HL Deb 23 January 1990 vol 514 cc990-1004

7.30 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Co-operative Development Agency was established by the previous government under the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978 with a wide remit, to promote the adoption and the better understanding of co-operative principles and to represent the interests of the co-operative movement".

This legislation followed upon the recommendations of a working group of representatives of co-operative interests. One of the recommendations of the working group's report was that the Government should bear the cost of setting up a co-operative development agency and running it for a period of three years, a cost which was expected to be £900,000. At the end of three years it was expected that the CDA should no longer be dependent on public funding and would rely upon contributions from the co-operative movement and income from charging fees. Despite the wide remit provided by the legislation, the board of the CDA, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, decided to concentrate on the worker co-operative sector, as strong sponsoring bodies already existed in the consumer, housing and agricultural sectors.

The CDA has had success both in promoting the co-operative concept and in encouraging the setting up of worker co-operatives, and of local advisory bodies to help them. Due to its efforts, and those of the other bodies involved, more than 1,500 co-operatives were created.

The previous Government's plans for the agency to become self-financing, however, were not borne out by experience. The present Government extended the life of the agency through the 1981 CDA order, which allowed the agency to take up the further £600,000 provided for under the 1978 Act. This limit was raised to £3 million under the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984. Through the 1984 legislation, the Government also gave the CDA new powers in the areas of training, joint ventures, and administering loans and grants. These new powers were intended to help the CDA to widen its role and cease its dependence on the public purse. But the CDA has been unable to establish self-sufficiency and has had to rely on government grant in every year since its inception.

With the ceiling of £3 million set in the 1984 Act due to be reached around the second half of 1990, the Government needed to decide whether to extend the life of the current CDA. In 1988 the then Minister with responsibility for small firms, Mr. John Cope, asked the chairman of the CDA to present proposals for the agency's future. The CDA's proposals suggested that there was no major continuing role in promoting co-operative development and that the agency might in future concentrate on employee participation and employee share ownership through ESOPS.

The Government considered the CDA's proposals very carefully. We accepted the case that the work of supporting and promoting co-ops could be carried out by other organisations at local level, but could not accept the argument that the CDA's role should extend to ESOPS. There is already considerable private sector activity in this area and we felt it would not be appropirate to give such responsibilities to a statutory body.

In January 1989 the Department of Employment issued a consultation letter to organisations in the co-operative movement with a proposal that the CDA should be wound up. The responses showed a wide range of views on what support the Government should give to co-operatives, and were evenly divided on the question of continuing to support the CDA. Organisations which supported the proposal for closure were mainly in the worker co-operative sector. There was a general impression in these responses that the CDA had done its job, and that there was now a well-established network of local co-op support bodies. They therefore saw no continuing need for a statutory body to promote co-operative development.

We accordingly asked the CDA to prepare plans for its closure. These propose that the agency should cease functioning by the end of September of this year. Final closure, following a three-month winding up period, will be completed by the end of December 1990. The CDA has contacted organisations supporting co-operatives, setting out details of its current activities and seeking views on those which other organisations might want to take on after it closes. The CDA has chaired and provided the secretariat for the co-operative inter-sector forum and has been active in setting up a study group from within the forum to make recommendations on the continuation of a representative body for the movement as a whole. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider an application for financial support towards the costs of setting up and running such a body, provided that this funding is on a short-term, pump-priming basis and is at least matched by contributions from the co-operative movement.

I should like to record the Government's appreciation of the work of the board members of the CDA, in the early days under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and more recently his successor, Mr. Ralph Woolf. The board has been ably supported in its work by the two directors of the agency, Dennis Lawrence and George Jones, and their staff. The decision to wind up the CDA does not mean that the Government do not support the co-operative concept. Co-operatives have an important role in the Government's housing and agricultural policies, and co-operative ideas continue to be important in small firms and enterprise. We feel that co-operatives may have particular potential in carrying enterprise and business attitudes into some groups or areas as an alternative to conventional forms of business. The Minister of State has said that the Department of Employment is prepared to consider applications for support for innovative co-operative projects.

In conclusion, we are happy to support the co-operative concept and are prepared to contribute to the funding of a representative body and towards innovative co-operative projects. We do not, however, see a continuing need for a statutory body to promote co-operative development, and we propose that, having done its work, the Co-operative Development Agency should now be wound up. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1989 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, tonight we all play an unworthy part in killing off the Co-operative Development Agency. In the totality of British life and in the management of the economy, we are used to talking in terms of millions of pounds and sometimes of billions of pounds. We are dealing here with the demise of a body which makes a call on the Exchequer of perhaps £200,000 or £300,000 and which, in all its 12 years of life, has made a call on the taxpayer of between £3 million and £4 million. That is pretty small beer. Some of us not only helped at its birth but connived to bring about its conception. We are entitled to be sad. Yes, I am even more mad than sad at the waste of good money and at the mindless vandalism which the destruction of the CDA epitomises.

Like the Minister tonight, I have read the account of proceedings in another place. I was impressed by the fairness of the Minister, Mr. Tim Eggar. He delivered the coup de grace to the CDA, sustained with a number of logical points which the noble Earl used in his speech tonight. I took some heart when I studied what he had left us with. I shall comment later on the positive points that the Minister made, and I acknowledge that we still have something left. It is not much, but beggars cannot be choosers.

The burden of my complaint is more the unfairness and even cynicism and hypocrisy of the Government when they deal such a savage blow to co-operative enterprise in the form of the Co-operative Development Agency while sustaining and supporting other forms of enterprise which use the co-operative ethic as a central pillar of their philosophy. The Government, the Minister tonight and his ministerial colleagues in another place have time after time lauded the co-operative idea and professed support for the co-operative sector, yet they demonstrate that support in a philistine way. It makes no sense to me or to thousands of others outside.

Funding for the CDA since its inception compares badly with what has been provided since 1967 for agricultural co-operatives. The co-operative development division of Food from Britain had an operating expenditure for 1987–88 of £559,508. This covered advisory and legal services. In that year the division formed seven marketing co-operatives and considered 78 grant applications. The cost of these to public funds was £819,000. Under European Community regulations, 15 agricultural projects were grant-aided to a total of £1,659,366. EC grants worth £373,000 were also made to forage groups. Moreover, 26 grants to fruit and vegetable producer organisations were made for launch aid totalling £678,135.

No one wishes to see less aid for agricultural co-operatives, but there are large and powerful regional agricultural organisations of many years' standing in England by comparison with the small and relatively new workers' co-operatives which resulted from the formation of the CDA in 1979. I speak for many when I tell the Minister that we find it strange that a modestly funded body like the CDA is to be wound up while a well-established and financed body, under the wing of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is to continue.

When a Labour Government established the CDA in 1978, it was hailed by all parties as a significant measure. For far too long, this country poured its economic energy into two prime sectors; namely, the private sector and the public sector. In many countries, a third force was flourishing—the co-operative sector. Here in Britain a measure of support for the values enshrined in the co-operative idea resulted in the CDA receiving all-party support. It was never meant to be other than a catalyst for co-operative ideas, a body to stimulate and encourage others —that is, individuals, local authorities, trade unions and private businesses —to turn to co-operative solutions for answers to their problems. It worked, although perhaps too well for the liking of this Government.

The time of the 1980s substantially has been the decade of the CDA. Therefore, we must set its achievements alongside the circumstances and challenges of that time. On less than a shoestring, it has a remarkable record of positive achievement. It has an outstanding record in, for instance, establishing marketing co-operatives. Indeed, 63 groups had been formed by 1989, introducing the co-operative concept to traditional business and improving the competitiveness of small businesses, thus enabling them to compete internationally.

In 1989, 40 projects were at varying stages of development. They cover a wide range of industries including garment manufacture, printing, medical equipment supplies, ship repair and hotels and tourism. The CDA has worked up the concept of group marketing until it has succeeded in practice. What a splendid gift to British employers and employees. What a waste to condemn those innovators to the scrapheap of history!

As the Minister said, perhaps it has been in the sphere of working co-operatives that the CDA has had its most outstanding achievement. From virtually a standing start, more than 2,000 worker, neighbourhood, community and marketing co-ops were registered and actively trading in 1989. That is a record of which I am intensely proud. It fully justifies the pioneering work of many. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, must be grateful, for he was wholly behind the creation of the CDA. I can tell the Minister that when I discussed tonight's business with him, he was bitterly disappointed.

Sitting behind me today as I speak is my noble friend Lord Oram. He was the first chairman of the CDA. For over 30 years before it was established he inspired the concept by his writings. As I said, he was its first chairman and he will no doubt speak for himself. I venture to suggest that he will be as angry and dismayed as are the rest of us.

The Minister was right to pay full and generous tribute to other individuals. I refer to Mr. Ralph Woolf, who served for a long time as chairman. I should also refer to the inspired choice of George Jones as the director of the CDA. Together they gave the CDA status, stature and purpose. Much of what has been achieved must be owed to them and I am personally truly grateful.

Where do we go from here? No explanation has been forthcoming from Ministers, either in this House or in another place, to justify the cruel, senseless murder of a fine initiative in the sphere of job creation and of economic regeneration. If ever an instrument earned the charge that it owes more to dogma than it does to realism, it is the order which we are debating this evening.

The Minister of State in another place, Mr. Eggar, has consulted widely on the way forward. I pay tribute to him and to those endeavours. We have to build upon them. In essence, having taken quite the wrong decision to abolish the CDA, and having made speeches in both Houses paying warm tributes both to past performance and to the future potential for co-operative expansion, Ministers wish to wash their hands of this distasteful third arm in our economy —that is, co-operative enterprise —as quickly and as cleanly as possible. The Co-operative Forum is to be the vehicle to take this forward. The scenario poses many questions. I believe that the House, and the wider co-operative movements, are entitled to some answers.

In cols. 1041 and 1056 of Hansard of 10th January the Minister of State said that funds to establish a new co-operative forum would be forthcoming from the Government, to match pound for pound funds assembled by the co-operative movement. That is an invitation which was repeated here tonight by the Minister. However, can we be told how much is in the Minister's mind? For example, are we talking about five, six or seven figures as a contribution from the Government towards this activity?

Both the columns I mentioned referred, as did the Minister here tonight, to a short-term pump-priming basis. How long is short? Are we thinking in terms of months or of years? Further, in both columns, and again tonight, Ministers said that they will support innovations. That comment is to be found in col. 1042 of Hansard of 10th January. What does the support of innovations mean? Does it mean funds to establish secretarial support for the forum and in addition moneys for projects proposed by the forum?

Throughout the speeches made by Ministers they have laid heavy stress on the role of TECs. It is said that they will be encouraged by Ministers to look at co-operative solutions to inner-city problems. The Minister in another place declined to lay a duty to do so, relying upon a word in the ear of the chairman of the TECs to encourage co-operatives. I should like to make a better suggestion to the Minister tonight. Why not ensure that co-operative solutions are positively examined and evaluated by putting men and women with strong co-operative links on to the governing board of every TEC? It is a simple but direct way of assuring doubters that the Minister says what he means and means what he says. In this connection I assure the Minister that names can be supplied very quickly.

Finally, will the Minister clarify the legislative status of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978? This order winds up the agency. Does that leave the 1978 Act on the statute book.

As I said, I am more sad than mad for I genuinely believe that a good idea has been throttled in pursuit of the Government's ideological dogma. There are many ways in which co-operative solutions can resolve the problems of the marketplace and of the workplace. It is quite imcomprehensible that for the tiny sums involved the Government have thrown the onus for carrying these forward on to volunteers, initiatives by hard-pressed local authorities and other co-operative institutions, while at the same time funding co-operative activity in other spheres of our economic life with millions of pounds. It does no credit to the Government or to Ministers. They should both be thoroughly ashamed of this spiteful action.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. It is clear, whether we like it or not, that the Government are intent upon dissolving the Co-operative Development Agency. However, the support of my party has been so keen and prolonged, notably by my noble friend Lord Grimond, that I do not feel I can let this occasion pass without comment.

The Government stressed that in 1988 it was the CDA's view that the task of promoting and supporting co-operatives could be carried out at local level. They also claim that a factor which weighed heavily in their ultimate decision to wind up the agency is that the responses to the Department of Employment's consultative letter of January 1989 showed that those supporting the proposal for closure were largely in the co-operative sector.

I am in no position to question that. My concern is to ensure that in the dissolution of the CDA the bodies which are called upon to fulfil its functions are in a position to do so adequately. In that connection, when the order was introduced in another place last week, reference was made to the training and enterprise councils, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has mentioned, and to local CDAs; but local CDAs cannot be said to cover the whole country. Where they operate, they are largely dependent upon funding by local authority finances. How can we have confidence that that funding will continue?

As for TECs, they have yet to prove their worth, even in the matter of training. It remains to be seen how they will fill the role the Government seem now to be assigning to them of assisting in the formation of co-operatives. Led by employers in the private sector, how are they to secure the knowledge and advice needed to support co-operative ventures? Is there any reference in the TEC tender documentation to the need for development of co-operatives? Perhaps the Minister will respond to that question when he replies. The national CDA, as I understand it, is at present under an obligation to encourage co-operatives. Will that obligation be transferred to the TECs? Evidently not, for all the Government have been able to say so far is that the councils will be expected to assist in that way.

I do not want to speak at length, but those are some of the misgivings that we have about the forthcoming dissolution of the CDA. It is for the Minister to dispel them if he can.

Lord Oram

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in his severe criticism of the order. Some 12 years ago he and I were happy to be in at the birth of the CDA. We are correspondingly sad this evening to be present at its death. It would be better if, instead of passing the order, we reversed the famous words of Mark Antony of old, saying, "We come not to bury the CDA but to praise it". I say that because, as was said by the Minister and my noble friend, I was privileged to be the first chairman of the CDA and to help launch it on a decade of constructive work for co-operative development.

In many ways there is great potential in this country for co-operative development —for the development of a third major sector of the economy, not the public sector, not the private sector, but co-operative activity. Of course we have already a powerful consumer-controlled movement in retailing, wholesaling, insurance and banking. We are just at the beginning of developing co-operatives in fields which have been neglected in this country, the country where co-operation was born. I refer to housing co-operatives, credit unions, farmers' co-operatives, workers' co-operatives and community co-operatives. In all those areas seeds have been sown throughout the past decade, partly,though not exclusively, under the influence of the CDA. Particularly successful has been the growth of workers' co-operatives, which have increased from some 200 when I became chairman to some 2,000 today. Much of that growth is to the credit of the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM), whose work will of course continue after the CDA is gone.

The sad thing about the Government's decision to bring in the order is that just when those seeds are showing signs of taking root they are being deprived of one of the organisations which can nurture them.

We have in this country a lopsided co-operative movement —powerful, as I said, in retailing, wholesaling, banking and insurance, but weak in those other areas of co-operative organisation that I have listed. Although they are weak, their potential is great. The effect of the order will be largely to deny them the fulfilment of that potential.

In other countries those other co-operative movements have not been neglected. If we look at Sweden we see a comprehensive co-operative movement, including successful and widespread housing co-operatives; if we look at North America, both the United States and Canada, we see the successful credit union movement, which provides credit for its members on terms far more favourable than are available by other means; if we look across the Channel to France, we find a large network of successful agricultural co-operatives. Workers' co-operatives in northern Spain are a well-known success story in the Mondragon complex; and in Italy workers' co-operatives, particularly in the construction industry, are major enterprises. Among their many achievements, they are helping to rescue Venice from the invading sea. Incidentally, even gondoliers have their co-operative society.

Faced by all those achievements by co-operators in other countries, we are entitled to ask: why are co-operatives in those other fields so weak in Britain? Secondly, we are entitled to ask: what should be done? In my view what ought not to be done is to wind up the CDA. Instead of being negative, as the order proposes, we should be positive. We should look for expansion rather than contraction. Unfortunately, it is now too late to ensure the continuation of the CDA; but, as my noble friend Lord Graham has said, we can welcome the Government's willingness, as indicated in another place, to consider providing money for a new institution —a forum in which the various sectors of the co-operative movement can be brought together as a kind of think-tank in which they can share experiences and co-ordinate their promotional efforts. The Minister has made it clear that that is conditional upon the movement providing matching funds. That I believe to be a wholly acceptable condition. I hope and believe that discussions can proceed whereby that condition can be fulfilled.

In order to help co-operatives achieve their potential in all the fields that I have mentioned, we need a new partnership —a partnership between the consumer-co-operative movement and the Government. Therefore the proposal for Government funds matched by co-operative funds is a welcome, though modest, compensation for the loss of the agency. I very much hope that early progress along these lines can be achieved and that the Minister will answer favourably the questions that my noble friend has asked.

8 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I am moved to participate in the debate tonight for a variety of reasons. I had my first business experience as an employee of the co-operative movement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I was rewarded in due course with the highest honour that the co-operative movement can award. I became chairman of the Co-operative Congress. Therefore I share with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, a sense of dismay and disappointment at the proposals which are now before us. I understand that it is within the conventions of this House that we do not vote against the proposals, although I feel inclined to do so. In the House of Commons the vote on this proposal was 191 to 180, which suggests that we might be tempted to proceed with a vote in this House and give the House of Commons another opportunity to review its decision.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others who have spoken, as a mixed economy man I am attracted to the idea that we ought to have some organisation which is committed neither to the capitalist ethic nor to the idea of large state enterprise. The contribution of the co-op gives the individual a role in society, whereas in the large organisations —be they state-run or the large industrial conglomerates —the individual plays little role in making decisions as a shareholder or an employee.

The co-op is designed to bring the owners, employees and customers of the business into the area of decision making and directing their own affairs. I regret to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but it is a sad fact that the democratic basis of the co-op in this country, in the large co-operative societies, has somewhat diminished since the days when I was actively involved.

I am attracted by the Minister's offer to give us the opportunity of continuing this work at least on a transitional basis. I hope that the co-operative movement will respond to the idea of contributing to the forum. I hope it will embarrass the Government by the pound-for-pound subscription and thereby ensure a very substantial commitment by the Government to the new co-operative forum.

Perhaps I may make an appeal to all our friends who support the co-operative idea. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has made the point that an all-party appeal is being made to the Government and I regret the exclusiveness of the co-operative as affiliated to the Labour Party. I recently wrote by invitation an article on trading policy in a co-op journal. The following week the editorial of the Co-operative News said that Lord Taylor had written on the matter of trading policy, "But we don't need any advice from Members of the SDP". Similarly, the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches has assured the House of the continuing interest of the Liberal Party in the affairs of co-operative development. I suggest to our co-operative friends in the Labour Party that in making their appeal for support they should not be isolationist.

There are two things which I hope for. I hope that we shall respond to the ideas of the forum. Further I hope that we shall show the Government that we mean what we say tonight in this House about our commitment and that we shall do so through our existing co-operative organisations. I feel slightly humiliated, I must confess, in asking the Government for handouts to support the co-operative idea. When I look at the resources of the co-operative movement, the total retail sales of co-ops last year in this country were £5,768 million. The assets of the retail societies were £944 million —nearly £1 billion of assets. At the pinnacle of all this the Co-operative Insurance Society had a premium income of £894 million and assets in excess of £3 billion.

I think that through our existing co-operative organisations we ought to say, "Yes, we believe in the co-operative idea. All right, the Government are withdrawing their support for the Co-operative Development Agency but we will show them, we will be proud, we will support and stimulate co-operative development by the establishment of funds to replace the Government's support, but from our own resources". I think that that would do us a lot of good and I hope that the co-op will feel able and be proud enough to respond in that way.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, my noble friends on this side and others have made our feelings very clear regarding the dissolution of the CDA. I do not propose to go over the matter again except to say that I share their dismay and disappointment at the situation in which we find ourselves this evening.

I have two questions to ask and two comments to make. Perhaps if I ask the questions first I may receive an answer. Can the Minister say how many jobs have been created by the activities of the Co-operative Development Agency? How much has each job cost the taxpayer? If the Government cannot give an answer it means that they have not even worked it out. If so, I fear that we must be even more convinced that the reasons behind this winding up are dogmatic rather than practical.

The two comments which I wish to make are, first, to remind your Lordships that worker co-operatives do not fail as often as small businesses. There is a very good reason for this, well known to most of us. The other point that I wish to make is that co-operatives are truly local. When there is a good, workable system of worker co-operatives in a society it brings stability to that industrial base, particularly in small communities, which is simply not available through any other means.

It is a great shame that we have reached this stage. The Co-operative Development Agency has been responsible directly and indirectly through local agencies for setting up some wonderful job opportunities in local communities. I am extraordinarily sad to see it go.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I wish to follow the example set by my noble friend Lady Nicol and put a question before I make my comments. Will the Minister provide information relative to the second paragraph of the preamble to the statutory instrument? It says: Whereas the Secretary of State has consulted with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement and with such other persons appearing to him appropriate by virtue of section 1(3) of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978(b) … as required by section 3(5) of the 1984 Act". Would the Minister care to provide the House with the information as to who those persons were and whom they represented?

I feel that this is an opportunity for me to say that in Northern Ireland I speak as a member of the board of management of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. That body has been supported by the separate legislation provided for it. I realise that that legislation concerns Northern Ireland and is separate and distinct from what the Minister is to deal with tonight. That body has recently been supported by the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development and by the international Irish fund. It was supported on the understanding that it would enable some developments to take place in Northern Ireland on a co-operative basis.

I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Oram for the help and the advice that they have given and for the manner in which they participated in the founding of the Co-operative Development Agency in Northern Ireland. The agency has had its problems and its difficulties but it is proving itself in the Northern Ireland context in a manner which is perhaps difficult to understand in the context in which we are discussing the agency this evening. It is helping communities to come together and to build up relationships and values which have sadly been eroded over the past 20 and 30 years in Northern Ireland.

Another area for development arises out of the privatisation of transport. This has allowed community transport arrangements based on community development to be promoted. Other initiatives have been developed in broadcasting, the arts, drama, house repairs, entertainment and the theatre. Those are a number of areas where such developments were practically unknown at one point. Those initiatives have been developed on a community basis through the instrument of the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. I am not saying that great heights have been reached, but here is an example of something that is flourishing in the context of Northern Ireland. Sadly, however, the provision that we are discussing tonight will not give us any encouragement to take further steps. Finally, I wish to know who was consulted in this matter.

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I have listened intently to the points which have been made. I shall now try to address the main concerns that have been raised. One of the questions that has been asked is why, if the CDA has done an acceptable job and if the Government have valued its services, is its life not being extended again. However, the situation now is not the one we had in 1984 when the CDA was allocated further public money to enable it to achieve the original hopes of its proposers that it would become self-reliant. After over a decade of trying, it was clear to us that the CDA would not achieve that aim. Thus the question arose of whether statutory functions would still be needed in the new decade and of where long-term support for CDA functions should come from. We are clear, as was the CDA board, that the central co-ordinating and representational work of the CDA should be funded by the well established bodies in the co-operative movement if they feel that they have common interests which ought to be represented by a new central body.

We are happy to consider initial assistance, should it be required. More generally, and with reference above all to the CDA's efforts to develop worker co-operatives, we have not changed our view that the existence of almost 100 local advisory bodies, together with enterprise agencies and the new training and enterprise councils, will enable help to be given on the ground where it is needed. There are also national non-statutory bodies with the expertise to give help where a national perspective is required. The advice network is developing to the extent that further funding for the CDA would compel it to duplicate work which could be done by others.

I shall move on to the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked why agricultural co-operatives were better provided for than worker co-operatives.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I did not ask why they were better provided for but why they were so miserably provided for in comparison with the support for agricultural co-operatives.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I shall say a few brief words on agricultural co-operatives. I hope that will answer the noble Lord's point. Agricultural co-operatives are not treated much differently from those in other sectors of the economy other than in the availability of grants under the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme. Since the implementation of the common agricultural policy in the United Kingdom, agriculture and horticulture have had to compete with industries in other member states where co-operatives are well established. The agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme has therefore been aimed at encouraging co-operation, particularly in marketing, so that the United Kingdom's industry could compete on equal terms.

As regards the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on pump priming, pump priming funds will be those needed in the first one or two years to help an innovative project get off the ground and become self-sufficient; for example, through charges or additional sponsorship. I hope that also answers the noble Lord's second point. We have no limit in mind for individual projects. The amounts notionally available are analogous to the annual sums which the Government might otherwise have spent in maintaining the CDA until 1993. Exact deployment under the industrial development legislation will depend on the number, cost and quality of the projects put forward.

As regards the third point of the noble Lord on legislation my answer is brief. Although the Government are not repealing the legislation, primary legislation would be needed to re-establish the CDA as it stands at present. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about men and women being put onto the boards of TECs. Members of training and enterprise councils are drawn from local business communities, local authorities, voluntary organisations and other sources. They come therefore from a wide sphere of society.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked what support for innovations meant. This would cover expenditure on a match-tapering basis on a new co-operative forum but also other innovative projects proposed by the forum or by others.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, suggested that certain functions of the CDA will be lost. The Department of Employment will continue to promote co-operatives as a form of enterprise within its general policy towards small firms, independent bodies such as ICOM, regional and local co-operative support organisations and local enterprise agencies best placed to continue the CDA's advisory services. There is also an important new development in the setting up of the training and enterprise councils. TECs will also decide whether support is needed for co-ops within their areas. Co-ops are of course able to take advantage of existing counselling and training available through the training agency. In addition the small firms service will route all inquiries to co-operative and other business organisations.

I hope I understood the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, which I believe concerned the funding for co-operative development after the dissolution of the CDA. The Government are always happy to consider support for innovative ideas as part of a general policy to promote enterprise. We are especially keen to promote new ventures which deal with genuine needs, for example, in the inner cities. Each proposed project would be assessed on its merits. We would not wish to give preferential treatment to co-operative enterprises over other forms of small business. We would not therefore consider re-introducing the statutory grants scheme as existed under the industrial common ownership legislation from 1976 to 1981 as no other small business sector has access to such a scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked about the forum. I hope that I can provide the answer that he requires. The Government acknowledge that the forum is a useful platform for the exchange of views and ideas between various sectors of the movement. We are waiting to hear proposals as to how it can be carried on. When the co-operative movement reaches agreement on the constitution of and funding provision for a new representative body we shall be prepared to consider a case for funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about job numbers. It is estimated that 1,500 co-operatives have started since 1978 and that 7,500 jobs have been created as a result. It is not possible to say for how many of those the CDA was responsible. There are now more than 100 local advisory bodies, plus ICOM and other national bodies.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked a question in relation to Northern Ireland. The main co-operative bodies were consulted, including the Northern Ireland CDA. I believe that it would be unfair to individual bodies to say what their responses were.

We are changing the nature of our support to reflect the realities. Government support for co-operatives has not diminished in the slightest. Our future policy and support will be focused on developing innovative projects, particulary those with potential for special groups. We want to encourage co-operative means of developing people's talents and capacity for self help, especially for those currently without work. We firmly believe that our strategy will achieve that.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I appreciate the fullness of the noble Earl's replies, which have been helpful. However, does the Minister not understand that neither he nor the proposition has a friend in the House? Everyone who has spoken has spoken against the proposition and has done so with feeling and passion. Does the Minister understand that there are a great many unsolved mysteries as to the future against the background that the Government, as the Minister said in his closing words, profess full support for the co-operative idea?

In view of the blanket opposition to the order before the House tonight I invite the Minister to withdraw the order and bring it back when further proper consultation has taken place.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to withdraw the order. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.