Lords Sitting of 20 May 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Flight Time Limitations
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as president of the Air Safety Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what stage deliberations have reached within the European Commission and within the Joint Aviation Authorities on flight time limitations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Joint Aviation Authorities have developed a flight time limitations scheme. However, in early 1995 pressure arose from the European Commission and some member states to consider further the proposals in that scheme. The Commission subsequently formed a task force in August of last year. That task force has met a number of times. Organisations representing both airlines and crews were asked to submit proposals to the task force for discussion by May. The Commission has been asked to brief the European Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Kinnock, on progress in June.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Bearing in mind that in this country we have the Civil Aviation Authority, in what circumstances is it possible for that authority to act unilaterally should it be thought to be more effective than the Joint Aviation Authorities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, at the moment the Civil Aviation Authority is the body within the United Kingdom with responsibility for safeguarding safety standards in this area. That position will continue. It is in the interests of passengers that there are widespread high levels of safety, but the position of this country has been and will remain that it will not compromise the safety standards already in place here under international agreements.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there may be substantial benefits to the
256
travelling public from harmonised flight time limitation standards provided those standards are high enough? What role does the Minister foresee for the European Commission in any future European safety authority?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Viscount's first point. I believe that it is important to understand that agreements like those negotiated by the JAA must be dealt with through the EU procedures in order to have force and a legislative framework both in this country and internationally.

Lomé Convention: Future
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the principle of preferential access during negotiations on the successor to the current Lomé Convention.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, alongside my noble friend Lady Symons I shall be replying on European Union issues in this House. The new Government regard the Lomé Convention as a major part of the EU's policy towards development. Over half of the Lomé countries are Commonwealth countries. The ACP includes some of the poorest countries in the world. We have a responsibility in both regards. The current (fourth) Lomé Convention expires in March 2000. The EU is committed to opening negotiations on a successor by September next year. This means that the bulk of the work on the draft must be done under the UK presidency. The Government therefore have a special responsibility in this regard. Last November the European Commission issued a substantial Green Paper on the whole future and shape of the Lomé Convention. The new Government will wish to consider all elements of the future relationship. Trade preferences are one very important aspect of the EU's existing relationship with its Lomé partners. There are a number of other aspects. Our approach to the negotiations for a successor convention will be guided both by our existing commitments under Lomé and the generalised system of preferences, which extends to other developing countries, and our strong desire to improve market access for all least developed countries as well as our commitment to multilateral trade.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord's response does not contain the positive message for which I hoped, but I certainly understand the Government's position. Nevertheless, will the noble Lord undertake to campaign for the undoubted benefits of transferability of quotas and be sensitive to the question of substitute crops in one-crop economies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the transferability of quotas is not currently part of the Lomé regime. It may well be a means of helping the producers of bananas and other crops. There is already a Commission proposal, supported by the previous Government and the present Government, to introduce an element of transferability but that has not been agreed by the Council of Ministers. It is not yet clear whether it will be so agreed. There is in any case the added complication that such arrangements must be compatible with WTO requirements. To respond to the general point raised by the noble Viscount, I hope that my earlier reply indicates that the Government regard this subject as of very great importance in relation both to our priorities in Europe and our relationships with developing countries.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Lord's reply was very positive. Can he say whether the Government view the renegotiation of Lomé as a form of agreement with trade as a specific aim or whether they will widen the context to ensure that it is an agreement that targets the poorest nations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe I have already said that although Lomé deals essentially with preferences in trade it is also concerned with developmental and political relationships with the least developed countries in the world. We shall be looking at the whole context of our relationships in Europe and our own development policy.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when the noble Lord is talking about the whole context, does he have also in mind the possibility of a common line within the Commonwealth of nations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Commonwealth nations' involvement in Lomé is substantial. It is an area that we shall discuss with our Commonwealth partners.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord to his new responsibilities. We much look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject as we have enjoyed what he has had to say during his previous sallies in the House. Does he believe that when it comes to a competition between trade and aid the Lomé arrangements could be used to ensure that, as far as possible, self-reliance will be used as a more effective way of encouraging prosperity in the Lomé countries than purely the transfer of charitable aid?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government do not regard it as an either/or situation. It is true that under Lomé development in some countries has not been sufficient to ensure self-reliance. In some countries there is too great a dependence upon particular crops. Nevertheless, aid and trade have a major role to play, and we shall continue to regard our relationships in the round both at European level and in bilateral terms.

"Grand Theft Auto": Computer Game
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take any action concerning the reported release for sale later this year of a new computer game entitled Grand Theft Auto.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government are very concerned about violent computer games as is the public and the noble Lord who asked the Question. All computer games which encourage or assist in crime or which depict human sexual activity or acts of gross violence must be passed by the British Board of Film Classification, which can refuse classification. If there is a refusal that automatically makes their supply illegal. Grand Theft Auto has not yet been submitted to the BBFC for classification. I understand that it shortly will be.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As this is the first occasion upon which he is speaking from the Government Front Bench, I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well.
Is it true, as reported, that that game includes thefts of cars, joyriding, hit-and-run accidents, and being chased by the police, and that there will be nothing to stop children from buying it? To use current terminology, is that not "off-message" for young people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the courteous welcome that he gave me. This is the first Question that I am answering but not of course the last Question that he is likely to be asking.
I understand that the general description which the noble Lord attached to "Grand Theft Auto" is correct; but I should stress that it has not yet been submitted for classification. If it fails to receive classification, any supply would be unlawful. One has to bear in mind the vice of these computer games. They deal not just with the type of activity to which the noble Lord has referred but also with acts of gross violence. I heard a rumour that some transactions between Miss Widdecombe and Mr. Howard were going to be translated into a video game, possibly entitled "A Touch of Darkness".

Stonehenge
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What principles they propose to apply in determining the future of Stonehenge and its environs, and whether they will develop a coherent policy co-ordinating heritage, environmental and road transport issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's principles in determining the future of Stonehenge will be to safeguard the integrity of the monument and to provide civilised public access to it. As the noble Lord will be aware, English Heritage has applied to the Millennium Commission for a grant towards the cost of its scheme for a Stonehenge millennial park. A decision should be reached in September. The Government should not seek to influence the commission's decision on any particular project, but we support English Heritage's aim of restoring Stonehenge to its original chalk downland and replacing the existing visitor facilities, which the PAC has described as a national disgrace, with better provision which does not intrude upon the grandeur of the site.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his positive response. Elements of it have a familiar ring, although there are also positive elements. Is the noble Lord aware that when I became a member of the Ancient Monuments Board in 1974 it was his noble friend Lady Birk who was charged in this House with answering such matters, and answer them she did very effectively. But the answer was in some respects much the same as the one we have heard this day. Since 1974, successive governments have done nothing to improve the environs of Stonehenge which was then the same national disgrace as it is today. Can we perhaps hope for some more rapid progress on the matter than we have experienced during the past 23 years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to have the noble Lord's confirmation that this is a matter which is above party politics. He will be as aware as I am, and as the House will be, that these matters are not entirely in the hands of the Government. The Secretary of State for National Heritage is the owner of the site and English Heritage manages it on his behalf. The surrounding land is owned largely by the National Trust, but other land is owned by the MoD and by private owners. The difficulty in all these matters, as the noble Lord will be aware, is to bring all these interests together to reach a solution. I had hoped that my indication that the Millennium Commission would be reaching a conclusion in September would have encouraged the noble Lord to think that his long trek might finally be at an end.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the millennium has nothing to do with
260
the pre-Christian edifice at Stonehenge? The millennium relates to the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of our Saviour. It has nothing whatever to do with Stonehenge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to use the words "broad church" in the presence of the noble Earl, but there are people of a variety of faiths and people of no faith in this country all of whom feel that the millennium that we are about to celebrate has an application to all the people of this country. In those circumstances, surely one of the most distinguished and ancient of our monuments is perfectly proper for celebration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that part of English Heritage's package included a tunnel? Does he also agree that the longer the whole package waits, the more expensive it will be? Would it not be good if some decision were reached soon so that the noble Lord could share his summer solstice with the Druids?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recall the noble Baroness's response to a similar Question asked by her noble friend Lord Renfrew in November of last year. She confirmed, as I have to confirm, that the long tunnel, which was the only solution acceptable to the Planning Advisory Conference in 1995, is just not affordable by this or any Government. Therefore any alternative which can be put forward which will reduce the cost will be considered with considerable sympathy by this Government.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, do not these questions about helping us to see Stonehenge better and more easily lead us along the false trail of making Stonehenge into a kind of Disneyland? Stonehenge rests partly on its great inaccessibility. It was a myth; it was Druid; it was mistletoe; but it was not something for crowds to attend. It was never intended as such. Will the noble Lord not be led away by the desire to get as many people as possible there at any one moment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no intention of being led in that direction, nor has English Heritage. The proposals are for an improved visitor centre three kilometres away—in other words, well out of sight—with a land train going to within only one kilometre of the site. As I said in my original Answer, the object is that Stonehenge should remain as close as possible to its original chalk downland. The suggestion of a Disneyland is very far from the truth.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the committee which I set up in 1984 to lay down the principles to which I am so glad the Government are subscribing? Is it true that the last great hurdle before progress can be made is a tunnel? Is there any fall-back provision if the Millennium Fund does not come up with that £300 million?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surrounded by people who have far longer experience

261
of Stonehenge than I do and I am grateful for the knowledge which they convey to me. The noble Lord is right in saying that if the entire scheme were to stand or fall on a £300 million tunnel the possibility of it being achieved would be very poor. The scheme before the Millennium Commission is not for a long tunnel, but for a smaller scheme. It is still expensive at £68 million but, with the support of the private finance initiative, it could go ahead with more modest resources.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will my noble friend and the House bear in mind that the stones for Stonehenge came from Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to pay tribute to those in Wales, and indeed in little England beyond Wales, who contributed the stones and their labour to the original construction of Stonehenge.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that I was encouraged by his initial answer to my noble friend Lord Renfrew, but I was worried when he suddenly used the word "affordable"? That is very much a value judgment. Surely, as regards a matter as important as Stonehenge, only the right and acceptable solution should be put into force. That means that it must be affordable.
I had hoped that, with the sentiment in his manifesto that the environment would be at the centre of all decisions, we could be confident that under this Government such a major and crucial project not only for Britain but for the world will be undertaken in an acceptable way. Can I hope that this Government will not, in however many years they are in power, leave behind any more Twyford Downs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling me his noble friend, but I shall not fall into his trap. Certainly, his Front Bench would not let me get away with saying that any scheme was above being affordable; in other words, that there were not monetary considerations. Stonehenge is a world heritage site and our management of Stonehenge, although it may be defective in some ways, meets the criteria of UNESCO for a world heritage site. It is within that context that we must consider what is affordable.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as many people as possible should see Stonehenge? I live in the west country and sometimes travel on the A.303. Many people travel on that road and see Stonehenge clearly. There is no need to go right up to it. I am very encouraged by the Minister's comment about a tunnel being unaffordable, because if a tunnel were built people would not see the monument. I can see no reason why a dual carriageway cannot be built there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the English Heritage proposal would involve some road closures, although not the A.303. Inevitably, there is a conflict between accessibility and maintaining the integrity of a site. If you have access so that everybody can see it from close by, nobody will see it as it was intended to be seen. There is no solution to that.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Bank of England.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the grant of, and sums payable in respect of, licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 other than television licences, and about the promotion of the efficient use and management of the electro-magnetic spectrum for wireless telegraphy; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [H.L.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the Special Immigration Appeals Commission; to make provision with respect to its jurisdiction; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business Improvement Districts Bill [H.L.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment and administration of business improvement districts. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to seek their agreement thereto.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Merlyn-Rees—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside. As an internationally renowned architect of great distinction and with many other interests, I know that he will make a very valuable contribution to our debates.
Looking at the list of Members of your Lordships' House the other day, I was particularly struck by the number of former education and employment Secretaries of State who now grace the Lords. I believe that when the new Members soon to be introduced have taken their seats there will be 13 previous employment or education Secretaries of State in this House. I cannot disguise the fact, nor should I, that 11 of these—or, as my statisticians tell me, 85 per cent.—are on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps there should be a small prize for any speaker who can produce the full list, with dates, before the end of the debate. I particularly look forward to help and support from the two distinguished Labour former Secretaries of State, my noble friends Lady Castle of Blackburn and Lord Glenamara. I am sure that I shall benefit greatly from their wisdom and experience.
I wish to open our debate by saying how privileged I am to be presenting details of the Government's measures—ambitious measures—to improve the standards for all in our education system. It is a privilege not only for me as a member of Her Majesty's Government, but also as someone who has personally spent a number of years—some would say too many years—in the field of education. I am also pleased to be presenting details of three other Bills, to which I shall briefly return later.
264
I will now turn to the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech: raising standards in education. Oscar Wilde wrote:
"The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound".
I would not go as far as Mr. Wilde. But I would say that urgent and, in places, radical changes are needed to our education system. The government measures before you offer the "change" which is necessary to equip every young person not only for their working lives but for life in the 21st century. As we move towards the millennium, we cannot afford to continue with a second rate education service. Our commitment to achieving a first-class education system can be judged by the speed at which we have secured space in the forthcoming legislative programme.
We have a long and tough journey ahead of us. The measures I shall highlight shortly are pivotal in helping us to prepare for that journey. We must not be side-tracked from our number one priority of raising our education standards.
There are two Bills that we shall introduce: the first will withdraw from the assisted places scheme, in order to pay for smaller class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds; the second will introduce a number of measures specifically aimed at raising standards. As a grandmother, with a five and a half year-old in a primary school, I do not believe that any child of that age should be in a class with more than 30 children in it.
Since the early 1990s we have seen a worrying increase in pupil to teacher ratio and class sizes. In January 1996 around 440,000 five, six and seven year-olds were in classes with more than 30 pupils in England alone—an unacceptable level.
One of our first tasks will be to reduce class sizes for the five, six and seven year-olds. We will finance this through the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. It is right that we use these resources to benefit all children not just the few who benefit from the assisted places scheme. We believe that the money that we save from the assisted places scheme should be used for the benefit of all of our children in those crucial early years of schooling. We should not continue with subsidies for the privileged few to attend private schools. We shall, of course, honour those who have been offered places for entry this September and those already in assisted places can remain. But from September 1998, no further intakes to the scheme will be made. We intend to raise standards in our state schools, not to use scarce resources to buy places in independent schools.
I have mentioned briefly the need to raise standards in education. Raising standards is at the heart of our education policy. This Bill on raising standards, which will follow a White Paper in the summer, will set out government measures particularly aimed at raising standards.
This Government, unlike the last, are totally committed to tackling the poor standards in our schools. We shall "go back to basics" and begin with the three Rs. In last year's national tests only half of our 11 year-olds—finishing their crucial primary school years—reached the standard in maths which is expected

265
of their age group. In English, I am afraid that the story was only marginally better where only 57 per cent. met the required standard.
All of the international indicators show that we are way behind our competitors in the three Rs. We need to bridge that gap. The place to start is in primary schools. We have, therefore, set ourselves demanding, but achievable, targets to respond to poor standards in literacy and numeracy. These targets were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 13th May.
It is now time for action. The rhetoric must end. We shall take steps to tackle the weakness in basic skills and raise standards. We shall do so by promoting a firm mastery of mental arithmetic (and ensuring that our children are not over-reliant on calculators), and by improving poor levels of reading by various methods including through the teaching of phonics. We have turned these objectives into targets, targets which are demanding but necessary in order to raise standards. By the time we reach the national tests in 2002 our intention is that 75 per cent. of 11 year-olds will reach the required standards in maths; and for English, 80 per cent. of 11 year-olds will reach the standards expected for their age.
We cannot do that alone. To take forward these ambitious targets, we have set up a Literacy Task Force, and formally established a Numeracy Task Force (both of which will include membership from the field of education). We shall work with LEAs to deliver those performance improvements.
Over time, we shall also ensure that "baseline assessment" is available for all children in the basics of language and literacy, mathematics and personal and social development.
We must also raise the standards for those who have special educational needs. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will agree that each child with special educational needs must be treated as an individual, recognising that the specific needs of those children will vary enormously. All children—and young people—are entitled to an education which gives them an equal opportunity to succeed.
I shall not disguise our commitment to, where possible. integrate children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. Equally we must also recognise that for some children special facilities are essential. In March this year, we published our consultation paper, Every Child is Special, which identified:
"nine key areas for raising standards of special education".
Over the coming weeks we will be explaining how we can raise these standards further. Providing for children with special educational needs is one part, and an essential part, of raising standards for all children.
If I may, I would like to pause at this juncture and mention my department's commitment to helping those with disabilities. As I said earlier, the Queen's Speech sets out an ambitious but achievable programme of legislation. But I accept, of course, that there may be
266
some who are disappointed that the programme does not include a Bill to establish a commission with a disability remit.
Let there be no doubt, that should not be seen as any lessening of this Government's commitment to comprehensive and enforceable anti-discrimination legislation. We shall be consulting widely and developing our proposals in partnership with interested parties. The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment and Equal Opportunities have already begun to meet representatives of disability and business organisations in order to inform their view of the best way forward. We shall build on those initial links.
There has been criticism about the ministerial titles of my honourable friends. I make clear that the Government are not short-changing the interests of disabled people simply because the word "disability" does not appear. Rather, we are strengthening our commitment to the proper representation of their interests by ensuring that they are recognised and taken into account fully across all of our policies and programmes. That is because we believe firmly that disabled people deserve the same access to education, employment and social opportunities as everyone else. They deserve it in their own right. No one should doubt this Government's commitment to working towards that goal.
In the meantime, the Disability Discrimination Act will remain in place. The Government recognise that the Act is flawed. It is neither comprehensive nor easily enforceable. But it is the first legislation of its kind in Europe. Let us be sufficiently open-minded to recognise that there might be useful lessons to learn from these early stages of implementation of the Act, when we come to introduce our own legislation.
The Act's secondary powers also allow us to alter and even broaden the effect of the legislation. We shall want to consider using these powers where they would prove most beneficial; for example, we shall wish to look closely at the current threshold in the employment provisions of the Act.
If I may, I should now like to turn to the issue of failing schools. Our policy statement in the area is quite clear:
"We will not tolerate failing schools".
We have inherited nearly 300 schools which, sadly, are failing. We are determined to get to grips with the issue of failing schools—I am not afraid to say that we shall tackle this head on.
The Government have today identified a number of failing schools—18 of them—which are making limited progress after a considerable period on special measures. We shall be providing extra help for those schools through consultancy from experienced headteachers and through intervention with their LEA. Any failing school which is unable to improve will be closed and a fresh start ordered.
Those schools which are improving will be encouraged and supported in order to continue the improvement. We shall do everything that we possibly

267
can to help those schools succeed. Where good schools co-exist with bad, we shall bring them in to support the "failing school" on a path to success. We have called for urgent action on the schools which are failing and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave details of this earlier today.
It would be wrong to join the bandwagon of pundits who see no good in our teachers or their standards. I have no intention of doing so. But we must ensure that where the teaching standards are weak, these are addressed. We shall raise these standards in a number of ways. Perhaps I may give your Lordships two such examples: we shall make provision to establish a general teaching council—similar to that which has been operating in Scotland over the past 30 years—to, "speak for and raise standards in the profession". In addition, the council will be responsible for regulating the teaching profession and for promoting teaching as a career. We shall consult widely on the council's composition and functions.
As I am sure noble Lords will agree, effective leadership by headteachers is a key to raising standards. We shall ensure that headteachers are fully trained to take on the responsibilities placed upon them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 15th May our plans to introduce a mandatory qualification for all new headteachers. In future, no one will be appointed as a new school leader until that person has demonstrated that he or she is fully trained to accept and carry out the responsibilities of leadership. The qualification will be useful to governors when appointing headteachers.
Parents are quite rightly asking for an increasing say in how schools are run. We accept that parents are key stakeholders in their children's education. To respond to this, we intend to increase "parent power". We shall introduce measures which ensure that more parents are appointed as governors and, for the first time, parents will have representation on local education authorities. However, partnership needs to work in both ways. One of our major objectives is to promote a culture of responsibility for learning within the family. We shall do this through contracts between all schools and parents. These contracts, which already exist in a number of schools, will set out roles and responsibilities for each party: parents will be expected to ensure that their children attend school regularly, accept the school's code of contract and support their child's learning. The school will offer suitable and challenging learning and, of course, keep parents informed. Again, we shall be consulting on the precise details.
Although it is not part of this Bill, I should like to mention briefly the Government's plans on nursery education. We have made no secret of our intention to abandon nursery vouchers. We shall honour our commitment to continue with existing vouchers, but no new vouchers will be issued beyond the first term of the school year. However, let me make clear that this Government are committed to ensuring that nursery education is in place for all four year-olds who want it. Targets will also be set for raising standards of our nurseries and we shall extend the entitlement over time to nursery provision for three year-olds. As someone
268
who started her career 30 years ago studying the expansion of nursery education, this gives me enormous personal satisfaction. Further details of our plans for three and four year-olds will be in the forthcoming White Paper.
There has been considerable debate recently about the most effective school structures—grant maintained, selective and so on. Unlike our predecessors, this Government's priority is standards, not structure. We spent far too much time over the past decade in unproductive wrangles about structure. They have caused nothing but division and bitterness and have wasted energy and effort which could have been put to much better use. We want to put all that behind us. Our concern is to ensure the best possible quality of teaching and learning in every school. To do that teachers, governors and others will have to be involved in the whole process. The Government have made clear that they intend to introduce a new framework of foundation, community and aided schools which will better promote those wider objectives of raising standards. The framework will replace grant-maintained status and will incorporate existing grant-maintained schools. These plans were set out in our policy paper, Diversity and Excellence. We shall include provisions to implement these proposals and to repeal the existing legislation on grant-maintained status.
We shall be issuing further details of the proposals as soon as possible. They will be worked up in consultation with the partners concerned, including the GM sector itself. We stated in our manifesto that GM schools will prosper in this new framework, as will every school. There are some excellent GM schools, just as there are many excellent LEA schools. We welcome, and want to work with, all those who are prepared to work with us. We want to foster and encourage excellence wherever it occurs, irrespective of legal status and artificial boundaries. Any talk of abolishing GM schools is nonsense. GM schools will continue to serve their local communities, and will have the same opportunities as all other schools to flourish in the new environment.
The education of our nation should not stand still. We must learn throughout life to retain employment through new and improved skills. We shall promote "continuous learning" in the workplace and, through the further education sector, we shall support broader A-levels and upgraded vocational qualifications. Employers have the primary responsibility for training their workforce, but individuals should be given the power to invest in training. We shall invest public money for training in "individual learning accounts". We shall kick-start this innovative programme by helping up to 1 million—yes 1 million people—by providing a contribution of £150, alongside a small investment from the individual. We shall encourage employers to make voluntary contributions to these funds. Our new "University for Industry" (collaborating with the Open University) will bring new opportunities to adults who wish to develop their potential further. The University for Industry will be a public/private partnership, commissioning software and developing the key links to extend lifelong learning.

269
And we shall not forget our children as they get older. As they near school leaving age, they have vital decisions to make and many routes that they can take. We are committed to giving them every assistance and the Bill will introduce measures to improve vocational training. It will provide far more experience for 14 to 16 year-olds and give young people in work the right to continue their studies. After all, this age group is the vanguard of the taskforce of young people for the next century.
The previous Government's policy on student loans and fees was unfair and unwieldy. We have submitted evidence to Sir Ron Dearing's National Committee of Inquiry. In line with our manifesto commitment we would like to improve and expand higher education, funded by the repayment of the costs of student maintenance by graduates on an income-related basis with longer payback periods. We await with great interest Sir Ron's findings.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned three Bills which will be taken forward by the Department of the Environment. There will be a Bill to deal with the phased release of set-aside capital receipts. As I said in my opening remarks, the Local Government (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill will enable the Government to fulfil our manifesto commitment to the phased release of these capital receipts from the sale of council houses. It will amend the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to enable the issue of supplementary credit approvals which take account of capital receipts set aside for the repayment of debt. This is a major breakthrough to free local authorities from the shackles.
The Regional Development Agencies Bill to establish regional development agencies will fulfil our manifesto commitment to support local economic growth. The agencies will have a range of functions, including encouraging inward investment and helping small businesses. I know that my noble friend Lady Hayman will say more about that later. The Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill will provide for an assembly and a mayor for London, both directly elected if Londoners vote in favour, as we expect they will.
As regards agriculture, there are a number of measures we shall be pursuing including measures on BSE. We shall make early progress on the lifting of the export ban on British beef. The Government will pursue further reforms to the common agricultural policy in order to provide more effective support for farming communities and to redirect CAP funds for the benefit of the broader rural community. The common fisheries policy requires a long overdue change. We shall explore measures to achieve a more effective conservation of fish stocks; we shall also safeguard the future of our fishing industry.
As I mentioned at the start of the debate, I am privileged to be opening the debate for the Government—the first debate by a Labour Minister of education or employment for the past 18 years in this House. Eighteen long years have passed and the new Government need to act quickly to reverse the trend in falling standards in our schools. The government
270
measures aimed at raising these standards are at the heart of the Queen's Speech. All of the measures—ambitious measures by anyone's standards—we have set out in the forthcoming legislative programme. They confirm our commitment to start immediate work in raising standards in education, health, employment and other priority areas.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I start by saying how much we on this side of the House look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. I thank the noble Baroness for providing me with what I hope might in future be some valuable information; namely, that there are some 13 previous Secretaries of State for either employment or education in this House and fortunately 11 are or will be on this side of the House. I dare say that with the burden of legislative business coming from her department over the following years I shall find those 11 extra colleagues of considerable use. I shall certainly seek their expertise.
I repeat the congratulations I offered to the noble Baroness and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on their first performance in a major debate. I served some two years in the now merged Department for Education and Employment, from the merger until the election. It was a job that I greatly enjoyed and I was greatly honoured to have been asked to do it. I dare say that the responsibilities I had are somewhat different from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, but I am sure that she will find that job equally exciting and stimulating. I am sure that she will also find all those in the merged department wonderful people to work with who will be enormously helpful.
I do not envy the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, her new role in environment, transport, the regions and, dare I say it, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I think she will find herself, as the Lords' spokesman for such a large department, at the Dispatch Box far far more often than she cares to think. The Government in both their manifesto before the election and in the gracious Speech put education very much at the top of their priorities. I, because of my former responsibilities and my responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench, intend to concentrate my remarks on education. When my noble friend Lord Lucas speaks towards the end of the debate he will deal with some of the other matters that have been raised by the noble Baroness and will also respond to some of the points relating to those other departments.
Before I get on to education matters I wish to say a word or two about disability matters because the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised them. As I said yesterday, I welcome the fact that the disability unit and all disability matters have been brought into the merged Department for Education and Employment. That is a welcome step and it is a much more appropriate site for such matters than the Department of Social Security. Although I do not agree with the analysis of the noble Baroness as regards the Disability Discrimination Act being an inadequate Act, I welcome the fact that she gave some reassurance that she would see that that Act

271
was given time to work and that lessons were learnt from that Act so that disabled people could benefit as much as possible and play as full a part in society as they ought.
Raising educational standards is a good on which we can all agree. Obviously where we differ is on the means of achieving that good. I wish to say just a little about what we have achieved over the past 18 years. I do not believe that those achievements have been recognised by the party opposite. I think we have achieved a great deal. We have seen some great changes in the world of education. We, when in government during those 18 years, quite rightly pursued a policy of extending choice to parents and creating greater diversity in education; of delegating power to schools to allow them to develop as they wished; and of creating a whole range and variety of different types of schools allowing parents greater choice over which of those types of school they would like to make use of.
At the same time we brought in mechanisms to ensure that standards were maintained, with a national curriculum covering the whole of England and Wales and with proper and regular inspection by a new independent inspectorate. I remind noble Lords that before we had that new independent inspectorate in the form of Ofsted, secondary schools could expect to be inspected something in the order of once every 60 years. With the creation of Ofsted we saw every school being inspected, roughly speaking, once every four years. If the noble Baroness likes to complain about the number of failing schools, at least we now know they were failing. Before we had Ofsted we did not know that.
We saw the creation of local management of schools delegating power to schools. We saw the creation of grant-maintained schools. We saw the creation of the specialist colleges specialising within the national curriculum in languages, sport, the arts and technology. We saw the creation of city technology colleges. We have not heard from the Government what their plans are on the city technology colleges. We have heard some rumours that they wish to see them go, but again I would welcome assurances from the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate that that is not the case. We saw the creation of the assisted places scheme, a scheme of which we are proud, which allowed many children from less well off families to experience education other than in the maintained sector—in the private sector. I shall have more to say about that in the future.
We saw more information provided to parents through prospectuses and the performance tables that we have now extended to the primary schools. Against the opposition of the party opposite and much of the Leftist education establishment, we saw testing extended to all seven, 11 and 14 year-olds, and the results of those tests made available to parents so that the parents could make a proper, informed choice about the appropriate school for their child. They would know exactly how their child and the school were performing in relation to others rather than simply having an LEA impose a school on the parents with the only choice thereafter being brought about by moving—that is, choice by mortgage—rather than through proper parental control.
272
Despite the rhetoric of the claims made by the party opposite over the years, our reforms were yielding considerable results. There was a steady increase in the results at GCSE. Much the same applied to the results at A-level. Despite what some critics say, standards were not declining. We saw new qualifications such as the GNVQ designed to bridge the academic vocational gap. We saw that qualification increasingly recognised as a means alongside A-levels for entry into university. We have seen the numbers of 18 year-olds going to university double and double again during those allegedly sterile years. We now have almost one in three 18 year-olds going on to university; and one in two can expect some degree of higher education at some point in their lives.
Yet the manifesto of the party opposite on higher education could only say that South Korea sends a higher percentage of its children to universities. It did not mention comparative graduation rates. When the noble Baroness winds up, I shall be interested to know what they are. Nor did the manifesto mention that, after Denmark, we have the second highest graduation rate in Europe. That is an achievement of which we can be very proud indeed.
In the gracious Speech the Government stressed the priority of education. As I said earlier, that is not one with which we can argue. Two Bills were promised in the gracious Speech: first, a Bill to cut class sizes by abolition of the assisted places scheme; and, secondly, a Bill which will,
"contain further measures to raise educational standards, develop a new role for local education authorities and parents, establish a new framework for the decentralised and equitable organisation of schools, propose reforms to the teaching profession, and respond positively to recommendations from the National Committee of Inquiry into the future of higher education".
I wish to press the noble Baroness on a number of aspects relating to the proposed legislation. First, as regards the assisted places scheme abolition Bill (whatever it may be called), last Wednesday the Lord Privy Seal mentioned that there would be two Bills requiring our agreement before the Summer Recess: that relating to the referendums on devolution and another concerning the assisted places scheme. We had an assurance, I think last Thursday, given by the leader in another place that, although the usual time limits will not be adhered to with regard to the referendums Bill, that will not be a precedent for other Bills. I take it, therefore, that the Government will adhere in this House and in another place to the proper minimum intervals as laid down in the Companion to the Standing Orders and will not attempt to railroad this measure through without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I take it that the noble Baroness will be able to give me that firm assurance and that the measure—although the Government will try to make it sound deceptively simple, it is not that simple; it affects a great many people—will have proper parliamentary scrutiny in this House and in another place.
That brings me to my second question relating to the assisted places scheme and the Government's proposals. The gracious Speech said that the Government would cut class sizes, using the money saved as a result of their

273
phasing out of the assisted places scheme. How much money do the Government believe will be saved? When the noble Baroness replies, will she give me the proper net figure after the cost of absorbing the extra children from the assisted places scheme into the LEA schools, into the maintained schools? Will she also tell us how long it will be before those savings come through? How many extra teachers will the savings pay for? By my fairly simple reckoning, with matchsticks, it will be just a small number of extra teachers for each local education authority. What effect will that have?
Further, how will the legislation enforce the proposal? Will it become illegal to have classes with over 30 children? Will parents who wish to send their child to a popular school be turned away from that school in order to keep the numbers artificially down, forcing those parents to use schools which they do not wish to use? I should like the noble Baroness to tell us a little about the mechanics of the Bill and the Government's proposals.
I turn now to the second Bill and the manifesto commitments of the party opposite, now the Government. We are promised a further Bill to raise standards. Despite the stress laid by new Labour on education, one cannot help but fear what the reality will be. Labour, new, old and, dare I say it, very old, has been running education in some local education authorities for years. The results, I think that all of us would agree, are not happy. When the noble Baroness responds, will she list the 10 worst performing local authorities? I suspect that all of them will be traditional Labour strongholds.
If one takes Islington, why is it that 43 per cent. of all parents, including the Prime Minister, choose to send their children out of the borough? Indeed, will it even be possible for them to do so under the new legislation?
Obviously I do not wish too much to hark back to the past and to all the Leftist dogmas in education which have been supported by Labour and by its fellow travellers over the past 30 years. I wish to look at what is being proposed and to ask a number of questions. We are now promised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a White Paper followed by a Bill. I dare say that much of it will build on what is in the manifesto. Much of that we can support, because much of it we have already initiated or encouraged schools to do. I note that the manifesto refers to earlier assessment of children, better basic teaching, grouping of pupils by ability, and attainment in primary and secondary schools. That must have stuck in the throats of quite a few members of new Labour, or even old Labour. But it is something that we have encouraged for some time. The manifesto refers to better testing and assessment, with target setting of approved results. Again we have been doing that for some time and have encouraged it. Much of this comes pretty oddly from the mouth of Labour, old or new.
However, there is much else that fills one with considerable disquiet or even alarm. I shall list some aspects. Are the remaining grammar schools really safe, as was implied during the election? Already we have CASE (the Campaign for State Education), with Labour
274
activists in some areas gearing up to attack the remaining grammar schools. What support will the Government provide, or will they allow the elections to be so rigged against the schools that they disappear? The manifesto merely says that their future is up to the parents affected. I shall be interested to know how those parents affected will be defined. Will they be defined in somewhat wider terms than in, say, the referendums on devolution? I understand that only those in Scotland will be allowed to vote in Scotland but not those with wider interests. I dare say that as regards grammar schools and elections the definition of parents affected will go considerably wider than parents with children at the school.
What about the Government's plans for partially selective schools, in particular those in the grant-maintained sector? What are their plans for the specialist schools? Will the schools still be allowed to select on ability or aptitude within their own areas? What about the grant-maintained schools generally? We are told that they will still exist. However, what we know from government intentions is that they are to be emasculated and returned to local education authority control.
That brings me to the vital question: what exactly is the new role that is promised for the local education authorities; and, dare I say it, will that new role also apply to Islington and other such authorities?
Returning to the manifesto, what is the better homework provision? How on earth will that be enforced? Is it even a matter in which governments should be involved? Is it not far better left to the schools themselves to achieve?
Finally, what changes are proposed for A-levels? The Government have threatened changes; they have threatened to widen the scope of A-levels. But do they not accept the Dearing recommendations of barely two years ago which left them as they are but with a number of changes?
Those are just some of the questions that I wish to raise. No doubt I, my 11 colleagues and many others will wish to raise a great many more in the course of the debates on the education Bills that we face over the coming years. No doubt the noble Baroness, myself and others will have many a late night debating some of those measures. Over the past few years in government I have become rather used to late nights. I certainly welcome the opportunity to allow both noble Baronesses the opportunity to get used to them in exactly the same way.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin, a little unusually, by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the Opposition Benches. It is a somewhat unusual experience for me to see him in profile rather than, to borrow the Minister's phrase of yesterday, full frontal. I am not sure it is a terribly great improvement.
I listened with care and interest to all the noble Lord's remarks. As I have said before, it is often easier to agree in Opposition about those matters to which we are opposed than about those upon which we agree. The

275
noble Lord made a few remarks with which I am in agreement and I shall turn to them later. I listened to his perhaps inevitable comments on the achievements of the past 18 years. I believe that those achievements came about more in spite of, than because of, the previous Government. As the noble Lord rightly said, there were achievements. However, life was certainly not made easier for the education world.
Today I want to look to the future, not to the past. I am sure that that will be the tone of the debate. I wish to begin—the latest in a long line of people—by offering the Minister very warm and sincere congratulations on her appointment. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady David, she and I were at the University of Sussex a week ago today. We had lunch with the vice-chancellor and a number of his staff. I am sure the noble Baroness will bear me out when I say that there was a very warm welcome for the Minister's appointment—not, I hasten to say, on party political lines but because, to use their words, "she is one of us; at least she is from our sector of education, someone who knows and understands the issues and problems involved and will know what she is talking about".
I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that with that warm welcome come high expectations. I do not need to tell her that to fulfil those high, perhaps unreal, expectations will be a very tough job indeed. However, to the extent to which she tries to fulfil those expectations she will certainly receive the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches and we will do all that we can to support her.
The fulfilment of some of those expectations will depend upon the recommendations in the Dearing Report, of which we shall no doubt hear more later in the Session. At this stage, I welcome the Government's commitment at least to a positive response to those recommendations. Clearly, our debate will be better informed when we see exactly what they are.
I am also very pleased to see the Government recognising at the start of their term the importance of life-long learning. I welcome the statements made by the Minister herself on that subject, on the importance of making life-long learning accessible to all, about breaking down the barriers. She, better than most of us, knows the importance of that. Given her background, I should expect no less; nevertheless I welcome it.
I also welcome her comments today about disablement—and the transfer of the disability unit to her department—which we, too, wholly support—and her determination to tackle discrimination in the area of disability. It is a subject of particular interest to me because my late but not lamented Member of Parliament had some part in scuppering the original Private Member's Bill in another place. We have felt deeply ashamed of that ever since. Therefore any measures that can be taken to tackle the issue will receive a warm welcome from us.
The gracious Speech expresses almost at the outset the commitment:
"The education of young people will he my Government's first priority".
276
It is a priority that we share, as it is, I am sure, on all sides of the House. We recognise that the Government have got off to a cracking start. The first 10 days have gone at a phenomenal pace which I suspect will not be maintained even for the first 100 days, never mind the next five years. Speaking personally, I hope that the pace is not maintained; if it is, I believe some of us will struggle to keep up. But in a sense the first 10 days are the easy part, as I am sure Ministers will recognise. It may not feel easy to them, given the rapid learning curve they face; however, it is the easy part. We come soon to the real challenges.
One of the main challenges is to change the climate in education. If the Government are to succeed in the endeavours shared by all of us they must change that climate from one of blame to one of shared responsibility. Any approach must work in partnership with all sectors of education and all those in education. I recognise that to be the intention of the Government—certainly their stated intention. The Secretary of State got off to a good start in two ways. The first was his meeting with all the DfEE staff. I was not there, but from all reports it seems to have gone very well, as I am sure was recognised. It is clearly impossible for him to meet specifically with all the other people in the education world. However, his letter to head teachers and governors set the right tone and that is welcome too.
We also welcome and support the setting of targets. It is important to have standards of measurement. However, I have some worries. I see some clouds on the horizon. I wish to caution the Government, in their enthusiasm for raising standards and achieving targets, against being over-prescriptive and over-controlling from the centre. It is a very easy trap into which to fall, albeit from perhaps the best and most benevolent of motives.
I feel uneasy about even the description, "failing schools". I wish to examine more closely the announcement that I understand is being made today about the naming of 18 such schools. While I do not doubt the intentions behind that, I worry about the fulfilment of those intentions. Inevitably, there is a little too much "name and blame" in that approach, a little too much recrimination. While I know that heads are enormously important to the management and success of schools, I am instinctively wary of so-called "super" heads. Most heads are super in some way or another and that worries me. I fear that at least part of that approach is motivated by a desire of the Government to be seen to be tougher than the Tories. I very much hope that I shall be proved wrong. We shall wait and watch with interest, but with some concern, especially if the measure is to extend beyond 18 schools.
I worry about the over-prescriptive inclinations of the Government. My worries were enhanced when I read the article in the Independent on 23rd February this year in which the now Secretary of State said that he intended to,
"lay down from the centre exactly how reading should he taught".
We heard again today about the Government laying down regulation regarding minimum homework levels, and so on. All of us, as parents, grandparents, school

277
governors or even sometimes in the education profession, will have personal views about what is appropriate in terms of the teaching of reading, the amount of homework set and so on. But it is not for us as politicians to be prescriptive. It is for teachers to teach, not for politicians to tell them how to teach and how to organise their classes. It is our job as politicians to set the policy framework, to determine the priorities and targets we wish to see achieved and, above all, to provide the resources to enable our professionals to do the job for which they are trained. Ultimately, it is not politicians who will raise education standards, it is our teachers. We need to give them the tools and the climate in which to succeed.
There is tremendous good will for the Government in the education world. If we are to succeed in our common objectives, the Government must build on that good will and treat teachers, governors, schools and local education authorities as equal partners who deserve to be listened to and heard. There is a difference.
In that context, we would certainly welcome the establishment of a general teaching council. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will remember a debate in this House not long ago, in the not too early hours of the morning, on exactly that subject. I suspect that the noble Lord will recall that in rejecting my amendment he prayed in aid the fact that there was not general agreement on the nature of a general teaching council, and, furthermore, perhaps more surprisingly, the National Union of Teachers appeared not to be wholly in favour. I commented at that time that it must have been the first time in 18 years that the then Government had prayed in aid the National Union of Teachers and delayed going ahead with very necessary measures because "there was not general agreement". Nevertheless, that is in the past, and we shall not dwell on the past.
During the election and subsequently, the now Prime Minister said that he had three top priorities: education, education, and education. The Liberal Democrats share those priorities and we have an equal commitment to the three "Rs"—our three "Rs"—resources, resources and resources. While partnership is vitally important, so too are resources. All the fine intentions cannot be fulfilled without additional resources. Yet the Government are committed to keeping within the previous Government's spending plans, at least for the next two years. That means less money, not more money, for education in the coming financial year. That is one pledge from opposition that I fervently hope that the Government will break.
I recognise though that the Government are committed over time to increasing the share of gross domestic product spent on education. But an increase of 0.1 per cent.—the lowest perceptible increase in gross domestic product—will mean an additional £3 billion a year to be spent on education. My party and I will be the first to welcome that, if and when it happens. The nation expects it to happen; education deserves it to happen. We need to know from the Government where that money will come from, given the commitments they
278
have made elsewhere. I have said many times in this Chamber that the problems in education cannot be solved simply by throwing money at them. But I have always matched that by saying that they will not be solved without that additional money.
I turn now to the specific proposals: first, the assisted places scheme. We welcome the proposals to phase out the scheme. One reason why I personally welcome it is because presumably this is the last year when we will have to go through the ritualistic annual debate on the subject where we all try to find different ways of saying the same things. Education spending is about priorities. All spending is about priorities, particularly education. Spending money, scarce resources, on a relatively small number of people cannot be the right priority. Reducing class sizes must be a higher priority. So we wholly support the Government's intentions there.
But why only class sizes for five to seven year-olds? I accept that if we can only have part of the cake, that is the right place to start. But what happens to children when they reach the age of seven? Here perhaps I should declare an interest. I am governor of a junior school which caters for children from the ages of seven to 11. But that is a problem which the Government need to recognise and address. What will happen to children at the age of seven, whether they move to a different junior school or simply progress to a primary school? If they deserve smaller classes at the ages of five to seven, equally they deserve smaller classes at ages seven to 11 and beyond. We need to reduce class sizes for all children, and that is a commitment which my party has made.
I said at the beginning that there were some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with which I agreed. His comment about the funding of the reduction in class sizes was one of them. I do not believe that the money which will be released from the assisted places scheme will be enough to provide for the full funding and the full consequences of reducing class sizes to 30. It is not simply about having more teachers, although we need to know where they will come from and how their training will be paid for. It is about providing more classrooms and in some cases more schools. So the costs—welcome though the expenditure will be—are considerable and the money to be released over a long period from the assisted places scheme will simply not he enough.
We are promised a White Paper on educational standards which we shall read with interest. Much of what has been trailed for the contents of that White Paper we welcome. I have already welcomed the general teaching council and we welcome the requirement for qualifications for head teachers, provided it is linked with proper support and training, not only for head teachers but for all teachers, especially those who wish to become head teachers.
In connection with the White Paper, one part concerns me: the publication date and, more particularly, the consultation period which I understand is likely to be throughout the school holidays. That seems an unfortunate time in which to consult on something so important for the future of education. If most of those

279
mainly affected by the changes are taking their well earned annual holiday, it does not seem to be a good start for a government who, I believe and accept, are genuinely committed to full and proper consultation. There have been humorous remarks about sending the consultation paper to camp sites and gites in France. But it is a serious point. I hope that the Government will consider not necessarily delaying publication of the White Paper but at least allowing a consultation period that recognises reality and enables those most concerned to respond.
We welcome the abolition of nursery vouchers. I listened to what the Minister said and I will read carefully the Official Report tomorrow. It was not clear to me exactly when the vouchers are to be abolished, nor indeed how. I hope that we shall have further clarification.
We welcome the commitment to provide nursery education for all four year-olds, but that is a very modest commitment given that for most four year-olds it is already available. The commitment needs to be to high quality nursery education for all three year-olds as well as four year-olds. That was and remains a top priority for the Liberal Democrats and we were committed to funding it. I hope that the Government will soon recognise that they too should be committed to funding it.
There is one other major issue I wish to mention. It is of considerable importance in the part of London from which I come as it is for local education authorities in much of outer London, around London and in other metropolitan areas. It is something known as the "Greenwich judgment", the judgment which forbids LEAs from giving priority to children in their own area. It is causing major problems to LEAs in all parts of the country of all political complexions, including the still relatively small number of Conservative LEAs. I had some correspondence on the subject with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was Minister. If I remember correctly, his refusal to do anything about it was because, first, he did not recognise that it was too much of a problem and, secondly, because of the Government's misguided but understandable concerns about grant-maintained schools. The present Government clearly do not share that priority and I hope that they will give a commitment to reversing the Greenwich judgment. If that is not possible or they are not willing to act, I hope that they will look seriously at regularising and rationalising the arrangements for school admissions which are causing enormous heartache to parents in many areas who need to have it sorted out.
There are many other issues in education on which I should touch, but I will take no more time except to say that I recognise that the Government have a mandate for their education policies. I hope that the Government will recognise that the Liberal Democrats also have a mandate for their own educational policies. My 46 honourable friends in another place were all elected on a very high profile pledge to increase resources for education, if necessary through taxation. We shall use that mandate on every occasion to press the Government to provide the resources necessary to do the job.
280
Promises without a price tag are meaningless. It will be the job of the Liberal Democrats, with our increased mandate, to ensure that the Government meet the price of their promises.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I begin by saying that I look forward with anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, who is to speak immediately after me.
I welcome the pre-eminent place given to education in the gracious Speech. Our nation faces a number of difficult issues in the years ahead, including the future of work. I believe that those issues are capable of resolution, given a society of men, women and young people for whom lifelong learning is a habit and an expectation. I wish the new administration well in their task. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on her appointment in the Department for Education and Employment and also the noble Baroness the Minister who will reply to the debate.
The contribution of the voluntary sector to the maintained system of education is massive. At the primary level, a third of all schools and a quarter of all pupils are in the voluntary sector. The contribution at secondary and higher education levels is also considerable. Those of us with responsibilities in that sector, not least those in the Churches, share the aims of the Government to raise standards. We look forward to working in partnership to realise those aims.
The gracious Speech sets out some of the ways in which the Government propose to deliver means for achieving those aims. The emphasis upon cutting class sizes is to be welcomed, especially at the primary level. I regret that there has been little emphasis as yet upon parents as first educators. I listened carefully to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she spoke about parents and contracts with schools. I did not hear the emphasis for which I hoped; namely, that it is not only within educational institutions that learning is delivered, particularly in the very early years when basic language is learnt.
Nevertheless, the significance of primary education cannot be over-estimated. I beg to differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in that I believe that the infant years of five to seven have a particular importance and that the necessity of proper support and provision at that stage cannot be over-estimated. I certainly would wish class sizes at that level to be smaller than those for higher age groups. In those years are learnt the skills upon which all learning depends: the skills of literacy and numeracy. Without those basic acquisitions, a child cannot move on to other forms of learning. The need for proper staffing at primary level, and particularly infant level, is paramount.
As we heard, that is to be achieved by phasing out the assisted places scheme. The Churches' view on this proposal is divided, not least because many of the independent schools are Christian foundations. Therefore, I simply give my own view on this matter, which is that whatever position is taken about assisted places, if priorities have to be chosen, the provision of

281
support in primary schools must come first. However, I echo the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Tope, that the arithmetic must be made to add up and must include the additional resources which will be required in the maintained sector for those who, under the present assisted places scheme, might have been in independent schools.
The emphasis upon standards, made so strongly by the previous Government and echoed by this one, is right. But standards at every level will depend upon standards of literacy and numeracy. Many of the proposals which have been made by the Government will receive support certainly from me and I expect from others on the Episcopal Benches of your Lordships' House. We opposed the Bill to launch the nursery voucher scheme without proper trial and we look forward to its abolition. I welcome the words of the noble Baroness the Minister about special educational needs. I believe that the voluntary sector should play a full part in giving provision for those who have such needs. I was glad to hear the emphasis on the standards expected from heads and hope that the training that they are given will include not merely educational training but some emphasis upon other aspects of education, particularly upon values, morality and spirituality. I shall return to that point in a moment. We support strong action to deal with failing schools and look for Church involvement when those schools are Church schools.
I am glad to note the new role intended for local education authorities. I hope that it will mean that the equivocal and indeed at times inconsistent attitudes of the past will be replaced by clear responsibilities and clear support. In the Church of England we have had good relationships between local authorities and diocesan directors of education. Other providers of voluntary education on the whole have the same experience. I spoke earlier this year to the Society of Education Officers, and to many chief education officers. I stressed to them the theme of partnership. We look forward to developing that further with local education authorities.
There are certain omissions in the gracious Speech, notably any reference to further education institutions. I listened carefully to the words of the noble Baroness the Minister and will read in Hansard tomorrow exactly what she said. The further education sector is the largest of all the education sectors. It is a sector which is often unrecognised and hugely underfunded. I have spoken at length with principals of some of those institutions and know the sense of anger which is around in many of them. For them, to talk of higher standards must seem like a shadow. They will be hard put to it to maintain standards, let alone increase them.
Arguably, the chief means by which the Government will have to achieve their aims in education are raising the morale of the teaching profession. In past years there has been a mood—again, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope—of placing upon schools the responsibility, indeed blame, for the ills of our society. It is a mood not calculated to encourage existing teachers nor good recruits to the profession. We all work
282
best with affirmation and clear responsibilities. I sense in the educational journals that I am reading at the moment a new mood of optimism in the teaching profession. The Government will need to work creatively to sustain that mood. I, like others, welcome the possibility of a general teaching council. I have been glad with others in the Churches to have been involved in the preparations for such a council. I look forward to the Bill which will bring about that much needed and long awaited professional body. But raising morale will depend upon consistency and stability in government legislation. In the past, far-reaching and swift changes in funding, curricula and management have not helped morale.
There has been mention of the number of Members of your Lordships' House who have been Secretaries of State for Education. I dare offer the comment that that may be because the post holder has changed with greater frequency than was hoped. Perhaps I may dare hope that the present Secretary of State will remain in post long enough to provide that much needed stability.
I understand the desire of the Government to hit the ground running—a phrase of whose background I am not quite aware but I understand its intention. I hope that that desire will not conflict with the Government's intention to consult fully. Some of those in education remember the awful summer of 1987 before the 1988 Act. We trust that there will be no repeat of that experience.
The Churches continue to be committed to a share in the provision of education in the maintained sector; but we have anxieties. They include the need for recognition of the significance of the voluntary sector and the need for consultation. We wish to ensure that the role of the Church is preserved, for instance, in the future status of voluntary controlled schools. We wish to maintain the Church interest in former Church-aided and controlled schools that have become grant maintained. We look forward to consultation upon those and other issues.
In recent years there has been a growing debate in the areas of values, morality and spirituality and, indeed, a recognition of the significance of belief systems if we are to live with purpose and understanding. Those areas are central to an understanding of education in its widest sense. In that "widest sense" I include personal growth as well as the skills needed for employment. Church schools—many of them extremely popular schools as well as being excellent ones—have been at the forefront of this debate and we look forward to their continuing development. There is no such thing as value-free education; that has been one of the recognitions of the years immediately past.
I am glad to note that the Government have accepted the SCAA document on values. Though the Churches have been critical of certain aspects of it, nevertheless, we welcome the consensus achieved and look forward to the continuing discussion which may sharpen its thrust.
We in the Churches look forward to a constructive, creative and perhaps at times critical engagement with the Government in all areas of education. They are of supreme importance to our society and to the individuals who comprise it.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Rogers of Riverside: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I appreciate the warm welcome that I have been given by noble Lords. As a newcomer my entry has been made much easier by the kindness and helpfulness extended to me, making my presence here much easier. As an architect, I have chosen to talk about cities, which are by their nature not totally uncontroversial. I hope that I shall be forgiven if encroach into certain political areas.
Cities are the cradles of our civilisation and the pinnacle of man's cultural and social achievement. They are the places where people come together and minds meet; where ideas take shape and gather momentum. Our future economic, cultural and social wealth are even now being determined by the interaction of people and ideas in our cities.
Cities have the power to humanise or to brutalise. They are made by people and people get the cities that they deserve. If we want them to humanise, we must plan them that way. If we want to plan, we must start with a vision and some values. By way of a vision, let me offer the oath of citizenship pledged by the ancient Athenians:
"We will leave this city not less but greater, better and more beautiful than it was left to us".
But what makes a city greater and better? What kind of city should it be? I suggest that it should be a just city where shelter, education, health, justice and hope are equitably distributed and where all people participate in their government. It should be a diverse yet compact city which protects the countryside and allows people to live in reasonable proximity to their work. It should be a city of easy communication and contact; an ecological city which is efficient with its use of resources. It should be a creative city where innovation thrives; a beautiful city that challenges the imagination and moves the spirit.
Nine out of 10 British subjects live in cities. Britain is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. British cities are enjoying international recognition, and rightly so. Where once Britain was seen as hidebound by tradition, it is now recognised as being a creative society with thriving, creative industries. There is much in our cities that is equally creative, forward looking and exciting. But there is also still a great deal that is wasteful, inefficient and brutalising.
We can ignore the figures about increasing inequality; but it is harder to ignore the huddled figures sleeping in streets and doorways or trapped in decaying housing estates. We may flee from inner city dereliction and pollution and take to the suburbs. But in so doing we extend the urban sprawl into the countryside. We may bemoan the decline in public transport while we sit in our cars and poison the air. Meanwhile, urban air quality continues to decline. One in seven of our inner city children suffers from asthma. In London we have built more and more roads yet they carry almost 50 per cent. fewer people than in 1956. Fewer people take the bus and more people go by car. As a result, the average
284
speed has dropped to the horse-and-carriage rate of a century ago. That inefficiency is said to cost London £15 billion a year in wasted time and resources.
Cities are deeply implicated in the global and environmental crisis. We must seek ways to make them efficient with their resources and circumspect with their waste. I suggest that if we want better cities we must plan them. I am well aware that Britain has plenty of planners—we have one of the most elaborate and empowered town planning and highway authorities in the world. The mechanism for control exists—there is no doubt about that—but some people believe that it lacks clear vision and purpose and that it is disconnected from cultural, environmental, social or political values.
The planners are predicting that Britain will need 4 million additional dwellings over the next 20 years. That is equivalent to the entire housing stock of London spread across the nation. If that is true, or even half true, it could pose a further threat to our countryside. But it need not. It may be an opportunity to consolidate and revitalise our cities. Rather than sprawl we should be making better use of the space within cities. Even in heavily developed cities such as London, 5 per cent. of the land is derelict or unused. If we take into account also the unoccupied buildings, the national average could be nearer 15 per cent.
We should be regenerating those spaces and premises into clusters of compact, live/work communities based on walking, cycling and public transport networks. That consolidation and regeneration of our cities should be our priority. And only when we have done that, when we have taken up the slack that already exists in our cities, should we look to expand beyond them. Then, if more housing is still needed, we might also create new, compact, sustainable cities along strategic public transport routes such as the Thames corridor.
Effective public transport makes or breaks a city. Inspiring public places encourage the meeting of people—the very reason for cities. The public realm of our cities—the grand spaces, the public museums, the parks, the local squares, the walk from home to school—give quality to our everyday lives and create our sense of citizenship. But in Britain's cities today the public realm has suffered severe erosion by the car and by a lack of public ambition. There have been no major public squares, tree-lined avenues or parks built in London in our lifetimes.
We have a choice—roundabouts or civic spaces; highways or riverside parks; elitist clubs or open public institutions. Why not use the Millennium Lottery Fund to plant 1 million urban trees? Why not create the most beautiful riverside park along the Embankment from here to Blackfriars? Why not approach this, the "Mother of Parliaments", through a noble square rather than across a congested roundabout?
The public realm includes our public buildings. They are the tangible legacy of each succeeding generation. Citizens have a right to expect public buildings that reflect Britain's immense resources of design and engineering skills. Parliament should ensure that the Government's resources are deployed in an exemplary fashion. We must ensure that our schools, hospitals,

285
universities, public housing projects, parks and squares are designed by the best talent—and sometimes by the most adventurous.
Unemployment, part-time working, robotisation and longer retirement mean that today more people have more time on their hands—for better or for ill. The public realm will have an increasingly crucial social role to play in fostering an active citizenry and a cohesive society. We need to ensure that our education system promotes an understanding of the urban environment and to encourage citizens to participate more in the development of cities and of their own immediate communities. We need to ensure that our urban systems—transport, utilities, communications and the planning system itself—operate in unison with coherent social and environmental objectives.
In short, our cities require the same duties of citizenship as ancient Athens. If we are to leave them more beautiful, healthier, more just and more sustainable than they were left to us, we must place them firmly on the political agenda.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, it is a tremendous honour for me to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, on his magnificent maiden speech. To most of us, and certainly to me, the greatest monument we can look back on is to have the privilege of being a Member of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, has created monuments around the world which have brought great benefit and pleasure not only to him but, more importantly, to those who can look upon them, use them, admire them and be inspired by them. We have been inspired by the noble Lord's speech today to give attention to issues which are generally treated by looking backwards rather than forwards. We congratulate the noble Lord on his speech and look forward very much to hearing many more contributions from him in the future.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for opening the debate but I must tell her that the issues which interest me most are those with which she dealt in the last five minutes of her speech rather than the education issues with which. I am sure, she dealt most expertly. I am more interested in the environment, the agricultural and rural economy and local government.
I wish to refer to what I hope will be a very definite change in the Government's approach to local government, a change which will understand the importance of local government, its power and its influence and the opportunity it has to reflect what local communities really want. I note with interest the proposal to establish a regional development agency. I wish to refer to that proposal, particularly within the context of the north-west area.
Many noble Lords will know that I live in the north west and that I am anxious to see the growth and development of the economy of the north west. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of NIMTECH, which is responsible for developing the technology of the north
286
west of England. I am also president of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities, which is anxious to see local economies grow and prosper.
In developing these agencies I hope the Government will bear in mind, particularly in the north west, that we now have a large number of different bodies charged with this responsibility. They do not necessarily all work together, they do not all have the same aim and they certainly do not talk to each other as much as they should. I hope the Government will bear in mind that there is a great need for a coherent approach to economic growth in these areas, particularly in the north west of England. I hope they will understand that in bringing this about we shall need to make some dramatic changes and recognise that the north west is a major economy and one that will have to grow considerably in order to maintain opportunities and employment levels. If we think merely in terms of our likely growth rate of between 2 and 2.5 per cent. over any period of time, that means that the economy has to grow by 30 per cent. in the next 15 years. Thirty per cent. growth has many implications—for jobs, for business opportunities and in bringing forward new businesses to make those opportunities possible. I hope that those will be the main objectives of the new agencies. We must bring people together and not bring about unnecessary political division in the creation of the agencies.
I had the pleasure of being a member of the Select Committee which was set up to consider the relationship between central and local government and I supported the report Rebuilding Trust which came about as a result of the committee's discussions. I believe that local authorities should be given more authority to experiment with new ideas. The evidence we received showed that we have continuing pressure between, on the one hand, local authorities wanting to do their own thing and, on the other hand, being brought together to standardise through general pressure by society, by the media and by government, who set regulations with which local authorities have to comply. The key to our society, even in a small country such as Great Britain, is to be able to have diversity of opportunity and choice within local communities. The report made it clear that we should offer more opportunity for choice and diversity within local authorities in the innovative methods they may have to develop their economies to plan and deal with all the issues with which they are faced.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, referred to creating cities with a purpose and with an understanding of how they are going to grow and of their role in solving problems. To me that means that the planning mechanism has to be based on what is to the benefit of the majority and not be influenced by the emotions and prejudices of the few, which has been the basis of many of our planning decisions in the past. We have to open our minds, and have a system that allows us to open our minds, to the very points the noble Lord raised.
I have some other interests which under our present system I must declare. I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association and of the Energy from Waste Association. I mention those because one of the important aspects of our development is the encouragement of environmental technology. I believe

287
that economic growth and development is of prime importance. Without economic growth and development and without the creation of wealth nothing else is possible. However, we all have a duty to bring those about in the most beneficial and effective environmental way possible and to follow the high standards that can be achieved. Major worldwide companies are wonderful examples of how to give returns to shareholders and develop their businesses and at the same time have high standards of environmental activities when they build, grow and control air pollution.
In dealing with environmental issues in the future I hope the Government will be aware of the tremendous changes taking place in the availability of environmental technology and will look for every possible way of supporting technology that will reduce the impact of factories on their environment and use the best methods to ensure that architectural opportunities are dealt with in the best possible way. There has been a tendency not to build because people are frightened of the ugliness of a building. What we ought to do is build but do it in a high quality way. The knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, indicates that one can create buildings which can be functional and effective but which can also add enormous grandeur, style and benefit to the environment of which they are a part.
I said that I would refer both to buildings and to the rural economy. I wish to bring those two subjects together and say that in this regard the planning issue needs to be looked at. Agriculture and the rural economy are now under enormous competitive pressures. In the gracious Speech the Government refer to the importance of enlargement. That of itself is going to bring a great deal more competition to the agricultural and food production industry of this country. Probably one of the most efficient of our industries is food manufacture and the added value to basic food products. The competition for the industry to buy its products from around the world will become greater and greater. The impact that that can have on the rural economy could be enormous. We have depended on the wealth creation, the jobs and the opportunities from the growing of food. Therefore, planning regulations have to be much more free and understanding of the need to create other job opportunities as the agricultural and traditional opportunities die away.
The Government should also appreciate the importance of leisure activities within rural communities—not just new leisure but traditional rural pursuits which are a key element in maintaining the economy of rural areas. I hope that the Government will address the planning issues in a positive way. We need a reappraisal of the green belt policy, which has tended to push new housing developments into rural areas, whereas they should be attached to existing towns which already have the necessary services, amenities and cultural activities. We need to look more positively at developing the right job opportunities as an alternative.
As noble Lords know, the Government recently turned down a planning application by Nyrex to have a deep depository for nuclear waste in Cumbria. I put it to the Government that in the north west we have the greatest expertise in the world in handling nuclear
288
waste. The methods of dealing with it are now very sophisticated and effective. I understand from the industry that over the next 10 to 50 years the present system for the disposal of nuclear waste is quite sufficient. What is important is to make sure that the resources which would have been made available for the Nyrex depository are made available continually to monitor the system, to learn and develop new technologies and to take a long-term view of nuclear waste in order that decisions can be taken should the political attitude change or new technologies suddenly come into the field.
I have been in the business of agriculture all my life. It is one that has seen dramatic changes. I recently had the opportunity of listening to an agriculturalist-geneticist describe how he was able to use the genes from a crocodile to decide on the sexing of poultry. I shall not go into the technology of it. But it is an enormous step in my lifetime (and I can remember my father milking by hand) that someone can take the genes from a crocodile and by importing them into a hen can decide on the sex of poultry. I have had a short life—I emphasise that— because most of it is still to come. This shows the dramatic changes that have taken place in such a short time.
I hope that the Government will recognise these tremendous changes and will encourage change. The worst thing that they can do is to bring in regulations that hamper change. Change is the driving force which provides the technology for making new and exciting things possible. In dealing with food standards and other issues, I hope that the Government will be dominated by the scientific evidence and needs and not be too influenced by emotional prejudice, which is generally from only a few people, and let the public decide by proper labelling systems what is the right kind of food they want to eat.
No doubt during the debates on the government proposals there will be many issues on which I shall disagree. We shall have some interesting debates. But I welcome the Government's announcement that they have a positive approach to these matters and I look forward to that progress being of benefit to the nation.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the first four speeches in this afternoon's debate were heavyweight speeches on education. Then, with the delightful and very helpful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, we moved into an area where I suspect that for a time we shall be concentrating on the environment. Certainly I intend to concentrate on my subject of conservation and the countryside. Perhaps I may say how much we on these Benches welcome some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about the way in which wasteland can be used for infill for buildings and the importance of doing that rather than making enormous blocks of new towns over the countryside.
As regards the revival of cities, I spent most of the general election campaigning in Liverpool. Despite the work of a great many people who have tried very hard, including Mr. Heseltine, it is a very sad sight to see that

289
very great city, which still has wonderful buildings and wonderful people, reduced to the state of poverty that it is in now. It is very difficult to go down almost any street outside the main city centre and not find half of the shops boarded up. We have to do something about reviving our cities.
Coming from a party which has made claims to care for the environment, the gracious Speech is remarkably deficient in any measures to deal with the subject. As a representative of a party which was given very high marks for its environmental stance by Friends of the Earth during the election—although I am far from complacent about that because I believe that they were overkind to us—I give notice that this is a field in which my party intends to try to keep the Government up to the mark.
Along with an absence of mention of the environment (and we note that in another place the topic has not even been allocated a place in the debates on the gracious Speech) there are a number of points in the speech where some qualifications will not come amiss. I look forward very much to the reply to this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. For instance, no industrial country which has signed up to the Rio declaration of sustainability should be talking about economic growth without making it clear that it is qualitative and not quantitative growth which is desired because only that is compatible with sustainability. Neither should we be talking about employment entirely in terms of traditional jobs. We should be talking about the necessity for all people to have worthwhile work for a fair reward. That goes much wider than the traditional employment schemes.
I am interested also to see that the Government will,
"seek further reform of the Common Agriculture Policy to secure lower food prices for consumers and save money, support the rural economy and enhance the environment".
It will be most interesting to know how they propose to achieve all those things, which appear to many of us who have studied the matter to be incompatible with each other to a certain extent. The Government will have to tread their way very carefully.
I believe that the sentence in the gracious Speech about fishing could have been phrased rather better. Of course the reforms that we want should be,
"in the long-term interest of the UK fishing industry".
but rather more important is the need to be able to feed the world. The one is a useful step towards the other, but it would be cheering to know that the Government have a wider picture in their sights. After all, this is not just a question of feeding the world; it is also a question of international peace, with serious disputes over tuna in the north-east Atlantic, salmon and crab in the north Pacific; squid in the south-west Atlantic and pollock in the Sea of Okotsk. These are not to be regarded as unimportant. Wars have started over far less vital matters than access to diminishing fisheries. I hope that this is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, will have something to say later in the debate.
When one gets to the Department for International Development in the gracious Speech at last one sees a proper mention of sustainable development. The fact
290
that it comes here indicates that it is regarded as a task for global bodies, when it is of the greatest importance that this country gives a lead and that reform starts at home. I hope that the next paragraph's reference to the global environment means that we shall fight particularly hard against any tendency for the World Trade Organisation to put classical economics above ecological economics. The area of policy that we are dealing with at the present stage of the debate is one in respect of which the last government—for which, on the whole, I had very little time—had two outstanding Ministers: Mr. John Gummer and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. The present Government will be hard put to match them. I hope that they do. I also hope that the House will not be deprived of the noble Baroness's wisdom on these matters.
It is disappointing that there is not a major environmental Bill to put teeth where the previous Government relied upon goodwill, that was not always forthcoming, but it is understandable that the Government cannot correct the faults of 18 years in one Session. I hope that the Minister can promise us a major environmental Bill next year.
I was delighted to read yesterday about Mr. Prescott's initiative on water. I had the privilege of sharing a parliamentary expedition to Hong Kong and New Zealand a couple of years ago and was most impressed by him. He is not a person with the most obvious green characteristics but he has started off well. In particular, I am delighted that he intends to grasp the nettle of water extraction licences. Many of these were issued in an age when the thought that England might be short of water was absurd. Many of them are unlimited in quantity and without time limit. No one likes to tackle the problem because of the compensation that is likely to be required, but the problem must be tackled. The licences must be bought out at a fair and reasonable figure, not a figure that compensates for infinite and eternal loss. Likewise, there is a real need for targeted metering of large users such as swimming pools and sprinklers. I hope that the remarks made yesterday about metering do not mean that these matters will be neglected. Mr. Prescott has also acted as a tribal rainmaker. It is not given to everyone to announce a water summit which is immediately followed by a weather forecast of one month's continuous rain. I hope that that ability will continue in future when it is needed.
Another harder question must be asked of the Government. They come to power with a manifesto commitment to reduce CO, by 20 per cent. by 2010. That represents approximately a 25 per cent. fall in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the manifesto contained no detail on how that was to be achieved. At least one other of their policies—the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent.—appears to run directly counter to that commitment. How will the Government achieve their aim without substantial new tax and public expenditure proposals? For instance, will the Government simultaneously reduce the level of VAT on energy-saving goods and services? That may go some way to meet the point. This measure was supported by the Labour Party earlier last year but subsequently it went back on it.

291
In general, we on these Benches are prepared to hope for the best, but there are not yet sufficient signs that the Government are fully aware of what needs to be done or have the will to do it. A test case may arise on the subject of wind farms. These must be placed with sensitivity towards aesthetics. But in the last resort, the most important thing is that as a nation we should have the highest possible percentage of renewable energy. If the Government have any problems in facing the enormous challenges of living up to the commitments of Rio we shall be delighted to help them.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I too should like to say a few words about the environment in a debate that has been marked by the notable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, whose Reith lectures many of us remember. I was surprised that the environment, which matters so much to all of us, was seldom mentioned during the election. It is true that here and there brief references were made to it in the Labour Party's manifesto. I understand that the Conservative Party published a separate green manifesto. However, I was unable to find it on the bookstall at Paddington. When I asked the Conservative election office in Builth Wells where I could find it that office had never heard of it.
But people in this country do mind about conservation and the environment. Some time ago a Gallup poll showed that a majority of people believed that their environment was in long-term decline, and eight out of 10 favoured tougher governmental action to reverse the trend even if it hit their pockets. One in 10 people—about 4 million—belongs to one or other of the voluntary environmental bodies, whereas only one in 25 belongs to a political party. The previous Government frequently spoke up for the environment but too often what they did or proposed to do—like building a barrage across Cardiff Bay, thus destroying an entire site of special scientific interest, turning another shorebird sanctuary, Lappel Bank in the Thames Estuary, into a car park, saying that they were minded to build a road through the water meadows past Salisbury cathedral, or running the M.3 through Twyford Down—was hard to square with any genuine concern for conservation. I hope that the new Government will take the environment seriously and not merely say the right things but take firm and effective action to promote conservation. I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has been put in charge of the environment. I welcome the swift and determined way in which Mr. Prescott has tackled the water companies, requiring them to take much more rigorous action to reduce the disgracefully high level of leakage, an average of 30 per cent.—in the case of Thames Water, 40 per cent.—and to reduce abstraction from rivers and wetlands that has caused a great deal of damage.
There are a great many problems in the field of conservation. I have time to mention only three of them. Mr. Blair and other party leaders wrote a letter to The Times in February 1996 advocating
"the protection of our countryside in its rich personality and character."
292
One of the greatest threats to what remains of that uniquely beautiful countryside is the inexorable spread of housing development in country areas. Our population density is one of the highest in the world. Of course, people need somewhere to live and in general must be allowed to live where they wish, but more and more of our country is being urbanised each year. Last year the Government published projections that indicated that there could be 4.4 million new households in England between 1991 and 2016—an increase of no less than 23 per cent. To put all of those new houses in the country would require 35 new towns the size of Bracknell. The previous Government said that they hoped that 60 per cent. of new homes might be accommodated on previously used land, the so-called "brownfield" field sites. But this still leaves 40 per cent. of new homes (1.76 million) to be built on greenfield sites in open country—the equivalent of 10 cities the size of Bristol. That is a daunting prospect.
Of course, builders generally prefer to build on greenfield sites because it is cheaper and avoids the cost problems connected with contaminated land, but there is good evidence that there is plenty of capacity for building in existing towns without town cramming or building over remaining green urban spaces like playing fields. I was greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said about that this afternoon. There are some 800,000 empty properties in England. Surely, greater use should be made of them. The Round Table on Sustainable Development called for 75 per cent. of new housing to be built on previously developed land, although others believe that even the 60 per cent. target may be unrealistic. I am convinced that what is needed without delay is a powerful incentive to persuade builders to build in existing cities and towns rather than in the country. A substantial tax on housing built on greenfield sites would surely help to steer development in the right direction. I know that Mr. Gummer dismissed that idea, but I very much hope that the new Government will consider it carefully or, if they reject it, will come up with an alternative incentive.
Another major threat to the country is the spread of roads. We simply cannot go on building more and more roads, as we were doing until very recently, and putting vast areas of the country under concrete. I hope that the new Government will tackle the need for a national transport strategy to improve and cheapen public transport and control the growth in the number of cars.
The second problem that I want to mention is the damaging effect of intensive or industrial farming, of the disappearance of mixed farming, winter stubbles and hedges, and the application of vast quantities of pesticides and fertilizers. The noble Baroness mentioned the Government's hopes to help bring about a reform of the CAP. That is greatly to be desired, but we all know that there are huge difficulties in the way. Too many of our partners in the EU either do very well out of the CAP or have militant farmers of whom they are somewhat afraid. We must do all that we can to bring about those reforms, but we cannot just wait.
We know that birds in particular—skylarks, song thrushes, partridges, lapwings and many others—have suffered catastrophic declines in recent years, and

293
that that is due largely to changing farming methods. Species can be wiped out. One has only to think of the passenger pigeon. It is to my mind unthinkable that we should just sit on our hands and do nothing while the skylark and the song thrush disappear. We must take action now.
There are remedies which can help—the conservation headlands pioneered by the Game Conservancy, well-managed set aside, and an increase in organic farming—but it seems to me essential that we should take immediate steps to reduce the level of pesticide applications. A tax on pesticides would be a useful first step.
Of the innumerable other problems, I should like to mention just one quite different one—the new, exotic, but very serious problem of endocrine disruptors. As noble Lords may know, there has recently been increasing evidence that some chemicals may be upsetting the reproductive systems of animals, birds and fish, and conceivably of human beings as well. It has been found that a large number of man-made chemicals, and a few natural ones, can disrupt endocrine systems. The chemicals known to do that include DDT, lindane, PCBs, dioxins, cadmium, lead, mercury, tributyltin and alkyl phenols present in polystyrene and PVCs.
We and many other animals have a wonderfully elaborate and delicate system (the endocrine system) which governs what we do and how our offspring are produced. Various glands produce hormones which are released into the bloodstream and act as chemical messengers, triggering all sorts of different functions and processes. The best known are the female hormone, oestrogen, and the male hormone, testosterone.
The body contains in many of its cells proteins called receptors which pick up particular hormone messages and "bind" with them, producing the appropriate reaction. Unfortunately the receptors are not always as discriminating as they should be, but are deceived by chemicals which mimic hormones and damage the complex natural processes. Those chemicals are called endocrine disruptors. They appear to have a particularly marked effect on developing foetuses.
There have been numerous reports of strange effects on wildlife. In this country the oestrogenic effects of sewage effluents were discovered when hermaphrodite fish were found to be common in the Hertfordshire River Lee downstream of sewage outfalls. This year it was reported that research from Newcastle University had found that flounders in the Tyne estuary were suffering oestrogenic effects. In the USA last year large numbers of frogs in Minnesota and neighbouring states were found to be grotesquely deformed.
Research by MAFF found levels of phthalates—noble Lords will I hope forgive me for being unable to pronounce a word beginning with a ph followed by a th—used to soften plastics, in baby formula milk, which may be high enough to trigger oestrogenic effects. The suspect chemicals are not only contained in all sorts of products—pesticides, plastics (including toys), detergents and cosmetics—but can, apparently, leach
294
out from plastic wrappings into our food. They can also cause damage in minute quantities. Other research has suggested that a mixture of oestrogenic chemicals—a cocktail of persistent pollutants—can be as much as 1,600 times stronger than any one of the chemicals acting by itself.
There is increasing evidence that human beings are being affected by those chemicals. Edinburgh scientists have found that the average sperm count of British men born in the 1970s is 24 per cent. lower than in men born 20 years earlier. According to Professor Dennis Lincoln of the Medical Research Council in Edinburgh, the number of infertile men is rising by 2 per cent. a year in richer countries. There is concern that products such as toothpaste, mouthwashes, shampoos, shower gels and spermicidal creams frequently contain dioxins and other endocrine disruptors.
A scientific conference in Sicily in November 1995 said in its conclusion:
"Humans and animals show adverse effects to endocrine disruptors at current environmental concentrations. Endocrine disruptors can disturb normal development, causing physical and behavioural abnormalities—including reduced intellectual capacity and social adaptability. Interference with thyroid hormones during development, for example, can result in mental retardation, cerebral palsy, learning deficiencies and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Early exposure to chemicals can affect co-ordination. learning, memory and spatial perception".
Clearly we have to take those dangers very seriously. A number of the endocrine disruptors, such as DDT and the PCBs, have been or are being banned, at any rate in the developed world, but others such as the pesticide toxaphene are still used in developing countries. The World Wide Fund for Nature has called for a phase-out of pesticides which are endocrine disruptors, naming permethrin, linuron, lindane and endosulfane. It argues that pesticide approvals need to be reassessed in view of new evidence that endocrine effects occur at low levels of exposure and may be made worse by a mixture of pollutants. Current toxicity testing does not, I believe, take endocrine effects into account. If that is correct, I believe that it should certainly do so.
Clearly more needs to be done without delay to deal with that problem. It may be necessary to require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate at the outset that their products are entirely safe, failing which they could be prevented from marketing them. That is a tough policy, but it looks as though it may soon be necessary.
I was glad to see that before the election Mr. Michael Meacher said in another place that this was a very important problem and that solutions should be sought internationally. I hope that the new Government will address the problem urgently, increase research, and consider banning the use of chemicals shown to have damaging effects.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, our debate has ranged over education, the environment—distinguished by a most notable maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside—agriculture and transport. I wish to commend to your Lordships and to the Government proposals that meet at least three of

295
the priority objectives set out in the gracious Speech: the education of young people; the encouragement of investment in industry and in human skills; and the creation of successful and profitable business.
The case for investing in Britain's merchant fleet and, in particular, in maritime skills, has often been made from all sides of the Chamber in recent years. A core determinant—indeed in the globalised economy the core determinant—of growth and success is human skills. We talk of competent management making all the difference between a business going under and staying afloat. That is literally true of a ship. No matter what the level of investment in ships and new technology, whatever the improvements in international regulations and in monitoring them through port state control, the bottom line is qualified people, but the world is short of qualified people. The world is short now of 18,000 skilled and experienced officers, and that figure is forecast to rise to at least 42,000 by 2005.
A modest £20 million a year invested in training in maritime skills would be good value for money. It would be investing in an industry with a future, and an industry of the future. It is an expanding industry. Last year the world fleet grew by some 3.5 per cent. to an all-time high. World sea-borne trade has been growing at 4 per cent. per annum, and is expected to double by 2010. But in the past 20 years, the number of ships on the UK mainland register fell from 1,600 to fewer than 240, and the number of British seafarers fell from 70,000 to 13,000. In 1975 we were training 2,000 officer cadets. Now, in spite of a recent welcome increase, the number of officer cadets is 400; that is only one third of the demand. The Chamber of Shipping, the employers' organisation, has emphasised that British shipowners want to employ British seafarers because of their quality. It also wants them for its own future on-shore management.
Doubling UK officer cadet training would create an extra 4,000 officers within a decade. That would cost £20 million a year. Last year, the then government gave more than three times that amount to one company—Jaguar—to support a new factory which will create 1,300 jobs. They gave BMW £22 million to build a new engine plant. And only a few weeks ago the European Union approved £240 million of UK state aid to a Korean electronics factory in south Wales. If this kind of support is made available—and I am not complaining—to foreign firms to create jobs or to keep skills in the UK, why on earth not spend a few thousand pounds to help keep British junior officers on British Steel bulk carriers instead of replacing them by cheaper—though no doubt cheerful—Filipinos?
The Chamber of Shipping has emphasised that we need in particular to increase the number of junior officers in training and to develop the training of junior officers up to their master's or chief engineer's certificate. It also emphasised the need to compensate the employing company during that training period for the cost differential between employing Britons and equivalent Far Eastern or Eastern European officers. We are facing a prospect of a severe shortage of well trained
296
British officers, but youngsters are leaving school to join dole queues in traditional maritime towns. Recently, there were 3,000 applications for just 35 oil cadetships.
What is more, the shortage of trained officers is threatening the future of London as a major maritime centre. The 1996 University of Cardiff report, which was commissioned by the Department of Transport, established authoritatively that former seafarers are urgently needed by a wide range of shore-based maritime-related industries and services, including port operations, classification societies, government regulatory agencies, insurance and P & I companies, shipyards, marine equipment manufacturers, training establishments and more. The combined net annual earnings of these maritime-related businesses are about £3.5 billion. Are we really resigned to seeing this business shift abroad? Or are we resigned to staffing our classification societies and nautical training colleges with Croatian or Filipino officers, as is already happening on our ships? Are those the choices that we are to accept?
The industry, the charterers and insurers—and, indeed, governments—are beginning to realise that low costs should not be confused with low pay, bad conditions, the acceptance of a high risk of accidents and the losses at sea. For safe and efficient operations, effective monitoring in port and, above all, effective monitoring and control on the high seas is crucial. For that there is no substitute for well trained and responsible officers. And they do not come better than British; they do not come safer than British; and they do not come more cost effective than British.
To pursue a strategy along these lines would bring us into line with our maritime competitors and would be completely consistent with our obligations as a European Union maritime state. The European Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Neil Kinnock, recently pointed out that in the past 10 years the number of EU seafarers on EU flagships has fallen by one third and that there are huge numbers of applications for places in high quality maritime education and training courses throughout Europe.
The European Union Transport Ministers—or at least 14 out of 15—have responded with a programme for stimulating the productivity of seafaring personnel, for targeted incentives to reduce the cost of employment and for encouraging the social partners to favour community employment. The then British Government refused to endorse that strategy because of its references to incentives and to social partners.
The European Union has nailed to its mast the flag of "quality shipping"; shipping that is competitive, efficient, safe for people and the environment, registered with flag states which take their responsibilities seriously and is operated by well trained officers and crews. As part of its approach, the EU is now reviewing its guidelines on state aids for shipping to take realistic account of the developments in international competition—much of it grossly unfair—faced by EU operators. The European Union has made it abundantly clear that its overall objectives are to secure free access and fair competitive conditions throughout the global

297
shipping market. I hope that in reply the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that the new Government will take a positive and co-operative stance to this co-ordinated initiative by Europe.
I was heartened by the announcement in September 1996 by the then shadow Minister for Shipping, Miss Glenda Jackson, that a "lifeboat" rescue package to arrest the decline in British shipping was to be drawn up in consultation with employers, the unions and other elements of the shipping industry. She emphasised three main points. First, the need to end the short-termism which has dogged British shipping. Secondly, the need for the Government to use their influence on our European and international partners in order to ensure greater harmonisation in the areas of safety and employment regulations. Thirdly—and she laid particular emphasis on this—the commitment of a new Labour Government to invest in their people; to put training at the heart of their rescue package. I know that I shall not be alone in your Lordships' House in looking forward eagerly to the overdue launch of that lifeboat to rescue the Red Ensign from a watery grave.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the House that a long-standing evening engagement prevents me from staying to the end of the debate. Secondly, before I deal with the subject of education, I wish to offer my personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, on his maiden speech. I remember very well when I was High Mistress of St. Paul's Girls School in Hammersmith his generosity in giving work experience to several of my students.
I wish to concentrate on two points; one might call them two points of view. I wish to reflect on the past and to look forward to the future. As a school head from 1965 to 1989, I remember particularly two dates. The first was 1976 when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, then Prime Minister, initiated the great education debate. The second was 1988 when Kenneth Baker, soon to enter your Lordships' House, introduced the ERA—the Education Reform Act—and the era of education. Indeed, it was the beginning of an era of change and reform. I remind your Lordships that from that Education Reform Act came the national curriculum that we have today. Nowadays its core subjects are mathematics, English and science with emphasis on modern languages, technology and information technology. It aims at a balanced curriculum rather than—and I quote the words of the present High Mistress of St. Paul's Girls School—the tyranny of adolescent whim which in the past led to some very curious choices of subjects at 14 to 16.
That Act brought us also assessment of children at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16, which has given those in control today the information which they need for further reform—setting attainment targets with clear syllabuses for all subjects. Also from that Act, parents, teachers and the pupils themselves have begun to realise
298
the importance of technical skills and vocational encouragement and training. It was only a start. Such basic changes in public perception take time.
The last subject that I wish to discuss, stemming from the 1988 Act, is the provision of city technology colleges. There were 15 original city technology colleges which at the moment are doing splendid work in deprived inner city areas. There is nothing elitist about them. There are now 180 technical colleges which stress mathematics, science and technology. More recently, there have been 41 language colleges which have an international ethos with IT underpinning the curriculum. Most recent are the three arts colleges and six sports specialist colleges. In addition, there are more than 160 schools affiliated to the Technology Colleges Trust which aspire to be specialist schools of one kind or another.
As a founder trustee of the Technology Colleges Trust, together with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk—and I am chairman also of Landau Forte College in Derby—I was delighted to hear the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment speak at the trust's conference in Bradford last November when he spoke so positively and inspiringly, emphasising his support for those specialist schools.
That brings me to my second point of view—the future. I hope that the Secretary of State and his team will build on the good achievements of the past few years. I am cheered by his announcement this morning that he will deal firmly with failing schools. Failing schools exist and they need to be dealt with. The morale of incompetent, slovenly and just plain bad teachers may be lowered; their morale deserves to he. What demoralises good, competent, inspiring teachers who are in the majority in this country? Their morale is being lowered by being lumped together with the bad teachers.
I know that later in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, will discuss the importance of teacher training, both initial training and in-service training. That is a very important subject and I shall leave him to deal with that.
I now draw the attention of your Lordships to some of the lessons that I have learned recently over the past three years since I became chairman of a city technology college. I commend those findings to the Government.
First, there is the extended day. At this college in Derby, children are allowed to stay in school until 5.45 every evening, provided that they are studying. Of course, they are supervised by teaching staff. Some ordinary classrooms are opened as study rooms, as is the information technology area for those who wish to work on their word processing projects, their data handling, spreadsheets, desk-top publishing or accessing CD-ROMs for research. The library, too, which I should now call the resource centre, is open late.
At the beginning of the day, the college opens at 7.45. School itself starts at 8.30. Therefore, it is a 10-hour day in all. That is plenty for anyone, students and staff alike, says the principal.
The second lesson is that 11 and 12 year-olds have a regular study period on their timetable to train them to use their own time effectively. The third and possibly

299
most important lesson that I have learned in those three years is that all pupils and teachers have the very highest aspirations. But they know and accept also that they have to work for success. There are no excuses.
I know from the Labour Party manifesto, which I read with interest, that the Government are determined to realise the potential of new technology. I hope that they will make full use of the good educational structures and practices which are already in place.
Before I sit down, I cannot let the opportunity pass without a mention of the potential for involving parents and the wider community in the education of our children. This is Museums Week. Museums are a valuable educational resource which are accessible both to families for weekend visits—I understand that two-thirds of the population visit them regularly—and to schools which benefit from their imaginative, hands-on presentations and workshops.
I give your Lordships an example. This morning, I welcomed the Secretary of State for the Department of National Heritage to the Geffrye Museum in Hackney. I am chairman of the trustees there. The Secretary of State assured me that he would continue the valuable liaison between his department and the Department for Education and Employment.
During the Secretary of State's visit, a group of seven and eight year-olds, clearly from a very wide variety of cultures from St. Johns and St. Clements Primary School in East Dulwich, were learning about life in Tudor times. They were also learning to concentrate—I have to say, some more successfully than others.
Summer half-term is nearly upon us. The Geffrye's activities will include Bee Week, with an opportunity to learn about the life of a bee, wax seals and signets, model beehives, bee quilts and how to make honey. I am rather apprehensive about the special workshop for three to five year-olds—Cooking with Honey.
Therefore, my plea to the new Government is that they should please continue with the good practices that are in place. John Colet, Dean of St. Paul's, who founded St. Paul's School in 1509, wanted for his students a curriculum of severity (I believe that the modern English translation is "rigour") liberality and breadth. By the way, he had no time at all for "Blotterature". Our children deserve no less.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, despite the temptation, I shall stick to just one point. My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has already drawn attention to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which reads:
"[My Government] will seek changes to the Common Fisheries Policy to conserve fish stocks in the long-term interest of the UK fishing industry".—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 7.]
Like my noble friend, I regret only the fact that it is a slightly parochial statement because conserving fish stocks is obviously in the long-term interest of the fishing industries, not only of the UK but also of the Community and, indeed, of the world. Otherwise, I welcome that statement most heartily.
300
I was privileged to chair the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported in January of last year on fish stock conservation and management. Our remit was simply to conduct an inquiry into the scientific aspects of the topic, but we were presented with a great deal of evidence about the common fisheries policy, almost all of which was condemnatory.
The common fisheries policy was introduced in 1983 as a 20-year programme for fisheries management in European Union waters. It is therefore due for review in 2003. But by then stocks of some of the fish in European Union waters may have collapsed completely as they did off the Newfoundland Grand Banks. Significant modification of the common fisheries policy is therefore needed most urgently.
My committee's report quoted evidence from many quarters that the replacement of the quota system by control of fishing effort was the essential step. Everyone agreed that there was serious overfishing; and, as one of our witnesses said, "We know what the solution to the problem is and that is simply to reduce fishing effort". In fact, the quota system simply does not work. It is nullified by discarding about 40 per cent. of the total catch, by gross misreporting and, indeed, by hopelessly inadequate policing of the policy. I appeal to the Government to promote a detailed study—a sort of think-tank study—starting right now, by people representing fishermen, scientists, civil servants and politicians to find a way of replacing total allowable catches and quotas with a system of limiting fishing effort by licensing limited numbers of boats on the basis of their catching power, which is largely determined by size and speed. That would be a terribly difficult task. I do not underestimate the difficulties involved. But if they were to get anywhere at all, the Government could then make use of their chairmanship of the Commission in 1998 to try to seek agreement to this at least in principle.
To be effective a limitation of fishing effort in this way could, and probably should, be combined with a ban on discards with the mandatory use of new net technology to allow the escape of undersized fish and with the banning of beam trawls which destroy the seabed. But would it also stop quota hopping? That seems to be what most concerns both politicians and fishermen in this country. Well, if we moved to that kind of system of limiting the effort, quotas would cease to exist and, therefore, they could not be sold from one country to another. The abolition of quota-hopping would have to be accompanied by finding a way to ban the flagging out of fishing boats so that they cannot be registered under the British flag and have a share in the British quota. Those two steps would in effect solve this difficult problem. A new policy of this kind obviously cannot be introduced overnight. Pressure during the first six months of 1998 could, however, possibly lead to an agreement on a reasonable timetable for the implementation of such a programme. That would be a very great improvement on letting things drift on until 2003.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I was reassured to hear in the gracious Speech the new Government's determination to reform the CAP, to support the rural economy and to enhance the environment. It is with these issues that I wish to focus my few remarks, while declaring an interest as someone who tries to farm in one of the most beautiful parts of the country, the Scottish borders.
The reform of the CAP has been mentioned many times in your Lordships' House and I am sure that it will dominate any future debates that we have on agriculture. We also heard in the gracious Speech the Government's commitment to,
"[an] early and successful enlargement of the European Union".—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 7.]
This I wholly support but it cannot be done until the CAP has been reformed. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has often said that the CAP needs to be reformed by,
"hauling it out root and branch".
That I endorse, but it must not be done to the detriment of British farmers.
It is important to remember that 20 years ago we were told that more food was required. We were told to drain the Wetlands and we were given EC grants to do so. Suddenly today we are told, "Stop! set the whole thing aside—and here is a grant to do so". If United Kingdom farmers had run their businesses in the way that the European Union has been run, I seriously doubt whether there would be a farmer left in the country today. Quite a thought! What on earth would the countryside look like?
There is another terribly important factor to take into consideration; namely, the uncertainty of farming. When a farmer comes to sow his crop he has no idea what it will yield, what it will be worth and how much it will cost to nurture and reap. I urge Her Majesty's Government to bear that in mind when they come to tackle the reform of the CAP. I also urge Her Majesty's Government to ask the Commission to give British producers full compensation for the effects of the recent significant green pound revaluations which have seriously depressed UK farm incomes. It seems unjust that farmers in all other member states with revaluing currencies are already receiving compensation but only because their governments have applied for it.
It goes without saying—and it was nice to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, her heartfelt agreement—that we must get this ban on British beef lifted. Indeed, it must be a top priority and the Florence agreement implemented. It is tragic to think that that was signed very nearly a year ago.
I also urge Her Majesty's Government to oppose proposals for modulation of agricultural support payments. As your Lordships' know, modulation means adjusting the direct support arrangements of the CAP to reduce the benefit to larger farmers. It is suggested by some that a redistribution of support to smaller farmers could then result. But, in practice, given the fact that what we regard in the United Kingdom as small farmers are actually quite big by continental standards,
302
modulation would lead to reduced support for our larger farmers without any commensurate gain for our smaller farmers.
Support payments in the CAP should be used as a transitional device to arrive at a more competitive European farm structure. It makes no economic sense to discriminate either in favour of or against any particular size or type of farm. Modulation would have a devastating effect on UK agriculture and in particular for Scotland. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate, she will be able to indicate that the Government recognise and agree with the concerns that I have expressed.
Turning to the reference in the gracious Speech to Her Majesty's Government's support for the rural economy and enhancing the environment, I think that these issues come hand in glove. I turn first to forestry, and would urge Her Majesty's Government to commit themselves to a consistent and long-term policy for forestry and to provide incentives to ensure a regular flow of timber for all types of commercial outlets. I also hope that they will recognise the need to have a positive management strategy for all woodlands that would benefit both the wildlife and the environment.
I turn now to a touchy subject which to many living in the countryside is their very existence. I refer to field sports, and, most especially, hunting with hounds. There was a distressing headline in my copy of last weekend's Sunday Telegraph saying, "Government to outlaw fox-hunting". There are so many more pressing problems facing Her Majesty's Government that I cannot believe they would allow time for such a pointless and job loss piece of legislation. If hunting were made a criminal offence, it would surely be only a matter of time before all field sports were banned. And nearly 5 million people participated in field sports last year alone. Field sports account for a direct annual expenditure of £3.8 billion. It would be sheer, utter madness to ban an industry producing such an income to the rural economy and indeed for a government income of £634 million. The rural economy would be devastated by such a measure and I cannot help but feel that animal rights organisations would be appalled at the thought of 15,000 hounds having to be destroyed. The effect on point-to-point racing and racing in general would be catastrophic; and the loss of revenue from the betting tax would seriously damage the Government's economic long-term planning.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will allow the countryside to continue to flourish as it has done for many centuries without imposing unrealistic restrictions on it. A government Bill on fox hunting which would lead eventually to the abolition of all field sports would sadly lead to the devastation of rural Britain. And bearing in mind the mention in the gracious Speech of the Government's determination to support the rural economy, I beg, hope and pray that field sports, and most especially hunting with hounds, will not be an issue to which Her Majesty's Government will give their support.

303
Those who live in the countryside wish the new Government well. I just hope that the Government wish the countryside well. They have the opportunity and I hope that they will seize upon it.

The Bank of England
5.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
"This Government's central economic objective is high and stable levels of growth and employment. This can only happen if we build on the solid foundation of monetary and fiscal stability.
"I am determined to set the British economy on a new long-term course by taking the correct long-term decisions.
"The previous arrangements for monetary policy were too short-termist, encouraging short but unsustainable booms and bust and higher inflation, followed inevitably by recession. This is why we promised in our election manifesto to
"reform the Bank of England to ensure that decision-making on monetary policy is more effective, open, accountable and free from short-term political manipulation".
"On 6th May, I announced the means by which we would achieve this promise, by giving the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates, and on the first economic day in the new House, I have sought the opportunity to explain my proposals for legislation that will be introduced to and fully debated in the House. The House will understand that the length of the Statement reflects the significance of the changes I propose.
"In undertaking these reforms, I have taken account of the recommendations of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on the role of the Bank of England, which stressed the need for clear lines of accountability and answerability for monetary policy to Parliament. As the committee stated in 1993:
"The present system for determining monetary policy does not, in practice, allow for clear parliamentary accountability".
"The reforms represent a British solution to meet British needs. Their main elements are as follows. The Bank's monetary policy objective will be to deliver price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment. The Government will set the inflation target for the Bank. This target will be reviewed annually, and announced in the Budget. The Bank will have operational responsibility to achieve the inflation target.
304
"Decisions on what actions need to be taken to achieve the target will be taken by a Monetary Policy Committee, on the basis of a majority vote. The committee will include the Governor and two deputy governors nominated by the Government, and two senior Bank officials with management responsibility for monetary policy and market operations. But it will also include four other expert members appointed from outside the Bank by the Government. The committee will take responsibility for taking full account of regional and sectoral information in its monetary policy decisions.
"The Monetary Policy Committee will meet on a monthly basis. All decisions on interest rates will be announced immediately after the meeting. The proceedings of the meetings, including votes, will be minuted, and published within six weeks. The Monetary Policy Committee's performance will be reviewed by the Court of the Bank. The Court will be substantially reformed, so that it is able to take account of the full range of industrial and business views in this country and for the first time is fully representative of the whole of the United Kingdom.
"The Bank will be expected to report to the Treasury Select Committee and to the House. I will write to the chairman of the committee suggesting that the Bank's annual report be debated in the House, and that the Bank appear four times a year before the committee to give evidence and answer questions on its inflation report, so that the Bank's performance will be able to be judged by Parliament. There will be a review of the Bank's financial arrangements, to ensure that the Bank meets the highest standards of accountability and transparency, in the light of its new responsibilities. The Bank's role in debt management will be transferred to the Treasury.
"The Government will retain the right to override the operational independence of the Bank in extreme economic circumstances, for a limited period only, and subject to ratification by the House. I would expect this right to be exercised rarely if at all. These requirements mean that, while the Government retain clear responsibility to Parliament for the goals of monetary policy, the Bank will be clearly accountable for the operation of monetary policy, and will be required to report to Parliament on a regular basis. In addition, through the regular publication of the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee's meetings, and the Bank's inflation report, the public will have sufficient information to judge the performance of the Bank against the target it is set.
"I intend to introduce legislation enacting these changes as soon as possible, for the House to consider. In the meantime, the Governor—for whose co-operation in this I am grateful—has agreed on a transitional basis to implement the new procedures for decision-making, and I will be nominating the four new members of the Monetary Policy Committee.
"I now turn to the question of prudential supervision. Of course this concerns not just the Bank of England, but also the reform of the Financial Services Act.

305
"Financial services lie at the heart of a modern, dynamic economy. The effectiveness and competitiveness of all our industries depend on the availability and efficiency of the increasingly wide array of financial products and services, from pensions and insurance to securities and derivatives. Our standard of living depends on them, particularly in retirement. Financial services are often complex and long term. Products, markets and advice must therefore be fair, honest, transparent and command confidence.
"It has long been apparent that the regulatory structure introduced by the Financial Services Act 1986 (FSA) is not delivering the standard of supervision and investor protection that the industry and the public have a right to expect. The current two-tier system splits responsibility between the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) and the self-regulatory organisations (SROs), together with the recognised professional bodies. This division is inefficient, confusing for investors and lacks accountability and a clear allocation of responsibilities. Reform is long overdue to simplify the delivery of financial service regulation, and this was a key commitment in our Business Manifesto. At the same time, it is important to preserve the beneficial aspects of the current Act, including practitioner involvement and differential levels of regulation for wholesale and retail business.
"I can announce today that work is to start immediately on the legislation needed to simplify and reform the regulatory system at an early opportunity. I am announcing our intentions in advance to give the SIB and the self-regulating bodies the opportunity to work with us on the detailed implementation of our proposals, to ensure the smoothest possible transition to the new regime. I am confident that the simpler system we are proposing will reduce compliance costs, and increase public confidence in the regulatory regime.
"But simply reforming the Financial Services Act is not enough in itself. In today's world of integrated global financial markets, the financial services industry transcends geographical and political boundaries and the regulatory response must meet this challenge. The UK financial services industry needs a regulator which can deliver the most effective supervision in the world.
"You cannot ensure the success of British financial services in the 21st century without modernising arrangements for the protection of investors. My reforms are essential to ensure the future confidence of investors large and small, and the future success of the increasingly integrated financial services industry on which so many British jobs now depend.
"At the same time it is clear that the distinctions between different types of financial institution—banks, securities firms and insurance companies—are becoming increasingly blurred. Many of today's financial institutions are regulated by a plethora of different supervisors. This increases the cost and reduces the effectiveness of supervision.
306
"So there is a strong case in principle for bringing the regulation of banking, securities and insurance together under one roof. Firms organise and manage their businesses on a group-wide basis. Regulators need to look at them in a consistent way. This would bring the regulatory structure closer into line with today's increasingly integrated financial markets. It would deliver more effective and more efficient supervision, giving both firms and customers better value for money. This would improve the competitiveness of the sector and create a regulatory regime that would generally meet the challenges of the 21st century.
"So I have decided to take the opportunity presented by the Bank of England Bill to reform the regulatory system. Responsibility for banking supervision will be transferred, as soon as possible after passage of the Bill, from the Bank of England to a new and strengthened Securities and Investments Board, which will also, as a result of forthcoming legislation, take direct responsibility for the regulatory regime covered by the Financial Services Act.
"SIB will become the single regulator underpinned by statute. The current system of self-regulation will be replaced by a new and fully statutory system, which will put the public interest first and increase public confidence in the system.
"The Governor of the Bank of England will be fully involved in drawing up the detailed proposals. The Bank will remain responsible for the overall stability of the financial system as a whole. The enhanced Securities and Investments Board will be responsible for prudential supervision.
"As the House will already be aware, Sir Andrew Large, the current chairman of the SIB, has decided to step down. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, and thank him for his contribution to financial regulation over the past years.
"It is crucial to the success of these reforms that I am proposing that we should have a new chairman with the stature and calibre to implement them quickly and smoothly. Because of the importance I attach to drawing on the Bank of England's expertise in these areas I have asked Howard Davies, the Deputy Governor of the Bank, to be the first chairman of the enhanced Securities and Investment Board responsible for integrating the supervision of banking and financial services. I am pleased that he has agreed. He is of course already a member of the SIB board. He will take over as chairman when Sir Andrew Large steps down. Two new deputy governors of the Bank will be appointed in due course.
"I have today written to Sir Andrew Large with further details of my proposals. I have placed a copy of this letter, together with my earlier letter to the Governor on monetary policy, in the Library of the House.
"I am confident that the new arrangements, taken together, will enhance significantly the credibility of UK monetary policy and improve the workings of the

307
financial markets. That means lower long-term interest rates and higher growth and investment. Indeed, we have already seen long-term interest rates fall since my announcement a fortnight ago, reflecting the positive reaction to the new monetary framework.
"These reforms are founded on sound economic principles. This is a long-term policy for long-term prosperity. It provides the building blocks for a new economic strategy for monetary and financial stability aimed at enhancing longer term growth and prosperity. I am confident that their success will be reflected in a stronger and more robust economy for the long term".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before turning to the Statement, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to his new post on the Front Bench as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, which I am sure he will greatly enjoy. I especially welcome him to the role of Treasury spokesman, one that I fulfilled previously and took great enjoyment in. It is a little like having responsibility without power. You merely have to answer for what your Treasury colleagues do without having any role in deciding what it is. I found it great fun and very interesting, as I am sure the noble Lord will.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me slightly longer to mull over the Statement than was given to my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke in the other place. I believe that he had only about a quarter of an hour to look over a Statement of some considerable length and about two very important issues.
Many people were surprised two weeks ago by the announcement—not to Parliament—that the Bank was to be given operational responsibility for setting interest rates. I suppose we should therefore be grateful this afternoon that, two weeks later, Parliament has been properly informed. There was not much indication of that in the manifesto (although a paragraph was quoted in the Statement) nor in any of the speeches by Mr. Gordon Brown. Indeed, as recently as February Mr. Gordon Brown said:
"The Bank must demonstrate a successful track record in its advice and build greater public credibility".
I should like to be assured, as I can only assume, that this was demonstrated over the very first weekend in May, and that in those few days the greater public credibility came about that justified the creation of the monetary policy committee.
When are we likely to see these appointments? As well as the additional deputy governor and the four others who are to be appointed there will have to be a replacement for Mr. Howard Davies. That makes a total of six appointments, all very clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It sounds very much like the first new quango. How independent will the Bank be if all the appointments are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
308
Perhaps the Minister will tell me when we can expect to hear who is to be appointed and what consultation will take place. I see from the Statement that the Court is to be reformed to be fully representative of the whole UK. That may be fine, so far as it goes, but the real decision-maker will be the Monetary Policy Committee. Will it represent the whole UK? Specifically, will it represent Scotland, with its considerable financial sector? Will the new Scottish parliament and government, if they are set up, be consulted even on one member of the Monetary Policy Committee?
I also note that there is to be accountability to the other place via the Treasury Select Committee and that the annual report of the Bank is to be debated in the House of Commons. Will the Minister give me an assurance that at least the annual report of the Bank will be debated here, in your Lordships' House, to give us a chance to discuss these important matters?
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and his colleagues at the Treasury are confident that this new system will deliver as good a record on inflation as my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke did, in conjunction with Mr. Eddie George. Is the Minister concerned that when the last Chancellor and the Governor disagreed, about two years ago, events proved the Chancellor right and the Governor wrong? In an independent system, interest rates would have been raised then, as banks have always proved to be more likely to follow deflationary policies than policies that would encourage growth and increasing employment.
We only have to look at the years before the war, when the Bank was independent. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that the Bank will not pursue deflationary policies? Is there not a danger that the Monetary Policy Committee will always err on the side of caution in order to meet the inflationary targets laid down? Therefore interest rates will be at a higher level than they need be and consequently there will be an upward effect on the value of sterling. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Paul, was concerned about that eight weeks ago and he must be much more concerned about it now than he was on the day he questioned me. It will also have an adverse downward effect on growth in our economy and on the employment rate.
Another point on the interesting proposal is this. I wonder whether this is the first step towards European monetary union. One of the first steps on the road to European monetary union is the independence of the bank. Is that the hidden agenda? Has the Foreign Secretary agreed, or has he been out of the country when these important decisions were made?
My last point about that part of the Statement is that I hope that by the new policy the Government do not think that they are off-loading responsibility for interest rates onto the Bank of England and that they can do a Pontius Pilate act on the subject of interest rates so that when the interest rates rise, they can wash their hands of any consequences and say, as they do in the television police programmes: "Honest, guv, nothing to do with me", or in this case, "Nothing to do with me, ask the Guy".
I turn to the second half of the Statement. The two halves merit being two separate Statements and not being run together because they are very important

309
indeed. The changes in the financial services provisions are considerable and wide ranging. When will the new Bill be presented to Parliament? Indeed, why was it not in last week's gracious Speech? Surely a Bill of this importance must have been agreed before yesterday evening. It seems to me that the SIB will have an enormous and important task not just taking direct responsibility for the regulatory regimes covered by the Financial Services Act, but also taking over responsibility for banking supervision from the Bank of England. There will be costs. I noticed that the Statement said that the compliance costs would be lower. I should like an assurance that there will be publication of a compliance cost assessment. When looking at the role of this new regulatory authority, I wonder whether it will include Lloyd's.
The details of these changes are not contained in the Statement but in a letter to Sir Andrew Large which has been placed in the Library. Clearly, we shall have to study the contents of that letter to learn a little more of the proposals. Will the Government consult in a meaningful way all those involved in the banking, insurance and financial sector? Will the Government always remember the vital role that those industries play in the wealth-creating sector of this country? Will they ensure that nothing they do in the creation of the new system will endanger the pre-eminent position of the City in the worldwide financial markets nor will it endanger the important role that other financial centres play around this country—for example, in Edinburgh?
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions. We look forward to the two Bills: one that we knew about, on the Bank of England, the other being the new one which comes to us. Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication of when he expects the supervision Bill to come to Parliament.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in extending congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on his important new ministerial appointment. I had not expected that we would hear from him at such length today. I was looking forward to his speech tomorrow and I hope to participate in that debate. What he has put to us today is of considerable importance and I am glad that we have the opportunity of commenting on it.
From these Benches, we welcome the Statement with its emphasis on long-term objectives. We welcome the greater independence of the Bank of England. That was specifically proposed in our manifesto, as the Minister is no doubt aware. I raised the issue as long ago as the middle of 1993 in a Question. I drew attention to the clear benefits which had arisen in New Zealand through the arrangements which they introduced there and which appear to be the basis for the arrangements now proposed for the Bank of England.
The Statement referred to the recommendations of the Treasury and the Civil Service Select Committee in the other place. It is precisely on the lines of those recommendations made at the end of 1993 that these
310
proposals have been put forward. So they have been carefully studied and there is every reason to be pleased that the proposals are now to be put into effect.
The Minister referred to accountability to Parliament. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in saying that while much is made of the Bank's accountability in its new role to the other place, I hope that there will be a full opportunity for a review of the Bank's operations in this House.
Reference was made to the restructuring of the court. Again the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I hope that, in that restructuring, the regions will be fully represented, as well as the commercial and industrial interests referred to.
I move to the second part of the Statement: the prudential supervision of the banking system. I very much welcome a review of the Financial Services Act 1986. I was one of those who had to sit through the tedious stages of that Bill and I must say that I found it one of the most complex and diffuse pieces of legislation that I have ever come across. It is probably a record in recent times. I ask the Minister for an assurance that its replacement will be more user-friendly.
I agree with the basic concept of bringing together in an enlarged SIB the regulation of banking and securities and insurance services. As the Statement rightly emphasises, demarcation between those various services no longer exists. Banks have moved into securities and insurance, securities companies have moved into banking and building societies have moved into banking and other services. There are no longer any distinctions in the whole financial sector. So it is right that there should be recognition of that fact. I also happen to agree that it is right that there should be a statutory basis for it. Those are such vital issues that leaving it purely on a voluntary basis is no longer adequate.
However, I should like to ask two questions on the subject. The first concerns the sentence in the Statement that:
"The Bank will remain responsible for the overall stability of the financial system as a whole".
while the new SIB,
"will be responsible for prudential supervision".
How are those two roles to be reconciled? Will there be a formal procedure for contact between the two bodies? I know that Mr. Howard Davies goes from the Bank and to begin with there will be clear contacts with the Bank. But as time goes on they could go their separate ways. I should like to be clear on how those two positions will be brought together.
There was also an emphasis on practitioner representation being maintained. At what level will that be done? Will it be at the SIB level or that of the various subordinate bodies? I presume that there will be subordinate bodies set up eventually. It will be important to know how the practitioners will come into the arrangements.

311
Taking those two measures together, we welcome them and look forward to the detailed legislation to put them into effect.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset let me thank both noble Lords for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is an old friend and sparring partner from transport days, was extremely nice about my appointment. He should not read too much into it so far as concerns my Treasury role. After my performance today, I doubt very much whether it will want to prolong it. Also, I note his comment about responsibility without power. Rather like that of a grandparent—which I am eight times over—it is a fallacy to believe that a grandparent has responsibility with power. It is total impotence.
The noble Lord said that we had not made the position clear in the manifesto. With the greatest respect in the world, I feel that he is mistaken; but that is understandable because I cannot believe that he read the manifesto, and least of all the business manifesto. When he acquaints himself with those worthy documents, he will find that we have not set upon this course with absolute suddenness over the past two weeks. With great respect, I feel that the noble Lord represents a party which is least well equipped to criticise us about quangos. A government who set about not simply setting up quangos but tangos—totally autonomous non-governmental organisations—ensure that they are a little out of court on that point.
The noble Lord asked a series of important questions. I am sure that he does not expect me to deal with every single one, but I shall use my best endeavours. He asked whether the new monetary policy committee would be representative of the whole of the United Kingdom. We were very careful in the course of the lead-up to the election and beyond to make sure that we were conscious of the need of the whole of the United Kingdom to be closely involved in matters such as those we have been discussing.
The whole issue of the Bank will be debated in this House, if this House so chooses, through the usual channels. I do not mind the noble Lord not having read our manifestos, but I wish that he had read the speeches of two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and Mr. Norman Lamont, who said that they wished they had embarked upon those policies. As my noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place not so very long ago, "I have had the courage of your convictions". That is precisely what has happened.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is another good friend. We worked together on a number of issues when I was in Opposition and I thank him for his co-operation. He knows that the existing system was not acceptable. It was widely opposed by experts in financial markets, by bankers, professionals and, above all, the noble Lord, over a long period of time. I find it astonishing that the Conservative Government appear to have learned nothing. This is not the time for the complacent acceptance that everything that they did was fine. I do not say that everything they did was wrong but apparently the electorate overall did not like the
312
message that they conveyed. That is less evident in this House, with numbers as they are, but certainly in another place it is plain. He ought to go over there and see the efficacy of what I say in that regard.
The noble Lord asked whether this was a first step toward EMU. That is not the case. We put this measure forward on the basis of the merits of the argument. There are many substantial differences, on which I do not have time to enlarge. But this is not a hidden agenda for EMU. In any event, further legislation would be required on the Bank before we would qualify for membership of EMU. If the noble Lord were to examine that matter a little more carefully, he would see that that was right.
The noble Lord then chose to inhabit the land of pretending that there are huge divisions between my right honourable friends in the Cabinet. Who are they to talk? Regardless of boxes of chocolates that pass from certain people to Ministers, hardly a moment passes without their being at each other's throats. This is a matter which obviously the Cabinet resolved to introduce as a matter of urgency, and that has been done.
The noble Lord went on to refer to the second half of the Bill and asked when the Bill would be presented. The first priority is to engage in consultation. We shall undertake to do that with great care. Banking supervision is covered in the Bank of England Bill which will be introduced as soon as possible. The financial services element may not be introduced in this Session but we are starting work immediately on the drafting and will introduce it at the earliest opportunity. That will provide for the necessary time for consultation, which is an important ingredient of that reform.
I turn to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who generally welcomed the proposals that we shall put before the House. He asked two specific questions. He asked whether the new SIB would be dealing fundamentally with supervision. I see the noble Lord rising. If I have misinterpreted the question, I am perfectly happy to give way so that he can clarify it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the point I made was that the Statement mentions that the Bank will retain overall responsibility for the stability of the financial system, while the new SIB would have specific responsibility for supervising banking and the other financial services. I asked how the two would link up.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to contact through the personnel involved in this matter, which is obviously right. There will be a clear co-relationship between the two. That has to be the case. They must work in parallel and in partnership with each other. That will be the situation.
I am not absolutely sure about the element of practitioner representation. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord in that regard. As somebody who comes from a distinguished profession—even though I was not a distinguished member of it—I feel that the noble Lord is right: careful consideration needs to be given to the matter and I am sure that that will be the case.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may make one observation and ask one question which I tried to convey to my noble friend, though I am not sure that it reached him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Brown, said that to transfer the monetary function to the Bank of England was a bold step. He is right; it is a bold step. It is made more acceptable because the Government intend to set the targets and will appoint four additional members of the Bank monetary committee. The system has been shown to work in other countries. In this country we experienced a total failure when both issues were in the hands of the Government and we must see how it works out.
I do not withhold support from the idea. Both systems can work with the protection that the Government are giving to their own policy ends. It is a step worth trying in this country, though we must watch carefully and see what is the end result. I make just one suggestion; that is, that the four members appointed should have a longer term of office than the three years proposed.
The second point in the Statement is also a bold step and one for which I give three cheers. It is 10 years since I waited on the Bank of England in connection with a bank that I felt was drifting, though eventually it was proved to have criminal activity. I urged the governor to supervise it and take it under his wing, at any rate in so far as its British connections were concerned. He indicated that he had no real resources or facilities to do that and would be reluctant to take it over. There may have been other reasons in his mind which he did not disclose to me, but that was the reason he advanced.
The issuing of banking licences in the 1980s was far too lax. We seemed to take on anybody who wanted to come. Who will be responsible for issuing banking licences under the new regime? Will it continue to be the Bank of England or, as I hope, will that function be transferred to the new supervisory board? Because of the globalisation of financial institutions and the speed of communications, supervision is now an extremely difficult task and should be examined closely. Will the supervisory board be able to enter into discussions on an international basis with other bodies in other countries in order to see what measures of regulation can be applied? That is absolutely vital. Alternatively, will that be left to the Bank of England?
Those are matters which I am sure will be worked out. On the whole, I give two cheers for the proposed transfer of monetary facilities and three cheers for the supervisory board.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that support. He is always listened to with care in this House and his suggestions are worthy of consideration. I undertake to pass them on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My noble friend rightly said that this is a bold step. It is one for which I wish he had given three cheers, though one must be thankful for small mercies. I was not sure where the missing cheer went. I can say that
314
we will not be complacent in regard to working out the scheme relating to the Bank. We shall learn as we go along. As my right honourable friend indicated, this is a time for change, a fact which has been recognised swiftly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In regard to the question relating to the term of office being longer than that proposed, I shall pass on that comment to my right honourable friend. I am sure it will be carefully heeded. In relation to the second part of the Statement, I can say immediately that the enhanced SIB will be responsible for licensing. The Bank will have no responsibility for authorising and supervising banks. That accords fully, I believe, with what my noble friend said.
My noble friend's point in regard to international communication is correct. Financial institutions conduct their business on a global scale now and it would be impossible to conceive that there could not be an enhanced role for international communication to ensure that supervision becomes more effective.
I have said many times in this House when I had some responsibility in the Opposition that the fragmentation of the supervisory roles undertaken by different institutions did not lead to a satisfactory undertaking of supervision in the general sense. What my right honourable friend has in mind will improve that position; indeed, it would not have been introduced if that were not the case. It is not a party political opinion. It is an opinion shared by many people in the financial world. I have heard it debated many times in this House and that opinion has been shared by many noble Lords.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that for many years past the economic policies of this country have been settled by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer with the use of two instruments; that is, fiscal policy and the fixing of taxation and monetary policy and the fixing of interest rates. The Government now propose to throw away the operational control of monetary policy. Does the noble Lord believe that the economy can be fairly and properly balanced by throwing away one of those important arms? I ask him not to be misled by what happened in the Bundesbank in Germany, in America or in New Zealand. Those are all quite different circumstances.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while it is true that to cite other instances is not the end of the argument, it is surely worthy to look at the experiences of other countries, which have not been wholly bad. It would be complacent for us to adopt the view that it has been tried elsewhere and fundamentally we should discard that experience. That is not the view of the Government. We can learn from this and may even be able to learn one or two things from the Opposition.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Statement made clear that in fixing the bank rate the Bank of England will have to act within limits set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I may ask two brief questions in that regard.

315
Will those limits be wide or narrow? Whether they are wide or narrow, what will happen if the Bank decides, after consulting the monetary policy committee, that it would be against the national economic interest of the country to act within the limit instead of outside it? The factors which should be borne in mind are the need to control inflation internally, the fact that interest rates have an effect upon the balance of payments and our obligations within the European Union.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Government are very conscious of those obligations. We have spelt out our position. We have certain legal obligations which have to be fulfilled. I have set out in the Statement the remit of the Bank of England and the Chancellor respectively in this matter. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at that carefully after we have engaged in this discussion. Essentially it is giving the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates. I do not view the matter in the apocalyptic way in which the noble Lord does, though I always respect his views because he speaks with a good deal of authority in this place. However, I think he is wrong on this occasion.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the second part of the Statement; that to do with the SIB. The Minister will recall that together with my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom we sat through the proceedings on the Bill concerning the SIB. Indeed, I was in a similar position to the Minister in putting the Bill before the House in 1986 from the DTI. I do not think we got it right then in certain respects. If there is to be a review it seems to me that with the change in circumstances over the past 11 years that matter should not be confused with the Bank of England responsibilities under the new proposals. There are enough grounds in terms of the supervisory nature of the SIB for it to stand on its own. It would be regrettable if there were a confusion—almost a constitutional confusion—between the Bank's traditional responsibilities and its new ones and the straightforward responsibility of the SIB.
The intentions in 1986 were perfectly sound. They were upset by the chairman-designate in the build-up of the SIB itself during the passage of the Bill. A good many alterations had to be made to accommodate that. In the department itself there was not total agreement. Nevertheless, it established a regime which is now in need of updating. I hope therefore that the Minister can answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Will Lloyd's be included? Another point follows on. In looking at the regulation of securities and banking one might at the same time have to look at the repercussions there will then be in terms of the present Insolvency Acts.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the issue of insolvency is a separate one. I would not wish to deal with that today. On the other constructive points made by the noble Lord—he speaks with some experience in this field—it is worthy of note that the noble Lord believes that it is important to carry out this
316
review of policy and to undertake legislation but after appropriate consultation. I welcome what he said in that regard.
As to whether Lloyd's will be included, this is a matter, as with other professional organisations, that we shall be discussing and consulting on. We shall not pre-empt that position. With respect, the noble Lord perhaps in a way misconceived what we are trying to do. We have announced the very definitive proposals which will be the subject of the first Bill dealing with the Bank of England and then we shift on to the other area which we have covered. But I think it was appropriate to announce today what those signposts are. They are not unrelated but they will be separate Bills. As I have indicated, there may not be time in this Session for the Bill dealing with the supervisory role. I notice that the noble Lord is shaking his head in agreement. I thank him for that and I thank him for his constructive comments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his new position and I am particularly thankful that he has long experience of parliamentary affairs, going back, dare I say, to the last Labour Government under the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Can my noble friend confirm that we will learn from the experiences this country has had under the Conservative Government, from the problems that emerged ranging from Johnson Matthey, BCCI, Barings, and the personal pensions scandal to the problems at Lloyd's and also from the fact that we have had two major recessions which generated mass unemployment on a scale unseen since before the war and the destruction in the early 1980s of one-third of British manufacturing industry? Can we have an assurance that the object of government policy now is a reduction in unemployment and inflation and not just inflation on its own, which was the policy of the previous government, and that the measures he has put before the House in the Statement are designed to ensure that twin-track policy, bearing in mind the changed world situation, with particular emphasis on unemployment and manufacturing industry in this country?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. As I said at the beginning of my remarks—it now seems a long time ago—our central purpose economically is high and stable levels of growth and employment. We have made that clear over and over again. We are committed to that. It is because we are seeking to learn from the experience of the past and it is because we have identified a number of deficiencies in this regard that we have come forward with these proposals. So the answer to my noble friend on both counts is yes.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will there be any formal provision for liaison between the Chancellor and the new committee? At the moment there is a monthly meeting between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor. What will happen if the committee has it in mind to put up interest rates because of a

317
deteriorating situation and the Chancellor at the same time is thinking in terms of putting up taxation? When will the liaison take place?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the liaison, in so far as it occurred in the past at the monthly meetings and so on, is now at an end. What we are talking about is a different commitment altogether with different responsibilities, which I have, I hope, outlined satisfactorily to this House this afternoon, if not to everyone's satisfaction. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will not fail to see the Bank of England officials from time to time but the formality of those meetings and the way they are conducted will now be different. I think this is a better way to proceed than the situation over the past two or three years when the previous regime obtained.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, is it the idea of Her Majesty's Government to make the Bank of England more independent, rather like the Bundesbank appears to me to be independent of the German Government?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the proposals that we have for so-called "independence" are not necessarily akin to those of the German Bundesbank. This is a British solution for British needs, as, I hope, I purposefully said at the very beginning. What I do not want to do is to ignore the experience of others; we can always learn from them and it is to be hoped that they might even learn from us.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate on the Address resumed.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, for a few minutes in today's debate on the gracious Speech I should like to dwell on regional development agencies and to make specific observations for the south west and in particular for Devon and Cornwall; Devon being the county in which I live. In so doing I declare an interest in that I am a director of South West Enterprise, which is a company established as a private sector joint venture promoting business and economic development in Devon and Cornwall.
Let me first say that I welcome the Government's initiative to combine environment, transport and regions into a super ministry, also encompassing local government, regeneration and planning. I also welcome the proposals to centralise these key functions while at the same time devolving decisions on economic development
"to the level that matters most",
as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The environment, transport and the regions are components which fit together well in laying the foundations for wealth creation and competitiveness. We need development agencies which can combine the
318
wide range of activities currently undertaken by many central and local bodies. It is to be hoped that that will lead to a much improved cohesion between functions and a much needed focus on the solutions which will really make the difference. But crucially, it will enable local communities to identify far more closely with what is being done to enhance their businesses and their own communities. Local identification is essential. Economic development occurs locally—in the factory, in the office, on the farm—where value is added and jobs are created.
The Government may wish to consider further how a regionally run agency can improve upon centrally run agencies in the development of local communities. For example, consider the south west region where I live. The distance between Gloucester in the north and Penzance in the south is 220 miles. Compare that with London to York at 212 miles, London to Manchester at 203 miles and London to Carmarthen in west Wales at 217 miles. The administrative city of the south west is Bristol, which is 194 miles from Penzance and 125 miles from Plymouth. At 120 miles, London is closer to Bristol than Bristol is to Plymouth.
How should a regional development agency in Bristol address local issues and build local identity and, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, evolve decisions
"to the level that matters most"?
How should that happen in Devon and Cornwall?
The last Government recognised the economic and geographic differences which exist between the northern part of the south west region and Devon and Cornwall. And thus the government office for the south west was initially established in Bristol, but in recognition of the demand for a presence in Devon and Cornwall, the previous government established a second site in Plymouth. That met the need for local access, information and decisions. That achieved a local identification with government services and meant that people in Devon and Cornwall did not have to travel to Bristol. I ask that the present Government not only maintain that position, but go further and create an executive development agency for Devon and Cornwall.
Earlier this year South West Enterprise published a prospectus entitled Turning Around the Westcountry Economy containing proposals for a development agency for Devon and Cornwall. In a recent survey of the business community in Devon and Cornwall undertaken by Ernst & Young, 83 per cent. of respondents favoured a single development agency for Devon and Cornwall. There are sound business and economic reasons for Devon and Cornwall having its own development agency.
If one compares the regions of the United Kingdom, the south west ranks highly in terms of both income and earnings and ranks third overall of all United Kingdom regions on the basis of 24 key economic indicators. But these south west economic indicators in reality completely mask the local economic difficulties faced by Devon and Cornwall. Of the seven counties in the south west, Cornwall ranks seventh in terms of earnings and income—that is to say, last—and Devon sixth and fifth respectively.

319
A recent review of the prospects for the south west economy published by the Plymouth Business School stated,
"There is an extreme economically depressed area extending roughly west of a line from the cast of Exmoor on the north coast to the west of Exeter on the south.
There is a further deterioration once the Devon border is crossed into Cornwall.
Just how far Cornwall is behind is explained by the fact that there is a 15.6% differential in GDP per head with Devon, while the figure for the most prosperous South West county, Wiltshire, is nearly 60% above the figure for Cornwall".
Nobody pretends that economic development is easy, but the Government's proposals potentially make it much easier. We would expect, quite understandably, a regional development agency based in Bristol to give an emphasis on exploiting the existing and increasing opportunities in the north of the region. Indeed, Bristol is now providing the bulk of services for the new manufacturing investments in South Wales and the second Severn crossing has opened up a huge swathe of land for business and industrial development with immediate proximity to the M.4 and M.5 for manufacturing and distribution.
Given their economic circumstances, Devon and Cornwall need an executive agency of their own. Indeed, there is one—young, experienced, but lacking government financial support—the Westcountry Development Corporation. This is a partnership between the local private sector, the local authorities and the local TEC. It is a self-help partnership. It has a regional economic development strategy. We have been developing our own opportunities and building on our own strengths.
As an example, I take just six of the major capital business projects currently in progress in Devon and Cornwall. Together these six projects require £299 million. Most of that funding is already in place, but some is not. Of the funding that is in place, the ability to create jobs has been limited by the current constraints placed on funding. These six projects should between them create 2,650 short-term construction jobs and 6,750 long-term manufacturing and service jobs.
The Prime Minister has made a pledge in another place to reduce unemployment. Indeed, in the Western Morning News he was also quoted as saying,
"Our New Deal for the young unemployed will help to get 250,000 under-25s across the UK off benefit and into work. That represents direct help to nearly 6,500 young people in Devon and Cornwall".
We already have plans in Devon and Cornwall which will deliver more than 9,400 jobs. It will not be easy. However much government assistance is given for training and the re-motivation of the long-term unemployed, these jobs will not appear without the support of the private sector. In an era of continuing restraint on local government expenditure, these jobs will have to be created by and within the private sector.
As I have already said, South West Enterprise is a private sector joint venture promoting business and economic development and represents almost 14,000 businesses in Devon and Cornwall including the major utilities, banks, manufacturers, services and representatives of the CBI, the NFU, the Federation of
320
Small Businesses and the South West Chamber of Commerce. We ask that we work together through the Westcountry Development Corporation to create jobs in Devon that are genuine and lasting and will lead to a sustainable and competitive local economy that can make a full contribution to the United Kingdom in global markets. There is nothing incompatible between a Devon and Cornwall agency and the Government's present proposals. What matters most is the focus on local economic need.
We would welcome a partnership with the Government whereby we work together to reduce long-term unemployment in Devon and Cornwall, thereby helping the Government to deliver their pledge to reduce the overall level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it was commonly said of reports of Royal Commissions and other government-appointed committees that they mouldered on the shelves of Ministers and over time gathered a great deal of dust. I was especially pleased by a number of items in the gracious Speech and the speech of my noble friend this afternoon that related to lifelong learning, individual learning accounts and a more sensitive and efficient system of loans for university students. I also welcomed her comment on regional development. All those themes featured in Opposition-appointed commissions on which I had the honour to serve, namely the Commission on Social Justice and the Regional Policy Commission. I am also delighted that four brand new elected Members of the other place served on those commissions, three Labour and one Liberal Democrat. I know that they will be as pleased as I am that, instead of gathering dust, our work has already borne fruit and provides a source of analysis and proposals which is useful to the Government which has just been formed.
The creation of the combined Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is, in my view, a policy that results from a proposal by the Regional Policy Commission. I am delighted by that instant creation. I am also delighted to hear that the last speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, approves of the creation of that department. In my congratulations to my noble friend on her appointment I am also able to add my thanks. When in opposition in her previous incarnation as chairman of the trustees of the Institute of Public Policy Research a certain amount of funding for our commission was helpfully provided.
The proposal to create regional development agencies for England on the model of the Scottish and Welsh development agencies is part of the Government's intention to devolve power outwards from Whitehall and promote economic and social regeneration particularly of the weaker and poorer parts of the country. I was fascinated to hear the close analysis of my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside in his delightful and excellent maiden speech. He pointed out that social regeneration of some of the poorer parts of the country required architects, social workers and those who planned for economic development. Today, sometimes in close geographical proximity to one another, one sees prosperity and comfort on the one hand and poverty and

321
despair on the other. I believe that the economic success of the United Kingdom as a whole must ensure that all regions of the United Kingdom join in that progress, because, if any region under-performs, the UK as a whole is not maximising its economic potential.
Three years ago the previous Government set up 10 regional government offices. They were intended to remove to the regions decisions upon policies such as business development, training and regeneration. One of their key functions is to administer the single regeneration budget, which integrates government funding for the regeneration programme. They are staffed by officials from the DTI, the Department for Education and Employment and the now combined Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Two of the regional directors have been officials of an office with which in the past I have been concerned: the Office of Fair Trading. I have reason to believe therefore that those directors are of high quality. Surely, that is something on which we can build.
The creation of those offices was a definite move in the right direction. I congratulate the former Government upon their creation. It may be that one of the motivations for their creation was to head off pressure for more genuine regional government, but today, with another government, we stand in a different position. We can use those government offices in the regions as a starting block on which to build. It can give them a closer focus and enable them to remedy what I believe is their democratic deficit. I believe that they need staff from a wider range of government departments than at present so that they include, for example, people from the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture—which has cropped up a few times in the debate this afternoon—and the Home Office. Those departments have relevance to the economic and social policies that the regions require. The closer focus will come from those officials if they now owe primary loyalty to the new department. Their accountability to one of the principal Ministers in the present Government—namely, the Deputy Prime Minister as head of that department—will give them a closer focus. They will work closely with the new regional development agencies that will be appointed from a wide range of appropriate regional interests.
As to the democratic deficit, a start can be made by building on elected bodies, through elected councillors in all local authorities in the region, coming together as consultative chambers to link the agencies and regional government offices with local communities. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, regards that as a system to ensure that the individual communities in the 10 regions of England are brought closer together.
What will the regional development agencies be doing? I believe that they will promote economic and social regeneration, develop regional priorities, help small businesses and be a very strong focus to attract inward investment. My noble friend the Minister referred to attracting inward investment. I hope that they will also boost indigenous investment in those regions. I am sure that there is no conflict on that point. They
322
will bring together a number of disparate relevant bodies at regional and local level and be a one-stop executive arm of the regional chambers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, referring particularly to the North West, spoke of the undue profusion of bodies at the present time. If one is to reduce profusion in the City of London and the financial sector, as one heard in the government Statement this afternoon, one should also think of the profusion of bodies elsewhere, for example in the regions. I suspect that the White Paper on the agencies will concentrate on the merits of decentralisation and devolution from Whitehall. Clearly, it is vital that the regional development agencies are seen as strong co-ordinating bodies adding value to the regions' economic development, not just adding another layer of bureaucracy between local authorities and other local agencies on the one hand and London and Whitehall on the other.
Following recent local government reorganisation under the previous government and the creation of a larger number of unitary local authorities, many of them quite small, in my view some functions are now too widely dispersed and the public are perhaps less well served than they should be. I think particularly of the control of trading standards and the enforcement of high standards of consumer protection. I declare my interest as an honorary vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration.
To be fully effective, local authority trading standards departments need to have a certain amount of political clout, particularly when dealing with larger businesses which have a national basis. They need a minimum of different, specialised skills, especially as regards the ramifications of some of our more modern laws such as the Consumer Credit Act. Unfortunately, a side effect of recent local government reorganisation has been the break-up, the dispersal and the dissipation of many trading standards departments among a number of smaller authorities.
It occurs to me—this may not be the perfect analogy—that trading standards bodies should be looked at more like police forces. Surely no one today in the modern world would think of increasing the number of separate police forces and splitting up their specialist detective and forensic staffs among a number of bodies. It would reduce their effectiveness to do so. It may be that, as regional government, regional development agencies and regional chambers develop, some functions now in the hands of local authorities, as well as those in the hands of central government, should be regionalised. The public would benefit from a viable regional trading standards service, and in the case of Wales and Scotland, perhaps, from a national service in each of those nations.
I see that as complementing decentralisation from Whitehall. Devolving to the regions may make more sense than devolving to local government. It is, for example, commonly thought by consumer bodies that the Office of Fair Trading should devolve some of its powers to combat rogue traders who blatantly and regularly cheat the public. In principle, that is right,

323
but it may not be sensible to devolve trading standards departments that, as a result of recent local government reorganisation, and as at present constituted, may be unduly small and poorly resourced. Their responsibilities would be better placed on the regions.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is replying to the debate because I remember her in my latter days in another place when she came in as a young, and, if I may say so, attractive Member. It is reassuring to know that this evening she will reply. She is still young and attractive, but she is also an expert on many matters, although not, I regret to say—as far as I am aware—on the particular matter that I intend to raise.
"The language of politics is the language of priorities",
as de Juvenel said. My fellow countryman, the late Nye Bevan, purloined that statement, without attribution of course, saying:
"The language of Socialism is the language of priorities".
Whichever it is, the gracious Speech spells out this Government's priorities. When I read and heard it, I became aware of one glaring omission which is one of the greatest challenges facing the Government; that is, to deal with the matter which has exercised this House, the other place and the media more than almost any other subject over the past two years: the consequence of the BSE crisis.
It is a real test of the Government's resolve. It is a real test of their approach to Europe. It is a real test of their ability to deal with a highly bureaucratic and extremely wasteful system. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not in his place. I wish that he were, because when I read of his appointment, I am sorry to say that although I believed that he would be a first-class Whip for the Government, I thought that he was needed on the Labour Benches in the Ministry of Agriculture, because of all people on the Labour Benches, either here or in the other place, he seemed to have a greater grasp of the realities of agriculture than anyone else.
We have rightly criticised what has been the gross mishandling of a crisis. If people want to inform themselves more about the crisis they can do so partly in summarised form in the April edition of the Parliamentary Review, which contains a good article by Professor Sir Richard Southwood who chaired the Department of Health and MAFF working party on BSE from 1988 to 1989. He said:
"Simple sound bites have fanned the anxieties of the European public which has signalled through its shopping habits its lack of trust in all those involved. Farmers who have never had a BSE case, having kept their animals on grass, or have lived in a country effectively free of the disease, have cried out at the injustice of it all. In Brussels and Westminster the issue has become a handy weapon for political in-fighting".
That is true. The review contains other articles.
In February this year the report of the temporary committee of inquiry of the European Parliament into the handling of BSE was published. This evening I do
324
not want to go into the dreadful mistakes made in the past. Mistakes were made everywhere. Mistakes were made in this country and in Europe. It is a fair summary to say that we must take the major portion of the blame for what happened, but let us look at its consequences, and how one deals with it in the future.
The cost last year to the Exchequer of unbudgeted finance resulting from the crisis was over £1 billion. It may be possible for the Government to tell us this evening what has been the total cost to this country's budget. Let us also take the cost to the EU budget to which we are subscribers. That has been immense.
The outcry on the continent was enormous and was reflected in shopping habits, as it was in this country when the possible link with the human disease was discovered. People do not realise that beef consumption declined all over Europe and in the USA, but the decline was much greater in Germany, for example, than it was here. It decreased by over 50 per cent. in Germany. Oddly enough, farmers are complaining today about the importation of beef from Germany. If you buy in a supermarket in this country you are likely to be buying imported German meat. It is meat that they cannot sell in Germany. It is cheaper to buy German beef than British beef in this country. Farmers are naturally complaining about that.
I wish to come to the present problem. The cost to our relationships within Europe was enormous. The recriminations were great. What are we going to do about it? We need to restore public confidence throughout the entire continent of Europe. I am convinced that it will need to be a European effort and not just a British effort.
The first thing the Government should do is to take the initiative in co-ordinating all the research that has been done and to finance further research. It is no use trying to hide this problem under the carpet. I am a farmer; I have disclosed my interest on many occasions. I have a pedigree Welsh black herd, which is my pride and joy. I have reared it for nearly 35 years now. I have never had a case of BSE. Nevertheless, there are problems even in a herd such as mine. If a calf dies, I have to buy one from outside. It is difficult to obtain a calf from a single suckling herd, unless you can find twin calves and obtain one of those. You must be assured, for example, that the calf you are buying is from a BSE-free herd, and so forth.
I used to check with the Ministry of Agriculture on any calf or heifer I bought in order to discover whether they were BSE-free. A fortnight ago my farm bailiff was going to buy a calf and I telephoned the ministry to check. I said, "Look, this has been warranted free of BSE from a BSE-free herd and so on. Can I check up because I have the reference number of the herd?". I was told by someone at the ministry, "We are not allowed to give that information now. It is an invasion of privacy". It had been giving it to me throughout the previous year. Which side is it on? That appears to be extraordinary advice at the present juncture but it illustrates one of the problems in tracing animals that may have BSE.
The problem extends throughout Europe. A friend of mine was recently in Portugal and he brought back documents which the French Government were

325
promoting. The French beef industry has also been hit, but it was trying to sell its beef in Portugal. It was putting out propaganda documents illustrating how the French system of recording—ear tagging and so forth—was co-ordinated with passports and was foolproof. It is not foolproof at all and is probably akin to our system.
Our system is not foolproof because we have not had practical people dealing with it. We put ear tags into the ears of calves. My poor calves have two or three ear tags by the time they have every one that is required. But ear tags can come out. Unscrupulous people can and do remove the ear tags and replace them with others in order to mislead the public. The amount of graft and waste of public money that has occurred during the BSE crisis needs investigation. I am not suggesting that it should be done immediately, but I believe that the Government should, first, co-ordinate the research to ensure that the public know where they stand. Secondly, they should have a European effort to clear up the BSE crisis, which has affected the whole of Europe. We must all co-operate and there must be an acknowledgement that we as a country have been at fault. Perhaps the Government could indicate whether they broadly accept the findings of the temporary committee of the European Parliament, which was very impressive on the subject. By and large, it blamed not only this country, where it put the majority of the blame, but the Commission and the Council, too.
Furthermore, it is important for us to appreciate that we will not satisfy the public until we can ensure that every animal which has any possibility of contracting BSE is traceable. I am told that the only way to do that is by electronically implanted ear tags. They go under the skin and there must be transponders at abattoirs and markets to interpret them. Such a system could be applied throughout Europe. It would be costly but it would be effective. At present, every country within Europe is trying to compete with the others, saying, "Our beef is better. We have a better traceable system". If ever there were a case for Government initiative it is now and on this subject.
That is one of the real trials for the Government. They inherit the situation. When the Conservatives were in power the Labour Party was very vocal about their handling of it. It is now up to the Government to take up the challenge and to be really effective. Ministers have said, "This is a time for action. The rhetoric is over". Of all the challenges facing the Government, the test will be on European co-operation and on their ability to get our partners in Europe to work together. The Government must realise that if they want money for education it is no use having this crisis continuing for another two years taking funding from the Treasury. It will be a real test of leadership and resolve. I wish that the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were available to the ministry.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am pleased as always to follow my noble friend Lord Hooson and in particular to thank him for emphasising the BSE crisis. If anything caused those in the agricultural community
326
to defect from the Conservative Party, as they did in large numbers in Wales and other agricultural regions, it was this issue. I see my noble friend Lord Geraint nodding, which means that it must be true.
It is crucially important that the whole issue is taken out of the area of concern and misrepresentation into the area of objective evidence about the quality and standard of beef production throughout the European Union. We have been encouraged by the press reports of a positive attitude towards our new agriculture department and I hope that that can be pursued.
I wish to follow in particular the issue of sustainability and the related issue of subsidiarity that have been touched on throughout today's debate. They are closely linked. It concerned me very much, as I know it did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and my noble friend on these Cross- Benches, Lord Moran. By the way, these Cross-Benches seem to be a larger part of the furniture than they were in the previous Parliament. I am nearly on the Labour Benches. As both noble Lords mentioned, on the first day's debate on the gracious Speech there was concern about the lack of a clear environmental agenda from the Government. That mirrors the anxieties of some of us during the election campaign. Although some of us in the minority parties were given good marks by various members of the environmental movement as regards our treatment of green issues, that was not reflected in the major general election debate. I believe that the issue of a dirty planet is much more important than the issue of clean living on the part of individual politicians. It seemed to me that the issue of sleaze applied individually appeared to be much more important than the issue of planetary sleaze throughout creation.
Therefore, we need to refocus on the issue of broader morality and concerns. We need to look to the incoming Government for a clear agenda on energy policy. As has been mentioned, their early decisions on VAT appear to be going against the whole drift of green taxes and taxes on energy consumption. I can understand why they made those decisions, but it is important for them to respond in other ways as regards eco and green taxation. They need clearly to address the issue of alternative energy and to look at the particular damage that is inflicted on the environment, not so much by wind energy, although clearly that is a sensitive issue in landscape terms, but on the exploitation recently announced in Wales of large tracts of countryside for open-cast mining. We always need to take an environmental approach which is deep rather than superficial and to ensure that we have an energy strategy which deals not only with landscape aspects but with the real cost benefits for the environment in the broadest sense of the activity that we pursue.
No clearer example could emerge now of the need for sustainability than in the whole debate about water. Water has been a political issue in the area that I come from for many years because of the flooding of the reservoirs in the 1960s. It was clearly understood that there was a water resources issue at that time. Now we realise that the extent of wastage of existing supplies is a very clear example of a lack of a sustainable distribution network. It is no use talking about

327
transferring water across river basins, with all the ecological damage that that can do to habitat and so on, while we are still seeing a massive loss of water through leakage. I was very pleased that Mr. John Prescott is taking a lead on that issue and I wish the Government well in ensuring that there is a sustainable water strategy.
But they must have also a sustainable strategy in that other area of much-needed integration; that is, public transport. Again, we need to look at the whole cost-benefit of our activity in that area. I know that criticising the private car is regarded as dangerous politically, but it is high time that we took on board the kind of vision that we heard in that most wonderful and stimulating maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. His vision of the ecological city reminded me of some visions of the heavenly city. But at least that vision presents us with an alternative to the kind of cities that most of us have to live in in any part of this Kingdom or Europe these days. Therefore, we need to look at bus and rail co-ordination and the integration of public transport. Again, that is an issue which relates to subsidiarity because those integrated transport networks can be delivered only at the city level, at the village or county level.
Another aspect which the noble Lord emphasised strongly is that the obverse of the over-developed and degraded city is the damaged countryside. If we do not take on board the issue of revitalising cities and redeveloping within cities, that poses a tremendous threat of overspill and suburbanisation to the countryside. The conservation of the countryside is but the other side of the coin to the conservation and regeneration of cities. If the Government can take on board that strategy, clearly they are becoming a little greener.
In some other areas of policy which are for debate today we have seen progress already. I congratulate the new Minister responsible for education at the Welsh Office, Mr. Peter Hain, on his announcement last week about nursery vouchers. By deciding on an early abolition of nursery vouchers in Wales, the Welsh Office is only doing what some of us in this House told the previous Government to do in that Division that we had on nursery vouchers; namely, to take it out of the Bill because it was not relevant. I am pleased that the incoming Labour Government have taken that point on board and have acted upon it.
I hope that they go beyond that to ensure that there is a positive partnership between local government, the local education authorities and the Welsh Office in other aspects of education policy. We heard very clearly from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon the importance of the funding of further education as being the part of educational life which touches most people, whether in the form of initial training or for returners in the continuing model of education. Clearly we need to plan and resource much more effectively the continuing education structure in Wales among local authorities, the Welsh Office and the existing funding council.
But neither do we wish to see a further centralisation of local government functions away into non-departmental public bodies—and I declare an interest as chairman of
328
one of them—nor do we wish to see a transfer of powers up from or across from Welsh local government to the proposed Welsh assembly.
That brings me to the other issue of local or national government in the gracious Speech; that of the referendum. I do not wish to use my ammunition—that is rather a military metaphor for someone linked with the peace movement—too quickly on this issue because it seems to me rather weird, when I read the schedule to the Bill before the other place, that whereas the Scots seem able to answer two questions, the Welsh are only able to answer one, albeit in two languages. That is a conundrum to which we shall return.
It seems to me that the Government have had some clear warnings on this issue already in this debate. We had that most excellent speech in yesterday's debate from the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I am in danger of inviting him to join a newly formed Plaid Cymru group in this House. But he is clearly telling the Government that he sees that even within the Conservative Party in Wales now there are those who see the logic of a quasi-federal, legislative and fiscal solution to the Wales issue rather than the status quo or the option offered at present in the assembly.
Not only that, we had the endorsement by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, yesterday. There have also been other endorsements outside this House. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, has announced his conversion on this matter. That was in the Western Mail, so it may not be entirely accurate. If so, he is doubly welcome because he was a leading adviser to the Conservative Government in the very dark days, although he did some sterling work on education policy in those dark days. If he now sees clearly that there is an argument for not only a Welsh assembly but one with clear fiscal and legislative powers, then he is welcome.
Also welcome is our friend and colleague in another place, Sir Wyn Roberts, the recently retired Conservative Minister of State. He is probably the longest serving Minister in the history of any department in this Kingdom, and certainly in the history of the Welsh Office. He is adopting a very interesting position. If I understand it correctly, he would say yes to a Welsh assembly with fiscal powers but he would vote no to present government policy. If he were voting in Scotland, I presume that he would vote "Yes" once and "No" a second time. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to hear further from him about his position.
I mention all that because it is important that the Government should realise that they have an opportunity here to operate by a greater consensus in Wales than they have sought already. If they were to put two questions on the referendum paper, it would ensure that 80 per cent. of the Welsh electorate—that is, the Liberal Democrats, the Plaid Cymru vote and the Labour vote—would have an opportunity to vote for options which reflect the policies which were canvassed at the election. That would be a very simple issue to tackle and it would be an indication of co-operation and integration.
We have had these public invitations, again in the columns of the Western Mail, from Mr. Ron Davies, Secretary of State, and again from Mr. Peter Hain this

329
morning, calling for an inclusive style of politics in Wales, an end to confrontation and an end to the over-domination by old Labour and so on. if they are serious about that, there is one simple way to achieve it; that is, to give us two questions, obviously in two languages. In that event, in Wales we could all feel confident in voting for options which should not pose any difficulty for the Government because clearly they would have a more obvious test of Welsh opinion and they could legislate in response to that referendum.
Having said all that, I am a horn-again realist on this issue. We have been here before. It is clearly an issue on which all of us involved in the politics of Welsh devolution must be prepared to compromise. I am prepared to make my historic compromise in supporting the Government's assembly, but with the one obvious condition that the Government's party also supports that assembly. It did not happen last time, comrades and friends. It must happen this time.
Having said all that, I also wish well the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because we are of the class of '74, although I was in slightly earlier. I look forward to hearing her response to all these questions when she stands up.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I bring the debate back to education and to higher education and universities in particular. The gracious Speech promised a positive response to the recommendations of the Dearing Committee. We should recognise that the recommendations of that committee are likely to be very different from the recommendations of the Robbins Committee. Dearing has been given only a year in which to report and the committee did not enjoy the kind of support staff which the Robbins Committee had. That was a very formidable support staff under Sir Claus Moser, on whose research the Robbins Committee was able to rest its conclusions. Dearing must be a different kind of report.
The core of the problem for Dearing is that student numbers have gone up by over 50 per cent. since 1989 and ought to continue to expand if higher education is to deliver the highly skilled and flexible workforce needed to compete in the global economy.
The CBI has called for the age participation rate to rise from the present 31 per cent. to 40 per cent.—a rise which is by no means unrealistic when one realises that it is already at 40 per cent. in Scotland. However, universities are grossly underfunded and with unit costs falling by over one third since the 1980s, further expansion is impossible without a reform of the financial mechanism. Whatever Dearing reports will require legislation and cannot therefore be effective before the year 2002. In that case, some safety net must be provided from this year's PESC round onwards until the new scheme can be introduced, if the university system is not to be irreparably damaged.
Perhaps I may now turn to another area of concern to universities; namely, research. Research is the powerhouse which creates excellence in universities and
330
enables departments to achieve an international reputation. A crucial factor is what is known in the trade as, the QR or research element in the recurrent grant. The recurrent grant which universities receive from the funding councils, and this research element, is based upon the ratings which departments achieve in the research assessment exercise.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of University Chairmen are both greatly concerned that the Dearing Committee might recommend that the QR funding line should be transferred from the funding councils to the research councils. That would complete the destruction of what is known as "the dual support system". Research councils are inevitably project-oriented and rightly so, but the research funds which universities receive from the funding councils, and which they can apply as they think fit, enable them to do so much more than could be done through the bureaucracy of the research councils. For example, the training of young scientists. Those who are not sufficiently senior to apply to research councils for their own grants are often provided by their universities out of the dual support system with the research infrastructure that they need in terms of library resources, computer facilities, equipment and, occasionally, very modest funds.
The dual support system gives the university a flexibility, enabling a comparatively small amount of research money to be deployed with maximum efficiency. The dual support system has given United Kingdom universities a head start over their colleagues in other European universities. The dual support system ensures that teaching and research are considered and planned together with all the benefits that that implies for the quality of the university system.
After Dearing, the Government will need to consider the relationship between higher and further education where the overlap of function is increasing. If entry to higher education is to be expanded, new areas for recruitment must be tapped and one obvious area is further education. The expansion of higher education in my time has done little to improve access to universities by social classes IV and V. Universities have continued to draw their students from the middle classes. The prospect of courses starting in further education and being completed in higher education is attractive to those of radical inclination.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I recount the experience of my old university, the University of Warwick. A few years ago the university entered into an arrangement with nine local colleges for a 2+2 degree in which the colleges taught the first two years like a US community college, after which the students sat an appropriate examination which provided a diploma. At that stage, students could exit if they so wished or they could transfer to the university. It has proved to be a great success. Over 80 per cent. of the students are women, mostly in their late 20s or early 30s, many of them are one-parent families with the majority being severely economically disadvantaged. Very few of them have ever held regular employment and hardly any have any qualifications post-GCSE or CSE, some not even that. Yet these students have had an extraordinary

331
record, gaining degree qualifications of similar quality to those obtained by the normal A-level entry. Many have obtained employment in the community—career possibilities which would not have been remotely possible without the 2+2 degree programme. Some of them have stayed on for research, while others have studied for further professional qualifications.
The programme works well, partly because of the close relationship between the university and the colleges through our Community University Board. The only real problem has been student financial support. I clearly cannot go into the detail this evening, but the difficulty has not arisen through students being unable to cope academically; difficulties have arisen when students have had to give up social security support for the exiguous student maintenance grant plus the student loan. That was especially the case with one-person families. In my view, the only solution is to allow mature students over the age of 25 to continue to receive social security benefits after they become students. That would be a wise investment, enabling so many of them eventually to obtain productive and useful jobs. Because these students have taken the opportunity which the 2+2 programme offers, their families—and especially their children—should not be more disadvantaged than they would have been had their parents not opted to become students.
My final point relates to a neighbouring field. Continuing education is suffering today disproportionately because of the impact of the funding cuts. Continuing education happens to receive its funds from a series of different authorities and the convergence of their separate and uncoordinated financial cuts can be disastrous for continuing education. Of course, not only does continuing education receive funds from higher education units, it also receives them from local education authorities. Moreover, the outcome, so far as concerns continuing education, of the changes to the demand-led element of further education has yet to be clarified, but it threatens to have a negative impact. Again, when the jobseekers allowance scheme is too rigorously applied, it sometimes forces the students into low paid and inappropriate jobs without the possibility of completing their courses. This random damage now being done to continuing education by different agencies is in practice a far cry from the hopes for life-long learning expressed in the gracious Speech.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to repeat the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, that important objectives in education have been achieved during the period of the Conservative Government. I do not wish to argue the case. However, I support the noble Baroness in suggesting that we should build on what has been achieved. I am happy that that appears to be new Labour's plan.
The main purpose of my short intervention is to talk about the under-fives, and in particular to praise the document produced by Mr. David Blunkett before the election. If I had made a wish list of all the things that I wanted new Labour to say regarding the under-fives, I could not have done better myself. If the noble
332
Baroness will assure me that all these issues will he pushed through in the first 12 months, she will have my 100 per cent. support. If not, she may find me yapping—or even snapping—at her heels.
I wish to raise one important issue on which I have a query. On page 10 of a document involving the legal framework, a unified early years service, it states in the third paragraph that at national level they will bring responsibilities for childcare and education under the DfEE establishing an early years unit to plan and develop services. I have no problem with the childcare element, although I regret to say that it is in the equal opportunities department of the DfEE. While I have had some assurances from the department that that is not so, it gives the wrong image as though childcare were concerned only with equal opportunities for women rather than indicating that the outcomes are important for children. The plan for an early childhood unit may overcome the problem.
I am more concerned about the education of the under-fives. What does the word "education" mean? Does it simply mean nursery schools and pre-nursery education; or does it include the enormously important element of a child's learning in the family? The document states:
"Fifty per cent. of all learning takes place in the first five years of a child's life, much of it within the very early years".
That is fairly commonly accepted wisdom although I find it hard to understand how anyone can know whether a child's education is comparable, for example, with education at university.
The commonly held wisdom is that half the child's education takes place before the age of five. Much of that learning takes place in the home because even a child in a nursery school is in the school for only between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the total day. For the first three or four years he or she is not in nursery school. The parents, or surrogate parents such as the grandparents, are a child's first educator. Sometimes, often through no fault of their own, parents do not manage to make a good job of that education.
If it is true that 50 per cent. of the child's learning takes place mainly in the home in the first five years, is it not strange that the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Education start only half way through the child's learning programme when the child goes to school? I very much hope that the phraseology in the document means that education in the home, and therefore support for parents, with preparation of parents for the education process, and education for parents at other stages of their lives, will be part of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
I wish to see a seamless robe of educational provision and support from the first day of a child's life through to the day when the child leaves school and on into further and higher education and life-long learning. I believe that that seamless robe should be the responsibility of one Secretary of State. If not, the process will fall into a black hole as at present. At the moment about six weeks after a child is born the health visitor makes her last visit. As the front door shuts on

333
that last visit, the parent is terribly alone. There are voluntary organisations which seek to fill that gap. Three years ago I was instrumental in forming the Parenting Support Forum. We now have some 450 members or organisations working in the field of parental support. But that is a drop in the ocean when considering all the under-five year-olds in the country.
The cost of children who fail is enormous. Yesterday I visited a school for emotionally and behavourially disturbed children in Ramsgate. The Kent County Council pays £720 a week for education and residential care. That is £37,500 a year. If we could reduce—as I am perfectly sure we could—the number of children who suffer from emotional and behavioural disturbance by giving them a better chance in that first 50 per cent. of their learning time, it would be an enormously worthwhile investment by any standard and would probably save the taxpayer money.
I repeat this. If we really want to ensure that as many children as possible are able to complete successfully the first 50 per cent. of their learning at home so that they can be successful in the second 50 per cent. of their learning at school, one Secretary of State must be charged with the responsibility of fighting for the system in the Cabinet and the Treasury to ensure that occurs. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me that that is what the form of words means. If not, I should be grateful if she would draw the comments that I have brought before the House to the attention of her right honourable friend.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we have had a wide ranging debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone not only on her appointment to ministerial office but also on how well she covered such a wide range of different subjects. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that I intend to talk about the quality of life in urban areas and about traffic congestion, and perhaps to suggest a few solutions to an intractable problem about which a few noble Lords have spoken.
First, I congratulate the Government on the creation of the joint Department of the Environment and Transport. It indicates the seriousness with which they regard the issue that they have appointed the Deputy Prime Minister to lead it. They give the department strong devolutionary presumptions and intentions, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said.
In the Labour Party manifesto there was a commitment to improve public transport and to promote walking and cycling in a nationally integrated transport policy. The noble Baroness has outlined three environmental Bills, which are most welcome. No transport legislation is referred to in the gracious Speech. I do not regret that because by encouragement and a little budget reallocation, to which I shall come later, the Government can do a great deal significantly to improve the quality of life in our towns and cities, and to persuade us that we can live with the benefits of the motor car without having our lives totally controlled by it. Lord Rogers of Riverside, in an excellent maiden
334
speech, gave us an inspiring vision of what city life might be like. However, a radical change in how we approach transport policy is required if that is to be achieved.
We must begin with the concept of an integrated transport policy. I recall that when we sat on the opposite side of this Chamber we were often sneered at by the party then in government, who said that the phrase "integrated transport policy" means nothing. I believe it means a great deal. We debated an element of it a few months ago in relation to the report of the UK Round Table, Making Connections. It is quite clear to me what an integrated transport policy means. It means having clean, safe, affordable public transport services; good connections between modes—bus, train, walking, cycling and car parking; trustworthy travel information, regularly updated, and the ability of the information systems to cope when something goes wrong, so that the public have confidence in that ability. It does not mean a war on the private car—far from it. An attractive public transport system is the carrot to encourage people to leave their cars at home sometimes, not to stop owning them.
It also means addressing the land use planning problems. Over the years the previous government encouraged many out-of-town shopping and office developments, often near motorways, most of which could not be reached other than by car. Too late, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, reversed the trend and discouraged such developments. But many planning permissions are still outstanding. Developers can take them up, I believe for a period of 10 years. If they are prevented from doing so, the local authority, and possibly the Government, could be liable for millions of pounds in claims. It is a terrible legacy.
The car must retreat from the absolute domination of our towns and cities that it often enjoys today, preventing as it does buses and taxis, which carry many more people within a unit of road space, from operating effectively.
We need the integration of underground, trains, buses, coaches and taxis to work so that they operate in a co-ordinated manner. That cannot be done with the severe traffic congestion that we see in London and many other large cities and even small towns.
But most of all a real change of culture is required, change that is discernible to the average voter and change which the Government can, and I hope will, set about implementing with the enthusiasm, energy and commitment that we have already seen in other elements of policy. This involves a programme of educating the public; information about the benefits; and action to start quickly.
Such a policy must begin at a local, devolved level. There must be an element of local control within a broad policy framework. I welcome the commitment to an elected authority for London with strategic responsibility for transport. I welcome all the other devolutionary measures. I hope that we can then arrive at a situation whereby local authorities, whatever their size, ranging from—one must not call Scotland or Wales

335
a local authority, but an authority devolved from Westminster—have real responsibility for spending some of their budget rather than the 10 per cent. that most authorities control at the moment.
Traffic congestion is here and is getting worse. There is only so much road space available—certainly in urban areas. It is inconceivable that many new road schemes will go ahead, since we have already seen the serious environmental disbenefit that they bring. As the House will recall, some years ago the Department of Transport published some maps (admittedly illegible) showing solid congestion in 15 years' time for most of the day on the motorways between Preston, Bristol and Maidstone. It does not take much to imagine that situation.
Professor Tony Ridley spoke to Members of both Houses at a meeting I attended in the Palace of Westminster a few months ago. He explained that there were three possible means of avoiding gridlock—build more roads to satisfy the unrestrained demand; introduce telemetry to allow vehicles to travel more closely together; or introduce traffic restraint. One or two members of the Conservative Party in another place disagreed with him. They said, "I require to drive my car everywhere". But most people understood that the problem was there and had to be solved. We have only to remember the occasion a few months ago when a lorry which was too high for the Dartford Tunnel hit a protecting bridge ahead of it and closed most of east London for six or seven hours. There was complete gridlock.
I suggest that the only course for the Government, and one which is in line with their transport and environmental policy, is restraint on the motor vehicle to allow the roads to be used by those who cannot use an alternative. That means that there must be a carrot. Where is that carrot? The most important question is: do we need to do the journey at all? Are the shops, work or school just round the corner, close enough to cycle or walk? Again it is a matter of planning, a matter of environment and transport working together.
Why not walk or cycle? Great strides have been made by Sustrans, with its millennium bid, on cycle paths and other means. But at present pedestrians and cyclists are squeezed off the road to an unacceptable degree. We have only to look at Whitehall. There are two times four lanes of traffic, usually solid, and a small pavement. There is not even a bus lane in each direction. Why can the queue not go somewhere else? It is rather a novel solution, but why should not buses be allowed in the Mall and the Royal Parks and cars be restrained? Buses carry many more people for the same amount of road space. We have to get away from the very wrong, socially divisive idea that buses are only for people who do not matter and cars are for those who do matter.
I have spoken before on the subject of bus lanes. We now have intermittent purple stretches of road punctuated by side turnings, usually blocked with a car in them, stopping the progress of the buses. The legislation already exists for continuous bus lanes and yellow boxes and could be enforced. I hope that the Government will take this matter up and show a great
336
deal more enthusiasm for the idea than did the previous Government. It could be extended to other cities. At present some bus companies are talking about two-hour delays on some routes. How can a service be run for passengers in a situation like that?
There are other schemes. A very interesting one has just started in Edinburgh. I believe it is the brainchild of Councillor David Begg, a transport convenor on the city council. It introduces a range of measures to reduce the demand for the car and neighbourhood car-share schemes. Should we not have shop deliveries at night on main roads? Lorry drivers like to drive at night on the motorway, so why should they not deliver at night, thus reducing congestion on the main roads in the daytime? That seems a pretty obvious solution.
I have given merely a few examples. But would such a series of policy initiatives have public support? In the past year or two I have seen the motoring organisations, the AA, the RAC, the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, all saying that they support restraint of the motor vehicle. Perhaps I may quote the recent study commissioned by Transport 2000 examining the barriers to transport use and identifying the areas where change is needed. There are two interesting statistics. The report states that,
"nine out of ten people think that public transport is an important or extremely important part of community life, but more than six out of ten do not really like using it as it now is … a third of those surveyed arc likely to respond positively to real improvements … more than half will change if they face restrictions on car use".
That is a blueprint for quality public transport.
Public transport is presently at a low point. There are delays, poor quality and little information. People use the car because they prefer it. That is fine if they have one. If they do not have one, however, they suffer seriously. The distances between home and school, shops or places of work mean that one has to travel more and more. Because most people use their car, there is little demand for public transport, and therefore little supply, since the market does not demand it. We see more and more arrogance and selfish behaviour on the roads.
The Government are committed to an integrated transport system and to encouraging public transport. There are many good examples on the Continent and in the UK. There is much to do, but the thinking electorate is already persuaded—in spite of the best efforts, frankly, of 18 years of Tory rule. The costs are small compared with building motorways. Let us not forget that a couple of months ago we had a Question in the House when the previous government cancelled the entire £44 million allocated to non-package small works budgets for the current year—cycle lanes, bus lanes, safer routes to schools and so on. It was only £44 million for the whole of England and Wales and it was cancelled because road schemes had overrun their budgets. Even up to the end of the last administration, roads came before London Transport—which desperately needed the money—and other public transport such as walking and cycling. In my view, Labour has a clear mandate and I know that it can and will face the challenge and introduce the packages of measures to encourage public transport.

337
I conclude by congratulating my noble friend Lady Hayman on her new appointment and look forward to hearing what she has to say at the end of the debate.
8 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I start where the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, left off by congratulating both the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Hayman, on their appointments. Perhaps I may say how delighted I and many others have been to see the large number of Labour women MPs who have been elected. I also take this opportunity, although this is not quite the right place, to record my thanks to Lady Seear, who encouraged me and many other women to play a part in public life.
I turn to the subject of today's debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I welcome the weight which the Deputy Prime Minister gives to the environment and the appointment of a Minister for Transport in the Cabinet. But in contrast to other Ministers, they have said little or nothing about their topics. Perhaps the airwaves have been crowded by others. I saw a suggestion in the press that Mr. Prescott was considering the introduction of motorway tolls. Such a scheme might help to finance the Government's other policies, but it would be a disaster for the environment because of the diversion of heavy traffic on to unsuitable roads. I very much hope that that suggestion was not true.
Similarly, there was nothing in the Queen's Speech about transport, yet the Labour manifesto, in a ringing endorsement of the party's duty to act now to protect the environment, stated that:
"a sustainable environment requires above all an effective and integrated transport policy at national, regional and local level".
Amen to that! But some of the building blocks of such a policy surely require legislation. For example, how can the rail regulator be given extra powers without parliamentary sanction? Without such additional powers, how can targets for switching freight and passengers from road to rail be achieved?
Our belief is that existing franchises should be lengthened in order to encourage investment in improved rolling stock. If the Government share that ambition, will it be one of the responsibilities of the new rail authority foreshadowed in the manifesto? Again, how can such a rail authority be created without legislation? I fear that legislation is required for certain purposes and that it will be delayed.
In preparing this speech, I considered asking 26 different questions. However, the Minister will be glad to know that those are the only two questions I shall ask. The rest of my speech will be given to a random selection of contemporary examples of the kind of decisions which will tell us how the Government's mind is working.
For example, a current issue is the launch by Railtrack of the consultation process on Thameslink 2000. I am very much in favour of enabling additional north/south linkages to be made across London without changing trains or stations. In particular, I support improved rail access to London's airports. Nevertheless, at peak hours
338
the main purpose of the lines will still be to bring commuters into London. It is rather disconcerting, therefore, to find that as a result of £600 million of investment, there will be no new trains serving central London. Indeed, there may be fewer trains accessing Charing Cross and Cannon Street. Furthermore, trains from northern commuter towns such as Stevenage, Luton and Bedford will terminate at Farringdon, requiring commuters into the City to change onto the tube at Moorgate. One is bound to ask whose needs, the commuters' or the companies', have determined the detailed configuration of the investment.
The Government may share those doubts. If so, or if they have ambitions to assert the public interest in relation to this or other rail construction projects, it will be interesting to see what means they use to achieve those ends.
While on the subject of London, unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, is not in his place but I wish to congratulate him on his brilliant presentation of the ideal city. Like others, I heard his Reith lecture, which crystallised for me something that I have been saying in a simplified form ever since: if London does not work, then the whole of the south-east of England does not work. It is amazing that the first time I said it, people looked at me in astonishment and thought: "What on earth is she talking about?" But gradually over the years the idea of London working properly as a place where people want to live and work and the importance that that has for the counties surrounding London has come to be supported by more and more people.
As regards transport across and within London, I congratulate the Government on their opposition to the privatisation of the London Underground. However, I note with interest that the 1996 Digest of Transport Statistics shows that in the 10 years or so up to 1995 motoring costs have remained stable or perhaps even fallen, relatively speaking, while the costs of travelling on London Transport have gone up by 38 per cent. In the fight to encourage people to transfer from private to public transport in urban centres—an objective which we support—a key determinant will be the methods which the Government use to counteract the price disadvantage of public transport over the use of the private car.
In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said on the subject of transfers, there is the problem of trying to persuade adults who have never used public transport to do so. Most people in this Chamber have grey or greying hair and we probably used public transport in our youth. We may still use it today. I exclude my noble friend Lord Tope, and one or two noble Lords on the Benches opposite who do not have grey hair.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend uses public transport every day.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I was talking about the colour of his hair! The point is that large numbers of people have never used public transport or they certainly do not use it every day. It is

339
difficult to think of a system which will attract them back to any kind of public transport so long as, among other problems, the price differential is so discouraging.
I turn to the detail of the need to provide a balanced surface transport system. There are a number of issues which are, so to speak, waiting on Ministers' desks. I understand that the Government are to review the further widening of the M.25 within its existing boundaries between junctions 12 and 15. If that project is scrapped—as I hope it will be—I hope that we can be reassured that the £100 million which will be saved is spent on improved public transport and not just returned to the Treasury.
Then there is the Road Traffic (Reduction) Act, which was passed in the last days of the previous Parliament. At present local authorities have no guidance on how to apply the Act. We hope that it is the Government's intention shortly to publish supporting regulations or guidance notes. They are eagerly awaited by local authorities which are keen to have national back-up for existing or future plans to reduce traffic.
It would also be interesting to know whether the Government propose to issue national targets for traffic reduction. That requirement was part of the original Bill, but was removed in order to get the requirement for local authorities to do so established in legislation.
The promoters of the Bill have already drafted a Road Traffic (National Targets) Bill 1997. The willingness of the Government to provide time for a Private Member's Bill to that effect will be another test of their willingness to put integrated transport policies into action.
In two months' time, local authorities must make their TPP—transport policies and programmes—submissions to the Department of Transport. The departmental letter which advises them of the criteria for grants must be in the course of preparation as we speak. Will the letter reflect determination on the part of the Government to transfer funds away from major road schemes towards the smaller schemes for traffic management, park-and-ride, pedestrian safety and cycleways which they foreshadowed in their manifesto?
My impression is that regional government offices and local government in general do not expect any change in the current situation with regard to major schemes, where there have been no new local authority starts within the past 18 months. If that is the case, and if there is to be increased emphasis on package schemes, that would be welcomed by us. On the other hand, the total resources available for minor schemes, including cycle facilities, bus priorities and traffic management, whether or not as part of a package scheme, are a matter of concern.
I appreciate that Ministers cannot give us advance notice of the June Budget but I believe it is important that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, should recognise that the ability of local government to deliver its share of an integrated transport policy and to pursue the goal of transfer of journeys from the private car to more environmentally sustainable methods depends in considerable part upon the availability of funds to carry out those policies.
340
Finally, with regard to aircraft noise, there appears to be a stand-off between the Department of Transport and the industry following the department's decision not to defend in court proposed stricter noise controls at London's three main airports. I hope that the new Minister for Transport will give added urgency to the need for constant pressure to reduce aircraft noise around airports and will look again at the formula which links landing charges with improved performance by operators in that respect.
I have given just some examples of the decisions which will have to be taken in the next few months. In a way, I give notice to the Government that the way in which they approach some of those decisions will be taken by many of us as a signal that their intentions toward creating and maintaining an integrated transport policy are real, not merely imaginary.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I should like to speak for a few minutes on housing and the environment.
The private rented sector in this country is very small. That is a great pity. People, especially young people, are unable to move to where the jobs are. Young people often cannot afford to buy a house; and anyway, in today's mobile world they do not want to be tied down to a particular place.
That has not happened by chance. Rent controls were originally introduced for most unfurnished lettings in 1915, as a temporary wartime measure. Tenants were also given full security of tenure. The regulation of private rented property became established on a permanent basis after the First World War. To those with a social conscience, that seemed to be fair and right. Why should a tenant be dispossessed of his house arbitrarily by a grasping and greedy landlord? Unfortunately, that policy has had the most disastrous results.
In the 73 years from 1915 to 1988, the number of houses let in the private sector fell from 90 per cent. to 8 per cent. Because owners of house property were not able to charge market rents and found it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain vacant possession of their properties, the great majority of landlords ceased to rent out their properties. In too many cases those houses were left empty. Even today, nine years after the 1988 Housing Act, which deregulated the rented housing market to quite a large extent, there are over 500,000 privately owned empty houses. That scandalous situation was made worse every time that there was a Labour Government. Tighter rent controls and more entrenched rights of tenure were enacted by the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970 and 1974 to 1979.
We now have another Labour Government, to whom I extend the best of goodwill. I welcome the two sentences in the Labour Party manifesto which say:
"Most families want to own their own homes. We will also support efficiently run social and private rented sectors offering quality and choice".
Also in the manifesto is the remark:
"We value a revived private rented sector".

341
Despite those remarks, I have fears that Labour's old instincts against landlords and a desire to protect tenants too much will rule the day. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, can reassure me—I do not expect an answer today but perhaps she will write to me.
The Conservative Government in 1988 took a very important and welcome step in getting Parliament to pass the Housing Act of that year. That Act set up two sets of tenancies: assured and shorthold. Those measures have halted the decline in private rented accommodation and it has expanded. However, the private rented sector has a long way to go. Despite the measures that the Conservative Government introduced to encourage individuals and investing institutions to invest in private letting, many are still reluctant to do so. I talked to a Peer in this House who is rich enough to do so and he said that he would never consider investing in the private letting market. I hope that this Government will implement the Conservative Government's plans to encourage corporate investment in the private rented sector as stated in the Conservative manifesto.
Because I have said quite a lot in favour of the private rented sector does not mean that I am against private ownership of houses. The contrary is true. The fact that more people than ever before own their own homes is excellent. I approve wholeheartedly of the right to buy policy. That still enables about 30,000 houses a year to be sold to tenants. The Labour manifesto does not mention that and I assume that the Government have no intention of repealing the right to buy policy.
I freely admit that repossession, negative equity and other ills in the housing market have caused much pain in the past few years. Perhaps some part of the large majority of the party opposite in another place is the result of that. Who knows? However, the mistakes were in the inflation of house prices in the late 1980s, not in the action to get inflation under control which began in 1989–1990.
Of course, not everyone can or will be able to pay market rents. Social housing will have to be available and more houses built at subsidised rents. Perhaps Conservative Governments in the past 18 years have not put enough resources into social housing, especially in rural areas. Maybe a little less ideology would have been better. However, contrary to the general belief, a great many homes at affordable rents have been provided in recent years: 178,000 between April 1992 and April 1995.
In its manifesto, the Labour Party says:
"We support a three-way partnership between the public, private and housing association sectors".
My fear is that the ability of councils to use capital receipts from the sale of council houses to reinvest in building new houses, as outlined in the Queen's Speech, will perpetuate and reinforce the council house tenants' dependency culture, which Conservative Governments have quite rightly tried to change. I know that the noble Baronesses opposite taking part in this debate and representing the Government do not come from that strand of the Labour Movement, but Labour councils' power hunger and hegemony is still strong.
342
Finally, I should like to mention housing and the environment. I hope that the new Government will look at housing needs and the countryside in a broad way. There are still masses of open countryside where new towns and new villages could be built without ruining it. I disagreed profoundly with my right honourable friend John Gummer in his stated policy of forcing people by draconian planning restrictions to live in inner cities. I told him so personally not so very long ago. People should be free to live where they want, so long as the countryside is not ruined. The not-in-my-area syndrome, let alone the not-in-my-backyard mentality, is very strongly entrenched, most notably among those newly arrived in the countryside. Perhaps the Labour Government will be able to look more broadly at the problem. I hope so.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on their election success and offer the Prime Minister and all his Ministers my best wishes for the future. Perhaps I may take the opportunity also to thank all those noble Lords from all parts of your Lordships' House who have supported the disability cause so wholeheartedly over the past five years. I trust that that support will continue and burgeon in the years ahead. Certainly the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave me some hope with her positive references to special needs education, integration, education for children and young adults with disabilities and employment. Because of her helpful statements I shall move laterally to other problems which beset children and adults with a learning disability.
Glancing at the past for a moment, just over five years ago my maiden speech was made on the day when the issues of home and social affairs were the subject of the debate on the Address. I have chosen to speak today as the Minister of State with the responsibility for disability rights, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. are now in the Education and Employment Department. When he made those appointments, perhaps the Prime Minister had G.K. Chesterton in mind:
"Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another".
I should like to think that the present generation is more considerate in its dealings with disabled people and their families than those of yore, but there are still many unhappy exceptions. Some noble Lords may remember that I quoted from a letter I received from the Ministry of Health way back in 1952 after the birth of our Down's syndrome daughter. The letter began:
"You telephoned me on the 8th February about the services available for mentally defective children. I am assuming that the mongol child you referred to will not be capable of education within the education system and will therefore have to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts".
Your Lordships will note the reference to education—of which there was none available—the cruel and offensive terminology and the general air of discouragement and discourtesy. That is why Mencap—of which I have the honour to be chairman—came into being some 50 years ago; it was parents banding together in an organisation

343
battling for the rights and recognition of people with learning disabilities and their families. The battles are not over, though the front line has moved. Even now parents still do not receive the all-encompassing advice, understanding and ongoing support which they so desperately need. Therefore our 50th anniversary appeal is aiming to raise enough money to place—in close co-operation with local authorities—a family adviser service effectively around the whole of the United Kingdom.
Each week approximately 200 parents are told that their son or daughter has a learning disability and some 1,200,000 people with learning disabilities come within the Mencap umbrella. All evidence shows that in the fields of education, employment, training, healthcare, social services, social security, housing and civil rights standards vary to an alarming degree. We no longer use the language of the past, but the problems still remain. Families are forced to approach local authorities, health authorities, education authorities, housing authorities, funding councils, and central government in the hope that their longings for open-handed and genuine community care might be fulfilled. Often they are not. Often the responses are inadequate, grudgingly given or withheld altogether. I can only pray that our new Government, through all their relevant departments, will right so many things still wrong within our society.
In the field of community care—which I define as people living where the rest of us live, doing what the rest of us do and being well supported—developments over the past five years have been patchy. There have been some moves forward for people with learning disabilities. Approximately 10,000 people have been resettled from long-stay institutions and are now living in their—and our—community. There is now a small, but growing, group of people with learning disabilities who own their own homes and who have, with appropriate support, taken on all the commitments that that entails. Some 5,000 people with learning disabilities are now in some kind of open employment, gaining greater confidence and self-esteem and contributing by their work. The new housing, training, and employment programmes announced in the gracious Speech, as well as in the statements made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, offer promise of further advance—subject to careful gearing.
Unhappily, people in jobs and their own homes are the lucky ones—the ones for whom community care has been a success and has enabled them to lead enhanced lives. I wish more people with learning disabilities had that opportunity. But, alas, one major change has not come about in the past five years: community care is a lottery and the service one receives depends on where one lives and the funding that one's local authority has and makes available.
Assessment and choice remain key problems. The reality for far too many people with learning disabilities is that they are not assessed according to their individual needs; they are told what they will receive from the services available. There is no choice and sometimes there is no offer. Essential services such as respite care are still denied to many people. The Disabled Persons And Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill, which I introduced
344
in this Chamber last year, would have secured the right to be assessed and receive respite services. I hope that the new Government will look more favourably on that issue.
People with learning disabilities are also disadvantaged in many areas of health provision. Once the NHS unhelpfully monopolised all responsibility; now it too often disclaims all responsibility. Access to mainstream as well as to specialist health services is required and is too often problematic. People with learning disabilities are still being denied treatment. The recent case of a woman with Down's syndrome who was denied a heart/lung transplant is a very real illustration of that. But even basic services are still giving great cause for concern. Speech and language therapy, which is so often the key enabling children and adults with learning disabilities to communicate, falls short of requirements. I am glad that the Department of Health is looking at that and hope that the new Minister will act on the evidence his officials are acquiring.
Mencap estimates that 5,000 homes for people with learning disabilities need to be built or acquired each year for the next five years just to accommodate those leaving long-stay institutions or moving away from the care of elderly parents—often single parents. At the moment the number of places being provided is probably well under 2,000. We expect better things from the new Government's more ambitious housing plans and can offer practical advice on how housing, social services and social security can be marshalled to that end.
The Prime Minister over recent weeks has spoken about rebuilding community and ensuring that every member of society is valued. I agree with that whole-heartedly. However, for many people with disabilities "NIMBY-ism" and prejudice rule. The Disability Discrimination Act sought—though perhaps not hard enough—to modify the behaviour of employers and of those providing goods or services. But much more needs to be done to change the attitudes of society as a whole. Mencap is very ready to be involved in a further public education programme and will continue to campaign for full enforceable civil rights for all disabled people.
We had hoped for a more visible presence of that area of concern in the gracious Speech and regret that yesterday's Answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, merely confirmed that there is little prospect of any legislation in this parliamentary Session. I wish also to draw attention to the concerns about disability expressed by my noble friend in his contribution to yesterday's debate on the Address—concerns shared, I am sure, by many in your Lordships' House and of course by Mencap. Nevertheless, I am pleased that one of the relevant Ministers has already opened negotiations with disability organisations and that the Minister again today gave us further assurances in that respect.
We heard in the gracious Speech the Government's legislative plans for the coming parliamentary Session, an ambitious programme for education, jobs and constitutional change. I strongly favour education, jobs

345
and votes for people with learning disabilities. May I also make the plea that the other problems I have highlighted are not forgotten?
A healthy society is an inclusive society. An inclusive society is one in which all citizens have a valued place, with the opportunity to give what they can, uniquely, offer; and to receive what they, uniquely, need. This is the sort of society in which I, and I am sure all your Lordships, wish to live.
I shall end this speech as I started, by paraphrasing G. K. Chesterton, which is my message to the new Government: "Smile at us, pay us; pass us; but do not quite forget; for we are the people with a learning disability who have never spoken yet".
8.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, some have suggested that I have recently jumped to a sinking ship. However, I appreciated that being an Opposition Back-Bench Peer would be quite an interesting duty. I was also sure that even new Labour was not "the answer", but it is clearly a vast improvement on old Labour. It would have been totally dishonest to jump to new Labour just because it was likely to win the General Election. However, with my family connections, and with my name, I wish new Labour well. Nay, I really hope that it succeeds in its objectives, because if it does it will be great for the country. In any case, at the moment I think that the election result was good for our democracy.
Unlike my new noble friends, I spent only a few weeks on the Government Benches, so I feel no sense of loss. What I had not calculated on was that the road transport Minister would be in this House and the interesting opportunities with which that would present me. It has recently been suggested that the hereditary Peers are out of touch. I should like to claim that I am fairly well in touch with road transport issues. Indeed, I have to declare an interest as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association, and I am not just a figurehead name. I am also closely involved with the recovery industry.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as Minister with responsibility for roads. I am sorry that she has temporarily left the Chamber because I think she would have found my comments quite interesting. She will obviously be bringing a fresh and clear mind to the issues, but I believe that she will be well advised by her officials, whom I know to be excellent and who will serve her well. However, with the recent changes, I shall also have extremely good advice, particularly from the Road Haulage Association. The Minister will need a little time to master her brief, but I am sure she will soon be debating the virtues of 44-tonne as opposed to 40-tonne articulated vehicles. I do not propose to weary your Lordships at this late hour with the differences.
So that the Minister knows where I shall be coming from, I should like to explore one topic in particular. I refer to what are known as cowboy operators. The worst preventable disaster this country has suffered in recent times was the Dunblane disaster. We all know
346
Parliament's response to it. Incidentally, there is no problem with the proposed legislation for a total ban on handguns. The Government have a manifesto commitment to do so and it is thus protected by the Salisbury convention. All the Government need to do is to introduce a simple Bill along the lines of the amendment we debated in the previous Session to implement a total ban. Such a Bill needs a very tightly worded Long Title. That will avoid unnecessary amendments and debate. If any noble Lord is interested in my views on this matter, he or she can study the index from the last Session.
What I am sad about is that, despite finding him so good to work with and despite all his efforts when in opposition, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will not be handling this legislation. Nor will he be answering the interesting Starred Questions concerning public expenditure on firearms legislation that will be tabled just at the time the Government find out that the public purse is not bottomless. At least we are fortunate enough to see the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
In 1993 there was a disaster at a place called Sowerby Bridge when a laden tipper truck suffered total brake failure and killed six people, including the driver, in one go. The Dunblane disaster was at least three times worse, but that kind of disaster is, mercifully, extremely rare. The Sowerby Bridge incident was totally preventable. Similar preventable fatal accidents occur frequently but, thankfully, with fewer casualties at one time.
I should like to explore and explain the problem of cowboy operators. The trouble with the transport industry is that it is highly regulated. However, those who flout the law have a significant advantage precisely because of the regulations. On top of this there is the problem of new entrants to the industry having a touching belief that their costs consist of only fuel, wages and sometimes road fund tax and insurance. Depreciation and tyre wear are novel concepts. Major repairs are regarded as disasters. The net result is that many operators are offering completely uneconomic rates, thus depressing the market rate for the job, and so they become cowboys. Sooner or later the authorities catch up with them. However, in these cases there seems to be great reluctance on the part of the licensing authorities to remove their operators' licences. In addition, the previous Government did not seem keen to impound vehicles operated without a licence. I hope that the ethos of this Government will enable them firmly to grasp this nettle of impounding, but I accept that we may have a problem with lack of parliamentary time.
Why are governments, in general, not firmer? One reason may be the mistaken belief on the part of government and licensing authorities that the removal of operator licences may deprive people of their employment. That is obviously true in the short term, but what about the industry generally and in the long term? There is a finite amount of goods to be moved. But the cowboys will have their drivers driving for too long, their vehicles carrying too much and their mechanics, if they have any at all, doing too little. In effect they are taking employment opportunities away from those who would do the job properly. But the

347
industry does not need draconian penalties for isolated problems. It must he realised that even the best operators will have technical problems from time to time. However, when the vehicle inspectorate finds serious defects due to neglect and even safety critical parts missing, it is clearly dealing with an operator who is technically challenged.
Multi-agency checks often detect offences that would cause any reasonable person to call into question the operator's good repute. Examples are the peculiar switch that just happens to switch off the electronic tachograph or the engine which by some amazing coincidence has the same serial number as one from a stolen vehicle. Another one is accidentally taxing a two-plus-three 38-tonner at the three-plus-three 32-tonne rate and happening not to notice the slight difference in vehicle excise rates. I realise that it is confusing for the Minister to have an out-of-touch hereditary Peer banging on about two-plus-three and three-plus-three articulated vehicles, but I am sure that she will soon get to know the jargon better than I do.
However, one of the worst examples of cowboy operation is the employment of a driver who is still claiming benefits. This is a despicable practice, not only because it is defrauding the social security budget, but also because the driver is often forced to accept a very low wage and is persuaded to carry on claiming benefits in order to be better off than not working at all. I am hoping that the Government's social security legislation may provide a useful opportunity to do something here in terms of the automatic loss of good repute.
Surely we need more effective and comprehensive enforcement, coupled with a legal duty on the part of the licensing authorities, so that they have to revoke the licence of the cowboy operator who flouts the law. If a cowboy is found to be continuing to operate his vehicle, it must be impounded. If that is done, the industry might he able to enjoy decent rates for the job and buy more environmentally friendly equipment and the public would be much safer.
I do not see many fundamental differences on road transport policy issues: one only needed to listen to the interesting and well thought out speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is just as well because we are both due to speak at the Franco-British transport conference next month. I agree entirely with his comments regarding priority for buses and the night-time operation of goods vehicles.
I am not so sure about the interesting contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. She mentioned the cost of public transport, but I have a horrible feeling that over the years, by subsidising commuter trains and the Underground, we have only succeeded in increasing the value of housing in the south east and its commuter belt. If over, say, the past 25 years we had increased the cost of commuter transport in real terms, the rail operators would then have been more profitable. There would then have been money in those businesses to pay for improvements and even new lines. The noble Baroness will soon jump to her feet—we have crossed swords before—and point out that this policy would increase road traffic. She is quite right, but only to the
348
extent that there is capacity in the road system to do so. It is well known that the average speed of road traffic in London has not changed much since the horse and carriage. In addition, taxation of non-residential parking may also help.
In the coming years I am sure that we shall have many interesting debates on this and other issues. However, the Minister will have to forgive me if I tease her from time to time on issues which are not her ministerial responsibility, such as London Underground. I am very pleased that she has her portfolio and look forward to providing constructive and helpful opposition for her.
8.47 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on becoming the Minister for Higher Education. In the Government's education plans I hope that there is continued support for distance learning. Distance learning has a long history: the Corinthians—who first heard St. Paul's Epistle—being an early example of this method of teaching.
I declare an interest as president of a new examining body which has close association with a distance learning provider currently introducing 20,000 students to the joys of manual bookkeeping each year. Although that is a significant number of students, I realise that it is not making much impact on the one-third of adults who say that they have done no learning since leaving full-time education, or the 80 per cent. of adults who see no likelihood of taking up learning in the next three years. These are sad statistics and distance learning could be one way of bringing people back into learning.
Employers have a responsibility for training staff and it must be in their interest to do so. Whereas large firms can provide training in-house, small firms will probably have to contract out and really small businesses have to fund their own courses and work on them out of business hours. We find that many of our students are already in work and doing their bookkeeping course as part of their own life long learning. It will be interesting to see more details of the Government's proposals for individuals learning accounts.
Students decide to study by distance learning for a variety of reasons, mainly because of existing work or family commitments, which deprive them of access to normal college-based tuition. The majority are unable to demonstrate working experience and are therefore unable to prove competence in the workplace in order to achieve an NVQ. I hope that the new government will continue to provide funding for relevant vocational qualifications which still rely on traditional assessment of competence by examination—or as I believe they are now to be known, "time constrained assignments"—to ensure that vast numbers of students are not deprived of the qualification that will give them competence to return to the workplace. This is particularly important for those people who are long-term unemployed; for those who wish to make a complete career change; or for women who wish to return to the workplace after many years raising a family, during which time the working environment may well have changed beyond all recognition.

349
As well as private providers, colleges of further education, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, have an important role to play. Distance learning students study at their own pace and at times which best suit their employment and family commitments. When they have completed their course of study students wish to take an examination quickly and are often unwilling or unable to wait for the traditional June and December examination sittings. It is here that colleges are encouraged to provide external distance learning students with the facility to sit properly invigilated examinations on their premises at times which are suitable to students, be it weekends, evenings, or during the summer holidays. It is unfortunate that many colleges still turn their backs on external students, failing to recognise the huge market that they represent. Having got the learning bug, the student is more likely to wish to continue his study, it is to be hoped for life.
I hope that the Government will reinstate the £69 million demand-led element in college funding, which was cut from the 1996–97 Budget, as much of this money was earmarked for provision by colleges to distance learning. The BBC's campaign to encourage people to become IT literate with the programme "Computers Don't Bite", the Open University and other educational programmes, are all part of learning encouragement. But there is still room in this multi-media age for cost effective training for a mass market by traditional paper-based learning. Cost can also be a problem.
Finally, I hope that the Government can find a way to support adults studying part-time and also review the threat to unemployed people losing benefit if they study for more than 16 hours a week.
8.50 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I should like to bring the House back briefly to transport policy. Clearly, there are some matters that are common ground to all parts of the House. We do not like congestion on the roads; we do not want to pollute the atmosphere unnecessarily; we wonder why so much freight must travel by road and why it cannot be moved faster and cheaper by rail; we wonder why so many cars have single commuting occupants and why buses are not better patronised. We even grumble at the enormous coaches that inch their way into London streets which were never designed for anything so large, but we never ask ourselves how they can do this, cut rail fares "stupid" and yet make a profit.
Two months ago this House debated the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, which I was disappointed to miss. I got no further chance to comment since it was part of the closing down package of the last Parliament. The Act asks local authorities to set targets to reduce local traffic volumes but does not explain how they are to do so. That seems to me a pity since there are some good ideas around that ought to be advanced.
Any policy of change requires both sticks and carrots in order to persuade those involved to alter their behaviour in the new direction sought by the policy
350
makers. If we want a policy which shifts traffic from the roads to rail and water then we must change the way in which we cost and tax each mode. Most people that I talk to believe that road use is subsidised in comparison with rail. If we want a policy which reduces emissions into the air—and I presume that we do—we need to find ways to reduce the amount of exhaust gases emitted. This is not necessarily the same as reducing the number of vehicles on the road. If we could prevent congestion—where cars were prevented from moving yet their engines continued to make emissions—then we would substantially reduce such emissions.
I now declare an interest. I am president of ITS Focus. ITS stands for intelligent transport systems. Such systems are about getting messages to and from moving vehicles. We can reduce congestion. We can use the stick of road pricing and charge cars electronically to enter areas where congestion is expected. We can use the carrot of messages to drivers: "Accident: road blocked: take next left for motorway", or "Warning! You are approaching high road pricing zone", or "Spaces in car park at city centre". Such messages can reach drivers via their car speakers or as electronic road signs. We can and are beginning to make use of the bus, the underground and light rail much more acceptable to the public. I have described some of these carrots in other debates. Equally, we can use the stick to make it harder or more expensive to park the car at its destination. I would have reminded the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had he been here that bus travellers now had some very interesting signs—Countdown in London and Stopwatch in Southampton—which told them when the next bus was coming. One can already see that in some areas of London. There are now cameras at the front of buses which will photograph the number plates of cars that transgress by using bus lanes. Those car drivers can be automatically had up for breaking the law. Bus travel is now far more satisfactory for the travelling public than it used to be.
Another way to reduce emissions without requiring compulsory reductions in car numbers is to reduce pollution levels from fuel. The electric car will be close to Utopia when it develops sufficiently. In the meantime, I note that 25 per cent. of London buses now use low sulphur fuel and that plans exist to extend this percentage significantly. I also read in the Financial Times that large parts of the world are changing to reformulated petrol, which is also known as RFG. This replaces aromatics such as benzine with oxygenates. According to one major oil company, despite being slightly more expensive, RFG already accounts for 30 per cent. of US gasoline sales. In Continental Europe it now accounts for 95 per cent. of sales in Finland. Sweden has introduced tax incentives to support it. Greece has invited the California Air Resources Board to advise it on pollution in Athens. RFG is said to become mandatory in Italy by the end of this year and in France by the year 2000. Germany is said to be interested. The Financial Times adds that in the UK national air quality strategy reviewers are assembling evidence—whatever that means. In general, the benefits that are claimed for RFG are as follows. On average, carbon monoxide is reduced by up to 25 per cent.

351
Benzine is reduced by between 20 and 30 per cent., and hydrocarbons and unburned fuel are reduced by up to 15 per cent.
In summary, emissions from vehicles can be reduced through avoidance of congestion, by improved fuels and/or by the compulsory reduction of a number of vehicles that are licensed to travel on the roads. The Road Traffic Reduction Act offers local authorities no advice on how these required reductions are to be achieved, but I have been told recently that the Government are encouraging city councils to consider congestion charging. I ask the Minister when she replies to confirm that she is offering such guidance to local authorities. I also ask the Minister whether she supports the development of products that use intelligent transport systems to help reduce congestion and achieve cleaner air for all of us to breathe.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join the long queue of Peers who have congratulated my noble friends on their appointment to the Front Bench.
Before I embark on the main subject of my speech, I should like to say a few words on the proposed abolition of the voting rights of hereditary Peers. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees referred to the dog that did not bark in the night. The party opposite has taken to referring to the sword of Damocles that is hanging over their heads. My fear is a very different one. I fear that hereditary Peers will behave impeccably in the coming 18 months. There may be token resistance on the odd Bill or amendment here or there, but they will be positively helpful to the Government in defining their programme. The nightmare is that my colleagues in another place will then weaken in their resolve to reform this House.
The argument will be: why spend time reforming the House of Lords when there are so many other more important things to be done? If that were the argument, it would be a mistake and a lost opportunity. I am pleased to hear from the Leader of the House the Lord Privy Seal that there is still a firm intention to introduce such legislation. I am sorry to hear that he is unable to commit himself to including it in next year's gracious Speech.
I turn to the main matter that I wish to touch on this evening which I believe is of central importance to the way that we lead our lives. It is also a matter that I do not believe has been touched upon in the debate this evening. I refer specifically to the working practices of parents with children of school age and younger. I declare an interest in that I have two young children and my wife runs a charity called Parents at Work. That charity is aimed at improving the working practices of parents with children of school age and younger. I am aware that the Government are sympathetic to the aims of family-friendly working practices, but it is worth rehearsing the reasons why the balance between working life and family life needs to be redressed. In 1997 British men worked longer hours than any of their European counterparts. In some two-thirds of couples with children both partners work. That is a higher
352
proportion than ever before. At the same time, there has been a growth in the number of families without work. I am told that about 11 per cent. of families have no work at all and that adults in that position remain unemployed longer than their childless counterparts.
One aspect of our long hours culture is that men are very reluctant to identify their requirements as fathers to their employers as that may call into question their commitment to the job. While there is a good deal of media attention to the changing nature of fatherhood, for most men the reality is that this is a private matter to be worked out with their families rather than their employers. The bottom line is that parents spend less time with their children than ever before and that is undesirable from any perspective.
The Government are to introduce a number of measures that will help. I have in mind the national childcare strategy, the welfare to work scheme, the minimum wage, the 48-hour week and the enhancement of flexible working practices. There is now a range of flexible working practices which allow mothers and fathers to spend more time with their children. I am thinking in particular of flexible working days, maternity leave, paternity leave, enhanced leave arrangements and the many other options which some firms are beginning to introduce.
I should explain that I am talking not just as a new man who is a member of the new Labour Party but as one who also has his darker side. I am a manager in an international oil company. I spend much of my working week exhorting people to meet deadlines which could be described as challenging. I understand that in the commercial world there are only the fast and the dead, and that few lament those who fail, but while that may be a good maxim for people at work, it is not a way of life and it needs to be balanced against people's wider responsibilities.
It is easy to be pious about family friendly working practices. It is equally easy to dismiss them as bad for business. I hope that the Opposition will judge the Government's measures by what is good for the family as well as what is good for business. I wish the Government well in their legislative programme.
9.1 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Hayman on their positions. Secondly, I endorse thoroughly what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said about family friendly work places. That is an important point. My wife was talking about that subject at a conference last Saturday. It is something which as a family we feel is important and to which I shall return later.
I shall talk primarily about housing and homelessness, a subject mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The gracious Speech states:
"Measures will be introduced to enable capital receipts from the sale of council houses to be invested in housebuilding and renovation as part of my Government's determination to deal with homelessness and unemployment".
I endorse that view.

353
I shall refer first to youth homelessness. There was recently a Shelter and Midland Bank poll. The pollsters talked to 1,000 young people aged between 16 and 25. They found that over 80 per cent. of them are more afraid of not having a home than of being unemployed. That strikes me as challenging and surprising. I should have thought that unemployment would have been the greater fear, but in fact having no home is the younger generation's greater fear. That is why I believe that tackling youth homelessness is an important issue.
An inquiry into youth homelessness was discussed by the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness and housing need. It is a group that I attend when I can. That inquiry came to the conclusion that 246,000 people aged between 16 and 25 were homeless at some point during 1995. That is a great proportion of people in that age group who have had a period of homelessness. It may not necessarily be for the whole year, but at some point they were homeless.
One of the problems that the inquiry highlighted was that caused by the journey from dependence to independence. It is one that young people must naturally take. At the age of 16 they will still be dependent upon their family, but by the time they are 25 they should be independent. The report found that since the 1960s the journey from dependence to independence had begun to break down. In the inquiry's view, the overwhelming cause of youth homelessness is family breakdown, which tends to result in a sudden leaving of home.
I ask the Minister whether the Government will build on the previous Government's positive support for families, whether two parent or one parent, and try to strengthen the family structure which has been deteriorating in recent years. Will the Minister say what are the Government's views on benefit levels for youth unemployed and the homeless, and how they will fit in with their new proposals for dealing with youth unemployment?
That inquiry also found that special attention needs to be paid to care leavers. There was another report commissioned by the YMCA which was carried out by Staffordshire University. It found that one in five of the young homeless had a background of local authority care. From time to time I asked the previous government about the facilities available to prepare those leaving care for life in the wider world. That often includes moving directly to independence without any family back-up.
Those reports emphasised the need for prevention—an aspect of homelessness which is given less consideration. I wonder what plans there may be for schools and other educational establishments to help educate and prepare young people—care leavers or not—on how to cope with life away from where they were living while at school, because I believe that prevention is important.
Secondly, I turn to the issue of homelessness in general. An excellent debate on the subject was initiated in January by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I participated in that debate, but some of my questions
354
were not answered by the previous government. I believe that some points on homelessness and housing remain outstanding. I asked about the provision of 500 more direct access places which, according to an estimate of the single homeless in London, were required. One of the important points in the homelessness debate is the need to move people from the streets to direct access, into semi-independence and into independent living. That is the chain. Speaking in my capacity as chairman of the board of The Church Army, I mentioned the initiation of a new hostel in Marylebone with 100 beds. The team there aims to move women off the streets and through that chain to equip them for independent living. I hope that that will continue to be an emphasis of the new Government. The previous Government, through their rough sleepers initiative, succeeded in providing 3,500 new homes for homeless people. That was an answer that I did receive during the debate. That move was most satisfactory and I hope that the new Government will continue the work.
Perhaps in conclusion I may fire a number of questions which the Minister may be unable to answer tonight. However, I shall be happy to receive a letter in answer. First, what do the Government expect the Housing Corporation and local authorities to spend on repairs and renovations over the next couple of years? I believe that there is a great need for new housing. Secondly, will such renovations bring properties up to the current energy standards? It is important that in renovating buildings are brought up to the required standards. Thirdly, will the Government include in their plans the demolition and clearance of old houses when the standards that are now required cannot otherwise be reached? We have some ancient living accommodation in this country and there is a great need for more demolition and more building.
Fourthly, as it is estimated that 1.6 million UK homes are unfit for habitation, and the highest number are in the owner-occupied sector, are the Government considering making available grants for privately owned houses—obviously, subject to restrictions—to enable them to be brought up to standard? What is their policy on dealing with privately owned homes which are below the required standard?
Fifthly, will the Government continue to bring empty accommodation into use? Several times I said to the previous government that one of the scandals of our country was for one reason or another having so much empty accommodation when there are homeless people around. I hope that the new Government will continue the efforts of the previous government to try to reduce that scandal. They continue to say that the time for rhetoric is past and that now is the time for action. I hope that they will be able to implement that proposal.
Finally, will the use of capital receipts, which I am happy to see being used for new building, affect the Government PSBR? I believe that that was always the reason given by the previous Government for not using the capital receipts for rebuilding. How will they avoid that problem?
9.12 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I always listen with great interest to the Minister of State in her various manifestations, but today I listened with particular interest as she enlarged upon two of the Government's education proposals: the one to raise standards in schools; the other to reform the teaching profession. The two are of course complementary in that the former depends critically upon the latter.
The Bill which brings them together will be eagerly awaited in this House and keenly scrutinised. But meantime, I hope that when she winds up this evening the Minister can assure the House that the new reforms of teaching will build upon the current work of existing agencies, offices and authorities. There should, for example, be no loss of momentum in pursuing the present consultation process towards establishing and then speedily introducing the national curriculum for initial teacher training. I would hope in fact that the TTA could be encouraged to proceed with curricula not only in English, maths, and science, but also in information technology. The agency's officers might usefully be urged also to proceed with planning a head teacher qualification and—while they are about it—to advance the process of teacher appraisal on the basis of the new standards for Qualified Teacher Status that have already been developed.
All of these initiatives will doubtless be further addressed in the forthcoming Bill: but none of them, surely, should have to wait upon its arrival in Parliament. In any event, "reforms to the teaching profession" will need to go far beyond matters of subject-specific curricula and certificates of qualification. This, I fear, is hardly the occasion and still less the hour to embark on such matters, but I wonder whether Ministers fully realise the uphill task they face in addressing—as they must—the intellectual turmoil in the educational and philosophical theories in which teachers in training are inescapably embroiled by their teachers and their teachers' teachers. Are they aware of the extent to which all teacher education, irrespective of curricular subject, is affected by the widespread orthodoxy of unorthodoxy in higher education when it comes to values, culture, taste, and the very goals of education itself: the corrosive seeping of relativism far beyond that cultivation of civilised tolerance which was once its moral justification; the widespread scepticism about—nay, contempt for—any notion of common values and shared purpose?
Let me quote from a keynote speech recently delivered to the assembled thousands of the American Modern Language Association, and now published in its journal Profession. The speech was by J. Hillis Miller, a truly eminent scholar who bears the title of Distinguished Professor of English in the University of California. This may seem a long way from an East London primary school but it is not, and the
356
lines of communication are impressively and speedily efficient. Professor Hillis Miller spoke of welcoming,
"the self-destruction of the traditional literature departments as they shift to cultural studies",
since this shift is—as he sees it—essential in order for education to acknowledge the multiplicity of origins, backgrounds, mores, and predilections of the young: a multiplicity which is not just a feature of the group but of every individual within it.
I quote Miller again:
"Each self is inhabited by its 'other' or by an indeterminate number of 'others' in plural swarming. No Habermasian dialogue, conversation, or communicative discourse could or should bring all this diversity back to consensus."
Mark that "should", my Lords: there should be no attempt to seek, let alone preach, consensus in values, culture, goals, judgment. And Miller follows these respectably opaque, quasi-scientific sentences with one that could not be clearer. I continue the quotation:
"The traditional single set of values transmitted by education is now seen as what it always was: an ideological fabrication made to serve the power of white middle- or upper-class heterosexual males".
These are not the ill-considered words of some flip youngster trying to attract attention at a trendy cocktail party. They come from a scholar who has earned international respect with many distinguished books (which my students read, at my insistence) on Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Thomas Hardy (though I must add that his oeuvre includes a book of 1986 entitled The Disappearance of God).
As befits a man of his eminence, Professor Miller's ideas are not parochially confined to California. Indeed, those I have quoted are not especially his ideas. They are commonplace in educated circles, everywhere. Our universities would be failing, our university teachers and our teacher trainers would be failing if they were not familiar with such currents of thought. And the by-products inevitably filter through, even to our primary schools. It is only a year or so ago since a London teacher attracted media attention by preventing her pupils from going to see "Romeo and Juliet" because it was such a flagrantly heterosexual love story. She did not invent that idea: she brought it with her from her university training, and she was unique only in the instant fame she acquired.
The balkanisation of what Miller contemptuously calls a "single set of values" naturally affects literary study with special acuteness because it directly undermines a consensual literary canon. But it has an equally devastating effect on language teaching. If literary theorists can see no principled reason for privileging (as they would say) the poetry of T. S. Eliot over the text on a sauce bottle, why should we expect language theorists to feel comfortable with a standard common language or to find it easy to say that anybody's English is better or worse than anybody else's? Indeed, the same detached irresponsibility has an analogous impact right across the humanities spectrum. History is an obvious target.
And there are other fashionable passions which affect other subjects such as maths and science: hostility to mental arithmetic since it may entail rote learning of

357
tables; the physical organisation of the classroom has an ideological dimension; as of course does the very role itself of the teacher. Ministers will have noted the sharp warning to Mr. Blunkett last week from a teachers' association on the issue of testing classroom progress.
It would be astonishing if the existence of hot controversy in all these matters did not deflect trainee teachers from acquiring the basic knowledge their job will require and from equipping themselves with the skills to impart that knowledge. But there I go again, forgetting that the very notion of imparting knowledge is itself highly controversial—yet another area in which higher education raises doubts and leaves students with them.
Ministers will have to exert vigorous and courageous leadership if, after 30 or 40 years of relativist individualism run riot, we are to recover in higher education teacher training circles some consensual common sense. Ministers would not find themselves alone in thus seeking to reconstruct the deconstructed. The current issue of Daedalus, journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, contains several articles making the intellectual case for the common citizen's common sense middle ground that harmonises tradition with innovation.
On 8th May, the King of Spain made a presentation at Aachen to Roman Herzog of the Charlemagne Prize, an earlier recipient of which was Winston Churchill. In his acceptance speech, the German President spoke of the urgent need to build a moral and intellectual superstructure on the foundations of classical antiquity, along with our common traditions in religion, humanism, and post-Renaissance enlightenment. If President Herzog can speak of "our common culture", with the whole continent of Europe in mind, with all its variety, it is surely not beyond the wit of the Anglo-Saxon communities to advance arguments which reassert a sufficiently common culture to imbue education and the teaching profession with a sense of enthusiastic common purpose—arguments that can above all reconcile the neighbouring injunctions of St. Paul to the Thessalonians:
"Omnia probate: quod bonum est tenete".
9.23 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have used the environment debate on the gracious Speech to hold forth upon the subject of organic farming. I am sorry to have to inform your Lordships that tonight is no exception. I should say that I have received a very charming letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who unfortunately cannot be here. She has kindly encouraged me in my efforts.
I should like first to join in the many congratulations that have been expressed to the Government on their success in the polls. Perhaps I may remind them of the manifesto promise that they made to support organic farming, albeit with the caveat that such reform would follow reform of the Common Market. I am not too sanguine about the possibilities of the outcome of discussions of that
358
nature with the Germans and French. If we are not to wait until doomsday for the achievement of that promise, perhaps I may suggest that the Government could make it good by promoting extensive farming—if not the demanding processes and rules required by the Soil Association.
I speak as a patron of the Soil Association. The fact that I am unpaid may lend some credibility to my remarks. It may be that the rules of the Soil Association are too strict for some farmers, but those who adhere to those rules will have the benefit of the most profitable improvement of their basic resource—the soil itself. That is a claim of tall order; I shall substantiate it in a moment.
As regards organic farming, there has been a mind block in the thinking of the Treasury on the theory that organic subsidies are different from other agricultural subsidies and that organic farmers would be unfairly supported—as if the common agriculture policy was not the most artificial method of supporting farmers to set aside their land and to adjust the market by acreage payments! The CAP is not only unfair; it is monstrously immoral. I assure the Government Front Bench that any efforts they make towards reforming that policy will have my strongest support.
Nevertheless, organic farmers throughout Europe are being supported by the Organic Aid scheme at twice the rate of our own farmers on the basis of Commission-designated rates of support on a one-for-one basis. There at least is an excellent opportunity for the Government to redeem their pledge in the manifesto which they are rightly keen to promote and which reflects New Labour's promise of honesty. In welcoming both noble Baronesses to the Front Bench, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she can shed any light on the disparity in the prices obtained by European organic farmers and by our own farmers.
It is often proposed that the exponential increase in world population means that intensive farming alone can compete with the problem. But that is demonstrably untrue. I shall not retread all the arguments today. They are clearly and accurately demonstrated in the Green Study on Sustainable Agriculture commissioned by the ODA from the International Institute for Environment and Development and published in June last year by the ODA.
Among the many important points the report makes, it confirms, as if we did not know it already, that during the past 50 years the growth in the use of pesticides, machinery and animal feedstuffs has substituted for natural control and resources, rendering crops more vulnerable and requiring ever more pesticides to control pests, weeds and diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated a multitude of dangerous chemicals in the environment all of which are specifically denied for use by any member of the Soil Association, or any organic farmer farming under Soil Association rules.
The farmer has been replaced by the input supplier. That is a nice new politically correct name for the

359
agro-chemical salesman. A section of the report is entitled Myths about Sustainable Agriculture. It states:
"The most common characterisation is that sustainable agriculture represents a return to some form of low technology. 'backward' or 'traditional' practices".
The report continues:
"This is manifestly untrue. Sustainable agriculture implies an incorporation of recent innovations that may originate with scientists or farmers or both".
Developing countries are naturally the greater users of sustainable agriculture in its traditional sense. It is all that they can afford. In a small survey of 23 countries, nearly 2 million households were estimated to be farming 3.4 million hectares. That is not a huge number. All were developed in the past 10 years. It is a remarkable fact that only 10 years ago there were 5,000, not 2 million, such households. That is how the problem of feeding the world will be overcome, and we should be in the forefront of that battle. The knowledge is there in the rules of the organic farming and horticultural organisations. It follows that we should promote those organisations.
It is true that there is an initial drop in productivity for those converting to extensive farming over the first five years. However, the paper demonstrates that in the United States—hardly an emerging country—the top 25 per cent. of sustainable farmers have better gross margins and better yields than the top 25 per cent. of conventional farmers. That position is reflected in the well-established UK organic farms, which are seeing improved cereal yields of over three tonnes an acre and 6,000 litres per dairy cow per annum. So organic farming is not only possible; it is profitable. All the contemptuous condescension conveyed over the years by the agro-chemical industry has been blown away by this report.
Much has already been done. There is movement, started by the last Conservative government. It was during their administration that the demand for organic products built up when MAFF started the ADAS campaign which provided farmers with a helping hand to convert to organic systems. There has been some success. However, the limiting factor of cost has been a brake on progress. Meanwhile, the retail demand that has built up has been satisfied as to 60 per cent., or £120 million of adverse balance of trade per annum, as the supermarkets (which are willing to stock the produce) are forced to fill the gap with imports. I pray that this little titbit of savings may induce the noble Baroness to set about the Treasury's moral scruples and grant to converting farmers the same incentives as are accorded to them by our rivals in Germany and Denmark.
In a previous speech on the rural economy, I looked forward to the reform of the CAP and quoted the old couplet about there being,
"a tide in the affairs of men",
which ought to be taken at the flood. Surely today New Labour's tide is in flood. I hope that they will take up the challenge that I have identified. They will certainly receive my support.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may echo other noble Lords in congratulating the Ministers. Women are well represented in every sense of the word, not only by the new Government but particularly in this House. We are all accustomed here to the expertise of the two Ministers addressing the House today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I go back rather further. I admired her at Cambridge when she so well represented our sex, especially in the Cambridge Union at a time when we were two out of seven women on a course of 200. All the rest were the 1960s equivalents of "grey suits"—blue jeans, I suppose.
I realise that I have been sitting today in the place that was occupied until so recently with such distinction in every sense by Lady Seear. No one was more supportive of women. She was a great role model and indeed a great mentor to me. No one was more dismissive of the advancement of women other than on merit. She, too, would have welcomed the Ministers' presence.
Lady Seear would also have welcomed giving schools the tools for the job, to echo a comment made by my noble friend Lord Tope and the right reverend Prelate. She would have asked very perceptive questions. Indeed I am sure that before her death she was asking "How?" of much that was in the Labour Party manifesto, and would have asked much the same of the announcements made through the medium of the Queen's Speech.
The Labour Party has tied its hands as regards the use of income tax. one of the more efficient and fairer taxes. Although the reference was made late in the election campaign to the use of lottery money, it presents something of a dilemma. The public told all politicians how well they saw the crises in the health and education services and the funding that was required. Like others, I put down a marker that I would not wish to see the use of lottery money as the thin end of the wedge towards core funding of any of those services.
I have to say that although there was little that I agreed with in the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Henley, I felt that his questions about assisted places, particularly the availability of funds arising from their abolition, were apposite. We on these Benches believe that the funds are likely to be inadequate for what is intended to be achieved by them. My noble friend Lord Tope seems to have had much the same experience as I did during the election campaign, finding voters who rather hoped that there were some promises that the Labour Party would break; for example, promises regarding taxation and the funding of education.
My noble friend referred to concern about class sizes throughout the primary sector, though he accepted that the earliest years should be those to have the first priority. I have a problem in understanding how one can deal only with part of the primary school population, a population of four or five to 11 year-olds. Primary school organisations tend to require a whole-school approach. It would be quite difficult to avoid restructuring within schools if it is the early years within a school that are to benefit from lower class sizes.

361
Parents in my own area of south-west London would be happy to get their children into classes of rather more than 30 if they could get them into the school of their choice. There are issues of standard numbers and the adequacy of buildings to be addressed, but most particularly the Greenwich judgment to which my noble friend alluded. It deals with parental choice—if it really is choice—without regard to LEA boundaries. It causes bad feeling. Last night at a public meeting in my own authority I was tackled about bussing children to Richmond from Brixton. I do not believe that that happens. If it did, it would amount to a substantial vote of confidence, quite rightly, in the education offered in Richmond. But the mythology illustrates the dangers in public perceptions, if it is thought that children can be bussed across a couple of LEA boundaries.
We need to look at class sizes and nursery vouchers as closely related because it has become obvious over the past few months, after the introduction of nursery vouchers, that they affect parents' choice of school. I was interested to hear the Minister say that vouchers would not be issued beyond the first term of next year. I understand that to mean that they will not have effect beyond December. I should be grateful if that could be confirmed. The Minister also said that the Government want to avoid unproductive wrangles about structure, and we all agree with that. But I wonder whether the introduction of foundation schools will mean that there are no wrangles.
The gracious Speech referred to the development of a new role for local education authorities and parents and the establishment of a new framework for the decentralised and equitable organisation of schools. Decentralised or devolved, I wonder. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to the partnerships which are so important to the good working of schools. I wonder about the role of school governors. How are class sizes to be reduced while governors' autonomy and independence are retained? How are they to relate not just to the local education authority but to the Department for Education and Employment?
We were accustomed to hearing the previous Government talk about their "light touch" approach. I have to say that it often seemed to me to be the abandonment of responsibility to any given quango. I hope that this Government's hand will not be too heavy. Reference has been made to that with regard to homework and also how each subject is to be taught. We shall expect to preserve the independence of governors, who have such an important role in ensuring the success of their schools.
I shall presume to respond to comments made today on the subject of agriculture. I do not apologise for my urban background. There is much that I need to learn about agriculture. But I learnt one thing; during the election I listened to "Farming Today"—elections change one's hours of working and one's listening habits to some extent—and I heard a comment made rather in passing after negotiations over fishing rights. It was to the effect that the UK had lost out because it was unable to negotiate as a full partner. That was a political point which, as it happens, was not made with
362
any particular political energy. However, I agree with my noble friends Lord Beaumont and Lord Perry of Walton about the importance of feeding the world and that competitive squabbling between nations and even between partners is secondary.
Transport is another of the many topics for today's agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the support of motoring organisations, unusually perhaps, but very sensibly in my view, for the reduction of car use. I realised the importance of that during the passage of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Act at the end of the last Parliament. The noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, is quite right. That Act is only a start. It requires planning for traffic reduction; it does not tell local authorities how to do it. There is far more work to be done and much to be achieved in that area.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I welcome the amalgamation of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport, although one has yet to see the hard edge which may result from that. I hope that there will be one. Transport and the environment were notable by their absence from the Queen's Speech. I hope that we shall hear more in the forthcoming Budget. We on these Benches believe that an environmental approach should be integral to fiscal policy. Certainly, having listened to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Moran, I feel that they share something of that approach.
We know that it is proposed to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. I should prefer to have seen a home energy insulation programme—perhaps as well but perhaps in place of that reduction—as being a more effective programme financially. It would also reduce CO2 emissions instead of making them more affordable. We look forward to measures which will combine better transport and better use of energy for users as well as for everyone else, including those who breathe the air affected by the transport which runs on our roads.
I speak as speaker number 30 in this debate and perhaps as the one who will concentrate more than others on certain aspects of local government, which, again, were largely missing from the Queen's Speech. In particular, my question—perhaps a rhetorical one—is: how will local democracy be written into this Government's programme? We heard about decentralisation, including regional development agencies: decentralised to whom? How will that lead to regional chambers and assemblies, which were the subject of the joint consultative committee of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats that reported shortly before the election? That committee on constitutional reform agreed on a stage by stage approach and proper accountability.
This week, I read a report in the Local Government Chronicle of comments made by senior Labour councillors, who seemed to draw no distinction between quangos and democratic institutions. It contained comments such as,
"The most likely first step would be to set up a RDA which we have already created in waiting".

363
But again it seemed to argue against moving on to an elected Chamber—indirectly elected perhaps—let alone a directly elected assembly. I presume that after the results of the last election the Labour Party will feel that there is something to be said for elections.
There are questions to be asked concerning the boundaries of the areas which will come within the remit of each development agency. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, mentioned the problems in the West Country and the use of Bristol as a centre (if it could be said to be a centre) for the west of our country. He described the different problems arising around that region; and one perhaps needs only to think of what may be an appropriate minimum wage in Cornwall at one end and Wiltshire at the other to understand the different pressures and the anxieties of people living in Devon or Cornwall who would object to being run from Bristol just as much as they would to being run from London.
Is each regional development agency to have the same powers? How are the boards to be composed and how are they to he accountable? The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to political clout. He was talking of trading standards officers. But political clout is important and I hope that the regional development agencies' clout will be that of local politics and not that of Whitehall or Westminster politics.
I welcome the support for effective land-use planning. I should perhaps declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association. We certainly need to use our cities better, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, reminded us. We need a debate on what is needed as well as on the numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, referred to new settlements. There may well be an argument for some new settlements. However, I am aware of how difficult it is to create a new community from scratch. A community by definition is organic; it grows from the bottom up and I am instinctively unhappy at too centralised an approach.
Part of the objective of development agencies must be housing. In the huge department which has been created I wonder whether housing can be taken as seriously as it should be. The Big Issue—a very readable publication; indeed, I believe its readership is considerably more than that of The Economist—last week asked an extremely pointed question. It commented that zero tolerance deals with the symptoms and not the causes. We on these Benches will certainly support the Government in tackling the causes of homelessness. My noble friend and I feel that perhaps the only thing about which one may have zero tolerance is zero tolerance itself—but that is another debate.
We look forward to plans to reverse what I regard as the reverses of the last Housing Act, in particular the right to a permanent home. Tackling homelessness is both an urgent and important matter and "crisis" is not too strong a word to describe the situation. In saying that, I recognise that it must be tackled through far more than one of the Government's departments. The benefits system has done much to make the homelessness position worse. But that is a matter for another department and for the Government as a whole. In
364
relation to the question of responsibilities of other departments, perhaps I may say in parenthesis—though it is important shortly after an election—that ensuring people who are homeless do not lose the right to vote should not go off the agenda.
We support the phased release of capital receipts—that was in our manifesto also—but it raises questions; for example, how will the loss of interest that the receipts ensured came into local authority budgets be replaced? They are an integral part of local authorities' revenue budgets. How will the fact that receipts are in the wrong places be tackled if one is assessing where new homes are particularly needed? Indeed, not every authority has receipts. The question of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about what is estimated to be achieved was a practical way of raising these points. If the Minister intends to respond to him by letter, I should be grateful for a copy of the letter.
Whether or not capping will be lifted is a related question. How will the Government approach local authorities' powers generally? Will they be tough on borrowing, or tough perhaps on the causes of borrowing? Are local authorities to be allowed to determine their own borrowing? I do not quite recall how the noble Viscount described capital restrictions, but my approach is rather more cynical than his. I should have thought that capital restrictions on local authorities are something to do with local authorities' power and not to do with what might be achieved in building terms. However, I agree with him that the use of capital receipts and matters of capital are closely related to the PSBR. Until we distinguish investment—that is a very respectable term—from revenue—in other words, running costs for the purposes of PSBR—we will not get over the difficulties.
I was interested to hear that there will be a local government supplementary credit approvals Bill to enable the expenditure of government receipts. Supplementary credit approvals are about borrowing, so I think that we on these Benches will approach the Bill when it is published with a bell ringing in our heads—if not an alarm bell, at least a warning bell—that local authorities' powers must be protected and enhanced.
Finally, in London, we shall be very much exercised by the proposals for a new authority and a mayor. We welcome London government for Londoners but we are determined that it should operate democratically. We shall be concerned to see the relationship between the mayor and the authority. The cynical might say that the creation of an executive mayor will mean that a London authority is no real opposition to central government because it will be an authority without real teeth; that is, if power resides in the mayoralty. Most importantly, we believe that a mayoralty must not be a substitute for democracy. Personality politics may be very well in its place but it is not an alternative to proper democracy. If a mayoralty is such a good idea, why have the Government not thought to allow pilots elsewhere?
Most immediately, we shall be interested to see whether the Boundary Commission is to be instructed to consider boundaries within London as a basis for election to the new authority by proportional

365
representation. That question is being asked in the context of concern about the next European Parliament elections. Unless the Boundary Commission is instructed to change the basis of its work—it is about to start work on boundaries for the European Parliament constituencies—it will not be possible to achieve PR for the next European Parliament elections.
I come back to the question of how. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we on these Benches will be supportive of many of the Government's aims, but we will ask how they are to be achieved. Our role will perhaps be to encourage the new Government in their ambitions.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to add my compliments—one in reality and the other in expectation—to the two noble maidens on the Front Bench, both formidable parliamentarians, to whom I shall doubtless not enjoy listening on many occasions in the future because of the power with which they will advance arguments with which I disagree.
I also apologise that, in what I hope will be a relatively brief speech, I shall not be able to cover many of the areas raised by my noble friends let alone by other Members of the House. I shall skate reasonably briefly over the many subjects which we have discussed today.
I look back on our 18 years in government with a great deal of pride at what we have achieved in the areas we are talking about today. I believe that we have an outstanding record on the environment. One of the most crucial changes that we made concerned rail privatisation. I am delighted that that is now supported by the new Government. I am particularly proud of what we achieved in education. As has been recognised by the new Government, in that area there is still a great deal left to do.
So I approach the new Government's programme with much hope which I am sure is shared widely in this House. We shall have the new Government with us for a long while. They have set out in their manifesto a number of programmes with which we can heartily agree. For all our sakes we have to wish them the very best in achieving them and do what we can to support them with our reasonable advice tempered perhaps sometimes by a feeling that they are taking the wrong direction, but recognising the mandate that they have from the electorate.
The noble Baronesses will not be surprised that in my case at least the hope is tempered with some doubt. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, set out in some detail the sort of practical difficulties which the Government will face in translating their aims into reality. Personally, I found myself sometimes looking with what may be described as cynicism at some of the things which have been said; for example, the phrase at the beginning of the gracious Speech that,
"My Government intend to govern for the benefit of the whole nation".
One merely needs to think of those who enjoy the innocent sport of shooting with handguns to realise that there are going to be exceptions to that. To that one
366
might add the inshore fishing community whose livelihood will not be supported at the International Governmental Conference in the way that it would have been had we been the government. There are indications that the Government do not include within the whole nation people who live in the country and who enjoy country sports. One could go on. In rather a curious way, it seems that the poor may be included among the people who will not benefit from this Government. One of their early actions is to abolish the assisted places scheme which benefits the poor, in order to give the money to those who have their children in large classes. As the noble Baroness will know, they are concentrated in the richer parts of this country.
At this stage I do not think that it is right to be overborne by cynicism. We should all raise a large cheer for the great task which the Government have set themselves in education; namely to raise the standards of all 11 year-olds to those which we require. That is a tremendous ambition and target and we wish them very well with it.
There is another education target which caught my eye.
"We wish to build bridges wherever we can across education divides. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system".
I could not agree more. I hope that the strength of the independent system and that of the state system will be able to find better ways of coexisting than they have at the moment. That is why I find it surprising that the first action taken by the Government should be a step in exactly the opposite direction by separating the two systems again and returning the private system to what it was before we embarked on our reforms—a ghetto for those who could afford it.
We must welcome the overwhelming conversion of the Government to the policy which they are now pursuing which, through long years, they opposed while we were in government. Doubting people remain, as was made clear to those who were here to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. One saw Old Labour with all its old prejudices—that the solution to every problem was to spend a lot more of other people's money on it and that where prejudice and evidence confronted each other prejudice survived. Surely, the noble Lord has seen the original researches on the effect of decreasing class sizes on performance. He will know that between the ages of five and seven there is a significant result. He will also know, particularly from the American studies, that beyond that stage a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure to reduce class sizes will achieve a 1 per cent. increase in performance. That is the result of the big studies. If that is the best that the noble Lord can find to do with our money I am glad that he is not in government.
I understood from the speech of the Lord Privy Seal that the minimum wage was on the menu for today's discussion. I am surprised that it has not been raised by any other noble Lord. I am informed that I have misunderstood the position, and I will pass over it.

367
Certainly, the London referendum is on today's menu. One sees an interesting passage on page 35 of the Labour Party manifesto:
"Following a referendum to confirm popular demand, there will he a new deal for London".
This sounds rather like, "We will try him and then hang him". I hope that it will be a referendum in which the issue is in doubt and the decision is left to the people of London. I hope that if the vote goes against the Government they will accede to the referendum and not push ahead with an authority for London against the wishes of its people. I shall be very disappointed if that is not so.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raised the matter of the Welsh being allowed only one question but the Scots two questions. The English are allowed none. However, they are expected to continue to pay very large additional amounts to both Scotland and Wales despite the devolution of powers to those two principalities, which presumably will continue to have excess representation in the Westminster Parliament. The English may have something to say about that in due course.
Disability was certainly a subject covered in some detail today. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that no one should doubt the Government's commitment. I shall wait and see. Actions speak louder than words. Although the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, had offered promises, I heard nothing that could be construed as a promise. But the manifesto says that within a decade every child will leave primary school with a reading age of at least 11. Does that apply to those with learning difficulties—in which case I say hurrah but ask how—or are they not considered to be proper children? I should like an answer to that question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched briefly on the question of local authority capital receipts. That is an area that puzzles me as it puzzles the noble Baroness. I understood from what I read in the newspapers that Peter would be robbed to pay Paul and that those authorities that had capital receipts would be donating them generously to authorities which needed the money to build houses. We shall wait and see. I remain as puzzled as the noble Baroness.
Referring to the Government's plans for local authorities and local government, we shall wait to see what happens here too. One notes some interesting phrases in the manifesto:
"Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people. We will place on councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their area. They should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations. They will have the powers necessary to develop these partnerships. To ensure greater accountability, a proportion of councillors in each locality will be elected annually … Although crude and universal council tax capping should go, we will retain reserve powers".
There are some interesting areas for exploration. There is nothing in the gracious Speech or in what has been said today about how those proposals will be developed. But in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I may have glimpsed a picture of what may be intended: we
368
may be moving towards regional chambers and unitary government below that, with powers moving away from Westminster to those regional chambers; away from Westminster to Europe; and with Europe having a direct connection with the regional chambers in the way that it may wish. That may be the way in which the Government are looking at its development, but we remain in the dark about that. I shall follow the development of that question with great interest.
We hardly touched the issue of housing, which is clearly a major part of that area of government. There are commitments in the manifesto on commonhold and gazumping. Questions were asked by my noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall listen with interest for the answers, without any great expectation of getting any. There is also the whole area of the environment. It is difficult to understand how the reduction in VAT on heating fuel corresponds with an environmental policy on the greening of the planet; but doubtless that will one day be explained to us.
On transport, my noble friend Lord Attlee gave an illustration when talking about cowboy operators of how difficult it is to operate a statutory licensing system, something which the Chancellor will doubtless find in due course as he tries to operate the new statutory system for the regulation of the financial services industry.
Nothing was said about the fate of London Underground. Perhaps I may hope that the Government's conversion to privatisation and its benefits will he reflected in their plans for that great and important facility for this capital. If not, how do they intend to provide for the required finance? I look forward also to hearing the answers to the questions raised in Lord Chelmsford's fascinating speech.
I turn briefly to regional development authorities and to the many questions asked by my noble friend Lord Arran. The questions I add to that are: will those regional development authorities be as well funded as those in Wales and Scotland? If so, how much will it cost? If not, why not?
To turn to agriculture, I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, particularly because I do not have to answer it. I have tried that too many times to have any hope of satisfying him. I look forward to seeing how well the Minister can do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, may know, or otherwise she made a rash promise when she said, "We shall make early progress on BSE". We would leap for joy were that to be true. I hope that it is, but I shall be enormously surprised. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it is a new opportunity—an opportunity to start again and to re-write our relationships with Europe, although there are those of us who are cynical about such things. But none of us would be anything other than delighted were it to turn out that Europe will now treat us on the matter of BSE in the way that science, equity and proper, good relationships demand.

369
There was some discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton about regulation by labelling and choice rather than by forcing immense additional costs on food producers to fit in with theoretical risks. The Government will face considerable difficulties in that area when they come to devise their new food agency. How will the consumers' interests, as typified by some vocal pressure groups and the industry which is also vocal and effective, be balanced so that the general public will believe that it is being looked after? I hope that the Government will understand the need to inform the public, to tell them what the real risks are and to allow them to make their own decisions rather than trying to play nanny. If they go down that route it will be immensely expensive for all of us.
My noble friend Lord Wade raised what was to me the new and alarming prospect of crocodile genes in chickens. That is not good news for henpecked husbands! I cannot resist the chance to conclude with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. He raised matters not touched upon elsewhere. Of course, hereditary Peers will, as always, behave impeccably. One hopes that the Government will take the time which they have allowed themselves to produce, if they will, some better thought out proposals for the future of this House. As regards changing and feminising work patterns, it seems to me that one of the principal characteristics of the female workforce as a whole is the wish to find it easier to return to work aged 45. Any progress made in that direction would be greatly welcomed by me!
10.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, it is both a privilege and a pleasure that my first speech from the Dispatch Box should be in response to such a wide-ranging and well-informed debate. In anticipation of the wide-ranging nature of the debate, I tried to receive an extremely comprehensive briefing and in the time available I shall try to answer as many as possible of the individual points that were raised. Furthermore, as is appropriate, I shall write to noble Lords regarding specific questions, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harding.
Some of the issues raised in tonight's contributions have been outside the main topic of the debate. For instance, I refer to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on Welsh devolution and by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on the voting rights of hereditary Peers. However, I am sure that my Front Bench colleagues will read those contributions with great interest. The comments of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the long hours culture and its dangers will not be badly taken by the House at this point in the evening.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the briefing, and rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am afraid that the British Civil Service, which in my short
370
experience has served me so well, has failed in respect of crocodile DNA and the sexing of chickens and even about hermaphrodite frogs. I fear that I shall not have a great deal to offer the House tonight on either of those subjects.
Today's debate was also marked by an outstanding maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it reflected not only his distinguished professional expertise but the personal values that inform his views with which many of us would be proud to be identified. We look forward to hearing more of his eloquence and vision in the future.
I turn to education, which was at the heart of the opening speech of my noble friend Lady Blackstone and which has formed a substantial part of today's debate. Our proposals represent the most comprehensive package of measures we believe ever to be put forward to raise standards. We believe that they will impact on all school age groups. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, in his fascinating speech, called for some consensual commonsense. I hope that we may be able to provide even a little of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who until now had responsibility in these areas, asked an inordinate number of questions. I shall not say that he is an old dog, but he did tell us that he is learning new tricks. The noble Lord will understand that if I covered every question that he asked I should not be able to reply to any of the questions raised by his noble friends, let alone other Members of the House. However, there is one point on which I can give him reassurance and a firm commitment. The Bill to withdraw the assisted places scheme will receive proper and correct parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses. In that event, he may feel rather more relaxed and feel that the questions which he asked will be covered in the lengthy debates that we shall no doubt have on that subject.
Many noble Lords have been extremely generous in their welcome to both my noble friend Lady Blackstone and me. However, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, qualified his welcome with sympathy as regards the breadth of my responsibilities in this House. I feel much the same about Opposition speakers offering sympathy as I do about Greeks bearing gifts. I assure the noble Lord that I look forward to being in the House a great deal and covering a great many important subjects. If the House does not tire of me, I shall not tire of being here.
Lord Henley: Just wait.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not tired of me already. He has a long haul ahead of him.
I turn now to some of the specific points that have been raised on education in today's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, rightly, that much work has been undertaken already to raise and improve standards in education. That point was made by other noble Lords. There is nothing that we wish to do to undermine that progress. Rather, we wish to build upon it.

371
But I have to say that we still lag far behind our European competitors. International comparisons show clearly that our children are performing at a level well below that of many of our economic competitors in both maths and English. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone highlighted in her opening speech, we are determined to raise standards, starting with literacy and numeracy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced recently very stretching targets in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked also what savings would be released by the withdrawal of funding from the assisted places scheme. We estimate that between £20 million and £50 million will be saved in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. That will help to fund our priority of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds, the priority group.
The Audit Commission estimates that nearly 900,000 places remain unfilled in our schools. Not surprisingly perhaps that was not highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his speech. But it means that there is ample scope to accommodate those transferring back into the state system.
I am happy also to be able to respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on the Government's plans for the withdrawal of the nursery vouchers scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also raised that issue. We shall make an announcement shortly which will deal in detail with the points that they raised.
Several noble Lords commented on the importance of early years education. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, stressed, and rightly reminded us of, as he often does, the importance of those very early years. We have asked local education authorities to produce early years development plans. Those will set out their proposals for three and four year-olds.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred also to the importance of parents participating in their children's education both at school and, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, before school. It is a subject dear to my heart and as someone who is just about to finish taking my fourth child through primary school, I have no illusions about the importance of getting parents involved in the very basic partnership between school and home in developing those important fundamental, basic skills. At the end of going through the reading scheme of The Village with Three Corners for the fourth time, I have to say that if I ever had to do it again I might go completely mad.
The right reverend Prelate voiced his disappointment at the absence of any reference in the Queen's Speech to the work of the further education sector. Although there is no specific reference in the Speech, perhaps I may make it clear that FE features very much in the Government's plans to raise standards in education. We shall be discussing a number of new and exciting initiatives within the FE sector to ascertain how these can fit in with our plans for lifelong learning.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the Greenwich judgment. There are no plans at present to change the current position under the Greenwich judgment whereby
372
a local authority may not adopt a policy for admission to any of its schools which treats people living outside its administrative area less favourably than those living inside. On the question of homework provision, I can tell the House that we shall certainly have national guidelines to establish periods for homework in primary and secondary schools. Details of this will be part of the White Paper.
Perhaps I may now turn to the department for which I have responsibilities; namely, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I should like, first, to thank several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Borfie, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the welcome that they expressed for the creation of the joint department under the leadership—or the "weight" of the leadership, which I believe was the phrase used—of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
This new department is a major demonstration of the Government's commitment to pursue the goals of sustainable development across Whitehall and to ensure that the environment becomes an integral part of all our policies, not just an "add on" that is always in danger of being dropped off. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Moran—and, indeed, many other speakers—who stressed the need for a sustainable development policy, will feel that the creation of this department provides a framework in which we can take that forward.
There is a huge challenge ahead for all of us who care about the environment and about sustainable development to engineer the changes that we need to make if together we are to create a world that actually offers the quality of life that we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy. If we are to succeed in that, we will need to involve a very wide group of people to work in partnership at local, national and international level and aim for higher living standards while at the same time safeguarding and enhancing the environment and developing an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution.
The need to take the lead in the international community is, I believe, well recognized, not just in Europe but also in the wider community. I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to learn that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be leading the UK delegation to the UN General Assembly Special Session next month and that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has also begun to take steps to put environmental policy at the heart of our foreign affairs.
The point was made during the course of today's debate that we must look at how we deal with these issues as a whole Government. We have committed ourselves to extending the powers of the other place to help promote environmental appraisal of policy and sustainable development across government. Subject to the agreement of the other place, we propose to create a new scrutiny committee to promote high standards and to monitor the assessments that departments make as regards the impact on the environment of their policies. We believe that this development could have a very significant role in our initiative to green Government.

373
But it will not be the only weapon in our armoury. We are currently looking at a wide range of mechanisms and improvements to the machinery that we inherited to strengthen the system and ensure that by the end of our first term in office we shall have taken significant strides towards the goal of sustainable development so that the quality of life as measured by local and national indicators is demonstrably better. The CO2 emissions targets are just one example of that.
The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Beaumont, raised the crucial issue of water resources and supply. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday held a summit meeting on the water industry. All the water companies in England and Wales were invited. The Director-General of Water Services—the economic regulator—and the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency spoke at the conference. Environmental and consumer bodies and many other organisations were also represented.
My right honourable friend made it clear that he was seeking a co-operative approach to tackling those problems, but we also seek an approach that will deliver results. He announced that the Director-General would be setting tough mandatory leakage targets for each company with a view of securing substantial reductions in leakage over the next five years. This was part of a 10-point plan. Each water company has been asked to respond within the next three weeks to the challenge represented by that plan.
Perhaps I may turn now to transport issues. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley made contributions in this area. In transport it is difficult to overstate the challenges we face—or the costs of getting the response wrong. As has been pointed out, we are becoming an increasingly car-dependent nation, and we face the prospect over the next 20 years of a doubling in road traffic growth from current levels. In part this is a reflection of the greater freedom of movement and choice that the car can bring and which we all sometimes want to enjoy. But we cannot and must not shut our eyes to the damage, both economic and environmental, that this brings in terms of congestion, poor air quality, climate change and noise and in a range of other areas.
Our response to these challenges was spelt out in our manifesto, where we made it clear that we regard an integrated transport policy as fundamental to the battle against pollution and congestion. As my noble friend pointed out, for too long we have seen an unco-ordinated and inadequate approach to the provision of transport systems and infrastructure. In contrast, this Government will establish and develop an integrated and effective strategy at all levels—and regional and local levels are as important as the national level in these areas—which will provide genuine choice, a choice that too often simply does not exist at present, to meet people's transport needs.
One clear aim of this strategy will be to boost the status and effectiveness of public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the London Underground. That is one specific part of the public
374
transport system which needs and deserves to be improved. We recognise the importance of ensuring that there are high levels of investment in the system and we shall be developing new public/private partnerships to bring about improvements while safeguarding the public interest and guaranteeing value for money.
We recognise, too, the importance of bus services as part of a balanced transport policy. We shall therefore be giving early consideration to what steps need to be taken to ensure that there is proper regulation of bus services at a local level and to encourage partnerships between local authorities and bus operators to improve the benefits to passengers and reverse some of those trends alluded to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley regarding the number of different modes of transport using our roads at present.
The other side of our transport strategy is of course the road network, and we will be taking forward our manifesto commmitment to conduct an overall strategic review of the roads programme. I believe it is extremely important that we get the scope and context for that review right. The road network clearly has a vital role to play in an effective and integrated transport policy and is hugely important in some of the areas of regional development referred to today and in terms of economic regeneration. But we must also ensure that it discharges that role in a manner which is sustainable. The review will look at the competing issues in depth and will evaluate schemes against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and the environment.
In dealing with transport matters it is important, too, that we recognise the role that the aviation and maritime industries play, not just in the UK but also in the international arena. So we will follow aviation policies which support the UK industry and benefit the consumer and which are environmentally sustainable. I hope that that deals at least in part with one of the issues raised by the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches.
My noble friend Lord Murray raised the issue of the merchant shipping industry. I assure him that we will act in a spirit of co-operation to achieve our manifesto commitment of helping our shipping and port industries to develop their economic potential to the full. And we will continue to promote the uses of inland waterways and coastal shipping to improve our environment and reduce levels of road traffic.
My noble friend Lord Murray also raised the issue of training for merchant seamen. I hope he will have taken heart from the emphasis given by my noble friend Lady Blackstone in opening the debate to the importance of training in all sectors. The Department for the Environment and Transport is very anxious to play its part in the new deal—for example, by ensuring that the proposed environment task force makes a successful contribution to that programme. I am glad to assure my noble friend that we shall certainly be working with our partners in Europe, as well as with the national maritime industry, to encourage and take forward those proposals which are intended further to develop the supply of high-calibre and highly motivated seafarers for the merchant navy.

375
A key objective for all modes of transport will be the maintenance and enhancement of safety, and in particular we will seek to create an environment in which all sectors of society are—and feel—safe when using public transport. It is a great pleasure for me to have been given specific responsibility for promoting and enhancing road safety, and I assure your Lordships that I will work not only to achieve reductions in the numbers of those who are killed and injured on our roads every year, but especially to enhance the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, for example through supporting and promoting the crucial initiatives which aim to provide safe routes to schools.
I hope to integrate thinking on safety throughout a variety of transport issues. In that context, I shall be interested to hear the suggestions of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to improving the safety of goods vehicles. I must apologise to the noble Earl that I was not in the Chamber to hear his contribution. I have wide responsibilities, as has been pointed out, but I am afraid I am not completely bionic.
The theme of public safety extends beyond the issue of transport. It informs government policies in other crucial areas of public life. We are determined to reform the arrangements for dealing with food safety and to restore the confidence of the consumer. That is why we published Professor James' report for immediate consultation. The Government fully support the general thrust of his recommendations, which provide a clear direction for strengthening the handling of food safety. We are determined to get it right, and there remain many practical issues to consider. We will be seeking the comments of all interested parties before preparing legislation.
In the meantime, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is making changes in his department in preparation for an agency. These include steps to increase the involvement of consumers in the Ministry's business and to make more information available on the Government's food safety policies.
On agriculture, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, properly raised the issue of BSE. He was also generous in his introduction and welcome to me. As with other former colleagues like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, looks any older either, but I suspect that all three of us are deceiving ourselves.
On the issue of BSE, which was raised by other speakers, there is no question of our underestimating either the seriousness of the issue or the obstacles that the history of the last months and years has left us with. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made a number of points and posed detailed questions to which I shall respond, if I may, in writing. I agree entirely with his main point that we have inherited an extremely difficult situation. Agriculture Ministers have opened a constructive dialogue with the European Commission and EU member states with a view to producing a European solution to the problem and ensuring a common approach to the issues of cattle traceability and marketing, which the noble Lord specifically mentioned.
376
The common agricultural policy was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer and others today in their speeches. The Government will seek further reform of the common agricultural policy, to provide more effective support for farming communities and to redirect CAP funds for the benefit of the broader rural economy and consumers. We would like to hasten the phasing out of intervention and export subsidies which build up food mountains, dump cheap produce on to world markets and are intrinsically vulnerable to high levels of fraud.
On the issue of green compensation raised in the debate, the House will be interested to know that my noble friend Lord Donoughue will meet the NFU tomorrow to discuss the issue. As for organic farming, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, I fully admit to not being an expert. I believe that he will ensure that I am one in a short time, but perhaps I may write to him on the specific issue of funding for organic farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, raised the important issue of conservation. It is clear that the common fisheries policy needs to be changed to achieve more effective conservation of fish stocks and to safeguard the future of the fishing industry.
Another central aim of the Government's manifesto is to devolve power outwards. Some of the legislative proposals in the gracious Speech welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, will ensure that local decision making will be less constrained by central government and be more accountable to local people. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Borrie, all asked detailed questions about regional development agencies which we see very much as not being a standard model designed in Whitehall and imposed on everywhere, but developing organically, responding to the needs of the region. We very much take on board that we shall have to see how they mesh in with the other agencies working within the regions. I shall have responsibility for taking through the House the Regional Development Agencies Bill, together with the Local Government (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill, which we hope will regenerate housing, and the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
On the London Bill, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that a real choice will be given to the people of London. If he parses the sentence in the manifesto carefully, he will see that it is implicit in it. I believe that the proposals will be widely welcomed and I should be surprised if they were rejected. Certainly within this House there has been widespread support. Who knows, if we are to believe what we read in the papers, perhaps some of the candidates for mayoral election will include Members of your Lordships' House.
The programme outlined in the gracious Speech is a formidable one, but we believe it is also achievable. There are areas where I know that some will be disappointed that we have not been able to include additional legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned the issue of disability, although I hope that he will have taken some comfort from the opening

377
remarks of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. However, I remind noble Lords who wish to see more, and perhaps noble Lords on the Front Bench who will have to see more, that this is only the first gracious Speech. There will be others to come in this Parliament and, I hope and believe, in other Parliaments. There is much that can be done.
But even without legislation—and it has not been possible to include in this Queen's Speech all the legislation in all the areas that many of us would have wished to see—there is much that can be done by other actions. I counsel the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, against too much cynicism. Oscar Wilde had something to say about cynics who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is perhaps in the area of values that the nation has most welcomed the change that took place on 1st May.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside referred to the Athenian oath of allegiance. I must tell your Lordships that it struck a particular chord with me. It may amuse my noble friends to know that the oath, with a slightly bizarre musical
378
accompaniment which was composed by the Upper Sixth at my school, was the school song of Wolverhampton Girls' High School. I remember the words extremely well. I shall not burden the House with the full text, nor the musical accompaniment, which is the only way I can remember it. There are many different versions of the translation of that oath, but the text that we used at school was:
"We will transmit this city, not only, not less, but better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us".
That is a noble aspiration and a heavy responsibility. I suggest that it is absolutely appropriate, not only for Ministers in my own department but perhaps for the Government as a whole.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.