see how that would work and it would be a bureaucratic mess.
My next point concerns the green pound and MCAs. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out that the whole thing is inexplicable to most people. Paragraph 26 on page 10 of the report should be read carefully. Most people do not understand the subject; and while I am not an authority the people I talk to believe that the problem will not be solved until we join the European monetary system. We all know the difficulty of trying to understand the MCAs and the green pound.
Consumers gave evidence to the committee. I cannot understand why we cannot make the point more clearly to them that food today is much cheaper than it was in the 1930s. In the case of milk, one hour's work today by the average working man, who earns about £150 to £156 a week, will buy 17 pints of milk at 22p a pint. One hour's work in 1950—the average working man then earned about £2.50 a week—would buy only five pints of milk. That is the difference in milk prices. The same would apply to the price of meat and ordinary brisket. It should be pointed out to people how cheap food is today compared with 30 or 40 years ago.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, was my noble kinsman referring to 1930 or 1950?
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think I said the 1930s. I hope that someone will back me up against my noble kinsman, I am sure I referred to the 1930s.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, about deductions. He sells barley and when he gets his cheque he finds that £7 per tonne has been deducted. That is a high figure on barley at £155 per tonne. What are they doing with that money? It was originally planned to use the money to reduce stocks. I should like to think that the stocks have been reduced and that something can be done to get rid of these levies. It is a very heavy burden indeed.
I thoroughly agree that the farmers should look to the environment. However, they cannot farm with the environment always in their mind, as a great many people in this country seem to think. Farming is a job. The environment is important but there is a great deal of over-emphasis from some organisations on what we do and what we do not do.
I should like once again to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his committee on the report. It is a pity that we could not have had it a little earlier.
8.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for the sub-committee's report on this year's farm price review. It is interesting to note that this debate has included a good number of speakers who are not members of the committee. Such is the importance of the subject.
As your Lordships know, a settlement was reached some months ago, but this debate has shown how convenient it is to have an opportunity to consider the committee's report in the light of the outcome. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at once that I cannot trip down the BSE path tonight. I think that he should be ashamed of himself for raising it.
I should like to start by mentioning five of the features of the February European Council decisions which have important implications for the price fixing. First, CAP guarantee expenditure must now be held within a guideline which cannot grow faster than 74 per cent. of the rate of growth in the Community's gross national product. This should limit the real annual growth in guarantee spending to 2 per cent. over the next four years on average compared with 10 per cent. over the past four years. Both the Commission's initial price proposals and the settlement that is reached must respect the guideline.
Secondly, unlike previous agreements, there is no provision for exceptional circumstances, an ill-defined term enabling in practice the guidelines to be breached. Instead, there is only a monetary reserve to provide up to 1 billion ecu in any year if there is a significant fall in the value of the dollar against the ecu, since this has a direct impact on agricultural expenditure. I should add that money will be put into the reserve if there is a significant rise in the dollar.
Thirdly, the stabilisers which are now generally in operation throughout the CAP link full levels of support to specified quantities of production, with cuts in support if those quantities are exceeded. In this way they contribute both to keeping expenditure under control and production in check. Fourthly, the Commission is committed to managing markets for each major commodity so as to avoid an overrun of expenditure. If further Council action is required, for example to strengthen stabilisers, the Council is committed to taking urgent action on a Commission proposal.
Finally, in the past the Community has been able to disguise the true cost of the CAP by allowing intervention stocks to build up, without proper charge to the budget. Now purchased stocks must be fully depreciated in the budget.
I have reminded your Lordships briefly of these major improvements in the management of the CAP, because their recent introduction was the background to the price fixing negotiations. So, let us now examine how the farm prices package that was agreed on 18th July compares with the proposals made by the Commission. The prices part of the package was agreed very much as proposed by the Commission, with support prices being frozen in ecu
702
terms for most commodities. In addition, adjustments were made to the support mechanisms for cereals, oilseeds and beef which will reduce support. This continues the downward pressure on support levels which has been applied for the past five years.
I should like now to say something about agrimonetary issues because they formed a very important part of the committee's report, and indeed of the price fixing. The committee dwelt on the practicality or otherwise of the long-term aim of eliminating all MCAs by 1992, and I can understand its doubts. But I believe that the problems can and must be solved. MCAs have to be abolished if a proper single market is to operate in agriculture. The Commission's objective is therefore one which the Government fully support and will fight for.
The Commission is committed to making a report to the Council on how it is to be done, and the steps by which the monetary gaps between green rates and market rates on which MCAs are based will be abolished. I am glad to say that, thanks to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister in another place, both Council and Commission accept that these arrangements must cover all monetary gaps: those of the four non-members of the exchange rate mechanism, including ourselves, as well as those of other member states who are in the ERM.
The noble Lords, Lord Dunleath, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, advocated membership of the ERM. I reply to them merely by repeating the Government's statement that we shall join the ERM when we think that the time is right.
The Commission's specific proposal was limited to a devaluation for Greece, the country with the largest MCAs. We found that unacceptable for two reasons. First, we believed that eliminating monetary gaps and therefore MCAs by 1992 would best be achieved by a gradual and phased demolition of all MCAs, including our own. Secondly, with UK MCAs at the time ranging up to 17.5 per cent. our farmers were disadvantaged in comparison with those in other member states, as your Lordships' report notes, and we could not accept that nothing should be done to redress the balance. We therefore believed that a measured green pound devaluation was necessary, and we pressed for one.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, will appreciate that we were successful. We secured devaluations effective from 1st January 1989 which will reduce UK monetary gaps, and therefore MCAs, by 3.2 points in all sectors except beef where green currency devaluations are to be considered in the review of the regime which has recently begun.
The measure of our success, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is that the green pound devaluations agreed are greater than those secured by our main EC competitors, such as France and Ireland, and will improve the competitive position of our farmers. They increase support prices by 2.9 per cent. in most sectors and, were they taken in isolation, would raise farm incomes by £120 million in a full year. They will have only a minimal effect on the food price index.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister what she means by "taken in isolation". Does she mean that the price will be smaller when the other factors are taken into account?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the noble Lord after the debate, because I shall have to look back to see what I said in order to adjust my mind to his question.
I turn now to some of the commodity points raised in the report and by noble Lords today. First, on cereals, I fully endorse the committee's comments on the cereals incorporation premium. As the House will know, the Government have consistently opposed the idea of such a premium, and the Commission's proposal was not adopted. Moreover, the Council has agreed that any incorporation premium would have to meet certain criteria. In particular, it would have to result in increased use of cereals in animal feed; be based on the most recent possible reference period; be in conformity with GATT; and, last but by no means least, be subject to a monitoring system capable of ensuring its cost-effectiveness.
The views put to the committee on the proposal to halve monthly increments in the intervention prices for cereals and oilseeds were divided, as were the attitudes of member states in the Council. In the event, it was agreed that monthly increments for cereals should be reduced by a quarter and those for oilseeds by a fifth. For cereals, at least, we would have preferred a larger cut, but this was a step in the right direction.
The committee made special mention of the milk quota system which the European Council agreed should be extended for a further three years. As a result of this decision all the main elements of the milk regime remain unchanged by the 1988 price fixing. The effect of the decisions taken under the British presidency in December 1986 have now become fully apparent. Community intervention stocks of skimmed milk powder—as noble Lords have already mentioned—which were over 900,000 tonnes two years ago have now been virtually eliminated, the stocks of butter are dwindling fast—down from 1·3 million tonnes to 210,000 tonnes in two years. But there is still a large surplus of milk products and a very stringent approach will continue to be needed in this sector for the foreseeable future.
The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke about co-responsibility levies. The milk quota system was not our preferred option, nor were co-responsibility levies which are applied in the milk and cereal sectors. We believe that reducing prices is the right way to bring supply and demand into balance, and that benefits consumers too, which quotas and levies do not. But those were the stabilising measures which the Council as a whole voted for. We shall continue to work for the removal of co-responsibility levies, offset by price cuts.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned the importation of milk in the future and the possibility that doorstep deliveries might be affected, and other such matters. I must agree with him that a lot of
704
thought and work must be done by our people on the subject. However, I hope that it is also possible to look at the future of milk and milk products in a robust way. I further hope that we shall be exporting our fair share.
I turn now to the beef sector. Your Lordships will be aware that we have consistently pressed for making intervention less available and less attractive. We are therefore pleased that the price fixing weakened it further by reducing the price at which beef is bought in. Further action is justified but this needs to be considered as part of the wide-ranging reform of the regime on which negotiations, as I have said, are just beginning.
We welcome the Commission's proposals on intervention which would build on progress already made by further limiting its scope and cost. As to premium payments for farmers, we are studying the proposals carefully. If the system is to change, we shall aim to ensure that such changes are for the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked about the effect of the recent changes to the beef intervention arrangements. It is too soon to determine how effective those changes will be, but I am pleased to be able to say that beef intervention stock levels have decreased since July from nearly 700,000 tonnes to 620,000 tonnes.
Your Lordships have made it clear that you want to know how this year's final price settlement measures up to the new rules on budget discipline and to be satisfied—I was pleased with this word in the report—that there was no fudge. To begin with, the package was estimated to produce a small saving against the 1988 budget of 24 mecu, but, mainly due to green rate devaluations, there will be an additional cost of 289 mecu in 1989. The additional cost in 1989 had to be covered to stay within the financial framework and the Commission faced up to its responsibilities, as my right honourable friend the Minister urged it to do. As a result, offsetting management savings, mainly on skimmed milk subsidies, enabled the Commission to cover the extra costs and indeed to reduce its budget estimate by 20 mecu for 1989.
Since the price fixing, due to improved world market prices and management action to restrain spending on a number of commodities, reduced levels of expenditure have resulted in the outturn for 1988 being estimated to be 1 billion ecu below the guideline. For 1989 the Commission has brought forward a rectifying letter to the 1989 budget which, if adopted, would give a provision for CAP guarantee spending about 1.8 billion ecu below the guideline in 1989.
The budgetary picture, at least in the short term, therefore appears satisfactory. However, the Commission knows as well as anyone that it should not use temporary improvements in the world market prices, for example those caused by the US drought, as a justification for reducing the pressure on the CAP. To do so now would mean that harder decisions would have to be taken in future if, or when, world prices decline, since budget discipline would

705
then bite all the harder. Such a switchback approach makes no sense. We need to hold firmly to the course we have set.
I should like to mention how stabilisers are working. Since the price fixing, the Commission has made known its harvest estimates for a number of the commodities subject to stabilisers. For rapeseed, a cut of 7.65 per cent. in the target price has been applied. This is less than the 10 per cent. cut applied last year but reflects the fact that, as a result of reduced acreage and lower yields, estimated EC10 production of rapeseed has fallen this year compared to last year by about 10 per cent. This is a welcome sign that stabilisers are having an effect in this sector. For sunflower seed a cut of 19.8 per cent. in the target price has been applied, nearly double last year's reduction, and for soya a cut of over 10 per cent. has been applied.
In the case of peas and beans, the stabiliser is operating this year for the first time and is already making its presence felt. Production estimates were about 20 per cent. above the level of the maximum guaranteed quantity, giving rise to support price cuts of about 10 per cent.
Although, as my noble friend Lord Middleton is aware, the Commission has not yet decided its harvest estimates for cereals, the 1988 Community harvest will probably be somewhat below 165 million tonnes, though it is expected to be sufficient to trigger the stabiliser which gives a 3 per cent. price cut next year; but there may be a small repayment of the additional 3 per cent. co-responsibility levy.
Time is going by. I shall write to the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carter, about extensification and the reduction in farm incomes, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
I was moved by the words of the noble Lords, Lord Middleton, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Northhourne, about the beauty of the countryside and the welfare of farmers. The Government are well seized of the importance of both. Further, the Government are heartened by the progress which has been made in the Community's approach to the management of agricultrual policy.
My right honourable friend the Minister in another place will continue to pursue our policies which, as I have shown, are bearing fruit and which we firmly believe are in the best interests of the EC, of our country, of thriving rural economies and therefore of the farmers themselves.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I should like to thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the debate and for the quality of their contributions. I should especially like to thank the Minister for replying to the debate, particularly in the circumstances which she was kind enough to mention to me.
If the report has merit—and some say it has—it is in no small measure due to the quality of Sub-Committee D. On this occasion I should also mentioned the fine service we had from our specialist adviser, Mr. Simon Harris.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Metropolitan Police and the Public
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do to establish better relations between the public and the Metropolitan Police.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, last July when I tabled the Motion I did not know that the Metropolitan Police had commissioned a report six months previously, nor did I know that on the cover of the Sunday Telegraph colour supplement in August this year there would be an identikit picture of a police constable with the caption:
"Wanted, a new face for the Force".
The colour section described the public relations exercise which the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, had initiated. That to me is encouraging. Sir Peter must realise the somewhat tarnished reputation which the Metropolitan Police have which could and should be improved without much difficulty.
A typical example is of a man who enters a police station. He waits for half an hour before anyone can see him. Finally, the sergeant realises that he is a researcher for the public relations company. He is then told how sorry the sergeant is but he (the sergeant) mistook him for a member of the public. The report commissioned six months ago basically said that the Metropolitan Police was riddled with deep internal divisions; many officers fell helpless and misunderstood; many police stations were run down; notices being stuck up at random—a type of Sellotape culture; that there were inadequate internal communications; there was no common sense of purpose; and that some officers' attitudes to the public were insensitive and thoughtless.
I should like to state categorically that any criticisms I may make of the Metropolitan Police do not refer to any of the many police officers in the Palace of Westminster.
The police and the public have four main sources of contact. The first is that of the victims of crime. It appears that the current attitude prevalent in the Metropolitan Police, if the crime is difficult to solve and only minor, is: "Report the details and forget about it. It is not economically viable to spend time on such crimes". That is where public confidence in the police could be greatly enhanced even though the chance of recovering stolen goods or the apprehension of offenders is remote. Unfortunately, after a burglary clues as to the identity of the offenders are unlikely or rarely to be found. Long ago, police officers made the victims feel that they cared for them and that they would try to catch the offenders. Today, the attitude is, "There is nothing that we can do. Ring us up with a list of the stolen goods, and then tell your insurance company". The victims are left feeling that the police do not care; the police are no good; and the victims will not inform the police if they witness unlawful happenings.
About a fortnight ago the Audit Commission published a scathing report that there were 60,000 cases of housebreaking, car theft and cheque fraud

707
which went unsolved each year because police officers either did not bother to collect fingerprints or, if they did, they mismanaged them.
The other point that came up immediately after this, about four days later, was that Saatchi and Saatchi had been asked to handle the advertising. Their slogan was, "Give the Long Arm of the Law a Hand". The campaign appealed to the public to be the eyes and ears of the police particularly during November. My Lords, it should not just be in November, it should be the whole time.
It is fair to say however that this attitude may possibly have been engendered by the obsession of senior officers with saving money at all costs, given the current budgetary restrictions. However, it is an area in which a little less penny pinching—that is, police officers at least going through the motions of trying to help—could engender a feeling of confidence in the police.
Major offences such as murder, rape, etc., are on the whole well covered, and I think that confidence in the police is good because of that. To sum up on that point: a little more time spent helping victims pays millions in police-public relations and thereby eventually saves a lot of money.
The second major point that comes up with the public is traffic offenders and parking offences. Those are nearly always sticky situations. Traffic offences, that is, speeding etc., cause accidents. Accidents hurt people and cost money. The traffic police are fairly unsung heroes when dealing with accidents and they are hated by potential accident-makers—people speeding, bad drivers and so on.
The problem is that there are good drivers and bad drivers; but the majority are bad and the police tend to treat all drivers as bad. If a policeman is following a driver who is speeding, how does the policeman know whether the driver exceeding the speed limit is good or bad? He does not, so he assumes the worst. It is only when one has to clean up ghastly accidents that one sees the danger and the damage caused by bad drivers.
Nevertheless, tact and good humour should be drummed into the heads of the traffic police. I am not saying that there are not some policemen who follow this philosophy, because there are. A great deal of harm is done to police-public relations by rude, overbearing and frequently tired, over-stressed police officers. The reason behind their being rude and overbearing is that it is often forgotten that policemen are human beings as well. The trouble is that sometimes the policemen themselves forget that fact.
If parking is unrestricted, it clogs up the streets, drivers become frustrated and angry, they drive badly and accidents happen. It is an almost insoluble problem. There must be parking restrictions, but privatising clamping was a silly, stupid and ill-thought-out idea, although it was done to economise on police manpower so that police officers could perform more important duties. What is the point of clamping a car parked at a meter? This happens frequently and the meter is then no use to any other vehicle. Why not make the penalty for overstaying
708
the time on a meter stiffer, say, whatever you like for one hour and thereafter £100 per hour. Removing cars which are causing a blockage is far better than clamping them.
My noble friend knows about my experience. Briefly, my car was clamped outside my flat within five minutes of me parking the car there while I was loading my luggage. When the adrenealin had settled down, I wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to Sir Peter Imbert, the Commissioner. After much correspondence, the fixed penalty notice and the clamping fine were refunded. I had not asked for that to happen. All I was doing was trying to crusade. Being a member of Parliament, I thought I might be able to help some other luckless indiscriminately clamped members of the public who do not know how to look after themselves. They do not know what action to take when their vehicles have been indiscriminately clamped.
I think it is unfortunate that clamping is now done by private contractors, although I agree it is under the supervision of a police officer. With all respect to the Metropolitan Police, there are always a few bad apples in every barrel, and no matter how well-trained police officers are, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to me in his letter of 7th March, human nature being what it is, there must be doubts in the public's mind that corruption cannot be entirely ruled out. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, had the same problem not long ago. Today I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the leader of the SLD, had his car stolen by the police, when he had gone away for the weekend.
Finally, on clamping, on the news on BBC-1 on 12th July, a very senior police officer stated that if Her Majesty the Queen parked her car illegally, "We'd have it". For a servant of the Crown to use Her Majesty to make a point like that in my opinion is the ultimate in bad taste and shows the arrogance which exists in parts of the clamping department of the Metropolitan Police.
I do not know why we have all this fuss about breath tests. The police already have the power to use the breathalyser on any driver, they can stop any vehicle they like, when they like, if they feel like it. However, I sincerely hope that we are not beginning to see the embryo or birth of a police state. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary must take very great care to supervise this in order to protect the liberty and rights of the people.
The third point concerns lost property, accidents, etc. Generally when the public ask for police assistance in dealing with lost property, street accidents and so on, a great deal of police-public relations points could be built up. However, again money counts here. Police officers do what they can on a limited budget, but they often appear offhand and uncaring. No doubt the Commissioner recognises this and I am sure that he tries to combat the problem. It is an area where, as with all relationships, tact and good humour count for millions of pounds of goodwill and, if applied rigorously, would help a great deal.
However, what does incredible harm is the nauseating scene watched by Mr. Roald Dahl and his

709
wife and reported in the papers on 16th September of Mr. Barton, when handcuffed, being very badly beaten up by a group of five police officers and then thrown semi-conscious into the back of a van. He was charged on 15th September with two charges, both of which were dismissed. It is to be hoped that severe disciplinary action was taken against those five police officers.
The last point concerns criminals. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has caused great problems for the police. The bureaucracy involved in processing offenders is now so great that many police officers are spending so much time dealing with paper work that there is no time left to do their proper job—that is, serving the public.
To sum up, in 1829 Sir Richard Mayne, the first Commissioner, wrote these immortal words:
"The primary objects of an efficient police are the protection of life and property, the prevention of crime, and the apprehension of offenders when a crime has been committed. To these ends, all the efforts of an efficient police, or … (peace officers) should be directed".
Every police officer has to learn that quotation by heart at the beginning of his service.
However, I wonder, 159 years later, whether that quotation has sometimes been forgotten in the insane, mad rush by senior police officers to obtain as much modern technology for their forces, to save as much of the taxpayers' money as possible—an admirable quality with which I do not disagree—and thus ensure their own financial future. By this I mean that the current attitude appears to be, "If I save a lot of money, I will get the next rank. If I invent a new way of monitoring costs, I will be promoted". Unfortunately, this results in penny-pinching economies while thousands of pounds are spent in finding ways of making more penny-pinching economies.
We now have violence not only in London but in rural areas and country towns. What I am saying now applies not only to the Metropolitan Police but throughout our whole country. Highly trained and expensively trained police officers out on the beat serve not only as a deterrent to crime but also boost morale and relationships with the public. It is pointless having these officers doing clerical work. Therefore could not many more civilians be given the jobs of doing that clerical work? Only the other day the Home Secretary in another place said that police numbers stood at a record level. I am sure he is right. I would not dream of arguing with him. They may be at a record level, but are they in the right place? They should be outside and not indoors. It may well be that the Police Federation would not like it, because they are a kind of trade union, but the Police Federation does not run the police force.
In the beginning I mentioned tired and overstressed police officers. The Metropolitan Police have finally recognised that this phenomenon occurs. They are, however, to a degree too wrapped up in a belief of their own self-importance to pay much more than lip service to that. However, there is a wind of change; things are improving. That is one benefit of younger officers reaching high ranks quickly so they can remember what it was like when they were Bobbies on the beat. There are advantages of having
710
an accelerated promotion scheme as there as disadvantages. After having given that much thought, I do not know which system is better.
I was very intrigued at Question Time today in your Lordships' House to hear the Question of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on crime prevention. It was interesting to see how many noble Lords contributed to that Question and how few speakers there are on the police debate this evening.
To conclude, the police are often in an extremely difficult position, especially in respect of riots, inner city deprivation and other matters. But we must look at both sides of the coin. The British people cannot ignore the problems facing our society, and expect the police to pick up the pieces. The Government, the social services, the schools and, above all, the public have control over their own destiny. It is up to both the public and the police to put their houses in order.
8.51 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on introducing this debate. I believe it is very important that such a subject should he aired. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for restricting the debate to the Metropolitan Police, and not extending it to all police forces. I say that advisedly because the Hampshire constabulary operates in the area where I live. Every two years in my area the Farnborough air show occurs. I live only a matter of yards from a main road on which there is a turnoff leading to Farnborough.
As one would expect, during the air show the traffic builds up for miles on both sides. This year something very interesting happened. Motorists, many with young children in the back of their cars, had been sitting in a traffic jam for a very long time. But when they reached the turnoff they were all smiling and the kids were laughing like crazy. Some of our police, although in uniform, were dressed as Noddy men, some had funny faces, some had funny hats and some had great big plastic hands. Even we locals were laughing. I suggest that is a superb public relations exercise. It showed how to turn the public's frustration into amusement.
I believe that if we are to discuss how to improve relationships between the Metropolitan Police and the general public, we must first discuss what is wrong with that relationship today. Like the noble Earl, I wish to say that the remarks I am about to make have nothing, in any shape or form, to do with police officers in the Palace of Westminster, nor do they have anything to do, in any shape or form, with officers of the drug squad, the anti-terrorist squad and those officers who face criminals who are sometimes armed and those who face large, unruly crowds.
In the list of complaints there is the criticism that the police do not have enough manpower. As a result of that it was announced, as the noble Earl mentioned, that the police could no longer deal with petty crime such as mugging, housebreaking, graffiti, and other crimes such as snatching old ladies' handbags. Those crimes may be petty to the Metropolitan Police, but to the general public who suffer from them they are far from petty. That, in itself, engenders bad feeling.

711
We also have "no go" areas. The police deny that "no go" areas exist. Nevertheless we see them all the time on television and we read about them in the newspapers. We see and read of the police being confronted by people who may not be armed with guns but who are sometimes armed with bottles and staves. Unfortunately many of those confrontations occur in areas with large ethnic minorities. If a policeman arrests someone, before he knows it a crowd gathers and that person is pulled away from the policeman. One can then read the report of such an incident in the newspapers. At the end of the report it will state that no arrests were made. Members of the general public say, "Fine, but if I did something like that you can bet your life that there would be arrests". In other words the public feel there is one law for them—the basically law-abiding citizens—and another law, or lack of law, for others. That, again, is not a very good situation.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act sets out guidelines. If memory serves me right, the guidelines stated that police officers were not to stop people because of their race, colour, religion, mode of dress or their hairstyles. Those guidelines are not adhered to. I have a friend who is a punk. One can tell that because his hair is still a slightly different colour to that of normal hair. He is perpetually being stopped by the police. My friend is well educated, intelligent and polite. He happens to be a talented musician and also a composer of lyrics. He is a thoroughly nice boy, but he is a punk. Therefore, it appears that in the eyes of the police he goes in for mugging old ladies. The terrible thing about this is that, by their very nature, genuine punks are non-violent.
Unfortunately that feeling about punks carries over from the police to the public. I have permission to recount a story in that connection. A short time ago my mother-in-law went to a bus stop to catch a Green Line bus. At the bus stop were three punks. A little way away stood a respectable looking gentleman. My mother-in-law went and stood over by the respectable looking gentleman hoping that if there were trouble from the punks that gentleman was there and he would protect her. So, what happened? The respectable looking gentleman started making obscene suggestions to her, whereupon the three punks came over and said, "Lady, is this man annoying you? If he is, we shall look after you". The respectable looking gentleman, who was obviously neither respectable nor a gentleman, decided that discretion was the better part of valour and left. I feel sure now that in future my mother-in-law will no longer be afraid of punks.
If the police do not like punks, it appears that they do not like young lads with posh accents either. I heard the following story from a very respectable source, although I cannot actually bear it out. One summer evening in Trafalgar Square four or five young lads were sitting on the lions and enjoying themselves. A police van drew up, some police leapt out, grabbed the boys and threw them into the van. The van moved off. In the van one of the boys politely asked one of the more aggressive police officers for his number. The reply was, "All you will get is my fist in your face unless you shut up".
712
The boys were taken to a police station, arrested and duly appeared in court. The police evidence was that the boys had been running through the crowd, knocking into people and using foul language. A man stood up at the back of the court and asked for permission to give evidence on the boys' behalf. He was a solicitor from Devon who had been in Trafalgar Square on that night and had seen what happened. He was sufficiently concerned by the treatment of those boys to find out to which police station they had been taken, what the charge was and where they would appear in court. He travelled all the way from Devon to give his evidence. The solicitor so obviously had nothing to gain that the magistrates believed him and the boys were found not guilty.
That being the case it must follow that if the boys were not guilty the police in their evidence were lying. When one lies under oath the term is perjury. Why therefore were those police officers not charged with perjury? That does not happen only occasionally. Time and time again, almost as a matter of course, too many police officers automatically give perjured evidence.
There is another point that I should like to make. I know that the sus laws no longer exist but one will see police officers stopping young lads, normally coloured. Occasionally one sees them being pushed against a wall or something like that. If one goes and asks what is going on one is liable to be arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty. If one is not arrested the chances are one will be told to buzz off and mind one's own business. If one ends up in the police station and one happens to be a respectable, professional person such as a doctor or solicitor one will probably be all right. Otherwise, no. Noble Lords, may not believe me and if the House were better attended I should be tempted to suggest that they try it and see for themselves what happens. I should of course not suggest that to the Minister, first, because he is a Minister of the Crown, and, secondly, because he looks far too respectable and imposing for any police constable to have the temerity to try to arrest him or to tell him to buzz off. During the miners' strike we all know that violence was committed by both sides. That is very regrettable. However, I have heard too many stories for it not to be true that many of the county police forces were sickened by the gratuitous violence offered by the Metropolitan Police.
It may appear that I am anti-Metropolitan Police, I am not, I am only anti some of its members. That may be a very small minority but it is that minority which sours the relationship between the police and the general public.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I believe that we need more police officers on the beat, fewer uniformed officers with their bottoms on seats. I read with great interest the fact that civilians are to take over more desk jobs. I believe that to be a good idea.
I believe also that we must have a new system for investigating complaints against the police. If members of the public have made a complaint against a police officer or police officers how can they have confidence in the procedure when that complaint is investigated by other police officers? Certainly the

713
officers may be from another police force but that does not alter the fact that it is the police who investigate a complaint against the police. I suggest that we should set up a new system under which one or perhaps two police officers would advise on police procedures while the complaint was investigated by intelligent but impartial people. I would therefore not recommend that I take part in that procedure because I am obviously not impartial.
I accept, as everyone does, that the days of dear old Dixon of Dock Green have gone forever, He was a lovable soul—if he existed—he was everyone's friend and everyone trusted him. He represented not only the law but also justice. That day unfortunately has gone. However, I suggest that when the police are trained they should not be churned out merely as police officers but somewhere along the line they should be taught that they must remember that when they put on their uniforms they are servants of the public and therefore they should not act as petty dictators.
In conclusion, I may have gone on a bit about the police roughing-up people and about the police perjuring themselves, but, regrettably, I did so because I personally have suffered from police perjury and I have been roughed-up by the police.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House is not particularly full at the moment. One wishes that a debate on the Metropolitan Police—who are perhaps the eyes and teeth of society—had attracted the same audience as a debate on charges in relation to eyes and teeth. It is a subject which is so important that it deserves to have more Members of your Lordships' House present for the debate which the noble Earl has initiated. We are all deeply grateful to him for having done so.
It is an important subject. It is one that worries the public and it is one that worries Parliament. The complaints that come forward in regard to the attitude of the general community to the police force and of the police force to the general community in the metropolitan area are very real complaints. There are special sections of the community whose relationship with the police is not as good as it should be.
In saying that I should like to pay a perfectly sincere tribute to the majority of the members of the Metropolitan Police. They do a magnificent job, very often with great courage and with great dedication to the traditions of the force, which are very fine indeed. We are talking tonight, I hope, about a very distinct minority but it is right that we should concentrate on them without forgetting the majority who do such a good job.
When we talk about the general relationship between the community and the police, I believe that it is right that we should reflect, as most people who are of advancing years do, on how young many members of the police force look. I can remember hearing that from my father when I was a youngster. I have now reached the age when the members of the police force look extremely young to me. But many of them are indeed young, and one of the things one
714
does notice—and this is something one wishes the Metropolitan Police would take rather more seriously than they do and something which should be accentuated in their training—is a touch of arrogance in their attitude to the community at large which is obviously not helping the community's relationship with the police.
Very often, even after a car accident, there is an attitude which is not that of a servant of the public doing his duty by investigating whether a crime has been committed in regard to careless driving, or whatever it may be. Sometimes there is almost annoyance at the time being wasted on having to take particulars of an accident which has occurred on the road. It is this undertone of arrogance and of an attitude which I will not call bullying but which certainly is too aggressive at times that hurts many members of the public and removes that respect for the police force which ought to exist. Again I emphasise that I am talking about a minority and not the majority, but how often is a community or a profession judged by the minority which does not live up to its traditions instead of by the majority which does.
Having said that, I want to defend many members of the police force from the criticisms that are made. Some were made tonight though with great moderation by the noble Earl. I do not Ihink that the background is always understood. For example, the noble Earl mentioned that members of the public are very often disappointed (which is an understatement) when what they see as important burglaries are not in fact taken up by the police. Sometimes days go by after the report is made before they sec a police officer.
I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that in fact there is now a points system in operation in regard to visiting houses and taking up burglary investigations. There never was before: that was left to the local policeman, who used to try to visit as many places as he could after reports of burglaries had been made. One knows that there may have to be a system of priorities, but the system of priorities resulting from this points system means that many people, and particularly many old people—in whom the very trespass into their private property creates fear, while the loss of items with sentimental associations though perhaps not very great monetary worth, creates much distress—will be hurt. The points system cannot be very justly administered and. though it is supposed to save a lot of money because otherwise petty crimes would be investigated, it is obviously something that ought to be looked at.
Talking about the general community and having mentioned the elderly, I wonder how many people realise what a change has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke in terms of great fondness for police images of the past. He mentioned the creation of a noble colleague of ours on the television screen. It used to be a habit when an elderly person complained to the local police that somehow or other he was unable to enter his premises, whether because of the carelessness of someone else or because of his own admitted carelessness, a policeman used to come along and do a wonderful social and public relations job. With a care that was exercised to the greatest

715
extent possible, the smallest window which would allow a policemen to enter was broken. The policeman used to go inside and would then do the best he could to clear up the glass. Then he would sit there for just a little while and sip the cup of tea which was given to him in gratitude for his help by the old person concerned.
Do your Lordships know what is the practice now? The practice now, which I have no doubt saves a great deal of money, is that the policeman gives the number of a locksmith. What an opportunity to create goodwill that old exercise was. Now, however, we are operating on a system of efficiency and money saving instead of the old traditions of friendship of the police for all law-abiding citizens and, indeed, a tolerance for those who break the law—it is for the courts to punish them, not the police. The duty of the police is to arrest.
I mention now specific groups in the community, taking first youth. It is a great shame but perfectly true that the relationship between police and youth is not what it was. This afternoon at Question Time, while it is true that there were not many, the supplementaries that were asked were answered with great courtesy by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I was grateful to him for that, as were other noble Lords. One fact that emerges from the wretched statistics that the House has to consider from time to time is the still high percentage among those convicted of crime, especially those convicted of violent crime, of young people below the age of 20 and in their early 20s. I know that it gives no pleasure to the Minister to have to deal with those questions in debates on the subject.
Some projects the police favour. There is a South London auto project for youngsters convicted of driving away cars without the owner's consent and of stealing cars. They show that they have a great fondness for cars even if it leads them into some criminality. They go on this course in South London, and the police help the course. The youngsters are so keen on it that, if they commit an offence after having been admitted to the project, the biggest punishment is to have their course terminated. I know that some innocent law-abiding youngsters in South London have asked why there is a project only for those who are criminals and who have committed crimes, and why such a project is not assisted by the police for all young people wishing to join it. That would be an extension of a socially beneficial project. It could easily bring the police into contact with young people.
Time goes on. I wish to deal briefly with another section of the community, the ethnic minorities. This is a perturbing subject. I was talking this afternoon to a police officer of some seniority in the force in terms of years of service, if not of rank. He told me the most pathetic tale. He is very fond of football, and he knew a coloured lad who was very good at football. The police officer said to the lad, "I know some people who run a very important football club. I'd like you to come along with me. I'll introduce you to the people concerned in the club because I think they'd give you a chance". The lad immediately said, "No
716
thank you". Some few days later he came up to the police officer and said, "I want you to know why I said no thank you. I'd lose all credibility and quite a lot of friendship in the street in which I live if I had come along with you to that football club, and I would have been indebted to you for introducing me to it".
How tragic that that should be the relationship. It is not easy to answer. It is not easy to see the problems in the minds of ethnic minorities when youngsters are on street corners not because they want to be but because they cannot get jobs and because they suffer many social disadvantages.
I wish that I could give a solution to the problem that is being debated. Something has to be done. Matters are improving through community relations, councils, and so on, but something has to be done to make the ethnic minorities in this country, and especially in the metropolis, realise that the police are there to defend them and not to attack them. The police are there to encourage them to be good citizens of this country, as so many of them are. The Metropolitan Police have not yet been able to deal satisfactorily with that relationship. The coloured community has not yet been able to deal satisfactorily with it. We have not been able to deal satisfactorily with it. It is one of the grave problems of the Metropolitan Police and their relationship with the community at large.
9.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley for introducing this debate this evening. He has spoken from experience and conviction. He made a fairly condemnatory speech but it is right that we should address our minds to the matters he raised. I was glad that he had put this Motion down because I believe that the public relations of the police are of vital importance. If we want to live—as we all do—in a society where peace and contentment and law and order exist, the relationships between police and the public are of paramount importance. That is why I believe that my noble friend's debate is of such importance.
If one looks at the general scenario, the police are the ones who have to keep the peace. They are the ones whom society expects to administer the law. But of course they cannot do it alone. The police cannot change society. They are, after all, only people who are drawn from society and who are dressed up in blue. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, when they are dressed up in uniform they are the servants of the public. However, if society determines to accept a shift in what is acceptable behaviour, we cannot expect the police to reverse it. That is not their job.
It is alarming to realise that, by the age of 28, one in three males has been convicted of one of the more serious criminal offences. It is a terrifying statistic but it is a reflection on society.
The first thing I would say to my noble friend Lord Kimberley is this. It is up to the police and the public together to put their house in order. If we want a decent society in which to live, it is up to all of us, and especially the leaders of society, to try to bring that

717
about. By leaders I do not mean just the police or politicians, but church leaders, doctors, professionals, leaders of the community, teachers and, above all, parents. It needs a conscious effort by everyone if we are to try to return to a more reasonable and ordered society. It cannot be left to the police alone.
There can be no doubt that the social context in which the police work has changed a great deal. Society has changed. It has become more complex and more violent. Authority is no longer accepted unquestioningly. That has not made the task of the police easier, in particular as the demands that we make upon the police have become more varied, more intricate and more complex. However, if the context in which policing takes place has changed, the philosophy of policing in Britain remains the same. The police-community relations is the modern jargon for an old concept. The concept that the police are the citizen in uniform serving the community of which he or she is a part is as old as the Metropolitan Police.
It remains true, as it has always been, that the police cannot do their job of maintaining the peace and tackling crime effectively if they cannot have the support and confidence of the public whom they serve, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, stated. Of course the police never have had and never will have the support of the whole community. What is important is that the majority of people in London should feel that the Metropolitan Police are their friends, that they act in their interests and that they can rely on police officers to behave, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, with courtesy, with impartiality, with restraint and with bravery in all that they do. I believe that this is vital. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimberley. An abrupt riposte by one police officer, for example to a motorist, can alienate that person not only against that officer but against the police as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, used the word "arrogance". Arrogance which may momentarily have been portrayed can be construed as representative of the attitude of the police as a whole. If arrogance is used by one person, that can do a great deal of damage to police-public relationships. Arrogance when used can end up by turning against the police the very person who should be a friend of the police, whose friendship and co-operation the police need in fighting crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that a majority of the police were good. I am glad he said that because it is true. He also said that there is a minority who are not. I believe my noble friend Lord Kimberley said that there were rotten apples in every barrel. That is inevitable. But one must recognise what is wrong and bad and should not necessarily harp on that and think that it is indicative of the whole, because it is not.
My noble friend referred to traffic offences. Some 46 per cent. of all male drivers have at one time or another been questioned by police in connection with traffic offences. That is an amazing statistic. One can realise how vital it is, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, that the attitude of the police towards the motorist, even under provocation, should be exemplary.
718
My noble friend spoke with feeling on traffic matters. I could take issue with him on one or two specific points. He said that the contracting out of wheel-clamping had been a mistake. By contracting out the physical work which is associated with wheel-clamping and removal operations, the Metropolitan Police have increased their capacity to enforce the law, while at the same time they have kept their costs down. I believe that is a reasonable thing to have done.
The effect of these operations is being carefully monitored by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The result of contracting out is that illegal parking has fallen substantially and the use of off-street car parks has increased. So far from blockages increasing, traffic flows have in fact inmproved. The contractors work under the direct supervision of a police officer at all times. If my noble friend has any specific grounds for believing that these operations are corruptly conducted I hope that he will make them known to the commissioner or to me. If he does not do that it is quite wrong to cast general aspersions on the integrity of those who do this work simply on the grounds of what I think he described as human nature being what it is.
My noble friend asserted that the police have power to use a breathalyser at random on any driver. That is not the case. The police have power to stop any vehicle, but they may require a breath test only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the driver has consumed alcohol, has been involved in an accident or committed a moving traffic offence. Where my noble friend and I are at one is in expecting the highest standards of behaviour from police officers in all their dealings with the public. But courtesy, impartiality and restraint are not always easy to maintain in the face of hostility or even, on occasions, physical attack.
We can be sure of hearing about plenty of occasions when the Metropolitan Police fail to maintain those standards. However, we hear little of the immense provocation to which they are at times subjected and which can lead to such lapses. The public's perception and acceptance of the police can change like litmus paper as the result of one wrong move. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that certain crimes were not properly investigated by the Metropolitan Police. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the commissioner had introduced a system of crime screening in order to help—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I said that it was a points scheme.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is so. There is a system by which it is decided which cause should have the greatest priorities. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that no crime is screened out simply because it is considered to be trivial. All serious crimes, especially crimes of violence, are fully investigated. The commissioner is well aware of the need to ensure that members of the public are not left with the impression that their crime has been ignored, even in cases where a full-scale investigation would stand no chance of success.

719
We should never underestimate the pressures which arc faced by the police in London. Unlike the Armed Services the police do not face a physically identifiable enemy; they face a series of shifting problems. The man who is interrogated for a crime one day may be seeking help from the police to find a lost child the next day. The man who is offensive to the police for interrogating him is the first to expect them to be available when events turn against him. The criminal can use everything in the book against the police, including knives, guns, and crowbars. Yet the police are unarmed and frequently unprotected. They can also be frightened. As my noble friend said, they arc only human beings but they are always expected to act with restraint. If they do not do so the media set about them and quite right too. We expect and we must have the highest standards from the police and failure to do so points us towards a police state, as stated by my noble friend Lord Kimberley. Gilbert and Sullivan said that the policeman's lot is not a happy one, and they were correct.
It is entirely right and proper that complaints against the police should be thoroughly investigated. By way of example my noble friend Lord Kimberley raised the recent press reports of an incident involving Mr. Earl Barton which was witnessed by Mr. Roald Dahl, the author. I cannot comment on the case but I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is at present supervising an investigation into a complaint made by Mr. Barton against the police officers who arrested him.
It is not only the lout and the mob who impose such strains on the police. Members of the public, whether they are being arrested for a crime or seeking police help, are often unreasonble, rude and violent. It is horrifying to realise that last year 4,534 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted in London alone.
The most law-abiding citizen can feel resentful or apprehensive when approached by a police officer. As a result he often responds to the officer in a way which is less than friendly. I found it myself when recently my local police officer, whom I know well, approached me and I immediately asked, "What have I done wrong? Have I parked my car in the wrong place?" In fact he had come to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invited. What a terrible reaction that was—a Pavlovian reaction—to a friend. I felt ashamed. But if it is the reaction of one who is as privileged as I am to be involved with the police, it is not surprising if the policeman anticipates a similar or possibly worse reaction when meeting a hostile group of people. The police officer himself reacts in advance accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley referred to the recent Wolff Olins report. That report said that:
"The attitudes of the Met towards the world in which it works can best be described as wary. Many policemen and women feel beleaguered and misunderstood."
It is therefore even more surprising—and something which we need to be reminded of more often—that officers of the Metropolitan Police generally do a superb job.
720
In a survey of public attitudes earlier this year, only 11 per cent. of Londoners thought that the Metropolitan Police did a poor job. Sixty-nine per cent. had a good image of the police in London. The Wolff Olins report found that the Metropolitan Police were an organisation which enjoyed widespread public support. They have internationally renowned centres of excellence, and they provide an increasing police presence on the streets.
But of course the Metropolitan Police are not faultless. There are legitimate concerns about certain areas of the Met's work. The same report said that there was a lack of a common sense of purpose; that there were internal divisions particularly between the police and civil staff; that there was a need for further improvement in management and training; and that the stresses of policing in London create a wariness among officers which is sometimes reflected in an insensitive and thoughtless attitude to the public.
Needless to say, some sections of the press have siezed upon these problems as evidence of a crisis—and the commissioner realised that this danger existed when he decided to publish the Wolff Olins findings. But he considered that the public should have a chance to comment upon the problems. I believe that that was a brave decision, and one which is symptomatic of the openness of the Metropolitan Police today.
The commissioner's aim is to ensure that the Metropolitan Police provide a courteous, fair and effective service to all Londoners. It needs to be representative of the public which they serve. And it needs to be responsive to the needs of the public which they serve. The Metropolitan Police are doing much to bring that about.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to ethnic minorities. The recruitment of more ethnic minority police officers is essential if we are to maintain good relations between the police and the public. We are a multi-racial society, and it is important that the police should represent—and be seen to represent—the community as a whole. The ethnic minority communities in London, just as much as anyone else, need to feel that the Metropolitan Police are their police force. The communities need to look up to them, to respect, to trust and to be part of them. The minority communities must know that the police will protect their interests in the same impartial way as they protect the interests of the majority.
The commissioner shares that view. The Metropolitan Police have been working hard over a number of years in order to try and increase the number of ethnic minority police officers—and they are having some success.
In 1981, at the time of the Brixton disorders, there were 138 minority officers in the Metropolitan Police. That is a pathetically small amount. Nearly as many—114—were recruited last year alone. About 10 per cent. of the strength of the Metropolitan Police special constabulary now consists of ethnic minority officers. That is good. But I am bound to say that it is not good enough.

721
But however hard the Met try to increase their ethnic recruiting—and they have tried—you cannot force people to join. The Met will only achieve a substantial increase in the number of black and Asian officers with the active support of the minority communities themselves. Those communities should feel a pride in having their members become part of the police force. They should not make those who join the police force feel ostracised or feel that, by joining the police force, they have not been loyal to their own communities. It is up to the leaders of the ethnic communities to encourage their members to join. It is up to the police at all levels to welcome them.
I therefore make a special plea to the people of ethnic minority origin. It is this. The police are there to serve the whole community. Members of the ethnic minorities are wanted in the police service. The interests of their communities will be the better served if their communities are represented in the police force. The Metropolitan Police are also working hard to ensure that they remain responsive to the changing needs and to the priorities of the complex community which they serve.
In order to respond to the needs and to the concerns of the community, police officers need to know what those concerns are. Consultation between the police and the public is, therefore, an established part of the way in which the Metropolitan Police operate. In 1981 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, recommended, after the disorders in Brixton, that arrangements should be made for obtaining the views of the community about the policing of their area through local consultative groups. Consultative groups now exist in every London borough and they are providing an important channel of communication between the police and the public.
This is complemented by the more informal but nevertheless vital liaison which the police maintain with schools and with a wide variety of community and voluntary organisations and statutory agencies throughout London. Where there are special needs, the Met try to meet them. The new strategies for combating racial incidents and for responding to the victims of domestic violence are examples of this.
Lay visiting schemes are another way in which the police respond to the public's concerns. There are now 32 schemes in operation in London and they are making, in the inner city areas in particular, a substantial contribution to improving relations between the police and the local community.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I also fully support the commissioner's strategy of working closely with the public to tackle crime. Over 9,000 neighbourhood watch schemes have now been set up in London, together with 30 crime prevention panels. I think that it is, as a result, more than coincidence that burglaries of homes in the Metropolitan Police district fell by 5 per cent. in 1987 and that total crime was down by 4 per cent.
722
Drugs are increasingly becoming an immensely worrying part of society. The dependence on them increases crime in order that those who use drugs should have the funds with which to purchase them.
The police are correct to do all that they can to curtail this wicked trade. But to raid a club which is suspected of dealing in drugs does not exactly endear the police to its members. The feeling that "authority" has burst into a club alienates the customers; but it is an essential part of police work in order to protect society. That is yet another example of how difficult it is for the police both to protect society and to be everyone's friend. It is a difficult and often dangerous balance.
Training is also important in improving relations between the police and the public. As I have already said, a single rude or overbearing act by one officer can undo months of good work by the majority. As a result, the Metropolitan Police have therefore completely redesigned the training which is given to their new recruits in order to emphasise the vital importance of working with the public. Improved training in this aspect of policing has also been provided for all existing uniform and CID officers up to and including inspectors.
In January 1989 a professional development programme will be introduced. This is an ambitious long-term training strategy which is designed both to satisfy the public demand for more effective community-centered policing and to support the professional needs of the police. The endorsement of this training strategy at the most senior level in the Metropolitan Police is a demonstration of the force's intention to effect real improvements in the quality of its service. I think that is important and I hope that my noble friend Lord Kimberley will agree.
Although it is true that total crime is down this last quarter, crimes of violence against the person—the really horrible crimes—are up. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the word "fear". Fear has become an important part in the make-up of people. Like truth and love at one end of the spectrum, fear at the other end is a great motivator. It may be that only 2 per cent. of people will become victims of crimes of violence in any one year, but the other 98 per cent. wonder if they will become part of the 2 per cent. and they rehearse the traumas to which those 2 per cent. have been subjected, and which frequently are portrayed by the press.
Thirty per cent. of women are reported as being very worried about being raped; 20 per cent. of the population is reported as being very worried about being mugged or robbed. The fact that the vast majority of these people will not actually experience these crimes is not the point. They feel fear; they fear fear.
Fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it, may be unreasonable; it may be unnecessary and it may even be irrational, but it is real. It does not

723
respond to argument and it is not represented by statistics. But it is a fact and it is a de-stabiliser and a force for evil. The fear of crime may be more long-lasting and, in some cases, almost worse than the fact of crime. It intervenes in a person's ability to live his or her life in contentment without any crime having in fact been committed. The Government recognise this, and we realise that the presence of the Bobby on the beat is one of the most important purveyors of calm and confidence to the public. We have, therefore, undertaken to see that there are more policemen in London.
By the end of 1989–90, the present manpower programme, which started in 1986, will have produced an additional 1,200 officers. It will also have released—and this is a point raised by my noble friend Lord Kimberley—a further 500 officers through civilianisation, and it will have provided a further 200 civilian staff to support the police. The additional officers on the beat, which will result from our programme of increasing resources, will I hope help a little to alleviate fear. They will not, of course, eliminate it. The number of hours which are spent on the beat by Metropolitan Police officers was 13 per cent. higher at the end of last year than 12 months previously.
The reassurance which the beat police officer can provide helps to create the atmosphere in which police and public can work together as partners.
Much is being done to help and to protect the public and to tackle a difficult task in a sensitive way. But it is up to all of us, from the Home Secretary and the commissioner at the top to the constable and the
724
citizen in the street, to work as partners in order to ensure that the Metropolitan Police can continue to deliver the excellent service to which we have become accustomed; to which the police aspire and which the public demand, and together to combine against crime and its terrible effects.
I am conscious of the fact that I have spoken far longer than is agreeable at this time of night. I regret to say that I did so deliberately because I felt that my noble friend's Question was one of great importance. The fact of crime is a terrible thing and the fact of the fear of crime is also a terrible thing. The ability of the police and the public to work together, of the public to have the confidence of the police and of the police to know that they can serve the public properly is very important. I was anxious to try to explain to your Lordships as much as possible what we feel is being done and what the Metropolitan Police force is trying to do.
No one can ever let up if we are to get on top of crime and if we are to have a police force that is as I believe ours is, both efficient and respected. If my noble friend's Question this evening has contributed to that in a large or a small way it will have served a useful purpose.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.