Lords Sitting of 14 November 1988

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

Sunday Trading: Policy
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to bring "sense and consistency" to Sunday trading.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Government are prepared to consider a practicable solution to the problem if and when sufficient support for it can be achieved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not particularly incisive Answer. Is he aware that the words of the Question echo the resolution adopted at the Conservative Party Conference? Is it not time that the Government, who have otherwise shown themselves to be courageously reforming, tackled the mess?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the subject was discussed at the Conservative Party Conference. The Government favour complete deregulation, but memories of April 1986 caution prudence. That situation leads us to seek the widest degree of support before proposing legislation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that organisations which opposed the Shops Bill two years ago are now in favour of a change because of the ridiculous anomalies which exist in England and Wales? Some of them were referred to by my noble friend Lord Ferrers a few days ago in response to a Question which I had tabled. Has my noble friend any further examples for our delectation today to lighten the seriousness of Question Time?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, it is not for me to interpret the law but it seems to me some people may be disorientated in their travels in this world. For example, on Sundays here one can sell a guide book to a passenger on a passenger vessel but not to a member of the crew if there are no passengers on board. When one considers that one can sell a Bible in certain places, including designated railway and bus stations, but not in cathedral book shops, then the difficulty appears to affect travel to the next world as well.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, are the Government giving careful consideration to the "rest" proposals put forward by the Keep Sunday Special campaign? Will they involve that organisation, the National
832
Chamber of Trade, the unions concerned and, above all, the Churches, in any subsequent negotiations?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we are grateful for the attempt to produce the proposals and have studied them most carefully. However, we regard them as extremely complex and likely to lead to further anomalies and difficulties.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, in order to simplify the problems of Sunday trading, are the Government considering exempting certain types of shops, as is done in West Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, rather than exempting goods, as is done in this country?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we do not believe that it is suitable to proceed in a piecemeal fashion, which we may be encouraged to do if we go down the road of partial deregulation. At this stage we are anxious to canvass all opinions and to discover the measure of consensus and any practical solutions which may come forward.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Keep Sunday Special campaign is proposing imprisonment for those who break the Sunday trading laws, and that if its proposals are adopted it will be the first time in over 400 years that people will be imprisoned for selling Bibles on a Sunday?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in considering the matter will my noble friend look at the example of Scotland, where they get on perfectly sensibly and effectively with total deregulation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am always happy to consider the examples of Scotland, and where I always live happily. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.

Care in the Community
2.42 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What co-ordination and co-operation there is between the policy units of the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment over the provision of practical and financial assistance for people discharged into the care of the community.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, strong working links have been established between officials in the three departments. They have worked together, and will continue to do so, on the resettlement of hospital patients into the community and encouraging co-operation between local agencies.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, I wonder for

833
how long this has been going on. Has the noble Lord read the 26th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published in April this year, and in particular paragraph 20 which states:
"Effective Joint Planning is important to ensure the efficient provision of complementary NHS/local authority services and the best use of total resources. Despite the Department's assurances about the progress that has been made to date we are concerned that, after almost 15 years, they have not developed Joint Planning arrangements that are fully effective"?
Can the noble Lord confirm that these new planning arrangements are recent, and can he say how effective they will be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to confess that the noble Countess has the advantage over me as regards paragraph 20. However, I assure her that there has been frequent collaboration between the three departments on housing, health, social services and social security issues relating to community care. Within the last 12 months there have been a very substantial number of issues discussed on a tripartite basis.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the number of homeless people has increased dramatically in recent times to what is probably a record level? Is he further aware that there is increasing evidence that many of' the homeless are people who have been in hospitals for the mentally handicapped or who have been discharged from psychiatric hospitals and are homeless because there is inadequate community care? Do not those two facts add a sense of urgency for the Government to respond to the Griffiths recommendations, as has been repeated time and time again from these Benches?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be well aware, the Department of Health actively has the Griffiths Report under consideration. As to his point about housing, the Department of the Environment has asked local authorities to concentrate their resources for housing on those who need it most, such as the disabled, the elderly and people on low incomes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Social Services Advisory Committee wrote to the department in October pointing out that the Government's proposals at that time regarding hostel charges would cause considerable hardship to the elderly, the physically disabled, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and young homeless people and could well result in a number of hostels having to close? Can the Minister say what is the Government's response to that observation by the advisory committee?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has drawn to your Lordships' attention, the department has received the letter and is considering its response.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Griffiths Report is a very short report. Can the Minister tell us how
834
much longer it will take the Ministry to read it and to make up its mind on what it will do on matters of the greatest urgency?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said in reply to a Question a fortnight ago, the department is considering the report at this moment and although I cannot give a date, a response will not be too long.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that local authorities will be expected to pay the care element of housing costs for those in supported lodgings when the changeover takes place from income support to housing benefit? If local authorities are to provide for that care element, can he say whether they will receive extra funding for the purpose?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, according to the latest figures, the 1988–89 level of local authority spending on personal social services, of which this is obviously a component, is £3 billion per annum. I believe I am right in saying that the level of expenditure on personal social services between 1978–79 and 1986–87 rose by some 87 per cent. in real terms.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question. There is to be a change from income support to housing benefit for people in supported lodgings. If the local authority is expected to pick up the tab for the care element instead of the DSS, will the local authority receive additional funds for that purpose?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there has been and will be an increasing amount of money available. Local authorities will have to make decisions within the broader context on which areas they wish to spend money. I cannot, on behalf of the local authorities, answer the question of the noble Countess.

MI5
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider abolishing MI5.
The Lord Privy Seal(Lord Belstead): My Lords, the security service makes an invaluable contribution to the defence of our security and freedom and will continue to do so in future. We would do better to express our support of and gratitude to members of the security service who work hard and Loyally rather than seek to undermine them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I agree with the last words uttered by the noble Lord. However, will he consider the proposition that in the national interest our armed forces should have full-time intelligence officers and not, as at present, many part-timers who interfere in parts of the political setup, which is not their concern? Furthermore, is not the time approaching when all those forms of services should ultimately, if necessary, be answerable to Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree with the first proposition put forward by the noble Lord. As regards the second proposition, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on 10th February and my noble friend Lord Ferrers set out the position for the Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is it not true that MI5 may now be obsolete because the War Office and its former military intelligence directorate are integrated into the Ministry of Defence? Does not my noble friend agree that a security service is now needed more than ever in an effort to defeat international terrorism?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the security services contain many people of very limited intelligence who spend most of their time quarrelling with each other? Is it not time that we looked into this matter? There is a great waste of public money in that area. Will the noble Lord ask his noble friends and his right honourable friends to consider setting up a special sub-committee of the Privy Council for the purpose of examining the entire set-up?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as my original Answer said, the security services make an invaluable contribution to our security and freedom, and will continue to do so. The Government believe that there are no grounds for instituting a special inquiry.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is on a level with the foolish rebuke which was once administered by Balaam to his very sensible ass?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, asked me a Question, as is his right, and I have given him an Answer.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the abolition of MI5. or our security services, is almost as unthinkable as the abolition of the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney? Does he not further agree that if it came to an agonising choice most of us would decide in favour of keeping MI5?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord and this is one of the occasions when I will not give an answer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while not walking into the embarrassment of naming Members of this House who should be abolished, may I ask this question? Does the Leader of the House remember that some anxiety was expressed—we are not speaking in terms of abolition in this instance—that there should be a proper source for complaints within MI5 as to how MI5 itself was functioning? Does the noble Lord remember that a special officer was established in order to deal with the matter? Can he
836
give the House a report as to the activities of that officer and tell us roughly how many complaints have been received over the past six months?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that supplementary question does not entirely arise from the Question. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right in that the appointment was made, and so far as I know the appointment is valuable and valued.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware—I am sure he is—that there has been treacherous and treasonable behaviour by some MI5 officials who have plotted against individuals and against their own bosses in MI5? I believe that that should not happen. Further, it is not nice for me to have to ask this House to consider that there were people in MI5 who were plotting to destabilise a democratically elected government of this country. It is for those reasons, in the main, that I ask the Government to look carefully at a reformation of the very valuable and useful MI5.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these matters were fully dealt with in a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 6th May last year. The Statement was repeated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, and I have nothing to add to that Statement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, noble Lords have every right to wish to see me abolished. but I should like to ask those noble Lords whether they would prefer that to the destabilisation of a British Government.

British Steel
2.53 pm.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the forthcoming privatisation of British Steel, what recent improvements there have been in its international competitiveness.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Pathfinder prospectus was published on 28th October and the British Steel share offer will open on 23rd November. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment on British Steel's business, but the Pathfinder prospectus makes it clear that British Steel has become one of the most profitable integrated steel producers in the world.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It was so much an example of brevity and perfect information that I am totally at a loss in regard to asking a supplementary question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Lord is not prepared to comment on the Pathfinder prospectus, will he perhaps comment on the changes

837
in the exchange rate that have taken place since the publication of that prospectus? Further, will he tell the House whether, in the light of the changes in the exchange rate and the recent hikes in the interest rates, the profit forecast contained on page 44 of the prospectus is still appropriate?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I will not comment on the prospectus which has been issued by the board of British Steel and upon which people will judge whether or not they support the offer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I therefore press the noble Lord a little further? If Stock Market conditions are such next week, when he decides whether or not to go ahead with the flotation, and if prices have reached the point where the minimum indicated price can no longer be met, will he assure the House that the issue will not take place, rather than risk another flop, where the issue is left in the hands of the underwriters or, what is worse, the Kuwait Investment Office?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, knows that that is a purely hypothetical question to which I do not have to give an answer.

Business
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, I do not at this stage propose to move on behalf of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees the two Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. As indicated on the Order Paper, the Motions can only be moved when appropriate Messages have been received from another place.
I understand that not all the Messages have yet arrived and, with the leave of the House, I propose to move the Motions at a later stage in today's business—I hope, following the Motions for the approval of the two weights and measures orders. As soon as the Messages arrive they will be placed in the Printed Paper Office.

Housing Bill
2.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments in lieu of certain of the Lords amendments and Commons consequential amendments to the Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments in lieu of certain of the Lords amendments and Commons consequential amendments to the Bill be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
[References are to H.L. Bill 109 as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 60, page 46, line 19, after ("order") insert ("after the conduct of a ballot as specified in section 61(2) below, (and subject to the provisions of that subsection)").
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu:
Clause 60, page 46,Line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 61 below")
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 60 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendment in lieu thereof.
When we debated the procedures for setting up a housing action trust last July, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Opposition were,
"proposing that there should be a proper basis of consent established for taking over any particular estate … The ultimate choice should lie with tenants when it comes to deciding what will happen to their homes".
Since the announcement of the proposed HAT areas and our debates in July we have spent the past few months listening to what people have to say.
HATs are a major new initiative which will bring what is now nearly £200 million of extra resources over the next three years to help transform the quality of life for tenants living on some of our most run-down council estates. But the facts about HATs are not getting across to individual tenants. Local authorities and tenant groups have greeted the Government's proposals with suspicion and hostility; mainly, they tell us, because no ballot had been allowed for.
Many tenants have told us that they could feel happy with the idea of housing action trusts only if they first have a ballot. The Government have therefore decided to accept the principle embodied in the amendments to the Bill made in this House—that there should be a ballot of tenants before the Secretary of State makes a HAT designation order.
However, the Opposition amendments agreed in this House in July need some clarification on a number of legal points. For example, they left unclear. what is meant by "tenants"; they left unclear the form a ballot might take—that is, whether it should be by voting paper in a ballot box or by postal vote; they left unclear what procedures should apply to the regulations and what their purpose would be; and they left unclear whether the arrangements for a ballot could be carried out by someone other than the Secretary of State on his behalf.
We also did not feel that the form of the ballot embodied in the Opposition amendments was quite right for HATs. The Opposition amendments required a ballot whereby a majority of those eligible should have to vote in favour of the proposals. We prefer the matter to be decided by a majority of those voting. This is because there is one question only, to which the answer is a simple yes or no. If the answer

839
is yes, my honourable friend will only then be able to make an order which both Houses will have to approve.
The Government amendments provide that all secure tenants will have a vote, as well as any other tenants whom the Secretary of State may wish to prescribe in regulations. We have provided for my right honourable friend to delegate the arrangements for a ballot to another body such as the Electoral Reform Society, and I am happy to say that the society has agreed to make the arrangements. He also has power to conduct the ballot himself.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it quite clear that under the terms of the Government's amendment my right honourable friend cannot make a HAT designation order unless a ballot or poll has been conducted. This issue was debated at length in another place last Friday. My right honourable friend set out the issues very clearly there and the House overwhelmingly endorsed the amendments proposed by the Government by 246 votes to 74, a government majority of 172. Your Lordships will doubtless agree that that must be an indication of approval that the Government have taken note of the amendments made by this House and listened to what tenants had to say. We were challenged to let tenants have a say and we shall. We believe that the amendments made by the Commons are the best way of giving this effect. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist on your amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and to agree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 60 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, do the Government want the good news or the bad news first? Let me give them the bad news. First, we are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which this Bill has gone through its remaining stages in another place. I am sure that it is not for us to criticise the conduct of another place. Nevertheless, at the very last minute—that is to say, last Friday—the Government had to impose a timetable Motion on consideration of our amendments to this Bill, and that cannot be other than derogatory to the dignity of this House.
There should have been full consideration by another place without a timetable Motion and without a guillotine of all the amendments which your Lordships made to this Bill when it was undergoing its long and arduous progress through this House. To that extent we are very dissatisfied with the position that we find ourselves in on the very eve of Prorogation and the end of this Session.
Secondly, though I listened with interest to what the Minister said, I believe that he was unfair to the amendments that your Lordships agreed to on my Motion in July. He said that we did not define a ballot or tenants. Our amendment said that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the conduct of the
840
ballot of tenants. Therefore it is up to the Secretary of State under our amendment to define a ballot and tenants. I do not find that argument very convincing as regards the wording of our amendment.
The good news is that I accept without hesitation that the Government have agreed to give effect to our amendment in different words. We accept the assurances given by the Secretary of State in another place and by the Minister to your Lordships this afternoon. We are happy to agree to the amendments that the Commons are proposing in lieu of our amendments.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not agree without hesitation. I believe that one has to have a moment's hesitation, but having had it, I hasten to say that we are happy to accept these amendments as well. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in reading out the results of the Division in another place, referred to 70 or so votes against the Government's amendment. I believe that noble Lords should recognise that the people who voted against the Government's amendment were doing so largely in support of your Lordships' amendment, feeling that it was a better amendment than the government one.
I sustain that point of view. My honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made that point in the debate. We should have preferred that there be a majority of all tenants in the HAT area in favour before a change was made. Nevertheless, the ballot that the Government are proposing as regards HATs is far better than the ballot that they are proposing in other places. At least here the abstentions, the dead and the empty houses are not being counted as in favour of the proposition. This is a straight decision between those people who are voting in the ballot.
As a member of the Electoral Reform Society I declare an interest because I am sure this measure will do its income quite a lot of good, and I applaud that. Generally, this is a satisfactory outcome of the decisions made in your Lordships' House. It shows that your Lordships make an important contribution to legislation passing through this House. I believe that the tenants in HATs now have a better chance of sorting out their own fate. Noble Lords can be congratulated on bringing that matter to the Government's attention and pressing them to take action. When this Bill first saw the light of day over a year ago that was not the intention of the Government. In accepting the Government's amendment I have a certain amount of hesitation, but nevertheless I applaud it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Government's amendments both by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, even though he had a moment's hesitation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not even have that.
As regards the arrangements in another place, I shall not comment on them. I believe it is not the place of your Lordships' House to comment on them. I listened to some of the discussion. I say to the noble

841
Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that I remember full well when in Opposition finding that his party also guillotined the consideration of your Lordships' amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 61, page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State shall, in each estate in any area in respect of which he proposes to make a designation order, make arrangements for the conduct of a ballot of tenants in the estate, and no order may be made under section 60 (1) above in respect of that estate unless a majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved the proposal.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide for the definition of 'tenant'").
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu:
Clause 61, page 47,Line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where the Secretary of State is considering a proposal to make a designation order, he shall use his best endeavours to secure that notice of the proposal is given to all tenants of houses in the area proposed to be designated who are either secure tenants or tenants of such description as may be prescribed by regulations.
(2A) After having taken the action required by subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall either—

(a) make arrangements for such independent persons as appear to him to he appropriate to conduct, in such manner as seems best to them, a ballot or poll of the tenants who have been given notice of the proposal as mentioned in that subsection with a view to establishing their opinions about the proposal to make a designation order; or

(b) if it seems appropriate to him to do so, arrange for the conduct of a ballot or poll of those tenants in such manner as appears to him best suited to establish their opinions about the proposal.

(2) If it appears from a ballot or poll conducted as mentioned in subsection (2A) above that a majority of the tenants who, on that ballot or poll, express an opinion about the proposal to make the designation order are opposed to it, the Secretary of State shall not make the order proposed.
(2C) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
Clause 61, page 47,Line 14, leave out ("or steps taken").
Clause 61, page 47,Line 15, leave out ("or subsection (2) above as if taken") and insert ("above as if undertaken").
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 61 to which the Comons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment to Clause 61 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendments in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Schedule 6, Page 117, line 34, at end insert:
(" .In Schedule 6, paragraph 3(3)(b) shall be omitted ").
The Commons agree to this amendment and propose the following consequential amendment to the Bill:
Schedule 6,Page 45, line 45, leave out ("and").
Schedule 6,Page 46, line 3, at end insert—
("and
842
(d) varying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may remove a member of the Housing Corporation from office").
Schedule 6,Page 154, line 58, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 6, paragraph 3(3)(b) ").
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments to the Bill en bloc. The amendment to Schedule 6 was accepted by the Government at Third Reading in response to the argument that it was unnecessary for the Secretary of State to take a power to remove any board member of the Housing Corporation on the grounds of mental or physical incapacity. The amendments now proposed in another place are simply consequential amendments necessary to give proper legal effect to the amendment put forward in this House and accepted by the Government.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments to the Bill en bloc.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment in order to say what I neglected to mention when we discussed the previous amendments. When I criticised the timetable Motion that the Government put before another place I neglected to pay tribute to my honourable and right honourable friends for their persistence, assiduity and skill when they attacked those of your Lordships' amendments with which they disagreed. I do not believe that it justified a timetable Motion, but it should be recorded that right up to the very last this Bill had the most expert attention from another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1988
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.10 to 3.12 p.m.]
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved. [35th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before speaking to the Motion, I must apologise sincerely to your Lordships for not being in my place when 1 should have been.
These draft regulations, which further amend the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984, add to the schedule a number of new purposes for which my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales may pay grant, and extend to five the number of activities on which grant may be paid at 50 per cent.
As the House will be aware, 1989–90 will be the fifth year in which education support grant will be available to help local authorities to respond to important initiatives and meet particular needs. All the £115.5 million of expenditure planned for 1988–89 was allocated to LEAs, and applications for support exceeded the total available in every category where distribution was not decided on a formula basis. All LEAs in England and Wales are receiving support under the ESG programme in the present financial year.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 20th April the Government's intention to support through education support grants expenditure amounting to £125.5 million cash in 1989–90. Of this, some £77 million will support new activities and the extension of existing ones; the balance represents continued support for activities begun in 1988–89 and earlier years. Grant of some £81.5 million will be paid on this expenditure.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has consulted the appropriate local authority associations about the content of the 1989–90 programme. In the course of those consultations he has specified the new purposes for which the Government propose to pay ESG in 1989–90 and the rate of grant which he intends to apply in each case, and has given a provisional assessment of amount of expenditure to be supported for each purpose, the number of LEAs to be supported, and the likely length of support. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had similar consultations with the Welsh Counties Committee and the Welsh Joint Education Committee.
As your Lordships will be aware, education support grants are intended to assist LEAs with expenditure on new or particularly pressing aspects of education which in many cases will later become part of mainstream activity. To this end it is appropriate in some cases to reduce the level of grant for activities in their final year or years. The 1987 amending regulations included a provision which allowed grant on one named activity, records of achievement, to be paid at 50 per cent. instead of the general rate of 70 per cent. for the special two-year extension offered to participating LEAs.
It is now proposed to extend the lower rate to four more activities in 1989–90, paying grant at 50 per cent. on both new and committed expenditure on maths in schools, science and technology in primary schools and action to combat the misuse of drugs. All three programmes have had support at 70 per cent. for at least three years and have been extended beyond the length originally envisaged. It is also proposed to pay grant at 50 per cent. on the new equipment element of the information technology in schools activity. Support for advisory teachers appointed as part of the 1988–89 programme will continue to be paid at 70 per cent.
In drawing up their proposals for the 1989–90 ESG programme my right honourable friends' main concern has been to reflect the priorities of the Education Reform Act. They wish to offer
844
authorities support for the organisational and curricular changes they will need to undertake to implement the provisions in the Act, and to this end most of the new activities and extensions are relevant to the implementation either of local financial management or of the national curriculum.
My right honourable friend is proposing to make some £35 million of new expenditure available to support the introduction of local management of schools and colleges. Of this, the largest element—£25 million—will be devoted to helping LEAs to introduce schemes for the local management of schools. My right honourable friend is also proposing a new category to fund the establishment of central teams and the introduction of training for local management of colleges. Some colleges are already receiving funding in 1988–89 for management information systems, and more will be brought within the programme in 1989–90.
Under the general heading of local managment are also included two new activities to support the provision of training for school and college governors to help prepare them for their new responsibilities under the 1986 and 1988 Acts. Your Lordships will recall that it was indicated last year that extra expenditure would be available in future years for training school governors once the pilot projects funded in previous years had come to a conclusion. 1 am happy to say that the Government intend to make almost £5 million available for the purpose in 1989–90, and that all LEAs which submit satisfactory bids will receive a share. Support is also proposed for a small number of pilot projects to develop methods and materials for the training of college governors. It is intended that these should lead to the development of a scheme to include all LEAs in 1990–91.
My right honourable friend is proposing to support new expenditure of some £30 million on activities related to the introduction of the national curriculum in 1989–90. In addition to extending the programmes for science and technology in primary schools and information technology in schools, he proposes to fund training to help teachers to improve pupils' use of the English language. The training will have particular reference to the recommendations of the Kingman Committee on this subject. It is also proposed to make £9.5 million available to provide flexible support for the core subjects of the national curriculum—English, science and maths, and technology. My right honourable friend is also proposing to support the appointment of an additional inspector in each LEA to cover aspects of financial delegation and the introduction of the national curriculum.
The other new purposes listed in the schedule are in the adult and youth fields. The Government are proposing to make funds available to support the training of 200 young people from the inner cities to undertake youth work in their own communities and to receive training which will equip them as qualified youth workers. This is a significant step towards enhancing the capacity of the youth service in these areas to meet the needs of young people. It is also designed to continue the promotion of social responsibility among young people and encourage

845
them to become active citizens more generally. I should also mention at this stage that support for the appointment of co-ordinators in LEAs to help combat the misuse of drugs is to be extended for a further year.
I am sure that your Lordships will approve the proposal to make support available for the establishment of a chain of open learning centres for adults with literacy and numeracy problems. Existing provision for vocational open learning will also be extended to allow more LEAs to be supported, and it is proposed that grant should be available to help LEAs to improve educational guidance services for adults in their area.
Finally, my right honourable friend plans to continue the initiative begun in 1988–89 to provide colleagues with equipment for use in the teaching of computer-aided engineering on crucial higher technician level courses.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of the education support grant programme in Wales. On 1st September he announced that support of up to £5.1 million would be given against approved expenditure amounting to £7.8 million.
The Welsh programme closely follows that proposed for England and reflects the priorities of the Education Reform Act. Additionally it provides particular support for the development of the teaching of the Welsh language in all primary and secondary schools in Wales as both a foundation and a core subject within the national curriculum.
There is also continuing support for projects related to Welsh heritage and culture. In these ways the regulations take specific account of the special circumstances in Wales.
The regulations provide for the continuation of action against drug abuse and support for schemes of health promotion in Wales. The English scheme to train young people to qualify as youth workers will be mirrored by a similar scheme for training young people from the valley areas of South East Wales, where the problems of the inner cities are repeated with the added dimension of difficult communications imposed by the geography of the area.
I believe that this programme offers important help to LEAs in England and Wales across all phases and subject areas. In particular it fulfils the commitment made by the Secretary of State during the passage of the Education Reform Act to use specific grant to provide financial underpinning for the reforms in the Act. I commend these amendment regulations, and the list of purposes, to be supported in 1989–90 to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaos I may also apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my seat at the appropriate moment, thereby wasting two or three minutes of your Lordships' most
846
valuable time. However, I can say that I was in my seat at least 30 seconds ahead of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson.
As regards the matter before us, I should like to start with the schedule of purposes. I must say that of course we, and indeed anyone with an interest in education, can do nothing other than welcome this list of activities, all of which are highly desirable educationally and represent important and extremely attractive educational initiatives.
Therefore there is nothing between us on the schedule itself—the list, so to speak; it is wholly admirable. Obviously many of the items arise from the passing of the Education Reform Bill, which has now become the Education Reform Act, while others arise from general developments in education, either developments which are actually happening or, since this is to do with educational initiatives, developments which we should like to see happen.
I do not propose to go into detail except perhaps to anticipate what another noble Lord may say; namely, how pleased I am with paragraph 29 on the provision of open learning centres for adults to deal with problems of adult literacy and numeracy. It is a matter which is very dear to our hearts and especially my own, because it goes back to 1975 when I was closely involved with the development of the Adult Literacy Campaign.
The other point I wish to make is on a slightly lighter note. In comparing last year's schedule with this one, I am especially amused by the item regarding the provision of data processing equipment. Perhaps noble Lords would kindly look at that. Last year the initiative was to provide the equipment, accessories and software. whereas this year the same words are used but in addition we are told that funds will be made available to train staff in the use of such equipment. I imagine that the staff have had a year with the equipment being there and have stared at it wondering what it is there for. Thus the Secretary of State has felt that the time has come to explain to the staff how to open the boxes, plug the equipment in and how to use it.
However, leaving that frivolous note on one side, the obvious point one has to raise is not the list of items but the sums of money made available. The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, will not be in the least surprised that my main complaint is that the sums of money are too low.
Here we have major initiatives being financed with not a lot of money. I should have thought that £100 million and £125 million in the context of the education budget is almost within the margin of error. It is not enough money. It still seems to be insufficient even if we accept the premises upon which it all happens; namely, that it is an initiative by way of a pilot project.
I believe, and I hope I can persuade the noble Viscount to comment on this, that if one looks at all the additional items in the 1988 document compared with that of 1987 and compares the change in the grant, it is difficult to persuade oneself that the sum of money has increased remotely in line with all the new initiatives.

847
I should like to give one example of the money problem. If we look at the PICKUP programme for retraining, that again is something that we have always agreed is desirable. The total sum made available there is £200,000. That sum is to be divided between just over 100 LEAs and works out at about £2,000 per LEA. That is an infinitesimally small sum of money. It has been brought to my notice—and it seems to me a valid point—that with grants as small as that, the costs of preparing the appliction for such a grant could well exceed the value of the grant itself. I hate to use the word "penny-pinching" but it seems to me that a matter as important as this is being somewhat underfinanced.
As I say, I do not wish to introduce a discordant or acid note into the discussion because all of us are sensitive to the desirability of everything that is being done here. Certainly anything that the Secretary of State can do to encourage and assist appropriate developments is desirable. Indeed, the fact that he at least consults is a good sign.
However, I hope—I assume that this is a matter to which we shall return next year and in subsequent years—that in due course we can come back to the issue of education support grants with a rather more generous funding of them, a degree of funding which is much more in line with the needs which such initiatives indicate.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his clear annunciation of the proposals in the Education Support Grants Regulations for the coming year. I think that I am the only speaker so far who does not have to apologise for having been absent at the beginning of the debate.
I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in agreeing that these are all worthy objects. However, I should just like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. The first relates to the records of achievement, which was an initiative begun under the last Secretary of State whereby when a boy or girl came to leave school he or she took away a general, rounded report covering not only achievements in the academic field but also everything about them that had become evident during their years of schooling. Therefore a prospective employer would not merely know that John or Jane had obtained so many subjects in GCSE and that was it; he would also know what kind of person they were and what gifts they had outside the classroom.
That seemed to me to be an excellent idea but one which is now in danger of being smothered by the demands of the Education Reform Act; that is, that a child should leave school at 16 plus with a list of subjects gained in GCSE, together with an assessment on those subjects which he or she had not taken in GCSE. I fear that that may overtake what seemed to me to be a much more civilised approach—namely, the records of achievement. They were positive and told you more about the person. As I said, they gave future employers the idea that people exist outside classrooms and outside academic achievement.
848
I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance that that programme is a going concern and that it will be keenly supported from the centre, although one knows that the Government are allowing only 50 per cent. support instead of 75 per cent. I realise that the reduction was made last year and therefore is not new. However, one would like to know that the programme was still receiving government support.
There is a reduction to 50 per cent. in support for the control of drug abuse. Does that indicate that the problem is considered to be solved? Will it be pursued with equal vigour?
Full marks to the Government for the suggested provision of open learning centres for adults who suffer from numeracy and literacy problems. There are about 7 million adults in the country whose literacy and numeracy skills are inadequate for everyday life. The provision therefore seems to be most important. If one asks any body of people concerned with the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills to adults, one will find that their great problem is how to persuade those unfortunate people to come forward and say that they want to learn. The facilities are offered, but how does one persuade such people to come forward? They are shy. No one likes to admit at the age of 30 or 40 that they cannot read or can read only inadequately. If one puts notices in public places such as libraries or doctors' surgeries, such people will not read them. Could consideration be given to local television networks announcing that such facilities are available? Many of these people want to learn. They are too shy to come forward, and they do not discover where to go because they are unable to read the notices.
I should like to ask the Minister a little about the progress of some of these initiatives. Each year in the education support grants we give our approval to the proposed new initiatives but we do not hear what progress has been made. Will the Minister be kind enough to give us a progress report on some of the initiatives? I am thinking especially about the project designed to meet the educational needs of persons from ethnic minorities, promoting harmony between different racial groups and so on, and the project relating to the improvement of the spoken word, which is of the utmost importance.
In Shaw's play of Pygmalion, your Lordships will remember a slum flower girl was passed off as a duchess at an embassy reception. It is impossible to attach too much importance to clear and articulate speech. I am not talking here about the dialect of the well-to-do but about clear and articulate speech. Many children suffer from an inability to produce such speech. The project is an excellent idea. How is it going?
There is also the proposal designed to promote social responsibility in children. How is that going? I see no improvement in the amount of litter that surrounds our schools and is in all our streets. Are children being educated in the idea that the entire country outside their own front gardens is not one vast tip, which is the impression many of them seem to have?
The planning, development and co-ordination of provision to meet the educational needs of persons

849
who are unemployed is a good project. One would like to know how that is going. Finally, there is the support for children under the age of five with special educational needs. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would let me have a little information about the progress of those initiatives.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords—
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps I may first reply to the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Bench with your Lordships' leave, as, I think, is normal practice. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden appearance at the Opposition Dispatch Box as education spokesman. I look forward to many friendly exchanges with him across the Table. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for the general welcome they have given the regulations. On the whole it seems to me that we do not disagree very much on principle and only marginally on the amounts of money available.
I shall leave a few more general remarks on the regulations until other noble Lords have had a chance to ask questions. It would be proper if I now tried to answer the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ritchie of Dundee. If I do not answer them adequately, I shall write to them. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the level of support offered for Education Reform Act related activities. Over £90 million of the proposed ESG expenditure supports, directly or indirectly, activities relating to the Act.
In addition, our spending plans for education for 1989–90 give priority to those aspects of the service most affected by the Education Reform Act. They allow for over £450 million more in cash to be spent than in 1986–87 on education support staff, administrative and clerical staff for schools, books and equipment, local authority administration and extra help for financial delegation. About £65 million will be available through in-service training grants. In addition, there is some £90 million available for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92 for the development, introduction and monitoring of the national curriculum and associated assessment arrangements.
The noble Lord asked about PICKUP. This is the last year for special funding for PICKUP and represents money for a final term's work. Hereafter, it will be for LEAs to decide what to fund. Altogether over five years, over £8 million of expenditure has been supported through ESGs for PICKUP.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked a number of questions. He asked first about records of achievement and whether they will be swamped—I think that is what he said—by the Education Reform Act. It remains the Government's objective that arrangements for the national introduction of records of achievement for all young people in secondary schools should be in place by 1990. To that end, the final report of the Records of Achievement National Steering Committee is expected shortly. That report will be published. The Government are still committed to ensuring that arrangements are in
850
place by 1990 for a national system of records of achievement for all school-leavers. All 14 LEAs in England already in receipt of grant have submitted proposals for extensions of support at the lower rate of 50 per cent.
The noble Lord also asked about act ion to combat the misuse of drugs. The programme was originally intended to run for two years only. In 1988–89, it was extended for a further year at the full rate of 70 per cent. The decision to extend support still further was taken in recognition of the extremely important work which the co-ordinators are doing and of the concern felt by LEAs about that activity. We felt it right however that in the fourth year of support LEAs should be required to take on a 50 per cent. share of the cost.
With respect to open learning, I take completely on board what the noble Lord said about die problem of literacy and numeracy and will convey his remarks to my right honourable friend. The noble Lord asked about the current situation as regards the multi-ethnic society and ethnic learning problems. The grants currently support innovative projects designed to meet the educational needs of ethnic minority children and prepare pupils and students for life in an ethnically diverse society. Activities being supported include exchange schemes between multi-racial and all-white schools, the establishment of multi-cultural resource centres, improving race relations, curriculum development and in-service training for teachers, reinforcing and supporting the work of staff, funded by the Home Office under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.
As regards social responsibility, these pilot projects began in 1987–88 and in most cases they have now been running for about a year. We intend soon to assess their early progress. I think I have answered the questions that were posed to me.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, first, on a point of information, is it not unusual for the Minister to find it necessary to reply to the two Front Benches? After all, we have here not a Statement but regulations. I am a little concerned because I am a Back-Bencher and I notice, as was mentioned the other day, that Back-Benchers do not have an opportunity to speak. If we are likely to have additional Front Benches because more parties are being formed, I think it is important that Back-Benchers should have their say.
The regulations purport to be concerned with new grants, as I understand it, or a new schedule. I am mystified by paragraph 15 which says:
"Securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday".
As I, as an ex-teacher, understood it, the law required that pupils should be supervised throughout the whole of the day while they were at school. The school was in loco parentis the whole time. During the lunch hour we employed people to supervise. Is this something new? I am very puzzled.
The whole schedule has the great advantage for skilled teachers that they can use it for their own ends. I am delighted to see this. There exists this delightfully vague suggestion that there could be a pilot scheme to promote social responsibility in children. This leads me already to consider a number

851
of plans which I should put into operation if I were in a position to do so. I do not feel that we have anything new in these regulations. We are simply reiterating the codes of practice which the teaching profession, if it is not interfered with by government, has been carrying out for many years. Many of the regulations will merely perpetuate, and hopefully expand, activities which have been going on for a long time. I should like an answer regarding paragraph 15.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I too should apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for arriving late for the debate. If I say anything or ask any questions that have been dealt with by the Minister then I reiterate that apology. First, I am a little concerned about the form and format of the circular itself. I find it very odd. Having dealt with Department of Education and Science circulars in a previous experience, I find it odd that we have such a huge schedule. My noble friend has just made that point. It is a huge schedule, and yet with such sparse references to it in the paragraphs of the circular. Again underlining what my noble friend has just said, some of the matters in the schedule are of the utmost importance and are not dealt with as they should be.
Before I go further and turn to the main points relating to the circular itself, perhaps I may comment on the very first point in the schedule:
"The management and appraisal of lecturers and school teachers".
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can say whether the appraisal refers to head teachers. I submit to your Lordships that the appraisal of a head teacher is one of the most difficult tasks with which administrators have to deal. Who is to do it? Is it to be HMIs? I suggest that that would be rather dangerous because HMIs do not often visit schools. They are therefore not very much in a position to see head teachers in operation. Is it a matter for the chief education officer, or the local education authority? If so, then the same argument applies about the frequency with which one is able to see the head teacher. I do not wish to go further than to say that the effect of the influence of the head teacher on a school is of supreme importance. We are talking about an effect on the lives of thousands of children. Many noble Lords have experienced this and are aware just how important it can be. If one has a bad head teacher, what on earth does one do to get rid of him or her?
I mention the nature of the circular. There are no fewer than 31 points in the schedule. I can see immediately that they are quite comprehensive. While I think no one would care to debate the schedule itself today, there could be added at least half a dozen other points which are very topical and important. Perhaps there will be opportunities at a later date to discuss them.
Turning to the first part of the circular, perhaps I may ask the Minister which bodies representing LEAs were consulted. That is in the foreword and it is the normal practice for this kind of regulation. I should like to know which bodies were consulted.
852
Even more important, what did they have to say? It may well be that the proposals now before your Lordships' House are not the consensus of the opinions among the organisations which were consulted. The second point I put to the Minister is whether it is not the usual practice regarding regulations of this kind and this importance—I do not think anyone will disagree as to how important these are today—to have a longer period before coming into force? According to the circular, they will come into effect on 1st December. We are talking about a period of 17 days for matters of the utmost importance in our schools and other educational institutions today.
Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule deal with some of the most important issues in education today. I mention those paragraphs because they are highlighted and specified in the circular itself. I quickly remind your Lordships what they are: paragraph 2, the teaching of mathematics in schools. That subject has been a matter of the utmost importance for many years now and there is still no obvious solution to the problem. Paragraph 3 concerns teaching of science and technology as part of primary education; this is another matter of major importance. Paragraph 4 is concerned with one of seven themes on which pilot schemes could be devised. I quote these matters merely in order to emphasise their importance.
The projects are to receive grants of 70 per cent. but items 2 and 3, which I have just mentioned, will be reduced to 50 per cent. from 1st April next year. It seems to me that this is a most peculiar way of emphasising the importance of what the Minister says raise some of the most serious issues in education today. Perhaps we may have some explanation for that.
Paragraphs 14 and 20 deal with the misuse of drugs and work-related computers. The rate will also be reduced to 50 per cent. of expenditure for them. I shall not repeat what my noble friend said from the Front Bench, but it seems to me that that matter requires further explanation. The Government are constantly saying how important all these issues and others are. Yet those are the grants which they consider adequate. I admit quite openly to the Minister that I do not know whether these percentages represent an increase or a decrease.
What my noble friend has said from the Front Bench is worth repeating. The sums which he quoted, which are presumably a repetition of what the Minister said before I came in, are simply inadequate to deal with the problems which we are debating today. There could be no better example of the difference between what the Government preach and what they practise.
On the evidence of this circular anyway and, I submit, in other ways, the Government have not even begun to appreciate the cynicism which today exists in our schools and other educational institutes. If it were not for the dedication of our teachers, I shudder to think how much worse the position would be. If the Government mean what they say about the future of our country depending on what is done in our education institutions today, they had better have a

853
long, hard look at some of the proposals. The regulations before us today are a perfect example of that need.
Lord Parry: My Lords, when the Minister began his career on the Front Bench I asked him a question about the results of the primary school staffing survey reported in the Welsh Office pamphlet. I did not congratulate him that day because I did not know it was his first appearance on the Front Bench. I congratulate him now, and I also congratulate my noble friend who has taken over Front Bench responsibility on the subject for this side of the House.
Has the regulation which makes provision for the teaching of high technology and mathematics in primary schools taken into account the very real difficulties that exist now and were shown to exist in that survey which I mentioned in the House? The Minister will know that the House may well have an opportunity to debate that matter and its significance for Great Britain as a whole before the end of this year because there is a Question down for an unnamed date.
Can the Minister tell me whether there is provision within the regulations to make up for what the primary schools of Wales and England currently lack as regards general education? Will he also accept that the fact that there are a great many illiterate adults and non-numerate adults in the country proves that primary and indeed secondary education has been inadequate for a long time for a great many of the pupils in our schools? As I am on my feet, may I give the Minister some comfort as regards the litter campaign as opposed to the illiteracy campaign? The Tidy Britain Group, of which I have the pleasure to be chairman, is greatly encouraged by the current interest being taken in its long-term efforts. The group was formerly called Keep Britain Tidy. Interest is being taken in the efforts of that group to introduce a kind of social education as regards litter control into the school curriculum. That has been successful up to the secondary level, but it seems to fall off thereafter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I too was not present when he spoke due to the rather tardy transport arrangements across the nation today. I hope I am not repeating something that either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said. I think this subject has been mentioned. I wish to ask about paragraph 29 of the regulations which states:
"The provision of open learning centres to provide tuition for adults in literacy and numeracy."
Can my noble friend tell me exactly what is meant by "open learning centres"? What do the Government mean by "open learning" in this context? Who will the tutors be? Will they all be paid professionals, or are local authorities being encouraged to return to a system whereby they have teams of volunteer tutors working with professionals for that purpose?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have had a useful debate. I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and to other Back-Benchers
854
in this House if I showed any disrespect to them. Having been a Back-Bencher for many years myself, I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as regards the importance of Back-Benchers. If I showed any disrespect, it was entirely an oversight on my part and I apologise for it.
Before I reply in detail to some of the points which noble Lords have raised, I wish to say a little about what has already been achieved through the use of education support grants across all sectors of education. Grant approved for 1987–88 has been used to support the appointment of 320 advisory teachers to improve the effectiveness and relevance of science teaching in primary schools, and 350 appointments have been supported for maths in schools. One hundred and twenty eight appointments have been made in 96 LEAs in connection with action to combat the misuse of drugs, 42 centres have been established to provide a focus for staff development in the use of information technology across the vocational curriculum in non-advanced further education, and management information systems have been purchased for 119 colleges. It is estimated that the £0.5 million approved for computerised learning aids for further education students with special educational needs has allowed about 850 students to be helped through the purchase of some 2,500 items of equipment in each of the two years of the programme. Her Majesty's Inspectors, who are involved in assessing the broad impact of the various programmes, have confirmed that ESGs have had a considerable impact on quality in these and many other areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised the question of midday supervision. I must tell her that support for the GCSE and midday supervision was introduced in particular circumstances which have now changed. However, there are now other priorities and pressing needs.
As I explained, most of the new expenditure to be supported in the 1989 to 1990 programme is in areas related to aspects of the Education Reform Act. My right honourable friend undertook through the passage of that Act to use specific grants to provide LEAs with the financial support they needed to underpin the reforms.
In previous years we have funded LEAs to allow them to develop approved schemes for supervision at midday. All LEAs now have such schemes and there will be no new support in 1989–90. It is in the schedule to allow payments for 1988–89 submitted after 1st April 1989.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked me various questions. I am sorry that the noble Lord was not present when I made my speech. I think he will find that quite a few of his questions were answered in it. As regards the timing of the regulations, where they come into effect in December, allocations will be announced thereafter. Local education authorities have been able to work up their bids on the basis of draft proposals over the past four months. The programme does not start until April 1989.
Last year's draft circular gave notice that the Secretary of State was minded to pay grant at 50 per

855
cent. on maths, science and technology in primary schools in 1989–90, as well as continuing to pay at that rate on pilot projects to develop records of achievement. In all three cases the original programmes have been extended. It is only after the activities in question have been funded at 70 per cent. for at least three years that the rate has been reduced. The same applies to support for action to combat the misuse of drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked about consultation. I can tell him that my right honourable friend has consulted the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Following that meeting, support for action against drugs was reinserted in the programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked me certain questions about Wales. On this occasion I shall have to write to him, if he will allow me to do so. I shall also have to take the same action with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. In conclusion, I believe that the programme of education support grants which the Government are proposing to fund in 1989 to 1990 builds on the valuable work already supported through this means in the areas of the curriculum and the management of local authority education, as well as providing incentives to LEAs to engage in important work in youth and adult education. In particular, the new purposes set out in these draft regulations offer authorities vital assistance in meeting the challenges they will face in implementing the requirements of the Education Reform Act. I commend these amendment regulations to your Lordships.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I should be grateful if he would deal with the point which he did not answer. The regulations come into force on 1st December, as I said in my speech. He is now telling your Lordships' House that they will be operative—if that was his word—from 1st April. There is a four-month period there. Does that mean that the sums allocated for each of the items in the schedule could be changed; in other words that nothing will be finally fixed for 1st December? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said. Where the regulations come into effect in December allocations will be announced thereafter. Local education authorities have been able to work up their bids on the basis of draft proposals after the last four months. The programme does not start until April 1989. If there is another problem there, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988
4 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 10th October be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are debating today an order which, with the approval of the House, will make it an offence to manufacture, sell, import, hire, give or lend the various weapons specified in the order. Lest there is any misunderstanding, let me say from the outset that the order is not concerned directly with the possession or misuse of weapons: anyone misusing a weapon or brandishing one around in a public place is already subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This order is designed instead to cut off at source the supply of certain weapons.
The present state of the law in this area is that the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 outlaws the sale and manufacture of flick knives and gravity knives only. This order, pursuant to Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, will outlaw 14 other weapons. I need hardly say that in the wrong hands almost any item is capable of being used as an offensive weapon—a pair of scissors, a bottle, a bicycle chain and all manner of other everyday items—and we clearly cannot legislate against all possibilities. That is not, however, the purpose of this order. It is instead a measured response aimed at removing from circulation a range of weapons which, unlike the examples I have suggested, have no legitimate use.
The weapons which we propose to outlaw range from the knuckleduster, which most of us would no doubt at least be able to recognise, to some less familiar martial arts items such as the footclaw and the kusari gama—fearsome items one and all.
There are no comprehensive national statistics to show the extent of the misuse of the type of weapons we are seeking to prohibit. Indeed, information provided by police forces across the country indicates that, whereas weapons of a more offensive type do feature in crime, the number of cases is relatively small. But that is hardly the point. Does there have to be a wave of violence before action to outlaw them is justified? Of course not. The order is therefore founded less on direct evidence of misuse than on the conviction that the items involved are quite beyond the pale. Apart from the potential danger—the risk to life and limb—posed by death stars, knuckledusters and the like, weapons of that kind increase the level of fear in our society and add to the climate of violence. It is clearly right therefore that the sale and manufacture of such objectionable merchandise should be banned.
I should say that we did not prepare the order without consulting other interested parties. We have been in touch with, for example, other government departments (Customs and Excise, the Department of Trade and Industry), trade organisations, private companies, sports bodies and others. The exercise was genuinely consultative and we made a number of changes to our proposals in the light of responses which we received. By August we had prepared a preliminary order, and that too was circulated to consultees for further comment. Inevitably some differing views were expressed as to the legitimacy of certain weapons and types of weapon which we were proposing to outlaw. That is precisely why the consultation process was so important. There was no

857
disagreement, however, about the primary purpose of the order, and we have now secured a broad measure of support from those we have consulted over which weapons should be prohibited.
I do not need, I am sure, to take your Lordships through the catalogue of 14 weapons in detail. Their distinguishing feature is that they have no legitimate use. Articles such as handclaws, death stars or free-swinging butterfly knives are a menace to society: likewise knuckledusters, blowguns, footclaws and the various unfamiliar sounding martial arts weapons—the kusari gama, the manrikigusari. There is every reason for government to take this kind of hardware out of circulation.
Of course there is a balance to be struck, even where potentially dangerous weapons are concerned. There are one or two items on the list, such as swordsticks, which although having no proper use on the streets or elsewhere may in some cases be of considerable historical and cultural interest. That is why the order specifically excludes articles manufactured more than 100 years before the date of an alleged offence. It is not our intention that the trade in genuine antiques should be prevented. I might add, incidentally, that similar considerations lay behind the exemption incorporated in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for transactions on behalf of museums and similar institutions. Museums will remain free to acquire (and lend to each other) items of educational and other recognised interest.
Care has also been required in drawing up the definitions of individual weapons in order as far as possible to exclude versions which may have acceptable uses. That is why, for instance, the description of butterfly knives, drawn up in consultation with a knife manufacturer, includes a reference to the operation of springs. The more inherently offensive free-swinging models really belong to the family of flick knives and gravity knives whose sale has been banned since 1959. On the other hand, slow-opening, spring-operated versions have more in common with ordinary pocketknives and are used, perfectly properly, by fishermen for example. We concluded therefore that the latter version should not be prohibited.
Our consultations were also helpful in enabling us to identify two weapons we originally had it in mind to specify but which it became clear had genuinely legitimate functions. We learnt in particular that all types of catapults, including some of the most powerful models, were used by large numbers of perfectly law-abiding anglers for casting bait. We are aware that some catapults are capable of causing serious damage or injury, but we found that there was no practicable way of distinguishing between the different types (including those so easily made by children at home) without curtailing the freedom of anglers to pursue their chosen sport. For the moment we have therefore judged that catapults should not be included in the order.
In considering the range of martial arts weapons, we learnt that the weapon known as a rice flail (or nunchaku) has a legitimate use as a training aid in certain recognised classical martial arts disciplines,
858
and that it is regularly used by thousands of reputable enthusiasts. On balance, we concluded that their supply should not be prohibited.
During our consultations we received a number of representations regarding the sale of knives. The difficulty is that it is not possible to outlaw the sale of every artefact which is capable of inflicting serious injury and death. The "Rambo" type knife, if I may put it that way, is a fierce weapon, but in the wrong hands, so is a perfectly commonplace breadknife, do-it-yourself knife, carving knife or pruning knife, none of which we would ordinarily regard as weapons. Any one of those knives can do as much damage as the next. And it simply would be impossible to distinguish in law between differing kinds of knife. That is why we have instead taken separate powers under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 strengthening the law on possession of knives and similar weapons in public. Under the Act it is now an offence to have a bladed or sharply pointed article (other than a small folding pocketknife) in a public place without good reason, with the onus on the knife-carrier to show that he has good reason.
I believe that in most respects this order speaks for itself. I am sure that none of your Lordships is opposed to the prohibition of any of those weapons. Indeed, some of you may say that it does not go far enough. For the reasons I have outlined, however, we feel that we have got the balance about right. It is always possible that less scrupulous traders might attempt to circumvent the order by, for example, making small design variations or that other versions of weaponry will come onto the market. That is precisely why the Government took enabling powers in the Criminal Justice Act: a further order under Section 141 will be brought before Parliament to outlaw other weapons should circumstances so. dictate.
I believe that the order we are debating represents a firm but measured response to the threat posed to the general community by the general availability of offensive weapons. It strikes a balance between removing the supply of cheap, nasty items, which we would all wish to see banned, while at the same time allowing the trade in weapons of genuine historical interest to continue. Equally, while the order is intended to take out of circulation weapons which have no true sporting use, it has also been designed to avoid prohibiting equipment used by bona fide sportsmen.
I believe that the order has an important part to play in both protecting us all from the threat of violence and reducing the overall level of fear and concern caused by the unrestricted circulation of offensive weapons. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 10th October be approved (35th Report from the Joint Committee).—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl for the clear way in which he explained the purposes of the order that is now before us. He also deserves congratulation for the way in which he pronounced the names of certain

859
weapons which I am sure were unknown at least to the more civilised of your Lordships.
It would be difficult for anyone who has studied with deep grief the growth of street crime in this country in recent years to oppose an order of this kind. We on these Benches most certainly do not oppose it.
I should like to put forward a couple of obversations for consideration by the noble Earl. First, I noticed his remark that some people complain that the order does not go far enough. I think that he was referring merely to the numbers of weapons which are covered by this order. If I may say so, that may be true, but it is rather more serious that the order does not go far enough in regard to young people—I refer to those under the age of 16 years—the number of whom, among those who commit violent crime, is worrying to all of us.
It seems odd, for example, that there should be restrictions on the supply of fireworks and solvents to young people under the age of 16 yet there is no prohibition on the supply of knives and similar weapons. I hope that when the noble Earl discusses this debate in your Lordships' House with his right honourable friend, he will mention this matter to him in the hope that something can be done about it. It will be necessary to keep a very strict eye on the review of these weapons. One does not know what type of person manufactures and supplies them. One can only guess, and build up a not very comely or homely figure. I mention that point because one cannot put it past those manufacturers or suppliers so to alter the weapons that are prohibited by this order as to bring them just outside it and make them a permitted sale. This matter has to be kept well under review and I hope that the Government will do that.
Having made those observations, these Benches have no hesitation whatever in supporting the order.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, subject to the points made by the noble Lord, we on these Benches agree with this proposal and have no anxieties about the order.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I heard the noble Earl say something about a swordstick. I happen to have inherited a very nice swordstick which I often use as a walking stick, particularly when I go out in the evening. Is the noble Earl saying that this is out of order?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and interested to hear about his swordstick. I do not know whether he was present when I began to speak on this subject and he may not have managed to hear the reference to swordsticks that I made in the course of it. I can reassure him that unless his swordstick happens to be a relatively modern one, he will not be required to hand it in. Indeed, if it was produced earlier than 1888 he is quite safe.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord opposite that none of us consider him to be a hundred years old!
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the welcome that he has given to this order. He referred to an apparent inconsistency in regard to people under 16, in that we prohibit fireworks but there is not the same prohibition on knives. I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Strictly speaking, this is outside the scope of a statutory instrument debate. However the question of prohibiting the sale of knives and other offensive weapons to people under a certain age was examined prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act. Where weapons have no legitimate use there is no reason why they should be available to anyone, of whatever age. The powers in the Criminal Justice Act therefore enable the Secretary of State to prohibit altogether the sale of such items. There are also serious problems of definition. In statutory language a Rambo knife is exactly the same as a bread knife. However, as your Lordships are aware we have strengthened the law on the possession of knives under Section 139 and the onus is now on the knife user to show that his possession of the knife is a legitimate one.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his welcome to this measure.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down can he give us any indication as to who manufactures these items? They are inherently vicious and intended to be used for purposes other than proper and lawful ones. Who are the characters who manufacture these things? I do not know whether it is fair to throw that question across the Table at this time but I should be grateful for any light that can be thrown upon that question. It is rather a sinister scene.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in the course of his remarks the noble and learned Lord's colleague, Lord Mishcon, made a comment to the effect that he rather hoped that many of your Lordships would be unacquainted with some of these rather horrible-sounding weapons. Equally I must say to the noble and learned Lord that I cannot give him all the information that he seeks. However, having said that, I can tell him that the weapons are mainly imported from Taiwan.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1988
4.17 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 28th July be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this commencement order is simply to put into effect the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. The prospect of this repeal has aroused some concern

861
since it was announced in October 1986. It may therefore assist the House if I spend a little time outlining the background.
The 1972 Act requires goods made abroad but supplied here which bear a UK name or mark or anything likely to be taken as such also to be marked with a conspicuous indication of their country of origin. The Act does not require UK-made goods, nor imported goods without markings, to be marked with their country of origin. It is thus not a universal marking requirement.
Additional origin marking requirements were introduced in 1981 by the Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order, which required virtually all clothing and textiles, footwear, cutlery and domestic electrical appliances to be marked with their country of origin at point of retail supply, irrespective of whether the goods were made in the UK or abroad and whether or not they bore any brand names or trade marks.
Fairly soon after it was made, the order was the subject of European Community infraction proceedings and, although vigorously defended by the United Kingdom before the European Court of Justice, it was found to be incompatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits barriers to imports between member states of the European Community. In the court's view the order was likely to have the effect of increasing the production costs of imported goods and making it more difficult to sell them on the UK market. If it were advantageous for manufacturers to indicate national origin, they were quite free to do so voluntarily and legal compulsion was unnecessary. The protection of consumers was adequately safeguarded by measures prohibiting false or misleading indications of origin and these measures were not called in question by the treaty. In the United Kingdom such measures are enshrined in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Some two years ago the European Commission commenced further formal infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom on the grounds that the 1972 Act was also incompatible with Article 30 of the European Treaty. After careful consideration of the legal position, especially the earlier decision of the Court which I have just outlined, the Government concluded that the United Kingdom could not expect successfully to defend the Act.
It is important that the current Commission challenge is seen against this background. Article 30 of the treaty prohibits quantitative restrictions on trade between member states or measures having equivalent effect. The treaty provides certain exceptions to this rule, but they do do not include the purpose of consumer protection other than the protection of health or life. Case law has recognised this as a legitimate purpose for national measures, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. In the context of the 1972 Act, the main conditions are that a measure must be proportionate to that purpose—that is to say, it must go no further than is necessary to achieve it—and that there must be no discrimination between UK goods and those of other member states.
The 1972 Act clearly exceeds these conditions. The Act applies only to foreign goods. It therefore discriminates between United Kingdom goods and goods from other member states, and is in default of the treaty on that ground alone. Moreover, virtually any name or mark used in trade in the United Kingdom falls within the definition of United Kingdom name or mark whether or not there is anything misleading about it. In these respects the requirement to origin mark goes further than is necessary to prevent customers from being misled.
More positively, however, when we agreed to repeal the 1972 Act, the Government made it clear that the United Kingdom intended to institute a successor regime, compatible with treaty obligations, to take effect upon the repeal of the 1972 Act. The need for such a requirement was fully endorsed in discussion in this House in the Committee stage of the then Consumer Protection Bill.
A second order, the Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order, which I shall call the marking order, was laid before this House on 19th October, to fulfil this commitment. The marking order represents the outcome of wide and lengthy consultation with interested parties and we have also secured the acceptance by the European Commission of its terms. Although the marking order is not the subject of this debate it may be helpful to the House if I explain exactly what it does.
The marking order is made under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. This Act makes it an offence for a person in the course of a trade or business to apply a false (including misleading) trade description to goods, or to supply or offer to supply goods bearing such a description. A trade description is any indication given in respect of a range of characteristics of goods, including their place of manufacture or production.
The aim of the marking order is to set out the circumstances in which a positive, corrective indication of origin is required in order riot to commit an offence under the 1968 Act. The essential trigger mechanism is whether the presentation—that is, the packaging, marking, get-up or any other indications—of goods would create the impression that they were made somewhere other than where they were actually produced or manufactured. Regard must be had to the totality of the presentation of goods, although certain relevant indications, such as flags, names, persons and suchlike, are specified in the schedule to the order.
The marking order does not protect any one national origin. It would apply to misleading suggestions of, for example, German origin as well as of United Kingdom origin. There is therefore no element of discrimination against other member states' goods. And unlike the 1972 Act, the use of a particular language or trade mark is not in itself to be considered as necessarily indicating a particular origin.
The marking order has been clarified and revised in a number of ways as a result of consultation on its terms. In particular, it now requires a statement of the country of origin of goods as distinct from any other expression of their place of manufacture if the

863
latter could in itself be misleading. If, for example, goods were marked "Made in Sheffield" when they are supplied in the United Kingdom and that refers to one of the Sheffields in the USA, then the actual country of manufacture would have to be shown. I think that this should allay the concern of manufacturers who pointed to this potential difficulty. The marking order comes into effect on 31st December this year.
I think it fair to say that in consultation on the marking order interested parties—such as industry, trade, consumer associations and enforcement agencies—have generally accepted that there are now very clear limits on the scope for compulsory origin marking and that the order represents the most that is workable on a national basis, within our European Community obligations.
We are aware, however, of continuing concern about origin marking in the wider context, primarily about goods made elsewhere in the world which are supplied here bearing well-known European names, UK or otherwise. While such names may not in themselves indicate origin, they may well be closely associated with goods from specific countries or places. The only possible solution to these outstanding concerns is a European Community regime.
Although the Commission has not shown any positive enthusiasm for such an approach, it was not clear whether this reflected the view of the majority of member states. The Government therefore decided to estabish whether there is any consensus among member states on the desirability of a Community origin marking regime. There is a good measure of support from United Kingdom industry for such an initiative and it is one which the Government are pursuing. However, I have to warn the House that progress will be neither easy nor speedy.
I have spoken at some length about the considerations surrounding these developments. I believe that we have, within the constraints imposed by our Community obligations, achieved as satisfactory an outcome in this difficult area as it is reasonable to expect. I beg to move the commencement order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for explaining in considerable detail the purpose of this order and of the marking order. I tried, in so far as I could, given the surrounding noise in your Lordships' House, to listen to what the noble Lord had to say. At the time of the passage of the Consumer Protection Bill in your Lordships' House we had a long and at times rather contentious discussion about the disappearance of the mark "Made in England" which was proposed by the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. On this side, we hope that the Government may arrive at some reasonable formula with the European Community which would allow "Made in England",
864
"Made in Wales", "Made in Scotland", or whatever appropriate disignation was required by the manufacturer, to continue while being in conformity with our obligation under the Treaty of Rome.
At that time the predecessor of the noble Lord—indeed, he was probably his predecessor by two or three; I cannot quite remember—said that negotiations were taking place with the Community about origin marking. The noble Lord has said today that these negotiations are still dragging on and that it will be some time before they come to any serious conclusions.
Nevertheless, we welcome in a mitigated fashion the ability, even under this order, for manufacturers in the United Kingdom voluntarily, if it is advantageous—I will come back to that expression in a moment—to say that the object in question was made in a particular country, such as England, Wales or Scotland. It is not compulsory and it cannot be compulsory. I understand, after our discussions in connection with the consumer Protection Bill, that essentially it would be in contravention of the articles in the Rome treaty if it were to be made compulsory.
The Bill having gone through your Lordships' House and become statute, we accept that there can no longer be any compulsory obligation in respect of origin marking. Nevertheless, over the years origin marking has been an important factor in United Kingdom trade, and it would be disturbing from our point of view if origin marking were in some way to disappear simply because it was deemed to be not advantageous, to use the noble Lord's expression, to any manufacturer to use it.
We believe that to indicate that an article has been made in Sheffield, in Birmingham, or wherever, is an important selling point and we hope very much that people in Sheffield or Birmingham who manufacture goods of this nature will take advantage of the permissive nature, as the noble Lord has outlined it, of the new arrangements to mark their goods "Made in England", even if that is not compulsory.
We are a little concerned when the noble Lord says that the trade mark on goods or services—because trade marks apply to both goods and services—may not necessarily be taken to indicate national origin. I wonder whether that is in conformity with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill which your Lordships recently considered. Where trade marks have been clearly stipulated as being those marks of goods or services—this reflects the trade marks—Act—where there can be a trade mark which is of a clearly established nature and if that clearly established nature subsumes a national origin, I wonder whether that is not in contravention of what the noble Lord has just said. For example, one could take Sheffield steel, were there any longer Sheffield steel, or banking services in the City of London. Trade marks of various kinds which are used in the sale of goods and services quite clearly, by their nature, indicate national origin. Is that in contravention of the order which the noble Lord is moving?
My last point is that we regret that during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, in their anxiety to meet all these requirements the

865
Government did not make further efforts to ensure that the great marks of origin we used to have were sustained in order to encourage people to buy British. Having said that, I do not wish to oppose the Motion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I gathered from what he said that, generally speaking, he welcomed some of the proposals and wished to have one or two questions answered. He specifically asked about origin marking and referred to the fact that some goods of United Kingdom origin should be labelled "Made in Britain". As I mentioned—I hope I am not repeating something which the noble Lord already—knows many British manufacturers will continue to wish to draw attention to the fact that their goods are made in Britain, and they remain free to do so. What is now clear is that member states may not take national measures to compel traders to origin-mark their goods unless—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He is quite right in saying that I said that, but he used the expression "if advantageous". If it is not advantageous, they will not do it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but that is exactly the issue. They are not obliged to do so if it is not particularly advantageous. Is is totally a commercial decision for manufacturers as to whether they want to label their goods "Made in England", "Made in Great Britain", or whatever it may be. It would be discriminatory to insist that all goods sold in Britain were labelled and I think it would be unfair if we insisted that all British manufacturers should label their goods "Made in Britain".
As for the noble Lord's second question concerning trade marks, taking account of all the circumstances, trade marks may indicate origin but need not necessarily do so. Trade marks which include an indication of origin will trigger the requirements of the order which I went through earlier.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1988
4.37 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 26th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. The draft orders would consolidate with amendments detailed weights and measures provisions for the sale of food and drink contained in two corresponding orders which were approved by your Lordships' House in August 1984.
866
Amendments are necessary from time to time to take account of changes in European legislation in this area and of developments in the marketplace.
Taking first the draft miscellaneous foods order, four amendments are proposed. Three of these are detailed technical amendments which update and clarify existing provisions. The first would harmonise the quantity-marking requirements for large non-retail packs of chocolate and coffee products by allowing quantities to be marked on documents accompanying the packages instead of on the label and by allowing these quantities to be marked in metric units only. The second would exempt a number of foods from quantity marking when prepacked in very small quantities of less than five grams or five millilitres; and the third would clarify the definition of bread products which have to be made up in a range of prescribed quantities.
The fourth, and most important, amendment proposed in the order would be to add three new sizes to the existing range of prescribed quantities in which prepacked tea must be sold. The present range is based on increments of 125 grams. However, in order to allow the sale of certain gift packs which do not compete with the normal shopping basket packets of loose tea or tea bags, we propose to add to the existing range three new sizes for loose tea—100, 200, and 300 grams—provided it is packed in tins, glass jars or wooden boxes. The United Kingdom tea trade has been consulted and has raised no objection to these additions to the range.
The principal amendment would implement a European Community directive, adopted in June of this year, by introducing mandatory ranges of metric sizes for sparkling wines from 1st January, 1991; and for spirits and liqueurs, from 1st January, 1992. From those dates only drinks packed in sizes from the ranges will be allowed on to the Community market although provision has been made in the draft order to allow drinks packed before those dates in other sizes to continue to be sold while stocks remain. The range for sparkling wines, like the existing counterpart for still wines, is based or 75 centilitres as the standard bottle. The range for spirits and liqueurs will adopt 70 centilitres as the standard bottle size to reflect the majority view of the European trade. Although our own bottlers would have preferred the 75 centilitre size, in their view agreement on a single mandatory standard bottle is more important than any traditional attachment to a particular size.
As a consequence of introducing new ranges for sparkling wines and spirits and liqueurs the draft order would also extend the current quantity marking requirements for these drinks from 5 litres to 10 litres.
The new order would also allow still table wines made up in 35, 70 and 125 centilitre bottles before 1st January, 1989, to be sold thereafter. Although new bottling in these sizes for the Community market will not be permitted from the end of this year because they do not appear in the mandatory EC range, provision needs to be made for retail sales to continue until stocks are exhausted. The current quantity marking requirement for these drinks would also be extended from 5 litres to 10 litres.
Finally, the descriptions of alcoholic drinks in the 1984 order which are based on common customs tariff numbers, have been replaced by new European Community combined nomenclature code numbers. This is a purely technical amendment.
The two new consolidated draft orders were sent for comment to some 200 organisations representing UK manufacturers, importers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities. No adverse comments have been received.
I am sure that your Lordships will also wish to know that the orders were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to them. With that, I beg to move the two draft orders.
Moved, That the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 and the Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1988 laid before the House on 26th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for speaking to the Motion approving the two orders. I should like to deal first with the miscellaneous foods order with which we have no particular difficulty. It is extremely complex but on the understanding that the normal consultations have taken place, and that those concerned have no great difficulty, we are happy to fall in line with the Government's proposals.
On page 6 of the order there appears a definition of "iced lollies". Can the noble Lord explain to the House what iced lollies are? It is a novel expression which I had not come across. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to satisfy us that the expression is in the English language and therefore properly enshrined in secondary legislation to be approved by your Lordshps' House.
I turn to deal with the intoxicating liquor order. Although we may regret the passing of various measures with which we have been familiar, we must accept the fact that the world moves on and that we must conform to Community regulations. Schedule I contains a definition of wines and mention is made of "yellow wine". I was always brought up to believe that there are white wines, red wines and, arguably, rose wines. I have never come across a yellow wine and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will explain what it is.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for welcoming the draft orders. They are complicated but they are necessary for our industries.
I shall be delighted to answer the noble Lord's two questions. The expression "yellow wine" initially confused me but I have since discovered that it is a wine particular to France. I am sorry if that explanation does not help the noble Lord. However, perhaps when he is next on holiday in France he could ask a Frenchman what is le yin jaune.
868
I turn to the question of why iced lollies are excluded from quantity marking in the order. Iced lollies and water ices are included in the list of food products which are not required to be quantity marked because it would be difficult to make them up in pre-determined quantities which could be guaranteed by the manufacturer. In any case, consumers tend to purchase iced lollies as a snack food to fill an immediate need and I do not believe that they would find a quantity declaration helpful. I trust that those answers have helped the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of iced lollies. However, as regards yellow wines, I am bound to say that asking Members of your Lordships' House to go to France in order to discover what is a yellow wine is a strange imposition on the patience and expenses incurred by noble Lords in the conduct of public business. Perhaps at the expense of the Government, or from his private pocket, the noble Lord will be prepared to have a tasting of yellow wines in your Lordships' House so that we can be clear about the definition.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall be delighted to do so when I have the opportunity. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord should go to France but that if he happened to be there on holiday he should ask for yellow wine. I am advised that they are special wines bottled in the Jura region of France which, no doubt, he would now like to visit.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. I had not realised that these two quite different orders were being taken together. I understand the reasons for requiring some products to be sold in metric multiples and for others to continue to be sold in imperial multiples. But why is it illegal for retailers or manufacturers to add, on a purely voluntary basis, the imperial equivalents of products which must be sold in metric units, or to add the metric equivalent of products which must be sold in imperial units? Surely that is an unnecessary infringement of freedom.
I turn to the order relating to intoxicating liquors: I have not given the noble Lord notice of the question and I do not suppose that he will be able to give me an immediate answer. Why do the Government persist in encouraging the confusing nonsense of selling wines in 10 and 20 fluid ounce quantities respectively? Even those who are by no means in favour of compulsory metrication can easily envisage a litre, half a litre or quarter of a litre. Not only is there the example of 75 centilitre wine and spirit bottles but also beers and soft drinks sold in 440, 330 and 275 millilitre cans.
Quantities of 10 or 20 fluid ounces are much more difficult to envisage. If my calculations are correct—and they may not be—those are approximate to just over 28 centilitres and just over 56 centilitres respectively. In other words, there is very little difference between 10 fluid ounces and a quarter of a litre or between 20 fluid ounces and half a litre. Does that not introduce a quite unnecessary

869
complication for the unfortunate consumer? Why do the Government not encourage wine to be sold in multiples of a decilitre as in Switzerland and for all I know in other European countries where one orders un deci, deux decis or whatever it may be. That enables the consumer to order precisely what he wants, no more and no less. As matters stand one has to buy at least a quarter of a litre, which may be more than one wishes to drink and if one is driving may be more than one should drink. It is too late to do anything at this stage, but I urge the Government to look again at these points.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked some pertinent questions. As for his references to the imperial quantities on some products, it is probable that most imperial sizes will he discontinued in the future. However, as he has probably read in the press, we are seeking permanently to retain the pint for both draught beer and milk in returnable containers. However, it is not illegal for manufacturers voluntarily to add the equivalent declaration.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, why should it not be illegal for manufacturers to add that measure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no need to make it illegal. It is perfectly all right for manufacturers to do so, as they always have done in the past.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are talking about weights and measures, and the consumer is involved. Should not the consumer be absolutely clear on what he is buying and in what quantity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course the consumer should know exactly what he is buying. Under these measures he will know precisely. As I have already mentioned, the situation will be exactly the same across Europe. Metrication of carafes of 10 fluid ounces and 20 fluid ounces is retained so that imperial measures can continue to be used. However, we expect that they will be phased out when metrication is completed in favour of standard metric sizes. By that time the consumer will be totally aware of the situation. Therefore I believe that consumers' rights will be protected.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, therefore, when I go into my local pub in Llandrindod Wells, and ask for one decilitre of white wine, they will understand what I mean. Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord now asks for a particular measure of fluid ounces. He asks for a glass or half a bottle of white wine. He will still be able to do so and will receive a standard measure for the standard price.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.] River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.] Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [H.L.] Harwich Harbour Bill [H.L.] Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful to the House if I speak at the same time to the second Motion. The relevant Messages have now arrived from another place and earlier this afternoon I made arrangements for copies to be made available in the Printed Paper Office.
Briefly, the Messages indicate that another place has, in the normal way, agreed to suspend proceedings on a number of Private Bills currently under consideration in that House. Those Bills can then be reintroduced next Session and taken formally through all the stages which they have already passed in this Session.
The first Motion on the Order Paper relates to Bills which were introduced into this House. Therefore the Motion makes appropriate provision for the re-introduction of those Bills next Session and their formal passage through this House. The Bills in question are the Port of Tyne Bill, the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill, the Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor Bill, the Harwich Harbour Bill and the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill. I shall move the Motion in respect of those five Bills only and not in respect of the other two listed on the Order Paper; namely, the London Local Authorities Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill since no Message has been received in respect of those two Bills.
The second Motion on the Order Paper relates to two Bills introduced into another place which have not yet completed their passage through that House. However, a Message has been received in respect of only one of the two Bills on the Order Paper; namely, the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill and not in respect of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill. With that explanation, I commend the Motions to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Commons message be now considered, and
That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;

871
[THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.]
That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the order made by the Commons set out in their message.—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Tourist Industry
4.58 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the review currently being carried out by the Department of Employment into the relationship between the tourist industry and government is taking fully into account all departmental interests and the international competitive prospects for the industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the participation of a number of noble Lords in this last debate of the Session. I believe that noble Lords will particularly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who as Viscount Garnock has served for many years on the British Tourist Authority and indeed has a great many other interests in the tourist field.
Last July the Secretary of State for Employment announced this review on the question of government relations with the tourist industry. In doing so, he spelt out the terms of the review, which were to consider the role of government in relation to the industry, the level and distribution of the funding provided by the Department of Employment, the cost-effectiveness in relation to the Government's general objectives and the implications of that for the roles of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board.
In setting up the review, he said that it would obviously have to make its considerations and recommendations against the background of the
872
wider role for the Government and their wishes to see activities carried out in the private sector wherever possible. Of course, that can sound slightly ominous, but he also said that the review would not extend to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have their own arrangements for the support of the tourist industry. However, he thought that the Secretaries of State in those areas would look with interest at the proposals which came from the review. He also said that the review would be carried out by officials of his department, the Department of Employment, working with a PA consulting group.
At the beginning of this short debate it might be helpful for those noble Lords who are not fully aware of the history of the development of tourist support by government over the years if I recap briefly on some of the background to the present situation. Noble Lords will be aware that the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards were originally proposed in the Development of Tourism Act 1969, but as that Bill was going through Parliament it was decided to add an English Tourist Board to the network of tourist boards to be established. This was done because it was argued at the time that domestic tourism in England might suffer if a situation developed in which the BTA was devoting most of its resources to overseas promotion.
After the Act had been in force for some three years the then Labour Government decided to look at the role of government in tourism and a review was set up under the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Shore. That resulted in some guidelines being established which remained in force until 1983. In 1979 the Central Policy Review Staff—the think-tank again—looked at the role of the tourist industry within its general review. It was sceptical that any improvements in the handling of tourism could make a substantial difference if economic factors ceased to operate in this country's favour and that it was not the sort of activity that lent itself to too much central planning or administration. In 1979 we also had the Department of Trade Tourism Review Steering Group, which concluded that government expenditure on any facet of tourism or promotion had not been wasted.
In 1982 we came to the Sproat-Lamont tourism review, so called because it was initiated by Mr. lain Sproat, who was then junior trade Minister responsible for tourism, but he lost his seat in the general election and his place was taken by Mr. Norman Lamont. Again it did not cover Scotland and Wales. The result of that review was the establishment of the current structure of the BTA and ETB with a common chairman and served by common service divisions.
In April 1985 the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, came onto the scene as Minister without portfolio. He decided to look further into all the constraints on the development of tourism. As a result the document Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs was published in the autumn of 1985. It concluded that the main function of government was to provide a satisfactory framework within which the industry could flourish.
At the same time in the House of Commons we had the Select Commmittee on Trade and Industry, which produced a report suggesting the establishment of the British Tourist Board, as opposed to the British Tourist Authority, which would replace the existing statutory boards. The Government response was that there was a need for a period of organisational stability following the 1983 tourism review and the subsequent changes.
Your Lordships will see that there has been a considerable number of reviews on the work of the tourism industry since the passage of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. We now move to this current review, which is the seventh, eighth, ninth, or whatever it is, review of the workings of the tourist industry since the setting up of the various statutory tourist boards in 1970.
Of course this review has been carried out against the background of substantial growth in the tourist industry since the late 1960s. The number of overseas visitors to Britain has increased fivefold during that time. The amount of spending by overseas visitors in this country has increased to an all-time record. It was also carried out against a background of a slight lack of consistency in government funding of the tourist boards. I say that with some slight trepidation, having my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos sitting beside me and my noble friend Lord Parry sitting behind me.
The figures show that Wales receives roughly eight times as much money from the Government per pound of tourist spending as is received by England. Scotland receives about three times as much. I certainly do not begrudge, and could not begrudge, one penny of that money being spent in Wales or Scotland. However, I believe that there is a case for looking at this to ascertain whether there should be an increase in the funding made available in England.
There are a number of activities in the tourist field which are not capable of being self-funding within the industry and where the consumer would suffer if a short-term attitude were to be taken. I refer in particular to the provision of tourist information, the promotion of areas where there is high unemployment and the stimulation of off-peak tourism and work of a strategic nature within the industry. It is a fragmented industry. For example, there are 14,000 hotels. Small businesses of that nature, however entrepreneurial they may be, find it difficult to develop and market themselves on a national basis. They encounter difficulties when they try to do so. The Government's present role, as I have said, is to create a framework in which the industry can flourish.
However, there is no overall government strategy for the development of tourism as a whole and that situation is made worse by the fact that the Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards do not report through the Department of Employment. I believe that the role of the Tourism Co-ordinating Committee should be greatly strengthened to allow a greater co-ordination in the Government's activities in this sector.
Noble Lords will be aware that after much lobbying by the tourist boards the Government, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Young, established
874
the Tourism Co-ordinating Commit tee on which Ministers from other government departments sit under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Employment. The other departments represented on this committee—it is important to recall this because it shows the breadth of the functions involved within the tourism industry—are the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
Unfortunately the actual statutory boards are not involved in this committee at all. I understand that when this committee was first established by the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was then the responsible Minister, it met regularly under his chairmanship and acted as a successful co-ordinating organisation. Since that time I understand that meetings of the co-ordinating committee have been only sporadic and that junior Ministers, and sometimes only officials, attend. The other ministries do not intend to be involved in the work of this co-ordinating committee. I believe that this is the only body that exists in order to provide some form of combined effort within the tourist industry as a whole. When the noble Lord, Lord Young, was the responsible Minister he took a great deal of interest in the tourist industry and that interest of the Government seems to have faded away. I hope that that can be reversed.
One of the questions that one asks oneself at this time is whether the Department of Employment is the right sponsoring ministry for tourism. As noble Lords will recall, it was the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry until the noble Lord, Lord Young, went to the Department of Employment, when tourism became the responsibility of that department. When the noble Lord moved to the DTI, unfortunately this unit of the Civil Service did not move back with him. One may argue as to whether there is another ministry which would be more appropriate to sponsor the tourist industry. Would the Department of the Environment, which sponsors the Sports Council, the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission and whose other responsibilities include inner cities, be a responsible department to look after tourism? I believe that the difficulty would be that it was not: a relevant sponsoring body for the British Tourist Authority, which would need to report to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in view of the fact that its major role is to encourage people to come from abroad to this country and to work closely with our Foreign Office posts overseas.
One returns to the argument that in many ways this facet of government would be better situated within the DTI as the sponsoring department for it. One may also argue whether there should be a separate ministry of tourism. This is an argument that I have put forward before. The arguments against it are that only in the field of agriculture and fisheries do we have a separate government department sponsoring a particular industry. I believe that if more focus was

875
put on tourism, that would indicate priorities which this Government had or which any government had. If that is not possible, I believe that at least the departmental committee should be strengthened.
I have here many documents as regards evidence given by the English Tourist Board, the regional tourist boards other than London. I also have documents relating to the evidence of the London Tourist Board to the departmental committee. There is no evidence from the British Tourist Authority because it is rather hamstrung in giving evidence as it is also representative of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those areas are excluded from this review. Should not the views of those other departments be considered by the departmental review if it is to be the kind of review which it is envisaged it should be? Should not the review body be widening its terms of reference in order to take on board the other considerations from the other Departments of State?
I shall briefly mention the success of the tourist industry. I do not wish to dwell too long on this matter because I know that other noble Lords will pick up this point. We should remember that we enjoy a disproportionately large share of international tourism. That is to say, £7 out of every £100 spent by world travellers is spent in Britain. It is important that we should defend this position in the world when more and more countries are seeking to stimulate the growth of their tourism by putting government money into new tourist attractions. The efforts made by the British Tourist Authority to double the number of tourists from the Far East in the past 10 years is commendable. It should be remembered that the balance in the invisible exports account is not always moving in the right direction. It is beyond the control of the tourist industry to decide what the exchange rate should be, but this has a very important and marked effect on the number of tourists coming in at a particular time.
In conclusion, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as the Minister who is to respond to this debate on tourism. I shall be happy if he ensures that the views expressed in the House this evening are reported to the Secretary of State. I shall be even happier if the Secretary of State decides to widen the terms of reference of his review.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is not without considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, chiefly, I feel, as it becomes progressively more difficult so to do the longer one has taken to bring it about. I assure your Lordships that this has not been caused by my own procrastination but is due to having the bulk of my business interests outside London; namely, in the United States and Canada.
Until today I have never achieved being present here to coincide with your Lordships discussing any of the subjects or industries—it is curious that they all seem to begin with the letter "T"—with which I am sufficiently familiar to use for a maiden speech. I therefore apologise to your Lordships for this time
876
lapse, but I mention something which may be more unique. Some months ago I was invited to say a few words on the Floor of the Senate in Washington, thus pre-dating a maiden speech in your Lordships' House.
Tourism's primary objective is the ability to earn foreign currency, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, and thus in order to do that, the ability to attract overseas visitors. The number has risen from ¾ million from the year that the Monarch came to the throne in 1952 to an incredible 15½ million currently. Heritage is thought to be the single most important aspect of Britain appealing to the overseas visitor.
The British Heritage Committee, in which I hasten to declare an interest as chairman, brings together all the heritage interests including the Department of the Environment, English Heritage (of which my noble friend Lord Montagu is chairman, and he is here tonight), the National Trust, the National Trust of Scotland, the Georgian Group, the national tourist boards and the Historic Houses Association, to name some of the members. However, the secretariat is provided by the British Tourist Authority and it is thus a good example of the BTA acting as the co-ordinating body to bring together diverse tourist interests. More important still, the BTA, by loaning staff and helping with finance, played a large part in setting up the HHA in 1975 to assist owners of historic houses and other important properties over their relations with the Government.
The BTA actively promotes the heritage overseas, and was instrumental in launching the open-to-view ticket, with North America and Australia the main markets—and good value it is too! For £22, a visitor to this country has a choice of seeing upwards of 600 properties during the month of his stay. The mind boggles at his mental and physical exhaustion should he decide to visit every one of those properties. Next year the ticket will be marketed as the Great British Heritage, and sales are expected to reach a total of £500,000. This is an excellent example of how the BTA acts as a catalyst in putting together a project for the overseas visitor which would not otherwise be available.
Perhaps it should be said that there is another side of the coin in that some small minority of visitors might well benefit from an historical education. The following episode illustrates this need. A group of tourists visits Windsor. Their guide's voice is drowned out every so often by a jet taking off from London. An American accent is heard to say, "How silly of the Brits to build their dinky little castle right under the airport flight path"; or again, a character in a group learning about the signing of the Magna Charta at Runnymede in 1215 looks at his watch, turns to his wife and says, "If we hurry, dear, we can just be there in time to witness it". However, it is, I hope, only a small number of visitors which fails to benefit from this great heritage of ours.
The BTA works closely with the national and regional tourist boards in promoting Britain overseas. Such liaison with the grass roots is essential as they have detailed knowledge of what is on offer to the visitor. Due to the enormous number of places available for tourists to visit, a vital piece of the

877
jigsaw is provided by the tourist information centres, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, funded by regional boards and local authorities and providing up-to-date information for a visiting tourist. One of their main functions is to provide lists of accommodation available locally. In many instances they act as booking agents. All of this means that an enormous amount of information has to be stored. This needs to be retrieved quickly to answer the thousands of queries put to the staff at TICs. Here it is also appropriate to mention the BTA travel centre in Lower Regent Street, which carries information about the whole British Isles.
Thus the BTA, as the Government's chosen instrument for promoting the United Kingdom overseas, is also responsible for ensuring that the product is fully competitive with other countries worldwide, and is marketed accordingly. None of us on the BTA board at the time will ever forget the terrifying lesson learnt in the late 1970s when the United States, whose government withdrew from supporting tourism, experienced a drop from 13 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the world tourist market. This gave rise to a disastrous loss of both visitors and currency.
With regard to the servicing of tourists, probably the most important single sector is transport. Without good transport links tourists would be discouraged, to say the least, from visiting us. When it was announced that the Channel Tunnel would be built, the BTA immediately saw the enormous potential for additional traffic to Britain. It set up a Channel Tunnel National Tourism Working Party to examine the potential for traffic and the problems that would need solutions. The chief organisations on this working party are Eurotunnel, British Rail and the Department of Transport.
Earlier this year the tourist authority published its first—and indeed the first—consultative document on the tunnel. It was appropriately entitled The Channel Tunnel—An Opportunity and a Challenge for British Tourism. The report stressed that the comfort and convenience of this new transport mode, whether by rail, or car and coach shuttle, must be accompanied by ease of travel and provide the tourist with what he wants. It highlighted areas of concern—that transport should continue to be zero-rated for VAT purposes; that duty free sales should be retained in the EC; the need for a dedicated high speed link rail route from Folkestone to London; and that Customs and immigration controls should be carried out on the train, not only beyond London but also into Waterloo. Since publication, there are indications that the high-speed line will be built.
However, the Government still insist on airport-style controls at Waterloo, which will add to journey time and irritate passengers, not to mention our being the laughing stock of Europe. As an old railwayman I feel saddened that we shall be the only country in the Community to refuse on-board passport and Customs inspections on its trains. If these functions can be carried out on trains to northern destinations, they could also be carried out on the London ones. A two-and-a-half hour journey from Paris gives longer
878
time to check undesirables than an airport-style queue at Waterloo.
Tourism is diverse, made up of some large operators but mainly thousands of small businesses. The former include airlines, shipping services and hotel groups. The majority of businesses involved in tourism are small. There are 180,000 self-employed people running hotels and restaurants. This corresponds to the figure of 14,000 hotels given by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. All of them need help and encouragement; and above all, marketing. Tourism makes a remarkable contribution to employment. At present 1.4 million people are thought to be employed as a direct result of tourism. This number is increasing at the rate of 1,000 a week and will continue to do so for as long as the economy grows at 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per annum. However, these service jobs are most at risk in any downturn. Of all the money spent by the Government, that spent on tourism is possibly the most cost-effective pound for pound. After all, the 15.5 million visitors brought in £6.2 billion of foreign currency last year. The Section 4 infrastructure grant is a tool that the Government have to ensure that the regions develop according to a plan, which would not he the case were Section 4 to be abolished, leaving development therefore entirely market driven.
Finally, tourism is extremely fragmented and needs a focal point if it is to be effectively marketed. The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board fulfil that important need. The Government should continue to give full support both financially and through working closely with them via the appropriate government departments, many of which, as has just been stated, have responsibility for a particular sector of tourism. There is nothing more effective than reinforcing success.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for making it possible for me to make this maiden speech on such a vital subject.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, it is my special pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on his extremely well-informed maiden speech. Perhaps because of his modesty he did not tell your Lordships that he was for many years a member of the British Tourist Authority and is still closely connected with it. I hope that the noble Earl will give the House the benefit of his wisdom in future debates on this important matter.
I am sure that we all saw the need for this review. Those of us in the tourist industry certainly welcomed it. However, I think it is important to realise that the tourist industry comprises several principal segments—accommodation, transport and attractions. Within each of these segments there is a vast range of disparate elements. Most of the industry comprises small businesses; it is not just the major names, such as British Airways, THF and British Rail, although they tend to grab the headlines.
The important thing is that the industry has no leadership, except as provided by the English Tourist Board and the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards, and no forum except for the regional tourist boards.

879
I should just like to say a few words about those regional tourist boards, and perhaps at the same time I ought to declare an interest in that I am president of the Southern Tourist Board.
The regional tourist boards are a unique tripartite arrangement between local authorities—which, incidentally, are becoming increasingly active in tourist matters as they see the great economic potential in them—the private sector and national government funding, dispensed through the English Tourist Board. Without that central funding, it is extremely unlikely that an effective partnership between local authorities and the private sector will continue. It is the English Tourist Board that provides the essential balance, or catalyst, between the tourist agencies and the Government. Most important, it is objective and takes certain matters out of local politics.
Certainly none of those small businesses could effectively market themselves without the comprehensive national and regional schemes which the English Tourist Board initiates and promotes. For instance, the board is trying hard at the moment to introduce standards, such as inspection and quality grading for hotels. It is extraordinary that, despite the fact that it has been on a voluntary basis, the English Tourist Board's current classification system for hotels has already attracted more than 10,000 accommodation units; that is, hotels, guest houses, and so on. Those involved in this ETB scheme now vastly outnumber the long-established and famous schemes established by the motoring organisations.
Many people think that recently the Government have been adopting a rather hands-off role towards the industry. I think that they have tried admirably to create an enterprise culture where businesses help themselves, with restrictions removed. If the ETB did not exist, there are several vital activities which would never be undertaken; for example, by a trade association which would not be able effectively to involve and represent the interests of those small businesses.
I believe that the vital central roles which must be retained are the co-ordination for national policy initiatives, such as the Cities Tourism Programme and the Rural Tourism Initiative; national promotions such as "Let's Go"; research, which is most important to provide a comprehensive profile of the industry; and improved in-service training—indeed, the whole of our tourist future depends on having the right people with the right expertise, all in the pursuit of excellence—and minimising mutually competitive, self-interested activities by individual regions.
The Government seem, quite rightly, to be looking most closely at the Section 4 grant aid—that is, the grant aid given to tourist activities—despite the fact that the cost per job evidence shows it to be one of the most successful job creation plans ever. The availability of grant aid has stimulated many projects which were marginal and which otherwise would not have gone ahead. Several initiatives have been truly catalytic, such as the Center Pares development and the budget hotel accommodation.
880
Moreover, tourist development action plans which have been created by local authorities have often been inspired by the influence of Section 4 funding. However, most grants are now made on a repayable basis; in fact they are really interest-free loans. In any event, the funds distributed by the state are averaging less than 20 per cent. of any particular scheme and are on an average of not more than £50,000. That is minute compared to some of the other grant aid which is dispensed by the Government through—some of us think rather uncritically—other channels. For example, the urban development programme gave one hotel in Birmingham £6 million. We all admire what Birmingham is doing, but I can only think that if a hotel in Birmingham cannot stand on its own feet, then there must be something wrong; it should not need £6 million for one hotel.
However, I have no doubt at all that ETB would be a very inexpensive and effective organisation if it could be freed from some of the Civil Service restrictions on its operations. Then let it be trusted and assessed for its effectiveness. In that way I think we would improve the English tourist product.
I should like to conclude by saying that there is one jewel in the crown of British tourist promotion; that is, the British tourist authorities overseas. However, since my noble friend Lord Mountevans will shortly be speaking, I think that I shall leave that matter to him. Nevertheless, I can say from a personal point of view that they are much admired and envied by all other countries which have overseas operations to organise.
Since the war we have seen a most remarkable growth in an industry which comprised virtually nothing, and one which was despised, to one of the most important in the country. By all means let us have a review, but please do not let it spoil what has been a great success story.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I must declare an interest and I should like also to echo the words of those who have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for giving us an opportunity this evening to debate tourism and the current review. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for the generous tribute which he has just paid to my colleagues. It may interest your Lordships to know that my very first job in the tourist industry was polishing his car when his by now marvellous museum was but a pair of Nissen huts.
I should also like to congratulate my long-term friend Lord Lindsay on his maiden speech. He gave us the benefit of his very wide knowledge of tourism with a great deal of verve, leavened with a little transport which particularly appeals to me. I look forward to hearing very much more from him, especially in transport debates.
As has been said, tourism is one of the biggest industries in the world and it is one of the most competitive. I should like to suggest that it impinges in various ways on the lives of all of us. In Britain it makes a major contribution to employment, it contributes to gross domestic product and to the balance of payments. In employment terms it

881
accounts for some 6 per cent. of the labour force, as we have been told, with particular strength in the small business sector.
The jobs which we are creating in tourism perhaps run to 50,000, or very many more per annum—indeed, I suspect that the statistics do not tell the whole story—while in balance of trade terms tourism represents a twentieth of all our exports and perhaps a quarter of all our invisibles.
I mentioned that tourism impinges on all of our lives. In our daily lives its impact is most significant. I have discovered that visitors provide some 20 per cent., £80 million, of London Undergound's total fares income, which would otherwise have to be found either by increased fares or higher subsidy.
In 1986 visitors purchased 37 per cent. of all seats sold by the theatres and membership of the Society of West End Theatre. In the same year, according to the fine china and glass producers, some 30 per cent. of their retail sales in this country were to foreign visitors. The latter also contributed in that year almost £1·5 billion to our British air and sea carriers.
I would suggest that there is scarcely an industry—I have named only a few—which does not benefit from foreign tourism. Further, many of the services that we take for granted would either be very much dearer than they presently are, or would be of a very much poorer quality were it not for the income received from tourism.
Looking at a back number of The Times published some 20 years ago, I was struck by a Pan American Airlines' advertisement proclaiming the transatlantic launch of the Boeing 707. Significantly the first routes with a daily service to and from New York were to be to Rome, Paris and then London. Pan Am clearly believed, as did many others at that time, that Italy, then France, and then only Britain, were the countries where profits, not least from US outward-bound tourism, were to be earned.
At that time France and Italy earned more US tourism dollars than we did. They also did better in Europe in terms of European tourism income, due in part to their land frontiers. At the time we were only eighth in terms of the league of tourism earnings welcoming, as we have been reminded, some 5 million visitors. Today we earn more tourism dollars than France and Italy combined. Last year we were fifth in the tourism earnings league, welcoming over 15 million visitors, a fact already referred to. That was despite the British climate and our island status.
Every twentieth person anywhere in the world who left his country as a tourist, came here and, in coming here, left behind over £5·5 million, plus the revenue to British carriers that I have already mentioned. We earn more from foreign tourism than Greece, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Australia and Turkey to name but five fashionable tourist destinations, combined. While Europe's share of global tourism earnings is in slow decline, Britain's share holds steady in a bad year and otherwise is on the increase. That is no accident. Rather it stems from a series of strategic decisions made by the British Tourist Authority and from the support we enjoy from British and foreign trade.
882
We have sought to develop markets, and thus traffic, before our competitors get round to doing so. With some 40 per cent. of our earnings from Europe, 30 per cent. from North America and 30 per cent. from the rest of the world, Britain is well positioned to withstand the ravages of external factors such as terrorism, weak currencies or Chernobyl. All those factors have, at one time or another, had a major effect on our American traffic, but we have been able to offset that effect by spreading our investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, reminded us of the growth of traffic from the Far East that we have experienced over the past 10 years. 'Whether one agrees with the Economist intelligence unit or the mandarins of American Express that Japan and the Far East will overtake North America as a major source of tourism, our traffic from those sources is a valuable insurance against downturns elsewhere and a solid basis upon which to build for the future. We have taken the lead in this missionary work. The industry is slowly but surely coming in behind us.
The authority sees things not only in terms of the market place but in terms of new segments. Again, while traffic has grown by 28 per cent. in the past decade we have worked hard on the senior citizen market which has grown by 85 per cent; while business traffic, reflecting the growth in our conference and incentive business, has grown by 65 per cent. Not only do markets and segments change, so do travel habits.
Although London will always be Britain's greatest draw for the first time visitor, tourism is increasingly reaching out not only to the rural regions but to the industrial heartland. Perhaps surprisingly, bed nights spent by visitors in London showed no increase between 1977 and 1986 while those spent in the regions and provinces grew by 13 per cent. The top 20 British cities in tourism terms now include Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle—a tribute to the authority and to the work of the cities themselves. Similarly, we are succeeding in changing the time of travel—the peaks. In 1970, 44 per cent. of our visitors came in the summer peak. That figure has now fallen to 36 per cent.
It would be wrong for those of us who work in the engine room of the British Tourist Authority to claim that all those achievements are our doing; but nearly 30 per cent. of visitors from abroad have obtained information from our offices overseas, while a further 50,000 each month visit our travel centre to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred. So we have a significant influence on people's habits. Furthermore, the fact that British and foreign industry put up over two-thirds of our marketing expenditure seems to me a powerful recognition of the fact that industry recognises the strength of what we are doing, and is willing to sow in the furrows which we, sometimes initially alone, have ploughed.
The Addison rules are such that an engine room hand must be circumspect, and so I have concentrated on stressing the importance of tourism and the role of the BTA. Of reviews, I would say only that, they are not in themselves bad. They make the revieweds think, and they can change the reviewed's

883
ethos and methods. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, reminded us how many times we have been reviewed in recent years. I should merely like to say that being reviewed can be very distractive in terms of getting on with the job.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to he able to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for giving us the opportunity in the dying hours of this Parliament to discuss the most important industry in this country at this time. It is significant that in the last debate of this Parliament in this Chamber we should be discussing the important and valuable tourism industry. It is also a joy to welcome and applaud the maiden speech of my old friend who sits opposite, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, with whom I have shared in several manifestations a number of different roles in the tourist board. I welcome also the technical men; for example, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Mountevans, pointed out that life in the statutory tourist boards in this country can be a goldfish bowl existence. Shortly after I became chairman of the Wales Tourist Board we had the Beryl review, occasioned by the arrival of a new government with a new mandate to look carefully at the so-called quangos (the boards) to see what they were doing. Beryl pronounced the Wales Tourist Board to be an effective and cost-effective body.
Within no time we had another significant review which has been referred to—the so-called Sproat review—from which so many rumours emanated and which seemed to pose so many sinister threats that it was referred to in the industry as the "Deep Sproat" report. In some ways it was a helpful review. We were given a continuity of interest that was valuable to us. We then had two more reviews. There was that of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which encompassed all the tourist boards; and then a long and thorough review of the Wales Tourist Board by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The Wales Tourist Board, in particular, must feel—I say this now I have left—that it is never out of the goldfish bowl of government scrutiny.
I was especially pleased that the Secretary of State for Wales, in his response to the Select Committee report, endorsed with conviction the crucial and leading role of the Wales Tourist Board. It is a conviction based on the history of the job that he holds. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who is present, was the Secretary of State who presided over the major changes that moved the boards from their voluntary status to their statutory status. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who has left the Chamber only recently, built on the foundations provided by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
The multiplier of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—his surprise that Wales should be eight—times better provided for than some of the regions of England—is interesting and historic. It shows what good providers Secretaries of State for Wales are.
884
There are other reasons which I shall discuss in a moment.
The current review is fundamental. It goes into the very raison d'être of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. I address my opening remarks principally to the work and role of the British Tourist Authority of which I was ex-officio a member for six years. I should also like to say a few words about the Government's attitude to the tourist industry generally.
The United Kingdom earned £6·25 billion from overseas visitors in 1987. That is more in real terms than the oil industry. And at least more capital remains in this country. The figure is 19 per cent. more in real terms than we earned in 1977. That year, we attracted some 12·25 million visitors. Last year we attracted 15·5 million, an increase of 25 per cent. The outstanding performance over the past 10 years is an endorsement of the efforts of the British tourist industry to win new overseas markets. Over a slightly longer period (from 1970) we increased our world market share from about 6 per cent. of the total spent on tourism to 7 per cent.
I apologise to the Government Front Bench for giving figures which they may have planned to give. It shows how impartial I am when I make such remarks. I mean impartial in the real sense.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, good facts bear repeating; bad facts do not.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that remark. He is kind and considerate. That outstanding performance over the past 10 years is an endorsement of the effort of the British tourist industry to win new overseas markets. Over a slightly longer period from 1970, we increased our world market share from about 6 per cent. of the total amount spent on tourism to 7 per cent. I have said this twice. That is a very considerable achievement when we bear in mind that so many new tourist destinations were emerging. This success by the industry also reflects the support and leadership which it has been given by the British Tourist Authority, which is also represented in the Chamber tonight.
I remind my noble colleagues that the BTA is the only organisation which promotes Britain as a whole overseas. As has already been said by my other noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, it is the envy of the world for its professionalism. Moreover it is extremely cost-effective, as the Wales Tourist Board has proved to be. It currently has a grant-in-aid from the Government with which it has to run not only the central marketing campaigns and its activities in Britain but also to maintain some 27 overseas offices. However, it raises almost double this sum from the industry in joint marketing efforts of one sort or another.
However, its very success may have sown some seeds of doubt. Although I hope otherwise, that may be the reason behind the current review. Some people may be tempted to believe that, given the industry's

885
success, it can be left to promote itself overseas without any government direction or intervention. I have heard that argument made. As I said at the time, this would be naive in the extreme. Any tourism marketing primer will tell us that one has to promote both the product, which is what the industry does, and the destination. The two are essential and complementary. Every other country which either has or aspires to have a major tourist industry is actively promoting that country as a tourist destination. Rather than facing any threat, even if only an implied threat, the Government should be ensuring that nothing is done to reduce the ability of the BTA in this respect. Its resources should be enhanced to help the UK meet the challenges of the 1990s.
There are two challenges to which I shall refer shortly which present great opportunities, but there are also potential threats. The first is the Channel Tunnel. If we are not able to make the necessary arrangements to benefit from this opportunity others will. The arrangements will include improvements to the road and rail networks to enable the dispersal of incoming tourists from the South-East. Also, and perhaps crucially, they must include greater activity, led by the tourist boards, in marketing Britain within the EC.
The other development of the 1990s will undoubtedly be the growth in long-haul holiday travel. Currently it is our fellow EC citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany who are the greatest international travellers in terms of total expenditure. However, in the 1990s we shall see the Japanese visitors moving beyond the Pacific basin, which they are currently dominating, to become world travellers on a very significant scale. Unless the BTA's ability to market the United Kingdom as a destination is enhanced, we shall lose out in this market and lose the increasing share of world tourism that we have been steadily gaining over the past approximately 15 years.
However, the success of the British Tourist Authority has led to difficulties in other directions. It has performed extremely well in raising revenue from the industry to finance its activities, but that has been at the expense of running joint marketing schemes with a great deal of rigidity in their requirements. For large tourism operators, and particularly those based in the more affluent South-East of the country, there is often little difficulty in providing the resources to join with the BTA in marketing schemes overseas.
In the more peripheral parts of the United Kingdom such as that in which I live, the structure of the industry is very different. The predominance is of small, diverse family businesses which have simply not had sufficient resources to meet the BTA's exacting requirements. To be fair, the BTA has recognised this, and has put special efforts into helping the regions of England, Wales and Scotland to market tourism more effectively overseas. But much more can be done in this respect if the BTA has more resources with which to do it. When one bears in mind that the grant-in-aid to the British Tourist Authority—and this is one figure which I should not dream of leaving out of the debate—is but 0.00368
886
per cent. of total overseas earnings from tourism, it does not seem much to ask. When one thinks of how industry and the capital brought in from industry are represented in government support, of course that figure is derisory. It does not seem much to ask that it should be increased.
There are other rigidities within the present BTA system which I hope the review will address. In 1984 the Scottish Tourist Board was afforded legal powers to supplement the BTA's marketing activities overseas. The English regional tourist boards can also operate in this way, and they do. At the time when I was chairman it was felt that the best course for Wales was to work through the BTA by improved administrative arrangements to increase the marketing profile overseas. A great deal of improvement has undoubtedly been made. My successor, Mr. Prys-Edwards—a figure in Wales in both Welsh and English, if noble Lords understand the significance of the remark—has been a great success. Further improvement, we believe, now depends on Wales being afforded the same powers as Scotland to supplement the work of the BTA. The Select Committee for Welsh Affairs recommended such a course and I very much hope that it will be one of the outcomes of this review.
I should like to turn now to the inter-relationship between incoming tourism and domestic tourism. Domestic tourism is the tourist industry catering for United Kingdom residents. My noble colleagues will bear in mind that in terms of turnover, domestic tourism is still the more important partner, with a figure of £6·75 billion in 1987. Unless the domestic industry remains healthy, the profit margins will not be sufficient to provide the standards and facilities which will continue to attract the incoming visitor.
The domestic industry has suffered from fluctuating fortunes over the last 15 years It has been exposed to fierce competition from package holidays in the sunshine destinations of the Mediterranean and has lost about one-third of its business when measured in terms of nights spent. However, it has, largely by its own efforts, but with some small but very significant support from the Government, pulled itself up by its own bootstraps by developing new markets. We have seen the industry, led and supported by the tourist boards, develop the short-break holiday markets and improve the quality of the product so significantly that consumers have been prepared to pay more. In consequence, and notwithstanding the huge loss of business in long holidays, the earnings of the domestic industry have increased by 16 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years. What if British industry over all had done as much?
I mentioned that the help to the industry by the Government had been small. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will accept that this is not a political point, nor is it intended to be disparaging. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the amount of direct support that the Government make available to this industry for capital investment is limited to under £20 million a year by way of Section 4 assistance under the Development of Tourism Act and some urban grant, where applicable. I do not disparage that figure of £20 million, at least not on the money I have earned

887
in my lifetime. However, Section 4 of the Act is the best tool for the economic redevelopment of an industry that I know of in all the provisions that are made for industrial regeneration in this country. As the boards have come to know how to use it, they have also found out how to make it a multiplier so that it attracts far more money, sometimes as much as 12 times the money they themselves spend under the Act.
That figure is nothing in comparison with the support that manufacturing industry has received. Nevertheless, it is extremely significant, especially in the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom. I know from my experience in the Wales Tourist Board that there are many projects which have improved the quality of tourism provision by small family operators who would not have gone ahead were it not for the grants and loans from the Wales Tourist Board. There is a rumou—we live in the days of rumour, whether unfounded or not—that the Government do not currently look with favour upon this form of support for the tourism industry. If that is the case, I urge them to think again and to look more deeply at the structure of the industry and the role that Section 4 has played in bringing about the improvements of quality that we have achieved over the past 15 years. There is never a finite end to the need to improve the quality of the product. That objective must constantly be pursued and will become ever more important if we are successfully to meet the challenges of the 1990s that I spoke of earlier.
There is another rumour to the effect that this review will ultimately lead to fundamental changes in the structure of government support for the tourism industry in the United Kingdom, including legislative changes which may affect the position of the current national tourist boards. Having been chairman for six years of one of the four constituent national tourist boards and having sat for that time as a member of the British Tourist Authority, I believe that the Government would be well advised not to contemplate terminating the autonomous position of the national boards for Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Over the past 20 years practically, the autonomous position of the Wales Tourist Board has undoubtedly led to significant improvements in the industry in my country and to the contribution it makes to the general economy. The Wales Tourist Board is the senior of a number of organisations which have been set up since then to reflect the special identity of Wales within the United Kingdom. That applies to Scotland, too. Scotland and Wales are nations with languages and cultures which are part of the marketing product. Those factors are in themselves effective.
The interests of the Welsh tourism industry are certainly best served, in my opinion, by having an autonomous board, as are those interests in the other countries. That was recognised, I believe, by the speedy response of the Government to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report when it came out with a proposal which would have ended the autonomy. I hope in winding up the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, can confirm the Government's position on this matter.
888
In apologising for a 16-minute speech, may I say that I have not spoken at length in your Lordships' House for a long time. I have listened to much longer speeches, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. I wish to emphasise that the Government should take the opportunity of this review to improve our ability to market the United Kingdom as a tourism destination. That must involve a greater commitment by the Government, not a lesser one. The temptation must be resisted to change for change's sake. We need an effective British Tourist Authority to market overseas, supported by national and regional boards which can spearhead the operation to improve quality and standards. By all means let us take the opportunity of the review to remove the rigidities in the present system; but let us not throw out the baby, whether Welsh. Irish, Scottish or English, with the bath water.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, although it is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, over the past 10 years management of my family home as an international conference venue has given me an insight that I would not normally have expected to gain into the fears and needs of the foreign visitor to this country. Furthermore, as we have heard, tourism is the second largest industry in this country, second only to the financial services sector. Bearing in mind how much of your Lordships' time has recently been spent on endeavouring to improve the financial services of this country, I think that the subject of tourism should be treated every bit as seriously. Thankfully, it is a subject that is more easily understandable.
This debate provides an important opportunity to see how we can best ensure that the UK not only remains an attractive destination for businessmen and tourists, but that it also emerges unscathed, and even considerably enhanced, following the opening of the Channel Tunnel and our full participation in the single European market—notwithstanding the fiercer competition from other destinations. I have to express some concern that the Department of Employment's inquiry is limited to England for very obvious reasons.
If we look at the present situation in some depth, we will see that we are not very well prepared for any increase in the level of tourist traffic. Our roads cannot even cope with our own domestic levels of traffic. It is imperative that if we wish to encourage visitors to our shores we do not do just that; in other words, leave them on the shore and politely apologise for not being able to get them inland because of our road, rail and air link problems.
Furthermore, if visitors from say, Lyon, cannot see the possibility of travelling to Penrith, Stirling, Pitlochry or Llandudno in under the time it takes to get to the South Pole, then one does not have to be a genius to be able to work out the average Austrian or Frenchman's decision regarding travel to Britain. With the advent of the Channel Tunnel and our full membership of the single European market in 1992, pressures on our infrastructure will reach, in my opinion, crisis point.

889
The French have stated their intention that rail journeys from Paris to London and the rest of the UK should compete with air travel. This may seem to them quite a modest intention given the advanced state of their rail network together with the fact that the total journey time from Paris to London by air, including airport travel and waiting, is currently three to four hours. However, it appears that they had not reckoned on our current state of affairs. To achieve that stated intention and for us to ensure frequent visitors from abroad, we shall have to ensure that certain measures are taken. New smooth rail lines will have to be laid, particularly in the South-East, to make the "boneshaker specials" a thing of the past. We must have faster trains that come somewhere near the standard of Continental rolling stock. There will have to be rail lines passing through London to avoid repeated changes. As your Lordships know, any good claret decanted too often will soon pass its prime.
Finally, we shall have to provide sensible Customs arrangements. There is current talk of tipping everybody off on to the platform with their luggage before allowing them back on to the trains to proceed with their journey. That talk is certainly worrying. As it is normal to cross Europe without being spilled unceremoniously on to platforms five or six times—only a knock on the door being necessary to have one's passport checked—we should be looking at the same simple solution. Furthermore, if one can cross the Berlin border with Customs officers on the train, I am sure it is possible to cross London the same way.
Our roads, as your Lordships must be fully aware, are already overcrowded. The worst example is the M25, rightly known as the "world's longest car park". Having enticed, cajoled and otherwise persuaded our overseas friends to come here, what will be their reaction to that situation? Their guesthouse in the Lake District or their conference hotel in Bradford may be very charming but, unless they have great patience and time on their hands, I doubt that they will attempt the same travelling feat again. They may, of course, have been warned in advance in which case they will probably not even attempt it in the first place. Last week an American guest joked with me:
"It took three hours to cross the Atlantic in your wonderful Concorde and 2½ hours to complete the last 29 miles via the M25".
As with the rail links, so it is necessary that superior road links should enable a quick passage past London, ensuring not only that the visitor sees the attractions of Britain north of London but also that the economy of the rest of Britain benefits from the ever increasing demand of visitors. It would be quite wrong for any review to ignore this factor. We would be denying a large sector of the economy substantial economic benefits: we would, in effect, be shooting ourselves in the foot.
As regards marketing Britain, the tourist boards do good work. But there is still much to be done to strengthen awareness of Britain's attractions as a leisure and business destination. The rural parts of the country, and the cities, look increasingly to leisure
890
and tourism for their economic future. Who would have thought, even 10 years ago, that Glasgow would be a major tourist attraction? Major programmes to support these necessary changes are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture.
The review provides an opportunity for the expertise of the British Tourist Authority in the international market and that of all the national tourist boards in the domestic market to contribute to those programmes and to ensure that tourism elements are well founded and closely focused. Those contributions should be reflected in the report which will, no doubt, be published following the review.
Much of our tourist industry is made up of small businesses, as we have heard. The statutory tourist boards provide a range of essential services which help those businesses to prosper. Many are far too small to promote themselves overseas or lack the experience and resources to secure funding for investment. It is important for those services to continue so that tourism as a whole can make its vital contribution to our balance of payments and to employment.
Lastly, I turn to the subject close to the heart of the Department of Employment—training. It is essential to make sure that those already in the industry and those young people wishing to join the industry have every opportunity for proper training and to further their professional skills.
Your Lordships may have noticed that people no longer laugh at the British chef, Noble Lords may perhaps remember the definition of heaven and hell, in which heaven is described as having French chefs, German mechanics, Italian lovers, British police and Swiss organisers, and hell as having British chefs, French mechanics, Swiss lovers, German police and Italian organisers. All that has changed--although I cannot of course speak on behalf of the Swiss lovers! But there is still plenty of room for improvement in other areas, especially languages. It is no longer acceptable merely to speak loudly at a foreign visitor to make oneself understood.
Bearing in mind the importance and size of the industry, I cannot understand why tourism comes under the umbrella of the Department of Employment. Tourism already involves the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Trade and Industry would surely be more relevant. I hope that one day we shall see a ministry for tourism, thereby reflecting the industry's true worth in our economy.
In conclusion, I am saying that we must strive to make the goods in the shop window a major attraction. Having done so we must make sure that the street outside the shop leading to our door is well signposted and accessible. I ask that in its aim of further improving the industry the review of this immense and very important subject takes into account the points that I have raised.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate and not least to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, who has introduced with considerable humour and skill the wide panoply of this very important and timely Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I believe that the debate has been illuminated by specialist knowledge of many sectors of the tourist industry.
Two years ago I attended for the first time an annual conference of the Association of British Travel Agents. Although I was aware that the industry involved more than just travel agents, I was amazed at the breadth of involvement of those concerned with the travel business. I believe that we have learnt that today from those who have spoken from past or present knowledge of the industry and a special interest in it.
I should like to begin by putting on record my appreciation of the great job which the Minister, John Lee, is doing in this area. It is not invidious to make comparisons with others who have a job to do and do it well, but it strikes me that he is very busy and is very energetic. I intend to quote from at least one of his speeches. He has said some very wise things. I know that he is held in the highest regard in the travel industry and his ministerial colleagues ought to be aware that any criticisms which are made of the general set-up in no way reflect on the Minister.
It is not possible simply to leave it to previous speakers to introduce statistics of one kind or another. As I look at the papers it seems to me that we are debating a success story. However, I share the apprehension of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby concerning not only the terms of reference but also the Statement that was made by Mr. Norman Fowler in July when he announced the review. The first paragraphs of his Statement eulogised and set the achievements of the tourist industry in their proper setting. He then said, in effect, that the industry had become so successful that it had to be taken apart, not only to examine how it had achieved that success but also whether it could be done better. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, made a telling point when he said that one can pull a plant up by its roots too often simply to find out how it is getting on.
I was deeply concerned when the Minister said that the review was to be seen:
"against the background of the wider role of Government and its wish to see such activities carried out in the private sector wherever possible".
Privatisation—which I do not believe has been mentioned directly in the debate tonight—must therefore be on the agenda in one form or another. I am heartened by statements from Ministers that financial support for the tourist industry may not be what is at stake but that it may be a question of doing things better or differently.
I should like to encourage the Minister to ask his ministerial colleagues whether they cannot do a little more and do what the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, suggested; namely, to look beyond the most attractive areas of Britain from the tourists' point of view and see whether something more cannot be done
892
to encourage those who have come from abroad to look at some of the other places that are worth looking at. I have in mind the Glasgow Garden Festival and the Liverpool Garden Festival, and the Beamish Museum in Northumberland which received the Museum of the Year Award last year.
I declare an interest because of my association with the Co-operative movement. I have here a brochure entitled Northern Welcome which is an attempt by the CWS (Co-operative Wholesale Society) travel group and many others who would like to shift the current concentration on the South-East as a gateway into Britain and on the airports and roads in the South-East. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, drew special attention to the M.25. There are problems on our roads, but I should like to hear the Minister tell us that he recognises that the other beautiful areas of the country such as the Lake District, the Northumbrian coast, Scotland and a great many of our industrial heritage areas should also be given some support.
When John Lee opened the "See Industry at Work" conference in September he said:
"One personal crusade of mine is the development of modern industrial tourism: manufacturing and commercial firms opening themselves up to visitors by setting up properly organised and designed visitor facilities. For many years our ceramic, glassware and distillery companies have been doing this, but there is an enormous potential for others.
"Modern industrial tourism will add a new dimension to the country's burgeoning £18 billion-a-year tourist industry".
There are many illustrations of that aspect in the brochure Northern Welcome and there are some fascinating possibilities. Those of us in this House who recognise the beauties of Scotland, the Lake District and the Yorkshire Moors and many other areas will want the Minister to say that besides simply wanting that £18 billion to grow and the 15 million visitors to increase, he also recognises the industrial and social consequences for the rest of the country. I believe that there is an opportunity for the Minister to say something helpful on that point.
I mention Northern Welcome in the context of Manchester airport. Quite frankly, it beats me why there is not the co-ordination in all these matters that we all want to see. I speak in the presence of my noble friend Lord Underhill who is sitting on the Front Bench and who understands airport policy far better than I do. I want the Minister to say something helpful in recognising how better we can use our national resources by considering these matters in a national context. Certainly I think that it would be very well received.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, in his remarks on the impact of tourism in this country. He underlined the importance not only of employment—we know that one and a half million people directly or indirectly earn their living from tourism—but also of quality and improvement of standards. I am somewhat disturbed to see the extent of the lack of drive by government and other agencies to improve the quality of the product overall.
We all know the imperatives for large companies. By their very nature they want to increase their profitability. They know that they must have the best—the best receptionists, the best chefs and the best entertainment managers. But there seems to be a

893
great gap between big companies which, because they need to survive, recognise that fact, and small businesses of which there is an enormous range.
The quality of those who serve on the British Tourist Authority and the tourist boards is very impressive. They understand the business. They earn their living—when I look at some of the names I see that they have made millions—from running very successful companies. We are not short of men and women who understand how to run successful businesses. I am not very sure what the Government hope to achieve by disturbing the successful industry that such people can quite rightly claim to have established.
As regards the level of remuneration within the tourist industry, I am not very happy with the fact that in the catering industry there are many people who do not get well paid. There are many people who help to make our tourist industry a success by running hotels efficiently; they do not get well paid. I am not happy at the abolition of the wages councils. Nor am I pleased with the manner in which the Government have acquiesced in the wider design of encouraging more people to come to this country, sometimes on the backs of the workers in those industries. I should like the Minister to say something which will he of help to those people on whom the tourist industry must depend. They are not captains of industry; they work in the kitchens, often under very poor conditions.
I conclude by admitting that the Government can rightly claim to have done as much as anybody—the Minister will probably claim far more—to try to make our tourist industry one of the best in the world. A great deal of encouragement is obtained from the statistics. However, I am afraid that the Government are locked into a pattern which is a feature of this Administration. Wherever they can they want to throw off the business of management. They believe that there is no better solution than to leave wholly and completely to non-governmental agencies the business of making a profit, or otherwise. I ask the Minister, who has my highest regard in respect of this and many other matters: why not build upon what we already have if we want to increase the national "take" and make sure that we improve?
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his Question is very pertinent, as also are the factors mentioned not least by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, of the Tunnel and the advent of 1992. They are very real and earnest matters. The Minister can take pride in the fact that we have been successful in attracting people to this country. However, the British Tourist Authority talks in terms of attracting not 15 million but 21 million people to this country by the year 1994. Many noble Lords have raised the point: what about the roads, the railways and the transport infrastructure? And what about making sure that not only are people attracted here but that they come back again and again?
A phenomenon of the past 25 years, in which I have participated, has been the cheap package tour abroad. Sunshine is the big attraction, but I manage
894
to travel around the country and spend two or three nights in various places and enjoy them. We want British people who so desire to be able to go abroad for a holiday, but we also want to attract more people from abroad to this country for a holiday. We want them to come not just to see Shakespeare country or Devon or the Tower of London but to visit other places also. We want to do something to draw them up to the Northumbrian and Durham coasts and to encourage them to see some of our national institutions. I am glad to see present my noble friend Lord Dormand, I hope that the pause has been suitably registered.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am happy to state that I am vice-president of the Northumbria Tourist Board.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: One learns something new every day, my Lords. I think the Minister has some searching questions to answer about the thrust of government policy on this matter. Britain is in competition with other countries. There is also competition among its own people as to the places at which they want to spend their hard-earned money. I am all for encouraging people to have a proper holiday, and people in the North in particular, as well as other parts of the country, to enjoy some of the boom that has been visited almost gratuitously upon the South-East. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's reply.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, at the end of a very politically charged Session it is opportune that we should have a debate on a topic that is almost immune from party politics. The House will he grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for having initiated this important debate. I have no financial interests in the tourist industry to declare, but I have close family involved in the hotel business in Scotland and family involved in the hotel pub trade. However, I stress that I myself am not a financial beneficiary. In fact sometimes the contrary is the case, but I make no complaint about that.
The Motion that we are discussing is a technical one. The debate has turned out to be a fairly general discussion on the tourist industry, which is all to the good, but there is the problem that the tourist industry seems to embrace a great many Ministries; the Home Office for work permits and so on for hotel staff; the Department of the Environment for the maintenance of historic buildings, to which we encourage our tourists; and the Transport Ministry in regard to our roads.
My noble friend Lord Brocket made a most pertinent observation about the M25 motorway. Living as I do less than a mile from Junction 9, which is the Leatherhead turn-off, I know full well that in the rush hour anybody trying to get to Heathrow (which, after all, brings in a great proportion of our tourists) faces real problems, particularly if held up at Staines or somewhere similar. This is not a debate on roads and we have had a number of discussions on that topic; but while the M25 is a much needed and

895
an effective road, from the point of view of transportation of tourists and others it creates some horrendous problems.
I should like to devote a few remarks to Scotland. There has been a 16 per cent. increase in tourism to Scotland from the years 1986 to 1987. Those were the last figures provided by the report of the Scottish Tourist Board. About £400 million of revenue came in in 1987. Mention has been made of catering. I believe that catering is all-essential to tourism. My noble friend Lord Brocket made some very witty and apposite remarks concerning British chefs of years past. Two decades ago those remarks would have applied. However, it is a very encouraging fact that in a number of our leading hotels virtually all the principal chefs are British. This is not always publicised as much as it should be because British chefs can turn out not only our own excellent British food but food from other nations, and do so most effectively.
One of the Finnish banks with whom I have some association employed a girl chef. She went to Finland for a week to train in Finnish cooking. At this bank some excellent Finnish food is enjoyed not only by the locals when they come over, but also by a number of British people and other nationalities. Cooked as it is by a British cook, I believe that it is a major achievement and a contribution to our tourist industry. Those who go to Scotland regularly—which, alas, I now do not—know the virtues of a full Scottish breakfast which I believe to be one of the finest meals in the world.
The Earl of Dundee: Hear, hear!
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend endorses that remark. That meal keeps one going for the rest of the day and possibly the following night as well. This is another example of the way in which catering has improved the image of our tourist industry.
On hotels, much is said about the very large hotels and the very large hotel chains. However, I believe that our tourists also go in increasing numbers to our smaller family-owned hotels. Some of the finest catering and most comfortable rooms are to be found in these establishments.
Bearing in mind that this is an Unstarred Question and not a subject for full debate. I rest my case in the hope that when the report is published—and we have not had the advantage of seeing it—we can promote the image of our tourist industry throughout the United Kingdom to our many overseas visitors in an even more convincing way than we seem to do now.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity we have been given today by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to debate tourism and to set the review announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 18th July in context.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for asking this Question and for all that he has done for the tourism
896
industry through his excellent work with the London Tourist Board and the London Convention Bureau, even if during the course of this debate I had the somewhat irreverent thought that if Noel Coward rather than Lerner and Loewe had written "My Fair Lady" we might now be singing the song "Why can't the English teach their children how to cook?"
I must agree with my noble friend Lord Auckland that our cooking has become much better in recent years. Before replying to specific points raised by noble Lords I should perhaps say a little about the industry and its competitive position. I hope that it will help to answer in the affirmative that part of the noble Lord's Question which asks whether the review takes into account the international competitive prospects for the industry.
First, let me say that the tourist industry does not stand still. It is developing all the time through new markets, such as industry tourism: by opening up some of the fascinating places of work in our country, from distilleries to factories; and through time share developments, the first of which was established in Scotland in 1975—a development in which my noble friend Lord Lindsay has been closely involved. We congratulate him on that and on his maiden contribution this evening. It is catering for speciality and minority interests and is increasingly attracting new investment to provide superior accommodation and all weather attractions and facilities for all visitors. In the first six months of this year, the English Tourist Board estimated nearly £2 billion worth of new construction work was completed or currently under way. That investment shows a confidence in the market for tourism.
The confidence is well merited. Last year a record 15.4 million visits were made to this country. Overseas visitors spent a record, not £5.5 billion, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, suggested, but over 10 per cent. more. The figure, I am advised, was £6.2 billion. The industry's turnover was nearly £18 billion. However, I take the point of the noble Lord. We are well aware of the sensitivity of the exchange rate in this connection.
As we have heard, the industry employs about 1.5 million people. The number of people working in tourism is increasing all the time. The number grew by over 50,000 in the year to this June. These are by no means all low pay, low skill jobs. They are jobs which offer opportunities. They include managerial and professional jobs.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the Government have no plans at present to abolish or change the wages council system. The legislation, as he knows full well, is being kept under review. However, tourism is growing worldwide, not just in Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. made this point. People have more money to spend. Travel is easier and cheaper. Holiday destinations are increasingly becoming more exotic. In the year 2000 it is estimated that tourism will be the world's biggest industry. These are not government estimates, but they demonstrate the opportunities. This evening your Lordships have put flesh on the bare bones of this remark.

897
However, the tourism industry cannot simply sit down and wait for the rewards. Since new products and new destinations are appearing all the time, the tourism industry must adapt and develop constantly. That is the position on international competition to which the noble Lord referred in his Question.
Similarly, government cannot stand still if they are to help the industry to make the most of the opportunities for creating wealth and jobs. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we look again at government support for the tourism industry. This has remained essentially unchanged in spite of the many reviews to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred over the 20 years since the Development of Tourism Act 1969. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we need to build on our success, but we have to identify that success and make sure what we are building upon.
It was music to my ears to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on my honourable friend Mr. John Lee, who spends 80 per cent. of his time on tourism matters. The Department of Employment takes tourism very seriously as a creator of 51,000 jobs in the year to June 1988. These are good reasons for the departmental responsibility for the tourist industry being allowed to settle down. If I may paraphrase one noble Lord, as a horticulturist by training I do not like uprooting for uprooting's sake.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that in my view it does not particularly matter who does it, so long as the job is done properly. He asked about the Tourism Co-ordination Committee and suggested that it meets less frequently than it used to and that it is less effective. I am advised that it has always met twice a year since its inception in March 1986; it will next meet on the 23rd of this month. The effectiveness of that, or any other body, will of course be considered as part of the review.
I do not think it would be right for us to forget that, as the Unstarred Question recognises, help for the industry comes from a variety of sources in the public sector as well as directly through the tourist boards. We are taking these interests fully into account in the review. Support for the industry shows in ways as diverse as erecting tourist signs, which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, experimenting with immigration pre-clearance to speed people's journeys, which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and promoting clean beaches, which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Noble Lords will be able to give other examples.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Brocket and the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that the Channel Tunnel is a major development which the industry must exploit. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, as well as other colleagues in government, will take careful note of the points that have been made in this connection. Certainly, I see it as an exciting project which the industry must use as a catalyst to entice our
898
European friends to this country. I would add that it is vital at least to maintain, but hopefully to improve, the position where twice as many British people go to the Continent as European people come here, as is the case at the moment.
Nor must we forget that the tourist industry has benefited, like all our industry, from the Government's successful handling of the economy and the stimulus to enterprise and job creation which that has given. Furthermore, the industry has benefited, like all our industry, from the steps the Government have taken to reduce the burdens of bureacracy and red tape—most recently those set out in the White Paper Releasing Enterprise (Cmnd. 512), published by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 2nd November.
I should also mention the able and dedicated support given to the industry by my honourable friend the Minister for tourism. He does much to publicise the importance of the industry for jobs and for the economy. Government support is important, but the Government's policy is clear: the private sector must take the lead. My noble friend Lord Lindsay, in his excellent maiden speech, mentioned the Historic Houses Association, which I believe is a good and successful example of what I feel is right for the industry. I agree that members play a major role in expanding the range of tourist attractions in this country by opening their houses to visitors, and indeed publicising this fact.
So, as I was saying, the private sector must take the lead. There is nothing new in that policy. It was stated in Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs, the 1985 report on tourism by my noble friend, the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I quote:
"The Government believes that the best way it can help any sector of business flourish is not by intervening but by providing a general economic framework which encourages growth and at the same time removing unnecessary restrictions or burdens".
It was repeated most recently in Tourism '88, published by the Department of Employment, in May this year before the review was announced. I therefore do not wish to claim that the achievements of the industry since 1969 are the results solely, or even mainly, of government action in this field. The industry itself has done a great deal to promote itself and to generate interest and investment, with the support of the English Tourist Board, the other national tourist boards, the British Tourist Authority and of course the 12 non-statutory regional tourist boards in England. They of course include the body to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred in his intervention. The review will be considering all these issues.
However, there is one issue that I have not yet touched on which is just as vital for the industry's future. That is competitiveness. The industry's prime resource is people, and the Government are offering help from the Employment Department Training Agency. This includes, for example, the young people supported on the Association of British Travel Agents YTS scheme, 77 per cent. of whom go into jobs afterwards. There are many thousands who have already come forward to take up the opportunity which will offer training places to up to 600,000 people, giving them the skills that are still in

899
demand—not least of course in the tourism industry. The Government are also supporting the industry-led Tourism Training Initiative, which is bringing the industry together to discuss how to satisfy its skills' needs. That will help the industry to grow and to create new jobs. The industry is working with Government in training and in all the other areas I have mentioned. The review is aimed at continuing that partnership.
Partnership of course means listening to the industry. Indeed, this evening it also means listening to your Lordships. The review team has now seen over 100 people from the industry, representing large and small interest groups, and has had representations from more.
In the consideration of this review, I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, believes that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be included. That of course is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State. The review team, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, has heard as a matter of course the views of the respective tourist boards. Reports are being made to the territorial ministers through the Tourism Co-Ordination Committee and of course by other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked for a commitment to maintain separate Welsh and Scottish boards but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made clear in his opening speech, this review is not concerned with those boards. No doubt the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland will take note of the noble Lord's speech, and I shall make sure that it is referred to them.
We entered into an interesting discussion at one point on the per capita expenditure on tourism in England as compared to Wales and Scotland. However, we do not appear to have a representative from Northern Ireland among your Lordships tonight. I thought it would interest noble Lords to know that expenditure in Northern Ireland per capita is approximately seven times more than that in England currently.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who made the point about the need to encourage tourists to go to the non-traditional tourist destinations. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brocket would join with me in agreeing with him. Of course the objective of both the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board is to spread the benefits of tourism throughout the country. One example might be the Great English City Breaks campaign, which receives support from the English Tourist Board and is helping to bring visitors, for example, to Liverpool, Hull, Leicester and various other cities. I am told that the English Tourist Board will be launching a campaign in the New Year to promote inner city tourism aimed at Cleveland, the Black Country, Manchester, Sheffield and certain inner London boroughs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the Minister for telling the House that he and his colleagues would want to see this aspect of tourism increased. Will the Minister enter a more positive note? There is a difference between
900
wanting to see tourism increased and doing something about it. If the Minister is telling me that there are plans afoot to do that, will he also bear in mind that in those areas where they may require this there will be a call for local money—local ratepayers' money and public expenditure? The Minister should take on board the fact that money which is spent to encourage tourists to come from abroad to those places that they might not otherwise visit is money well spent. It will not only attract tourists but will improve the environment and possibly work prospects as well.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in recent years the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I have had countless arguments about the cost of economic developments falling upon ratepayers and I take his point. I said that the intervention of both the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, and the back-up Section 4 grants which have been so praised this evening, are involved in spreading the load and increasing the visits to those traditionally unvisited areas in our country. I am sure that that is right.
Many of the English Tourist Board's tourist action programmes and strategic development inititatives are already aimed at inner city areas. The ETB has an efficient and effective rural tourism strategy which was launched earlier this year and it is doing a remarkable job.
The industry and your Lordships will wish to know when the results of the review are to be made known. It is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment to decide. The review team is due to report to him at the end of the year and he will need to consult colleagues, as the noble Lord's Question suggests. He will make announcements as soon as he is able thereafter.
In conclusion, I should point out that I detected a slight tremor of apprehension running through many of your Lordships' speeches tonight. While I do not believe that there should be cause for concern, I shall take up the request of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and seek to turn my right honourable friend's considerable mind to your Lordships' concerns. In that connection, I am grateful to the noble Lord for recognising the fact that this is my first appearance at this Box speaking on this subject. Therefore my usually free-ranging comments have been slightly curtailed, but I can assure the House that in respect of employment that will not last for much longer.
I shall ensure that the debate is read by the review team. There is every indication that the tourist industry will maintain and develop its competitiveness so that it can continue to grow in importance to the economy and to create new jobs. The review is essential in helping the Government to make effective their support for this successful industry. The review takes account of its position at home and internationally. It is taking account of the various departments concerned. The contribution of noble Lords has helped in the process of discussion and, as I said at the beginning, I am accordingly grateful.

Road Traffic Bill [H.L.]
6.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 108, page 74, leave out lines 6 to 8.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have before us the Commons amendments to three Bills and I should like to refer to them all in my few remarks. They appear to be corrections and minor modifications, but I do not understand this particular amendment. It is an amendment to Clause 108 and leaves out the definition of the offence involving disqualification. I do not understand why the definition is omitted. I am certain that with a simple explanation from the Minister we can deal with the business without difficulty.
On Third Reading we on these Benches failed to express our grateful thanks to the two Law Commissions and to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for their work. I am certain that the three Bills will be helpful, although I believe that when we deal with the North Committee Report there will no doubt be a necessity for another consolidated Bill.
Can the Minister explain why the definition is being omitted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his remarks. We all appreciate the work carried out by those involved in consolidation Bills. The amendments which we are considering this evening were shown in draft to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. He stated that, in his opinion, the amendments are proper to be moved as part of the consolidation effected by the Bills.
As regards Amendment No. 1, Part III of the Road Traffic Bill derives from Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Part III of the Bill does not deal with disqualification in the endorsement of licences on conviction, unlike Part III of the 1972 Act. Provisions about disqualification and endorsement are now to be found in Part II of the Road Traffic Offenders Bill. Accordingly, Part III of the Road Traffic Bill does not require definitions of offence involving obligatory disqualification and offence involving discretionary disqualification. Therefore the amendment omits those definitions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 145, page 99, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
3 Clause 151, page 104, line 14, leave out subsection (11).
4 Clause 161, page 110, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
5 Clause 197, page 131, line 4, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
6 Schedule 2, page 135, line 26, leave out ("subsection (6) of that section") and insert ("section 67(6) of this Act").
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Offenders Bill [H.L.]
6.57 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 9, page 5, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 19, page 11, line 5, after ("proceedings") insert ("in Scotland").
3 Clause 54, page 27, line 39, leave out ("an") and insert ("a constable or").
4 Page 28, line 2, leave out ("an") and insert ("a constable or").
5 Page 28, line 6, after first ("the") insert ("constable or").
6 Page 28, line 9, after ("the") insert ("constable or").
7 Page 28, line 11, after ("the") insert ("constable or").
8 Page 28, leave out lines 25 and 26.
9 Clause 89, page 51, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
10 Clause 99, page 55, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
11 Schedule 1, page 56, line 24, leave out paragaph 5.
12 Schedule 2, page 69, column 7, laine 5, leave out ("2–5") and insert ("3–9").
13 Page 91, column 7, line 12, leave out ("4–8") and insert ("6–8").
14 Page 93, column 7, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert ("8–10").
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 14 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 14 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved that the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 8, page 2, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Schedule 1, page 7, leave out lines 24 to 28.
3 Page 7, line 31, at end insert—

("1988 c. 33.

Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Section 37(2).

Section 63.

Section 68.

In Schedule 15 paragraphs 92 to 94.").

4 Schedule 3, page 27, line 36, leave out paragraph 38
5 Page 27, line 44, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33.)
39. In section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in subsection 3(c) for "section 99(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1972" there is substituted "section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988".").
6 Schedule 5, page 30, line 21, leave out paragraph 1.
7 Page 31, line 9, leave out paragraph 3.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain amendments agreed to; the consequential amendments to the Bill and with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; the amendments to be printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.

School Boards (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before seven o'clock.