Lords Sitting of 19 April 2000

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

Lord Erskine of Alloa Tower
James Thorne Earl of Mar and Kellie, having been created Baron Erskine of Alloa Tower, of Alloa in the County of Clackmannanshire, for life, took the oath.
Lord Ponsonby of Roehampton
Frederick Matthew Thomas Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, having been created Baron Ponsonby of Roehampton, of Shulbrede in the County of West Sussex, for life, took the oath.

Manufacturing Industry
2.38 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present level of manufacturing industry in the British economy as a percentage of gross national product and how this figure compares with 1979.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, industry shares of gross national product are not available. However, the manufacturing share of gross value added has declined since the 1970s, from around 26.5 per cent in 1979 to 20 per cent in 1999.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that since the 1950s there has been a steady decline in manufacturing industry as a percentage of gross domestic product? This is a sector on which regions like Wales and the north of England rely for their economic well-being. Does my noble friend recognise also that, despite the success of the services industry, manufacturing industry provides 62 per cent of our exports? Is it not disturbing, therefore, that, for the past six quarters, investment in manufacturing industry has fallen? If we go on like this, we risk sacrificing our future. Cannot the Government prevail on our companies to invest in British manufacturing industry?
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend is right about the decline of manufacturing industry. However, I have more recent good news in relation to investment. There has, indeed, been a decline in investment in manufacturing industry, but in the fourth quarter of last year—the most recent quarter for which we have figures—there was an increase of 4 per cent. The Government have been trying to increase investment in manufacturing
698
industry with our cut in corporation tax to its lowest level ever, with the removal of ACT, and with the 40 per cent first-year capital allowances for small and medium establishments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in spite of the fall in manufacturing capacity in the post-war period, nevertheless manufacturing remains a potent force in the economy of the country? It provides 4 million jobs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, pointed out, over 60 per cent of our exports. In those circumstances, is it the Government's aim and objective to build on that capacity? Bearing in mind the problems that manufacturing industry faces not only with high interest rates but also with the high value of sterling, do the Government accept that a basic requirement is the increased application of new technologies to industrial processes, for which increased investment is required, thus leading to a closing of the productivity gap between us and our main competitors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a complex set of interlinking questions. It is the Government's intention to maintain and build on our manufacturing sector because we recognise its importance for the economy and for our exports. Again, I have more recent good news in that exports of goods increased by 7 per cent in the past six months compared with the previous six months. I have already answered the question in relation to investment in indicating the help that we are giving to promote investment in manufacturing industry. It is true that changes in technology demand substantial increases in investment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of the decline, particularly in employment in manufacturing, and as many future jobs will depend on it, should not the Government actively promote manufacturing rather than undermine it by excessive taxation and regulation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government certainly promote manufacturing industry in this country and through many trade missions abroad. I have given evidence of the extent to which we encourage investment in manufacturing industry through our taxation policies. I reject the accusation of the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn mentioned the north of England. I confirm his comments, but at the same time I congratulate the Government on the £100 million which is now earmarked to revive the coal industry even though there is only one pit left in the north-east. That pit has, however, been saved. What have the Government in mind with regard to shipbuilding?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was as pleased as my noble friend to see photographs of relieved miners at Ellington colliery Unfortunately,

699
my noble friend asked a Starred Question on the coal industry on Monday half an hour before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his Statement. Therefore, I was not able to give the good news that I knew he sought. The problem with the shipbuilding industry is that the size of individual orders is large and if one order is lost—as happened recently in Northern Ireland—that has a huge effect on employment and on the economy. However, we continue to give the support that we can.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the Government taking into account the fact that manufacturing industry may well suffer from, and be reduced as a result of, the climate change levy as proposed? Given that many firms are energy based but not labour intensive, they will not be compensated by the return of national insurance contributions under the Government's plan. Those firms which employ few people but are very dependent on energy will suffer. Nothing the Government have yet done has been sufficient to correct that situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the imposition of the climate change levy is the only way in which we can fulfil our international obligations to achieve a sustainable environment. The noble Lord is correct to say that parts of manufacturing industry are energy intensive and that they will suffer from the provision. However, a large sector of manufacturing industry has high employment and relatively low energy use.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is not so much sectors that are the issue here, but rather the kinds of businesses that are being established? If we are to have economic reform and job creation, we must encourage the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises to a far greater extent. Does he also agree that the Welsh economy in particular could benefit from the creation of SMEs rather than relying on big companies investing in the Principality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some time ago I mentioned the special help which is being given to small and medium enterprises particularly in terms of first-year capital allowances. My noble friend is right to say that much job creation arises from small and medium enterprises which, it is hoped, will grow into large enterprises.

Waste Incineration: Proposed Directive
2.46 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What communications took place between officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment,
700
Transport and the Regions during the consultation period for the European Union directive on the incineration of waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions leads for the UK in the ongoing negotiation of the proposed waste incineration directive. Since February 1994, when the Commission began consultation on its initial working paper towards a proposal for a waste incineration directive, MAFF officials have been fully consulted by their colleagues in DETR (and its predecessor, the Department of the Environment) in writing, in meetings of interested government departments, and bilaterally. DETR officials are continuing discussions with colleagues in MAFF and other government departments.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware that I sat on Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee which considered this draft directive and that at no time was there any mention of an estimated 3,000 incinerators for animal carcasses—I refer to those in pet crematoria, in veterinary surgeries, farms which have on-site incinerators, hunt kennels and the big BSE incinerators—which, if this directive is not amended, will face disastrous consequences? I understand that MAFF was not consulted about the number of incinerators which may be affected although it is responsible for them. Will the noble Lord please ensure that everything possible is done at a European level to ensure that the operators of these incinerators are not penalised and that we have nowhere to destroy our animals?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these issues have been raised. It may be necessary to tell noble Lords— although probably not the noble Baroness—that they should not believe everything they read in the Sunday Telegraph. We were well aware of a problem with small incinerators. At one point the number of these was probably underestimated, most of them having been established since the introduction of the 1991 regulations to dispose of fallen stock as a result of the BSE regulations. Fallen stock needs to be destroyed and disposed of to ensure that it is not used as feedingstuffs. We pursued the question of a possible exemption for small incinerators, but we received no support from other member states. As we agree with the objective of the directive and there is a five-year period in which farmers and others may adapt their practices, we consider that the final form of the directive will be acceptable to the UK and will be one that the agriculture industry can adapt to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it true that the Italians have received not a derogation but a total exemption for incinerators of vegetable waste? Is it not

701
further true that Her Majesty's Government did not even try to obtain such derogations or exemptions from this pernicious directive?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. We attempted to, but we received no support. As regards the Italians, there is an exemption for vegetable waste from the food processing industry and for cork waste used as biomass. This is because we do not want the regulations to be a disincentive to using biomass for energy purposes—which is, of course, environmentally desirable in itself.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, what are the likely compliance costs of this directive for each individual incinerator operator who will have to upgrade his equipment—which, as the noble Lord said earlier, was possibly installed only six or seven years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the compliance costs for individual farmers will be dependent on the way in which they decide to dispose of such waste in the future. I have seen very large figures floating around, but they relate to a situation where every single individual farmer decides to buy a large incinerator. That will not, in practice, be the case. The farmers will have five years in which to adapt their practices and to use either neighbouring larger incinerators or other methods of disposal. The question relating to individual farmers has been misconstrued in some coverage of the issue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister's response to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I understand that exemptions have been given to Italy, which he has mentioned, and to Portugal. Meat and bonemeal are banned here and the disposal of carcasses is a big issue in the United Kingdom, but not in other countries. Under those circumstances, will the Government press for derogation for our farmers? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that although the directive is due to come into being in 2006, this country is due to implement it within the next two years—early yet again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a five-year period to adapt to the directive. Whatever the point of its transposition through Parliament, that five-year figure stands in terms of the period for adaptation. The noble Baroness is right, there is a particular problem within the UK as a result of the BSE regulations. We have to destroy carcasses—and, in some cases, render them into small incinerators—which is not necessarily the case in the rest of Europe. That in itself causes another problem in regard to small incinerators in that some of them do not appear to be operating at anything like the temperature which the SEAC committee recommended for the disposal of beasts of over 30 months. So there is an additional problem because of the peculiar situation in the United Kingdom.
It would be misleading to say that we will go back to seek a derogation on that, both for that reason and because there is no support for such a derogation
702
elsewhere within the European Union, as I have outlined. The overall impact of the directive is very beneficial for environmental purposes.

Life Assurance and Pension Companies
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure the preservation of consumer choice in the light of a number of recent take-overs and consolidations of life assurance and pension companies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, mergers and acquisitions in recent years have not significantly reduced the overall number of companies authorised to carry on life and pensions business. Proposals for mergers are subject to the usual scrutiny procedures. Competition authorities consider the implications both for competition and for consumer choice. The Government are acting to improve the regulatory framework through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. That will help to deliver better value for money for consumers.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the "once for all lifetime" may well be very welcome to those who are members of the mutuals, they do stand possibly to lose a great deal if the companies disappear, as do others? Did the Minister notice the comments made three clays ago in the Sunday Telegraph by the managing director of a providence group—and, in spite of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I am sure that this article can be relied upon—to the effect that mutuality is now fundamentally unstable? Does the Minister recognise that there is great concern about this matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a policy holder with two mutual companies, both of which recently decided to demutualise against my vote. So I think my personal view may be evident already to the noble Baroness. I did read the comment to which the noble Baroness referred. I do not think that it is a general view within the industry. It is true that there are mutual companies which are subject to take-over or to demutualisation under pressure from their own members.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a policy holder of a mutual company, Standard Life, which is opposing demutualisation. Is my noble friend aware that the carpetbaggers who are attempting to force through this demutualisation are claiming that the board of the company can act only in the interests of present policy holders and that it may, if it wishes, appropriate the capital of the company for itself, regardless of the interests of future policy holders? Can my noble friend confirm that the Government do not share that view

703
and that they accept that the boards of mutuals have as much responsibility to future policy holders as they have to existing ones?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's view is that the boards of mutual companies have responsibilities to a number of different stakeholders, including current policy holders, the employees and prospective policy holders.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the holder of both a mutual policy and a non-neutral policy. The Minister has expressed his personal view; what is the Government's view so far as concerns mutuality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a neutral mutual view, one might say. The Government's view is that a variety of different kinds of governance in the insurance industry is a good thing. Therefore there is a place for both mutual companies and for shareholder-owned companies.

Zimbabwe
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in persuading President Mugabe to restrain intimidation and violence in Zimbabwe and to fix a date for an election; and when Ministers will next meet Ministers from Zimbabwe to discuss these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the House will know from yesterday's news that another Zimbabwean tragically lost his life in Zimbabwe, bringing the total, we believe, to 10 deaths over the past few weeks. We have repeatedly urged President Mugabe to restore the rule of law in Zimbabwe and to act to prevent further violence against the farmers or against those campaigning for the forthcoming elections. Parliament was dissolved on 11th April. The constitution requires elections to be held within four months of Parliament being dissolved. The date of the elections must be announced by 7th July. We hope to receive a ministerial delegation from Zimbabwe shortly after Easter to follow up President Mugabe's meeting with the Foreign Secretary in Cairo on 3rd April.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House shares my feelings of horror at what is going on in Zimbabwe at the moment and my sorrow for those who have been killed and for their families. Having read the article of her noble friend Lord Renwick in The Times yesterday, does the Minister agree that the most important issue is that the elections take place as she said—or next month, in fact? Does
704
she further agree that there should be international supervision, particularly from neighbouring African countries which are members of the Commonwealth?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the noble Baroness. We have had one helpful indication from the Speaker of the House in Zimbabwe, who has welcomed international observers. The noble Baroness will know that in many African states international observers are welcomed. We certainly hope that this will be the case in Zimbabwe and that we will have fair and transparent elections.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may associate these Benches with the expression of sympathy of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I am sure that the whole House extends its deep sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives, both white and black. When the Ministerial team comes from Zimbabwe, will the Foreign Office consider responding to the need for more rapid land reform, but associating that with conditions for the re-establishment of the rule of law; the holding of fair and free elections, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, suggested; and, of course, the calling off of the so-called war veterans—some of whom are nothing of the kind—from the intimidation of farmers, both black and white, on the land of Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness's sentiments of sympathy, which I know are shared on all sides of the House and which I wholeheartedly endorse, particularly bearing in mind, as she rightly said, that the Zimbabweans who have died have been both black and white—eight black and two white—and that all are suffering equally in this terrible situation. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the anticipated Zimbabwean delegation discussions, which should take place later this month, will have a broad remit. We hope that we will be discussing many issues with our Zimbabwean colleagues in this respect—their activities in the DRC, the illegal farm invasions, land reform, economic reform, free and fair elections, and other issues. A whole plethora of issues needs to be addressed and this would be an advantageous position from which to start those discussions.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is desperately disappointing, particularly for those of us who, over the years, have had something to do with that country in its efforts to come to independence? Does she further agree that, whatever happens, the issue of land apportionment in that country is now firmly on the table and that it will have to be dealt with in one way or another? In that connection, and in connection with the violence that is now taking place, can the Minister tell us what contacts the Government are having with the farmers inside Zimbabwe? Are we receiving advice from them? Are we listening to the advice that we are receiving from them? Can the Minister tell us whether

705
or not we agree with what the farmers are saying? Can she undertake that that at least is one group of Zimbabweans to whom she will listen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are listening to all in relation to this terrible situation. We have made a number of contacts. I could list them but it would take rather a long time. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Mr Hain, the Minister of State, have had a good deal of contact with the leaders of the opposition, who have been very clear in their expression of how we should proceed in relation to this matter. The conversation is a comprehensive one. The Government are taking an acute interest in all those who are adversely affected by what is happening now in Zimbabwe.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a large number of Africans and their families—about 16 to 20 per cent of the workforce—are employed on white-owned farms? They are resisting the attacks of the so-called veterans because they would be unemployed in the event of these farms being appropriated. Are the Government giving thought to that element in the equation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are certainly giving thought to the plight of all Zimbabweans. I am very grateful that in this House at least there has been a proper concentration on the effect that these disputes are having on both black and white Zimbabweans. Many in Zimbabwe have said that this is being dealt with as a political issue and not as an issue of race. Many are suffering, both black and white.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, having lived and worked in Zimbabwe. I have noticed that there has been a lack of coverage of the suffering of the farm workers, hundreds of whom have lost their homes due to the actions of the war veterans. Can the Minister confirm that the underlying issue which must be addressed for the future of Zimbabwe is that of land redistribution? Will the British Government take a lead role and mobilise the donor nations in looking at this fundamental problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that Her Majesty's Government have always recognised the need for equitable land redistribution and have to date contributed £44 million to a land reform programme. We remain willing to support a land reform programme that is transparent, fair and cost effective and which contributes to the reduction of poverty in Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord will know, these principles were agreed by the Zimbabwean Government and international donors at the land conference held in Harare in September 1998, and we
706
are now looking at a number of proposals submitted by the private sector and NGOs to take this issue further.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not only imperative that free and fair elections take place but that in order for that to be so progress has to be made both on the drawing up of the constituencies and the structuring of the election register? Can she give any further information to the House in order to assure noble Lords that those elections can take place in proper circumstances? Without those two elements, the elections cannot satisfy either of the necessary criteria.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made the Government's view absolutely clear that those elections must be full and fair. We are doing all in our power to encourage the Zimbabwean regime to allow full and fair elections to take place with the assistance of observers. Obviously, Zimbabwe has an ability to make a decision for itself, but we are certainly hoping that, with the encouragement that is coming from all corners of the world and through all agencies, they will listen and we will see a full, fair and transparent system which enables good elections to take place.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, despite what was written in The Times yesterday, is it not the moment to rethink entirely the role of the Commonwealth in this situation? Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the ministerial action group is due to meet here very shortly? There is a view that it would be ready to send a delegation which would be received in Harare in order to look at the plight of the country and prevent it spiralling downwards. Would that not be a much better approach than getting the EU involved, which, whatever one thinks about it, is clearly an inappropriate body to deal with this very sensitive situation in the heart of Africa?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have very much welcomed assistance from whence it has come. We have had the OAU assistance and assistance from the Commonwealth states as well as from the EU. Therefore, I would not make that distinction. CMAG meets in London on 2nd and 3rd May. That will be an ideal opportunity for Ministers to consider the issue fully and to give anxious consideration to what the next steps should be.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there an up-to-date electoral roll in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Viscount a specific answer in relation to his question. We have not had an opportunity to interrogate it. It is an outstanding issue and we would wish to have clarification on that point.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend Lord Renwick wrote yesterday in The Times that,
"Britain also has yet to take any action to show, other than rhetorically, its condemnation of what is happening. It is little use talking about an ethical foreign policy unless we intend to apply it in cases such as this".
When do the Government intend to apply it to Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr Hain have been very exercised about this issue. There has been regular contact. They have contacted all their international partners. It was as a result of a conversation between the Foreign Secretary and Kofi Annan on 18th April that Kofi Annan has now contacted Mr Mugabe. This Government are being more creative and more active on this issue than virtually any other country.

Postal Services Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 15,

Clauses 79 and 80,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 16 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 31,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32 to 55,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 56 to 66,

Schedule 6,

Clause 67,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 68 to 78,

Clauses 81 and 82,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 83 and 84.—(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of commitment of 10th April be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 55).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders: appointment of sub-committee
"The Committee appointed Lord Carter, Viscount Colville of Culross, Viscount Falkland and Lord Skelmersdale as the members of the sub-committee on revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders.
2. The Queen's Speech
The Committee agreed that the Lord Chancellor should no longer read out The Queen's Speech at the beginning of the resumed sitting after the State Opening of Parliament, but that instead the Speech should be printed in Hansard.
3. Procedure on consideration of Commons amendments
The Committee agreed a simplification of the procedure for considering Commons Amendments or Reasons. In future the Lord in charge of the bill should always move the initial motion (which is usually to agree with the Commons); and any motion to disagree should be tabled and moved as an amendment to the motion of the Lord in charge.'
This would deal with all eventualities according to a standard procedure, similar to that with which the House is familiar for amendments to amendments at other stages of bills. It would apply to motions to disagree with Commons amendments, to insist on Lords amendments, and to make amendments in lieu or consequential amendments. It should replace the present complication of having different procedures for different circumstances, which sometimes leads to confusion.
4. Sub judice
The Committee agreed to a new sub judice resolution as follows:
"Matters sub judice
That, subject to the discretion of the Leader of the House, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:

1. Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(a)(i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.

(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.

709

(b)(i)Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.

(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.

(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.

But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Leader of the House a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions.

2. Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed, until the report is laid before the House.

3. For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) Matters before Coroners Courts or Fatal Accident Inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph 1 (a);

(b) 'Question' includes a supplementary question.

The resolution was recommended by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege because it is desirable that each House should be in the same position to debate a sub judice matter when the circumstances warrant it. The resolution adds to the discretion already exercised by the Leader of the House to allow discussion of matters which are sub judice in cases of ministerial decisions and issues of national importance. In being asked to exercise that discretion the Leader must be given at least 24 hours' notice; and the exercise of the Leader's discretion may not be challenged in the House. These conditions should also apply to the wider discretion which the Committee now recommends should be conferred on the Leader.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Procedure Committee for its work in producing the report. Would it not be an encouragement to the committee, and would it not also lead to increased participation in this House, if, on the day when the report was to be considered, it was on display in the Printed Paper Office among other papers for the day's business?
On the question of the revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders, when is it anticipated that that will be finished? I greatly appreciate and welcome the paragraphs in the report relating to the procedure on consideration of Commons amendments.
Finally, the committee agreed a new sub judice resolution. The Chairman of Committees will appreciate that there are a handful of Members of this House who are not legally qualified. Therefore, will he please explain how the new sub judice resolution differs from the old one?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, the matter is being looked into by Officers of the House and others. I will report the outcome to the noble Lord in due course.
So far as concerns revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders, I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly when the work will be completed. It will be further considered as soon as possible by the Procedure Committee after the proposed sub-committee has dealt with the matter in detail.
710
On the noble Lord's third point on the sub judice rule, I think it best to quote from the minutes of the Procedure Committee, which expand slightly on the report before the House. The minutes state that, first, it should be made clear that the sub judice rule is not absolute: in another place it may be waived at the discretion of the Chair; in your Lordships' House there is no general power of waiver, but in certain circumstances a limited power of waiver has been given to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House may exercise that limited power of waiver to permit discussion of matters relating to any ministerial decision and matters concerning issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essentials of life.
The whole matter was considered thoroughly by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, made up of Members of both Houses. It was the Committee's view that the key to the successful operation of the sub judice rule in another place has been the sensitive use by the Speaker of her discretionary powers to allow discussion of matters sub judice. In that respect, another place has been rather freer than this House has been as regards the exercise of discretion. It is proposed, if the Motion is agreed to and if a subsequent resolution along those lines is also passed by this House, that the rule will be somewhat expanded. It will bring procedure in this House more or less in line with that in another place. I say "more or less", because there is one part that does not apply to this House. In another place Members are allowed to table Motions for leave to bring in a Bill. There is no such Motion in this House and there never has been. That is a slight difference which, for the sake of completeness, ought to be mentioned. If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, wishes to have any further information on the matter, I shall be glad to try to help outside the Chamber.
With the leave of the House, perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention one other matter. The report contains a proposal relating to the gracious Speech. I was displeased to see a report in The Times on 14th April—and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who does not know that 1 am mentioning this—claiming that,
"Lord Irvine of Lairg has managed to junk more then 500 years of parliamentary tradition. The Lord Chancellor has wriggled out of the laborious duty of repeating the Queen's Speech at the Opening of Parliament".
If your Lordships will forgive me for using a somewhat crude phrase, that is a load of rubbish. I have had occasion to complain previously that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been credited with moves and proposals in this House which should have been credited to others, notably to committees of this House.
In the first place, the proposal did not come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It came first in advice to the Procedure Committee from the Clerk of the Parliaments. The matter was then considered by the Procedure Committee in a paper which was presented to the Procedure Committee and which the committee accepted and which is now before

711
the House. So it is completely wrong for The Times to complain. In the past, I have found The Times indispensable. I very much hope that it will be more accurate in the future and that I shall not have to dispense with reading it, as I find it on the whole quite valuable.
Perhaps I should also reveal that this is not the first time that the Clerk of the Parliaments has failed to be credited with a proposal over the past several weeks. So perhaps I may enlighten the media outside with a further fact. The House will recall that, not very long ago, your Lordships approved a proposal concerning an entitlement to sit on the steps of the Throne for, in future, the eldest child of a Peer. That was duly considered by the Offices Committee and by this House, and was agreed. It was a proposal to include daughters as well as sons. So it is only right that credit should be given where it is due. Let us live in hope. When I was in broadcasting journalism many years ago, we tended to pride ourselves on accuracy. It is not now as it was in my day!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees agree that it was not the Clerk of the Parliaments who gave the advice that the Lord Chancellor should do away with his breeches and buckled shoes?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am interested to hear that remark. If it was not the Clerk of the Parliaments, the noble Earl has not enlightened us as to who it was. I said that it was the Clerk of the Parliaments who tendered this suggestion to the Offices Committee. After the committee had approved it, your Lordships embraced it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he was able to persuade the Procedure Committee to do away with the altogether boring reading of the Queen's Speech, which most people had already heard or read. It was a chore that all Members of the House had to put up with. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing gratitude that this is now to be done away with.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, speaks for itself. Most, if not all, noble Lords will be aware that, following the presentation of these reports, there is a debate rather than a question and answer session. Therefore, it is the duty of the Member of your Lordships' House who moves the Motion to make an all-embracing wind-up speech at the end of the debate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. Does the noble Lord agree that the House would be assisted if, when a new version of a complicated rule such as sub judice was published in a
712
report, the particular changes were notified and made clear; otherwise, very few people would be able to recite the old rule from memory?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is not a resolution before your Lordships' House. The terms of a proposed resolution are included in the report of the Procedure Committee. After the combined Easter and May Day Bank Holiday Recess the resolution, which is to be moved by the Leader of the House, will be placed before your Lordships for consideration. As to the distinctions, I shall look into the matter. If any additional help is available before the resolution is moved it will be provided. But I am sure that the resolution itself will be clear, as I hope it is from the terms of the report.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can clarify one matter to which he referred earlier. The Leader of the House is given a discretion. Is it only a positive discretion or is it also a negative one; in other words, can the Leader of the House stop debate on a matter which is covered by the general clause—I do not refer to the detailed provision—or can she only allow discussion, as it were, which would otherwise not be appropriate?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the whole the discretion is negative, in that the Leader of the House would normally advise your Lordships that the matter was sub judice and therefore it should not be referred to. I make that qualification at the outset of my response to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, because if on an appropriate occasion the Leader of the House advises waiver in one or other of the circumstances intimated in the proposed resolution, that may be seen as a proposal to deal with the matter in a positive way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rixrose to call attention to the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and to developments in the provision and planning of community care services for disabled and elderly people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a happy conjunction of circumstance this debate coincides with the inauguration of the Disability Rights Commission which for the first time provides a powerful watchdog for the rights of disabled people. We wish the chairman, Bert Massie, and his fellow commissioners every success in their future endeavours. Many of us who are to speak this afternoon have fought for those rights over the years and are delighted to have a statutory body to take on that role. We signed up to the cause of disabled people in those heady days when disability was becoming a social policy priority and social security, social services, education and public

713
attitudes were all being realigned in the interests of disabled people. I feel honoured, therefore, in this short debate to celebrate the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, which, with the support of both Houses, became an Act 30 years ago.
The years 1970 and 1971 were particularly good. One had the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; the White Paper on learning disability Better Services, attendance allowance and invalidity benefit and the Education (Handicapped Children) Act which ensured education for children with severe learning disability who had hitherto been excluded from the education system. Looking back, I recall an anxiety to discover and explore new ways to spend money, as opposed to the disposition in recent years (fulfilled or not) to reduce public expenditure and the new orthodoxy of a lot more work and rather less welfare. If I remember correctly, we had 10-year plans at about that time. We also had the fruits of the Government Survey of Disability, in the creation of which the noble Lord, Campbell of Croy, played a significant part. It was a remarkably new experience to have some credible figures on which to base longer-term policy decisions, although the use of those figures to produce estimates of the number of people likely to qualify for the new disability benefits was as much an act of faith as a parade of knowledge.
We have come a long way in a comparatively short space of time, particularly in the field of learning disability. Noble Lordships will forgive me if, as President of Mencap, I am biased in that direction. I am sure that other noble Lords will apply the necessary touch to the tiller. The statistical baseline for the learning disability White Paper in 1971 was 1968–69, which was only a year or two after the population of the old "mental handicap" hospitals had peaked. Today only about 3,000 people with learning disabilities still live in hospitals, and the 60,000 to 70,000 hospital population has become a 60,000 to 70,000 care-in-the-community population.
The children who were denied education because the}' were deemed ineducable now almost universally attend school, and a good number have gone on to further education. Some have successfully completed Open University courses. In particular, several hundred have completed a course designed with the help of Mencap. Thirty years ago we talked about people; now we talk with people who have learning disabilities and, in the process, learn a good deal.
But some things have not changed. Much the same proportion of adults with severe learning disabilities now live with their families as they did in 1969, despite the population being older and more severely disabled. Some of them are the same people. For them and their families inevitably there is a sense that nothing much has changed, except a diminution in the ability to cope with the passing of the years.
Other noble Lords will deal in more detail with some of the themes that cluster around the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Community Care Act. In my remarks I want to pick out some of the main themes and say a little more about the learning
714
disability strategic review which is now in progress. There is much to celebrate. I want to highlight the goods things, not just the deficiencies, substantial though they still are.
I intended to describe those main themes as the "Munroes of community care". However, the mountaineers and Scots in your Lordships' House are conscious of the number of Munroes and therefore will be apprehensive as to the length of my speech, which is still limited to 15 minutes. I shall be more selective and pick out just seven themes in this overview: the shift from discretionary services to rights; the importance of employment in daytime occupation; the controversy over charging; the Scylla and Charybdis of funding and rationing; the role of advocacy; the focus on individuals; and, predictably, short-term breaks.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was about three things: the identification of disabled people, their involvement and their rights. Involvement and rights go together, in that people should be listened to and at least have the right to some of the things that they say they need to balance out the disadvantages imposed on them by society because of their impairments. Twenty years ago the NHS and Community Care Act dealt with process rather than rights, and that perhaps accounts for the gap between expectations and what has been achieved under the Act. Without the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, those parts of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 which have been implemented and our old friend the National Assistance Act 1948, the Community Care Act might be characterised as being about paper rather than people. In context, however, it offers something like a right to recognition, assessment, a statement of needs and wishes and at least an indication of what will be delivered.
My hope is that the rights agenda is now, with direct payments and the development of specific service standards, beginning to loom larger with fewer "ifs" and "buts". Across the rights path lies the shadow of the Gloucester judgment on which no doubt other noble Lords may wish to expound. Recognising that that judgment reflected the reality that local authorities cannot spend money they do not have and would be unwise to plan on the assumption that they can, I want to link it in with rationing and resources.
There is a very real dilemma here. The Government say that they are spending more money; and they are. The local authorities say that they do not have enough and are having to cut back. Clearly they do not have enough and are having to cut back. The daughter of a friend of mine is having £20,000 per annum pruned from her funding. Needs are increasing. Needs are being better recognised. Governments have consistently allocated less than most local authorities actually spend on social services; and once increased allocations cannot be topped up from other sources, the gap between needs and resources means cutbacks. When I managed a theatre, spent more on the production than I received from the audience, and

715
could not bridge the gap by selling programmes and chocolates, I had problems: the risk of having to put on "Hamlet" without the prince.
A good many people feel that their local authority has splendid plans, high principles, good intentions but no prince. That is why consultations on future developments sometimes receive a dusty response. People say, "Well, they know what we need now, and they can't deliver; why waste time asking for future developments which they won't be able to deliver either?" To try to bridge the funding gap, local authorities, under the pressure of government expectation, are charging for services. This results in family carers who are already having to carry the burden and some of the cost of community care having to carry more burden because they opt out of services, or more cost because they have to pay for services. Mencap has had people on the phone actually in tears saying that they cannot afford the cost of what they desperately need.
I hope that when Ministers make their announcements about charging, they will at last bite the bullet and standardise, if they do not abolish, charges. If charges continue, disabled people must be left with enough money to stay above the poverty line. That is not always the case today.
I want to run together two of my other themes: advocacy and treating people as individuals. If our services were to be group solutions for groups of people, we would by definition not have individuality, and we would not be much bothered about advocacy. If, on the other hand, we accept that the desired outcome is individual solutions addressing individual needs in the light of individual choices, we need advocates. I signed my contract as Secretary-General for Mencap almost 20 years ago today. As secretary-general I helped to found the Advocacy Alliance. But without effective advocacy I think it is clear that we cannot secure civil rights in line with the Disability Discrimination Act, rationalisation of decision making under the Government's "making decisions" proposals, or appropriate access to social services, lifelong education or healthcare. It is equally clear that most people who can talk for themselves cannot readily secure the attention of those who should be listening to them, and that most people who need independent advocacy simply do not have it. I hope that when replying, the Minister can offer us some glimmers of hope here.
I turn to the last of my overarching themes: short-term breaks and employment. Seen from the perspective of disabled people and family carers, both are concerned with trying to secure as far as possible a normal life. Short-term breaks give the disabled person and the family carer a chance to enjoy personal space, to do their own thing, to grow apart without falling apart. A Mencap colleague is having to give up her work for Mencap because she cannot secure decent respite for her severely disabled son while she does her voluntary work for Mencap. Employment means for family carers and for disabled persons doing what most people of working age want to do, and enjoying
716
the wider contacts and the possibility of higher income which go with that. But 90 per cent of severely disabled people of working age do not have paid employment.
I acknowledge the Government's carers initiative even if the early evidence is not terribly encouraging in terms of the extra money securing either innovation or allocation to short-term breaks. I acknowledge, too, the positive aspects of the New Deal and the awkwardly-named "One". Some disabled people are now doing paid work who would not have had the opportunity without the recent initiatives. But I would welcome two reassurances. One is that the Government will continue to encourage agencies to provide individually tailored short-term breaks and discourage doctrinaire approaches to respite, which assume that only one model, and that commonly the cheapest, is right. "We only have family-based respite" is not a principle policy to be warmly welcomed. It is an abandonment of responsibility for those for whom that model at this time is not appropriate.
On employment, I seek the assurance that this will be encouraged but not enforced on those with substantial disabilities, and that there will be recognition in day service policies of the reality that employment can only provide some of what is needed for some of the people for some of the time. Shutting the day centres on the ground that everyone has got a job would, I believe, be a little like the heady and ultimately fatal optimism of Marie Antoinette that those without bread could fill their bellies with cake.
Finally, I turn to the learning disability strategic review. I welcome wholeheartedly that the original White Paper may be replaced 30 years later by a new White Paper, and the way in which interested parties—and not least people with learning disabilities themselves—are being involved in developing the new policies. I am conscious that we shall not see the end product until the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and I recognise that the Minister will not want to commit himself firmly at this stage; but I offer three propositions for comment if the Minister feels so inclined.
First, there is clearly a case for a policy document of the White Paper kind spelling the whole range of Whitehall responsibilities, rather than something more modest such as an interdepartmental circular. Secondly, it would be in line with the focus on outcomes judged by individual experiences to build into that White Paper personal stories which show the huge progress made and personal aspirations on which the Government intend to deliver. Thirdly, it should help to maintain the impetus for implementation over the next few years to have a central advisory committee on learning disability support and opportunities backed by a research programme and network.
I conclude by hoping that I have learned over the years to avoid both the cynicism of failing to recognise what is good and hopeful and the unreasonable optimism which ignores what is palpably bad or doomed. I have seen so many people with learning disabilities achieve what it was said they never would that I have high hopes that from the legislative base of

717
the CSDP Act, and the measures which have succeeded it, and through the current review, we shall see over the next 30 years at least as many improbably successful things as we have seen over the past 30 years. I also have high hopes that we shall measure outcomes in individual lives and not just in statistics. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act made the jump from "the disabled" to "disabled people". I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It is highly appropriate for a distinguished Cross-Bencher to have opened this debate: for those who laboured with me to enact my Bill were not of one party. They were of all parties—and of none—but of one mind. They were determined to create for disabled people an Act they could call their own: to help to reduce their dependence on others, to help them to live as normally as possible in their own homes, with their own families, and to have the same opportunities as everyone else to contribute to the life and work of their society.
However, that was then widely seen as an impossible dream. In 1969–70 no one knew even approximately how many disabled people lived in Britain. They were mostly seen or heard only by their families or, if locked in institutions, by those controlling their lives. To talk then of as-of-right cash benefits for disabled people and their carers was to invite ridicule. Local services were wholly discretionary and often non-existent, but council leaders were serenely satisfied with the status quo. That is how things were when, against all the odds, my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill became law in 1970.
For the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to have opened this debate is most appropriate for another reason. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act the term "disabled person" includes, and always has included, what might be called the noble Lord's constituency. The symbolism of the wheelchair is powerful, and rightly so, but the Act also embraces millions of people with impaired hearing, impaired sight, impaired intellectual functioning and learning disabilities which can affect mobility but do not involve using a wheelchair.
For a Back-Bench MP, first place in the Private Members' ballot is the most coveted prize in the lottery of parliamentary life. But Ministers whose departments are affected by a Back-Bencher's Bill may not share their delight. The late Richard Crossman, then Secretary of State for Social Services, was not best pleased when he heard that I intended to present a Bill to improve the well-being and status of disabled people and their carers. As Tam Dalyell, then Crossman's PPS, writing to me some years later recalled,
"I well remember Dick trying to bully you into either changing drastically or dropping the Bill at more than one point—in vain."
Dick Crossman was not the only Minister who initially wanted me to drop the whole idea. Education Ministers asked why my Bill proposed help for people with dyslexia—a condition which they said "simply
718
doesn't exist". To which I replied "Then it won't cost you anything!" Official reaction to my Bill's provisions for helping deafblind children and those with autism, like the proposal for an institute of hearing research, was even less supportive. Thus the Bill's prospects looked bleak.
The pessimist, they say, is an optimist who has been given the facts. Happily there were those all across Parliament who, despite knowing all the facts about the extent of ministerial opposition and the heavy odds against my ever securing a money resolution, remained optimistic that the Bill could succeed. In another place they included my very good friend Jack Ashley, as he then was; the late John Astor; Lewis Carter-Jones; the late Sir Neil Marten; the late Laurie Pavitt; and the late Maurice Macmillan; and in your Lordships' House there were my noble friend Lord Longford, then a recent former Leader of this House, who sponsored the Bill with all his customary kind humanity; my friends, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth; my noble friend Lady Serota; the noble Lord, Lord Cullen; and the late Lady Pat Lewellyn-Davies.
Everyone who worked to enact our Bill will remember how often and how close we came to disaster. But it was Dick Crossman's main Bill of that parliamentary session which hit the rocks while ours sailed safely by. The Bill became an Act of 29 sections. It imposed new duties and responsibilities on 12 departments of state and became the model for legislation across the world. It amended 39 existing Acts of Parliament in the interests of disabled people, including such major statutes as the Public Health Act 1936, the Education Act 1944, the National Health Service Act 1946 and the Housing Act 1957. Moreover, it was in debates on our Bill that the terms "social exclusion" and "community care" first came into vogue.
In the decade after the Bill's enactment huge leaps were recorded in the numbers of people identified as disabled; millions were helped by the provision of aids, by adaptations to their homes and by the Act's five sections on access to the built environment, the first such legislation anywhere in the world. It is estimated that, in its first 25 years, 12 million people in England were helped under Section 2 of the Act alone. In Scotland, over a shorter period, 1.9 million were helped. Those are minimal figures, since they do not, for example, include 1.7 million Orange Badge holders and countless millions more beneficiaries, here and abroad, of its access provisions.
But this debate is also about what is happening now. In the very short time left to me I want to comment, as promoter of the Act, on the perverse—in fact bizarre— judgment in the case of Regina v. Gloucestershire County Council and the Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Barry (the so-called Gloucester judgment). Since that judgment, the provisions of Section 2 of the Act have been trampled on in many parts of Britain. Those responsible for the judgment seemed to think I drafted it on the back of an envelope. In fact, it was drafted with unfailing help from the leading parliamentary draftsman of his day, the father of a disabled child, whose expertise was gifted in his own

719
spare time. The policy intention of ensuring that help for disabled people would in future depend not on where they lived but strictly on the extent of individual need was made utterly clear at all stages of the proceedings of the Bill. The drafting is also clear—as clear as Britain's foremost parliamentary draftsman could make it.
Section 2 opened up the opportunity for a life of dignity for disabled people. Now it has been put in abeyance by judge-made law in direct defiance of a statute that was far better drafted than most legislation I have seen in my 36 years of parliamentary life. The result is documented in graphic detail in Out of Service, a dossier of distress published by the Needs Must coalition of disability organisations, which shows that one shameful consequence of the Gloucestershire judgment is the denial to many housebound disabled people even of the right to a bath, now one of the most fundamental of human rights and well respected in our prisons.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, saw—clearly after studying the parliamentary proceedings on Section 2—it was no part of our intention to turn services for disabled people into a postal code lottery. For others to suggest the contrary was a crude and ludicrous distortion of the parliamentary record.
I know that my noble friend the Minister recognises that the current crisis in community care—for which disabled people and their carers all over the country blame the Gloucestershire judgment and the now almost equally notorious Powys judgment—is placing an increasingly daunting strain on the NHS. It is a crisis that demands urgent action. Not to act now to reverse the immense damage of these judgments would be to dishonour those in all parties who worked long and hard and with deep commitment and sincerity to achieve the enactment 30 years ago of a measure that a senior French legislator was soon afterwards to describe as a moment critique for disabled people everywhere.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I first declare an interest. I was wounded and partially disabled in the Second World War, and have received a war disability pension since leaving hospital more than a year after the war.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on initiating this debate. He did dedicated work leading Mencap, and we worked together in 1981, when we were both playing parts in the International Year of Disabled People.
I am also glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, because the 1970 Act would never have reached the statute book without his resolve and skilful piloting.
I am glad to speak on the Motion recording the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As I am limited to seven
720
minutes, I shall concentrate on that part of the Motion, in the hope that that is the most useful contribution I can make.
I was much involved over 30 years ago, when I was in opposition and in the shadow Cabinet, and later when I had become a Cabinet Minister, in putting parts of the Act into effect.
The Act started as a Private Member's Bill introduced in the other place by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, after he had come first in the annual ballot in November 1969. The noble Lord deserves the greatest credit. As he has publicly announced, and repeated today, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr Richard Crossman, disapproved of what he was doing and tried to stop the Bill going forward. The noble Lord received no help from the Government in drafting the Bill, although such help can normally be expected. But he persevered with determination and, I am glad to say, with success.
I had experienced similar, but worse, treatment a year before, when I was successful in the ballot in 1968. My Private Member's Bill, entitled the "Disablement Commission Bill", was lost when a Division was forced by the Government, a Labour government, at the end of a Second Reading debate, with the government's whipping applied.
The only excuse that can now be given for such treatment is that my Bill was 30 years before its time, particularly as in the past two years we have helped to pass the Disability Rights Commission Act—and the Disability Rights Commission begins its life today, more than 30 years after I introduced my Bill!
I entered the other place five years before the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and at that time had been depressed by the absence in the country of help with disabilities not caused by war or industrial injury. However, I was on the Back Benches for only a year and a half, after which I had to apply myself to other subjects from the Government Front Bench.
Owing to the limited time available, the Bill which the noble Lord introduced in 1969 applied only to England and Wales. During its Committee and Report stages, I managed to arrange for parts of it to be extended to Scotland. A year or two later when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I was able to complete its application to Scotland.
The Bill had almost completed its passage through Parliament when a general election was called for June 1970. Other Bills fell by the wayside in the normal way, but I am pleased to say that inter-party agreement was reached for this Bill to be reintroduced early in the following Parliament. The Conservatives won the election and honoured the agreement. The Bill was reintroduced and was quickly passed into law. I became Secretary of State for Scotland and, because both health and local government were totally devolved to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Office, I had the welcome duty of putting parts of the Act into effect north of the Border.
The 1970 Act was a bright beacon on the way to improving ordinary life for disabled people. For the next 24 years, further legislation on disablement was

721
attempted but only in Private Members' Bills. However, in 1994–95, a giant step was taken when for the first time a government introduced a Bill on the subject. It became the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the DDA.
I am sorry sometimes to hear derogatory remarks that the DDA is "flawed". When asked why, the reason given is that it does not cover enough. That criticism is a misuse of English. To give the impression that the DDA is defective because it does not deal with every part of the huge range of issues affecting disabled people is misleading and a disservice to disabled people and their carers, who are already discovering much in it to help them.
No Act could have covered the whole field. We should have still been waiting for the DDA if that had been attempted. But I confidently expect another government Bill to be brought forward in due course to continue the process. In 1995 the DDA carried out more than 20 Private Members' Bills could have achieved. It even tackled the difficult and complex subject of transport; and it was the first government measure on disablement.
As I have one minute left, I turn to the services made possible for local authorities to provide under Section 2 of the 1970 Act. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the decision in the Gloucestershire case. I am greatly concerned about the many reports of the reduction and withdrawal of services that are necessary for disabled people to live independently. Furthermore, I refer the Government to the "Needs Must" campaign and to its recent report, Out of Service. I earnestly hope that the Government will take that report fully into account.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, during the comparatively brief time I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have come to appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, often has the best lines. We know well that he has great timing but never more so than today. When the cast list for the debate appears, my name will probably appear down near that of third electrician or someone similar, but none the less I want to thank him for raising this timely debate today.
When I noted the title of the debate I wondered whether several current Members of your Lordships' House who were responsible for the passage of the Bill 30 years ago might line up to take a bow. I am glad that they did and I salute collectively what they did. It set a mark from which all services for disabled people will be measured.
Today, as we enter the era of PCGs, clinical governance and national service frameworks, it serves us well to reflect on the intentions set out in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, to assess the effects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and, learning lessons from both, to state clearly not only what are acceptable levels of services and social care, but how such standards should be determined and by whom.
722
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act refers to the provision to a disabled person of,
"adaptations, services and any additional facilities to secure his greater safety, comfort and convenience".
It refers to services such as practical assistance at home; assistance obtaining access to wireless, television, library or other recreational facilities; games or outings, or other recreational facilities outside the home; and the provision of, or assistance with, travel to or from such facilities.
That list, were it to be reproduced in a community care plan or health improvement plan today, would look out of place not because of the language but because items such as those simply would not appear in a list of priorities for any social services department. Individual older or disabled people may realise the importance of leisure and transport, but it is doubtful whether the community care budgets for older people would stretch that far.
Over the past 30 years a paradox has developed in which the direct involvement of older and disabled people in the planning and evaluation of services has greatly increased. The National Health Service and Community Care Act placed upon local authorities and health authorities a requirement to consult users about the planning and provision of services. Consult they did, zealously so in some cases, and involvement of older and disabled people became, first, an expectation and then the norm. However, at the same time, the right to services was eroded as eligibility criteria were drawn ever tighter. Mary people, although more involved, witnessed the demise of services which they saw to be important; services such as home helps.
Many people's 65th birthday is not a time of celebration. In terms of social care, they move from social services' "younger adult" budget to the "older people" budget. At that time, although their physical and health needs may not change, the services which they receive and their right to receive them fall dramatically. We know that the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health, among others, use age as a defining criteria. People who become disabled after 65 do not qualify for the disabled living allowance. Although many of them receive an attendance allowance, there is no mobility component to that benefit.
At the beginning of this decade, against a background of economic prosperity and in the context of the Government's policy of combating social exclusion, basic questions about the social care of older and disabled people remain to be addressed. Why are thousands of older people losing their mobility because there is no one to cut their toe-nails? Why are so many people with moderate disabilities having to pay for the help they need, such as home help, than was ever the case in the past?
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, raised a very important question: is a bath a social bath or a medical bath? It is neither; it is a human right. That is a most important answer. When the Human Rights. Act 1998

723
comes into force later this year, many of the issues which noble Lords have raised about levels of care will become challengeable in the courts.
My suggestion to the Minister today is that we should avoid the need for individual older and disabled people to suffer indignities and take their cases to court by saying now that we have learnt one of the most important lessons from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: that rights without resources do not mean very much. We do older and disabled people no favours by giving them frameworks and approaches which are inclusive and contain the terminology of inclusion if, at the end of the day, there are simply not enough resources to make something happen for them.
Thirty years ago, many noble Lords put down a marker that social care was concerned with the safety, comfort and convenience of disabled and older people. Today, we talk about social inclusion. The best thing we can do is to put on record in the House today that, 30 years on, we have a clearer understanding and can employ better words to express the rights of disabled and older people to be included in society. It is not only for their personal and individual better health; it is for our greater benefit.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his very timely debate, and I exit the stage.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rix, both on winning the ballot so that we can celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and on the masterly and comprehensive portrayal that he has given of life for disabled people over the succeeding years.
When the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, won the ballot in 1969, he could have taken the easy road to fame with a pre-written, non-controversial Bill. However, as noble Lords have already heard from the noble Lord and from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, by his unstinting efforts he instead transformed a Bill, strenuously opposed by many and without a money resolution, into an Act of considerable importance for people with disabilities.
I was honoured to make my maiden speech at Second Reading of the Bill when it was introduced into this House by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. My noble friend Lady Masham also made her maiden speech, as did Lord Ingleby. The fourth Member of the mobile Bench was Lord Crawshaw, and I should like to pay tribute to them all for working tirelessly for disabled people over many years.
I spoke then on the need for improved outdoor mobility help for disabled people, including those too disabled to drive themselves. Therefore, I was particularly delighted when, a few years later, as Britain's first Minister for disabled people, the noble Lord introduced the mobility allowance. I should also like to mention the huge contribution made over the
724
years by Sir Peter Large. He briefed me for my maiden speech and I am much indebted, too, for his thoughts today.
The Act did not solve every difficulty faced by disabled people but it helped to solve many. It put disabled people firmly on the map; it gave them confidence; and it established a sound basis for further progress. Lately, however, that progress has slowed down and in some cases has even gone into reverse. The emphasis now seems to be on children and child poverty and elderly people and pensioners' poverty. Regrettably, the Government's grand design for tackling poverty does not appear to cover the poverty of disability.
If that sounds carping on a day when the Disability Rights Commission makes its debut, in the year that all black cabs become accessible, and access and education opportunities have improved, I would ask noble Lords to consider. We have seen the abolition of the severe disablement allowance and the introduction of means-testing for incapacity benefit. That means that for single people aged 45 or over the means test will take effect when their annual income reaches a mere £7,900. How can anyone on that income be an appropriate target for means testing? The entitlement to a contributory benefit of a married man under 45 will be completely wiped out when his annual pension income reaches £15,500.I ask noble Lords to contrast that with the upper earnings limit of the new children's tax credit, which will be approximately £38,500. How can one reconcile that with the proposals that every pensioner, regardless of health or wealth, be issued with a free half-fare bus pass, an annual £150 winter fuel bonus and a free telly, to boot, for everyone over the age of 75?
As the Needs Must coalition report shows—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already said and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who is to follow, will make very plain— services for disabled people who try to live independently in the community are being inexorably reduced. The introduction of both the minimum wage and holiday entitlements has increased the cost of care. That extra cost must sometimes be paid for by cutting the total amount of care received. As many local authorities increase those charges, too many people are finding it impossible to afford all the personal help that they need.
Although it is true that there has been some additional expenditure on carers, the concentration on carers is not always to the benefit of the disabled people themselves. If we are to be true to the spirit of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, we must redress that imbalance. On 17th April, in winding up the Second Reading of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described the Bill as,
"an attack on the poverty of children and pensioners".—[Official Report, 17/4/99; cols. 520-521.]
The poverty of many disabled people is crying out for a similar attack.

725
Finally, on a more cheerful but equally important note, I return to the subject of my maiden speech: mobility. I welcome the Government's announcement of a review of the Orange—now Blue—Badge scheme introduced by the 1970 Act. It has been a huge help to disabled people who are dependent on cars to escape the confines of their home and who wish to travel. In recent years, as traffic and traffic restraint measures have increased, so, too, has the demand for badges. Many local authorities and some GPs have been lax and over-generous in issuing badges to people. Some badge-holders have been careless in allowing them to be used by others. Enforcement of the rules is at best half-hearted and often non-existent.
I firmly believe that we need legislation to allow the police and traffic wardens to inspect badges. I had not realised that they are not allowed to do so. They can ask someone only to show them the details on the inside of the badge. If the person refuses, they can check whether the sex of the person matches the name on the badge. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) made a number of important recommendations to improve the operation of the scheme. I very much hope that Ministers will adopt those so that disabled people in genuine need can remain mobile and move around with freedom.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for initiating this debate so splendidly, and I warmly endorse all the proper tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Morris. I had founded the All-Party Disablement Group some time before he won the ballot for his Bill. Together with a wonderful Tory MP, John Astor, we worked with my noble friend Lord Morris on that Bill. We discovered then that disabled people were held almost in contempt. They were pitied and patronised and had no rights whatever. That was a time when we needed legislation and that is precisely what the Bill, which became an Act, did. It provided new rights for disabled people which they had never had before, and it imposed obligations on local authorities. That was the great achievement of my noble friend Lord Morris.
It is great to see the Labour Government carrying on the tradition of helping disabled people. I am sure that many noble Lords will have heard the various announcements made in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I congratulate the Minister for disabled people, Margaret Hodge, on the marvellous work that she is doing for disabled people. Only this morning I was with her for the launch of the Disability Rights Commission. That is a marvellous step forward. Thanks to the Labour Government, the commission will do more in the next three years to transform the lives of disabled people than we have managed to do in 30 years. That kind of tough organisation was needed to enforce the Disability Discrimination Act.
Despite progress made, there is still much to do for disabled people at present. There are two examples that I should like to mention: first, the postcode lottery for personal services; secondly, the means assessment
726
of personal care. It is interesting that when the postcode lottery in the National Health Service was exposed, the Government said that they would tackle it and resolve it as soon as possible. That is fine; we all admire that kind of stance. There is now a postcode lottery for personal services but the Government do not say, "Right, we will solve this. We will deal with it immediately". They are making some attempts but nothing like the kind of vigorous, almost sustained attack that they are making on the National Health Service. Why do they not do that for personal services? I believe that too few people appreciate how vital are these personal services. I hope that the Labour Government will change their tack and attack the problem of personal services being postcoded with the same kind of vigour that they are using for the National Health Service.
The Gloucester judgment has been mentioned. That allowed local authorities to take resources into account. I interpret that differently. I regard that as an opportunity to plead poverty and to cut or remove the vital services for disabled people. It is all very well to speak about "rights without resources"—in that admirable speech made by the noble Baroness. That was a very good phrase. We have to provide the rights and it is up to government, national and local, to provide the resources. I admit they may be short of resources but I object to selecting disabled peoples' services as the scapegoats, as the very first people and the very first line of attack. If they are short of resources, they should look all across the board and not select disabled people as the first victims. Let them deal with disabled people and then solve the problems in the best way they can. That is the plea I make.
The Government display a curious attitude as regards the Gloucester judgment, especially the Department of Health. In a recent Parliamentary Question that I asked, the Government indicated that they were content that local authorities should take account of their resources when providing those services. The Minister then assured me that local authorities were under a duty to arrange the services. The Government cannot have it both ways. If local authorities take account of their resources, that is absolutely incompatible with a duty to provide the care—utterly incompatible. The Government must make up their mind; are they standing by their original interpretation that resources should be taken into account? If so they should bring forward legislation to change the law. If they adopt the idea that the provision should be made anyhow, that the rights should come first, then they do not accept the law as it stands. One way or the other the Government are wrong. One way or the other they should ensure that disabled people really have those rights.
My final point is on the Independent Living Fund. I cannot understand why the Government should means test the Independent Living Fund. Why do they do that? I find that disabled people working, especially severely disabled people working, are conforming with what the Government want. They have gone from welfare to work. But what do the Government do? They hit them with a means test. It is quite

727
unreasonable. I believe that the personal care which severely disabled people receive should be given to them as a right and they should not be hit in the way that the Government are hitting them.
I have to leave it there as my time is up. All I would add is that I hope the Government will think again and do what they can for disabled people far more in the future than they have done in the past on those two issues.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rix for having chosen this subject for debate. Thirty years ago I made my maiden speech on what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I am told it was on this very day 30 years ago. I also celebrate 30 years as a Member of your Lordships' House this year.
When I look back over the years I often compare facilities and services for disabled people with a game of snakes and ladders. There are advances and cooperation, cutbacks and fragmentation, and bad communication, forgetting disabled people exist.
Last night I took my usual route to have supper in the Home Room, through the Royal Gallery, down in the Sovereign's Staircase lift, across Royal Court, avoiding the puddles, and up the ramp. I managed to wriggle under the scaffolding only to find the entrance door locked. A helpful member of staff crossing the courtyard unlocked the door. However, when I came out, the door was locked again. Fortunately, some guests were leaving a reception. Together with a security guard they lifted me down the steps. I told them that when some other work had been undertaken a ramp had been provided. I am sorry to say that this incident is so typical of what happens throughout the country. People do not have a foolproof system of checking accesses, which is covered by Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
I was speaking to one of the elderly and distinguished Peers in your Lordships' House yesterday. He told me that he now lives in an Abbeyfield House because he is elderly and infirm. Everything is fine, except that the last meal of the day is at 5 p.m. If someone has been used to having dinner at 8 p.m. this seems early. Could it be that it is at this hour for the convenience of the staff? Is it not time that the wishes of the elderly and disabled people take priority?
I was sorry not to be able to take part in the debate last week on the critical report by the Audit Commission on the provision of disability equipment by the National Health Service. I had an important prior engagement. It has been found that the withdrawal of services, the long delays and the refusal to provide equipment affected carers and other family members as well as the disabled person. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has taken an interest. I hope it will not just be a flash in the pan. For a long time this has been a Cinderella service, with a few people working in miserable conditions, struggling with lack
728
of funds for developing pleasing prosthetic limbs and equipment. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who has to use an artificial foot, told me that the feet used for women, such as herself, are modelled on men's feet and filed down to fit into a woman's shoe. Another friend who uses callipers had to have boots made specially to support her ankles. She waited for months and when they arrived there were two boots for the same foot. Surely we can do better than that. With so many young people having lost limbs due to contracting meningococcal disease, it is important that prosthetic limbs fit well, are comfortable and are cosmetically attractive. There needs to be a national service framework for disablement services throughout the country so that disabled people have a first-class service.
In the past 30 years, the new disaster of HIV/AIDS has hit the world. Patients with AIDS became empowerers. Patients and doctors worked closely together. They have been able to achieve new triple drug treatments and have led the way in better group services and being able to express their needs. We should all work together to prevent all forms of conditions which cause severe disability. Research and better services for all with severe disabilities are needed.
Without good reliable help in the home, there will be disasters. During the past 30 years, there have been many tragedies. One young man who broke his neck in a rugby scrum told me, when he was getting older and his mother became very disabled with arthritis, that he could never go into a residential home. Some time later, he was found drowned in the lily pond in his garden.
Another tetraplegic who had sustained his injury in the Army was recently involved in a car accident with his wife. Not being able to stay longer in hospital and his wife not being able to cope at home, he had to have a residential place until his wife was better. He became depressed and, with the bandage from his arm, somehow managed to hang himself. There is a desperate need for more sensitive understanding of the needs of such people who are a great loss to those who know them.
I conclude on a note of hope. Last week, I attended a parliamentary launch of the Parkinson's Disease Society for specialist nurses. It was heartening to witness three Members of Parliament—one Labour, one Conservative and a Liberal Democrat—all speaking out for better services and understanding. It was good to see three enthusiastic MPs united in a cause.
I hope that the voices of disabled people and their supporters will be heard and that the Audit Commission will continue to produce reports which bring forward a better quality and standard of life for all disabled people.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us, in a previous life, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was noted for the magnificence of his timing. I am glad to see that he has

729
lost none of his touch by enabling us to debate this issue, not only because it is important but also because this is the day on which the Disability Rights Commission is launched.
Looking down the list of speakers today, I am aware that by the standards exemplified by your Lordships' House, I am something of a new kid on the block in these matters. I want to pay sincere tribute to all noble Lords and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, not only for the part that he played in relation to the 1970 Act but also for the other legislation and initiatives which he has spearheaded. I pay tribute also to other noble Lords and Baronesses who are speaking today who have such a fine record. In particular, I wish to mention Lady Seear, Sadly, she is no longer with us but she made a seminal contribution to the development of community care, particularly in relation to carers.
I came into this field only in 1986, when I joined the carers movement. That was just in time to participate in the ultimately successful campaign to extend the invalid care allowance to married women. Also, I was an adviser to Sir Roy Griffiths, as he developed his report on community care, Agenda for Action.
I remind noble Lords of a definition that Kathleen Jones gave of community care in 1972. She said:
"To the politician, community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authorities for action, or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectations and inadequate resources to meet them. We are only just beginning to find out what it means to the old and the chronic sick".
We might still agree with some of the observations made in that quotation, but we have made progress. There are areas in which improvements have been made and we should celebrate that.
In my judgment, the most significant change is the emphasis now placed on users and carers. I believe that that is the biggest change in 30 years. That is a major contribution and will continue to influence future developments.
When Sir Roy Griffiths said in 1988 that,
"the starting point has to be to identify and respond reasonably and appropriately to the needs of individuals in their particular circumstances",
he was not setting out a truth which was universally acknowledged at the time. The word "user" was unknown and the word "carer" even more so. I have vivid memories of going to conferences where the most unlikely people turned up to hear me speak because the word "carer" had been mis-spelt as "career" and people came to hear me talk about training and professional development, and not the 6 million carers who at that time were completely unrecognised.
When I was a young social worker in the 1960s, people who came to us for help were called "applicants". Some people who worked there had administered the Poor Law and remembered when they were called "supplicants". Then they became "clients", then "recipients", then disabled people and
730
their carers and eventually became users and carers. But applicants do not become users or carers or customers just by changing their name. It is necessary to change the systems with which they come into contact and above all, the attitudes of the professionals with whom they deal.
I believe that we have made progress with those changes in 30 years and that the policies and legislation which have followed are both the result of those changes in attitudes and also have lead them.
The milestones along the way are well known. I have a particular interest in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and in the national carers strategy launched by the Prime Minister last year. The Carers and Disabled Children Bill will shortly come to your Lordships' House and will give us more opportunities for debate.
What the carers movement and all those associated with it in the past 30 years have done—-and I believe it is a record to be proud of—is to turn a private trouble into a public issue. There have been radical changes in community care and the way it is delivered not only in organisational and financial terms but also in terms of professional thinking.
It is one thing to say that users and carers should be at the centre of decision-making but it is another to implement that because that requires a change in the attitude of professionals in relation to sharing; allowing people to make choices that others may not think are appropriate; it is also about risk-taking; and about managing conflict. It is also about developing the confidence of users and carers so that they have enough self-esteem to participate in the consultation processes that are now sometimes offered in a way which is not tokenistic and which result in changes in practice.
It requires too that professionals are prepared to address the imbalance of power which exists in that relationship; to divest themselves of stereotyped images; and perhaps to ask some very difficult questions that we as society must also address. For example, do adult children always have a responsibility to look after their parents and do children have a right to inherit their parents' resources and so on?
The carers movement has an admirable history of pushing us all to address those issues and to look at the rights and needs of carers, recognising them as prime providers of community care but never looking at their needs in conflict with those of the disabled person even though they are inexplicably entwined with them.
I believe that power of the users and carers movement is one of the most important lessons that we have learnt in 30 years. But something else which we have learnt and of which we must take heed is how quickly policy matters change in that area. One example is that the Griffiths review of community care in 1988 made no mention whatever of GP fundholding because it was not even a gleam in anyone's eye in those days. By 1993, it had been introduced and had

731
had a major effect. By 1998, it was gone. So we must remember how quickly circumstances change in that area.
The Care Standards Bill currently passing through another place, the Royal Commission and the Government's response to it—I might even say lack of response to it thus far—and the repercussions of the Gloucester judgment are other matters that we must consider.
In planning for future community care, I plead that we think always of three particular issues. The first is that community care is not and will never be a cheap option. Good quality community care is expensive to provide and resources must be made available to provide it. Secondly, successful community care depends on co-operation and partnership between all the agencies involved: health, social services, the voluntary sector and families, each recognising the value of the contribution made by the others. Thirdly, and lastly, but certainly not least, it is predicated on the unpaid care of families and communities, given willingly and with an amount of love and duty which offers a shining example to any society.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for the debate today. It is one further addition to the excellent work he has carried out so often on the same subject in this House. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I was a dentist in general practice when the Act was introduced. My only awareness of disabled people was in terms of patients who came for treatment. I found that they were a remarkably independent group. Often, they had their own ways of getting in and out of the chair or from the waiting room to the surgery and they could manage better without one trying to help. Interference was not always the most useful policy. I remember in particular one woman who was blind and wore a heavy calliper on her leg. She managed her life so well and was such a marvellously happy person.
We tend to believe that anyone disabled might not necessarily be such a happy and forward-looking person. That has not been my experience. I have found that such people often have a remarkably strong will and a great, good spirit that keeps them going. Sadly, there are a few, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, for whom things go wrong. That is not so good.
At the time of the Act, I was also a young councillor. We were absolutely staggered when it landed on our doorstep. We were terrified about the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was absolutely right in saying that no one knew how many disabled people there were. We were told that we must carry out a survey to discover the number. This was in about 1973. We had had the oil crisis and everyone was worried about his financial situation. No one knew how much the survey would cost. We decided that if we found a huge number of people requiring help, we could not possibly deal with the situation. Eventually, the
732
council decided to carry out a 10 per cent survey immediately from which it could work out needs and thus develop provision. But even the 10 per cent survey was a major exercise.
At that time disabled people seemed almost to conceal the fact that they were disabled. Noble Lords have described how no one wanted to be pitied and no one wanted to feel embarrassed by asking for something from others. Fortunately, over time we have seen a complete change in that attitude. My recent experience of self-assessment of disabled people—which I have quoted in your Lordships' House before—worries me in terms of the National Health Service. If one applies to be considered for a board, one may tick that one is disabled and one will be granted an interview.
I interviewed one such person. We had actually interviewed several, but we had to reconvene because one whom we had omitted, believing him to be totally unsuitable, demanded to be seen and there was an obligation to see him. When he came in he looked fit. We said, "What's your disability?" and he replied, "I suffer from asthma." One of the interviewing panel was a doctor. He said, "But you seem to be in very good health." The patient replied, "Oh yes, it is just for a couple of days in the summer." That did not seem to justify his right to tick the box by which he was guaranteed an interview. That kind of fiddle, or whatever it was, does not help those who are genuinely disabled. But it is a rarity and it is not something we need to discuss too much.
The terminology has changed too. People used to be called "registered disabled". I remember when there were two Bills going through your Lordships' House; one abolishing the term "registered disabled" and the other containing a whole lot of clauses to cover the registered disabled. In the debate I asked the Minister why we were putting into one Bill what we were abolishing in the other. The matter was discovered and put right.
Access to buildings—which we all believe is essential—is still not 100 per cent, even in new buildings. Buildings are still going up which do not have access. Nowhere is really much worse—unless it has improved miraculously recently without my knowledge—than Heathrow airport. When I have arrived at Heathrow and the escalators have been out of order, I have asked people, "How do you get down?" and they have replied, "You've got to walk down." A non-working escalator is of course much worse than one which is working. The gradient on the escalator is not really suitable for walking. I said, "What about a disabled person? How would they get down?" They replied, "Oh, we have no way they can get down." In the newer terminals, improvements have been made. But the difference between that and the new Waterloo station where there is splendid wheelchair access shows how progress is being made in terms of improvements.
I have almost run out of time, but I must comment on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am sorry that he is not here to hear me. He congratulated

733
the Labour Government on everything they had done. I cannot let him get away with that, because, after all, the Act about which we are talking went through under a Conservative government. We have just been told how they allowed it to come back again. It was stated earlier that it started under the Labour government, then came the election of the Heath government and it was carried on by the Conservative government. I see noble Lords looking at me and wondering—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I believe that I was the person who spoke about the matter. Pretty much all the work happened under the Labour government, but against the wishes of the Labour Minister responsible. The Bill had almost completed its progress through Parliament when the election was suddenly called and it was agreed that it would be reintroduced, if necessary. All the work was done when a Labour government were in power.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understood that. It is the point I am making. The Act was actually passed under a Conservative government. I shall read my noble friend's remarks, because I have never heard before what he said. Because the debate is time limited, I cannot spend longer on the subject.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, we agreed to the Bill going through.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I said, we shall not go into that.
More recently, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed. That was certainly under a Conservative government. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, congratulated his Government at the beginning of his speech but then attacked them, saying that they too were not right. I quote him when I say, "One way or the other, the Government's wrong." It is not a question of government. It is a question of people and how much there is to be done. The postcode matter described by the noble Lord is a matter of concern. I asked a Question in the House about the position when postcode prescribing was done away with. How would it be ensured that those who were already benefiting, for example, from beta interferon for multiple sclerosis, would not be disadvantaged? I am sorry to say that the Minister did not provide any satisfactory Answer at all and gave no assurance that at least the few people who are benefiting at present would not be disadvantaged.
There is a great opportunity for respite care, which is a real essential. I have run out of time, but I have seen cottage hospitals being converted for respite care. That is marvellous.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, it is a humbling experience to speak this afternoon when the House is hearing from so many noble Lords whose efforts for, with and as disabled people have achieved so much. I thank the
734
noble Lord, Lord Rix, for the opportunity. We have just touched on the history of the Bill, which I was discussing with my noble friend Lord Morris only yesterday. He reminded me that it was an example— some noble Lords will believe it an example only too rare—of a case where the press did signal good in our national life.
Although it was welcomed on all sides in both Houses, the Bill was threatened when Harold Wilson called the early election, as we have heard. It was at that moment that Harold Evans, the then editor of the Sunday Times, penned a brilliant leader, which said that of all the government's legislative programme, that Bill deserved to survive. As a direct result of his pleadings the party leaders agreed to let it through under the special procedure that applies at election times and through it went, on the very last possible day before the election.
As we celebrate the Act, I want to ponder on the paradox that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to in his speech. Why has an Act that appeared to be such a signal advance at the time, nevertheless today left us in a situation where many people with disabilities are frustrated at the level of provision for them?
In relation to major social advances that situation is not totally unusual. When Aneurin Bevan founded the health service he honestly believed that it would work itself out of business. When those on the waiting lists had been treated, he assumed that there would no longer be a need for a health service on the same scale and that the Government's budget would fall. The House does not need me to tell it that matters have not worked out that way.
As with all social changes, this is a Sisyphean labour, like trying to push a boulder up a hill, but the hill goes on and on and it is difficult to avoid the boulder falling back down. Recognising social rights adds to the demand for rights; reacting to need flushes out need; and responding to demand creates demand. Arguably the great triumph of the original Act was that it recognised disability and the needs of disabled people. The Act removed them from their hole in the corner, where they had been hidden away, and we row know how much has to be done to put them at the centre of our social provision.
On the subject of resources, in this debate we have heard of many such problems, including those arising from the Gloucester judgment and means testing. I do not want to comment directly on either on those matters. However, resources will always be scarce and priorities have to be struck.
Recently I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Long-Term Care of the Elderly, a response to which is due from the Government in July. A terrible dilemma arose because of the difficulties and the injustices experienced by people. People were means tested for the care that they needed but that care was inadequate and more resources were needed. The most disabled elderly people living at home received precisely four hours care a week. I shall not enter into the debate about the majority and the minority in the commission, but members of the commission felt

735
differently about that. Those dilemmas will exist as long as we live in a world of finite resources—and on this planet resources will always be finite. Those matters will have to be followed up and we should not insult those who hold different views as to whether the priority is better services or getting rid of means testing. Decisions of priority have to be made.
Returning to the paradox, the key is not just that things come out from the corners, but that when one considers basic needs and deals with them, other urgent and important needs emerge from behind them. One example of that is an area of which I know a little as my wife specialises in it. That is disabled people and sex. Incidentally, that was the subject—again I praise the press—of a most sensitive article in the Saturday magazine of The Times last week.
Thirty years ago I do not suppose it occurred to most people that disabled people had sexual needs. The Minister reminded me yesterday that in 1971, in Oxford, SPOD (Sexual Problems of the Disabled) was created. Even now such appreciation is advancing only slowly.
My wife's special interest is in sex education for people with learning difficulties. If we consider the matter for a minute, we can understand the importance of this subject. It is of vital importance that people with learning difficulties should know how to protect themselves. That protection may be against unwanted pregnancy and sexual disease in consensual relationships; but, more darkly, that protection may be against the tiny minority of carers who seek to abuse those who rely on their help. After the scandals of recent years we have become much more aware than we would like to be of such problems. More cheerfully, it may be that we simply want to enhance the lives of people with learning difficulties so that they can enjoy the same sexual choices as the rest of us.
Perhaps it is not easy to sustain such work because of an embarrassment factor. My wife was based in a wonderful project in Southwark, called People to People, but that has just had to close due to lack of funds. That is dreadfully sad.
Such areas of unmet demand will always crop up. They will crop up because the needs of disabled people are great and because the resources that society devotes to them tend to be less than we would want ideally. The resources may be less than ideal, but they are far more than if the original Act had not been passed 30 years ago, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Morris and other noble Lords who have been mentioned in the debate. Public consciousness of and sympathy for the needs of disabled people is now out in the open. Disabled people and all of us owe a great debt to those who have made that possible.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I add my voice to those noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for facilitating this debate on such a special day and to the other noble Lords who have worked so hard over the years to bring us to the present situation.
736
I want to refer to someone whom I know well, a relative who is a little older than I am, and to talk about the change in attitudes that has affected him so dramatically. At the age of five he was diagnosed as having a tubercular hip. He was sent to a children's hospital outside London where he spent two years on his back without being able to move. His leg was stretched. He was given no special equipment with which to eat. He had a teacher about one day in every 10. He had visits from his parents once a month—the only time that they were allowed to visit him. When he left the hospital he was sent—as others were routinely sent—to a segregated school peopled only with children in a similar condition to himself; children who had either severe physical difficulties or severe learning difficulties.
Since then we have come a long way. Attitudes have changed and there has been legal change and service development. I suppose I have spent most of my adult life trying to speed up the process of change so I am particularly pleased to be taking part in this debate.
The success of the Act and the difference in the quality of life that it has brought to many people cannot be over-emphasised. However, I believe that there are still problems to be faced—problems that arise partly from the lack of adequate resources, largely based on mistaken assumptions. We never seem to get right what we take for granted once we know a little more. I too have undertaken a lot of work with Sir Roy Griffiths, who became president of my organisation. With the best will in the world, everybody believed that more community care existed than was in fact the case, so the planning was not adequate.
Over the years we have also suffered from a lack of clarity between the powers and the duties of local authorities. Many of the problems encountered by particular groups of people with disabilities or by the chronically sick or disabled are because of that ability to shift from a duty to a power, and therefore the people are pushed from one set of circumstances to another. We must remember that because of that there is quite a lot of discrimination among the one-third of disabled people who are elderly. Somehow they receive less in the way of consultation, involvement and advocacy. The assumption seems to persist that they have fewer rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out that the age at which one becomes disabled is important. Everybody should be advised that they have to become disabled by the time they reach 64 or their whole entitlement changes. We had an interesting debate last week on access to equipment and the difficulties experienced by many people in that regard. Setbacks have occurred due to a lack of clarity; for example, as in the Gloucester judgment, which was referred to so movingly today. That has led to more rationing and discrimination on the grounds of age.
The need for help in taking a bath is important. But for elderly people, the need to have one's home kept clean and the windows shining is perhaps more

737
important for their dignity and pride than other sorts of service provision that may be given priority by those with different points of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned also the effects that may be felt when the Human Rights Act comes into play. It may challenge the present lack of clarity in the system and I look forward to it helping many chronically sick and disabled people. Article 3 states that no one will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, and everyone has the right, under Article 8, to respect for their private and family life, their home as well as their correspondence. Article 14 relates to the right to non-discrimination in the application of the other convention rights, which will have a big impact on this country.
I am pleased that the Government will be consulting on fair access to care services. One of the reasons discrimination continues is because of the lack of consistency in eligibility criteria for community care services. Consistency in the assessment of everyone throughout the country rather than the postal code ballot, and recognition of the links between physical and mental illness are vital. Sometimes the links are obvious, but sometimes they are not and we should not try to lump people together as a block.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, discussed long-term care. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in relation to intermediate care. But I add a word of caution. It is a good step. We have talked for years about the need for convalescence. But intermediate care hospitals may be used to deprive older people of access to high level specialist medical care. If they are returned to cottage hospitals, then we may be perpetuating the discrimination. We must be careful that that does not happen, and that rehabilitation is included in the care plan of everyone who is admitted to those hospitals.
Finally, as so many noble Lords have said, the Government must recognise the link in the Act we are celebrating today with the need for long-term care both at home and in care settings. It requires adequate resources or, again, the unintended consequences of benevolent legislation may be negative.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, speaking as the oldest Member who attends the House, it is a special pleasure to follow such a splendid champion of the elderly as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I shall let her into a secret, though she probably does not need me to tell her this. The problem is that, as we get older, we decline in energy but become wiser; everyone notices our decline in energy but nobody notices that we become wiser. I am sure the noble Baroness will do all she can to put that right.
I rise with a great sense of humility. We dwell on so much suffering and on the devoted labours of the many who try to relieve suffering. And we do it in the presence of those who themselves have suffered; those who have risen above their suffering and done so much to help others. Naturally, I think first of the noble Baronesses,Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de
738
Knayth, both of whom made maiden speeches 30 years ago when this Bill came before the House. If anyone asked me, "What is the House of Lords like nowadays?", I would say, "It is the kind of place where, when one had to vote for one of 200 independent Peers, it was a lady in a wheelchair who turned out to be the champion, the top one". If the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, had been in the competition, I do not know who would have won. That is the kind of place the House of Lords is today.
Then there is my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. I pay tribute to him and his gadget which sits in front of him. Someone must have paid for it, and did so because they respect him so highly. That is a wonderful tribute. I am sure no one would pay for me to have a gadget!
There are others; the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; I am glad that he is now a kind of relative of mine. He has had to put up with a good deal. He has used two sticks for around 50 years That is heroism too in my eyes. I hesitate to say this; I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, wishes to be put in the category of sufferers. But I know that he has had troubles and I am glad that he has found time to come here. We do not see him often enough in this House; that is my message to him.
When I find myself before St Peter in the near future, he may say to me, "Did you do any good down there?" I shall be able to murmur a little bit about the honours I have received. And he will say, "I do not want to know about that. I want to know, did you do any good?" I shall be able to say, "I played a small part in helping to carry the A1f Morris Bill through the House of Lords 30 years ago". He will probably say, "OK, you can take a day off purgatory for that".
But coming now to the present question, I am glad that it was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who opened this debate. When I introduced this Bill 30 years ago, I was not sure the extent to which mental handicap was covered and raised that question in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has given the answer: of course it is covered and no one has done as much, or ever will, for the mentally handicapped as the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Of course we are all aware of that. I cannot help having one other thought, though it may be a little frivolous. People sometimes say no actor has ever succeeded in politics. Some may say, "What about Reagan?"; I say, "What about Lord Rix?" It shows how unwise it is to make generalisations.
At any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has done this great work for the mentally handicapped and we come to this Bill. Here I am in a slightly different position from that I was in 30 years ago. I am so sorry that my old and dear friend Lady Serota cannot be here this afternoon. She took part in that debate all those years ago, and said, "In the end, we all become geriatric". That is true. Some of the younger Members on the Front Bench will find eventually that they become old and groggy; that is the way it goes. When I opened this debate 30 years ago I was a fine, upstanding young fellow of about 64. Now I walk with a stick—I am always losing it I am afraid—am partially sighted and

739
registered as blind. But that is the way life goes. Theoretically we all come to it eventually. Perhaps that makes us more aware of, and gives us a sense of sharing the sufferings of the disabled.
I put the obvious questions but I believe that they are being answered as the debate progresses. Thirty years ago I said that for the first time we were helping the disabled to be, and to feel, second-class citizens no longer. For the first time we ensured in administrative terms that there were not nine different divisions but one big division for the whole thing. The measure constitutes a fundamental human Bill of Rights.
Until today I did not realise the problems that my noble friend Lord Morris had experienced with my dear old friend Dick Crossman. Dick was the most brilliant man of my time at New College. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who was his main rival in those days, might contradict that. Dick Crossman was brilliant but he often got things wrong. In his diaries he referred to me as a farcical figure when I was a Cabinet colleague. Dick did not always get things right! However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, knew how to cope with him. The Act was a tremendous triumph.
I shall listen to what everyone has to say but I shall listen for all time—including in the next world—to what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has to say. I pay tribute to the achievement of Alf Morris. He was backed up by many others, but in the last resort it was his achievement.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Snowdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for this opportunity for me to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on his pioneering legislation, which paved the way for so many innovations and changes over the past 30 years. He was, of course, the first Minister in the world to look after the physical and social problems that faced disabled people— problems that were often totally unnecessary.
I must admit that I used to believe that legislation was not necessary, thinking rather that everything could be achieved by education and persuasion. I was quite wrong; there had to be legislation. We certainly continue to need it today to secure the great progress that has been made in recent years. This is perhaps best summarised in the words of Martin Luther King:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrict the heartless".
As I mentioned in my maiden speech in your Lordships' House some 26 years ago, the barriers to access and acceptance are frequently needless. We have come a long way in those 30 years, and so we should have. A great deal of that is thanks to the enlightened leadership, encouragement and enthusiasm on both sides of your Lordships' House.
When I was the President for England of the International Year for Disabled People in 1981 I emphasised that this was,
740
"a celebration of a beginning not an end".
Sadly, some of my more recent experiences illustrate that that end is still a long way off.
Only the other day there was the damning Audit Commission report which showed how far we still have to go. It specifically highlighted the poor quality and design of equipment for disabled people, which is outdated, uncomfortable and unusable. This is how the Audit Commission described services which cost the NHS and local government some £400 million a year.
The report also criticised long waiting lists, ill-fitting artificial limbs—which are so frequently needed for the victims of landmines or war or road accidents— inefficient hearing aids that end up in the bottom drawer and Heath Robinson-like wheelchairs. It stated that 80 per cent of community disability equipment was lost as proper records were not even kept. Even if one is not concerned with the importance of good design, we must surely be concerned with this horrific waste of money. The report is a real shocker; it made the inside pages of some of the national press. However, as a national disgrace it should have been front page headline news.
I turn from the Audit Commission to what was British Rail. Fifteen years ago I objected in the strongest possible terms to disabled passengers being shoved into the unheated luggage van with no facilities, not even a lavatory. Yesterday I telephoned Connex South Central's Disabled Persons Travel Department to find out how things had progressed since it took over the business. I had to endure 10 minutes of recorded Vivaldi and taped directions. Eventually I was told by a real live voice that the department was too busy to discuss disabled people's travel problems.
If we conducted the travel arrangements of our livestock in this way there would rightly be a national outcry. First-class citizens appear to matter rather less in certain mindless boardrooms. Let us hope that there will be serious improvement without further delay. I find these day-to-day uncaring barriers most disagreeable and totally unacceptable.
For example, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, recently inquired about the accessibility of the cinema at Marble Arch to be informed that while it was fully accessible a wheelchair user still constituted a hazard and could not be accommodated as that would break the fire regulations. Cinemas throughout the country still have an extremely poor record on access compared with theatres, for example.
I was also appalled to read that some minicabs in London charge as much as 60 per cent more for carrying guide dogs with their owners. This clear discrimination needs to be eradicated forthwith. It was the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as Minister for Disabled People in another place, who won the battle to get both guide dogs and wheelchairs into the Chelsea Flower Show, where they had previously been banned. The excuse was that it was too crowded and the dogs might get trodden on. However, that is for the visitors to decide, not the organisers. Disabled people must have

741
the right to choose to go where they want, when they want, how they want, not as a favour or an exception but as of right.
The setting up of the Disability Rights Commission announced to the media this morning will, I hope improve many of the injustices that still exist and stop the powers that be from making excuses to the detriment of disabled people.
Today we are here to applaud the many achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who I know would be the first to agree that there is still a long way to go to reach our goals of total integration, equal opportunities, equal rights and for society to applaud the abilities and achievements of disabled people.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that the 1970 Act is the first to mention dyslexics and acute dyslexics. I suspect that without that provision it would have been virtually impossible for me, an acute dyslexic, to receive an education under the state system.
I have made many speeches on this subject. I have come to the conclusion that it is an advantage to be dyslexic in your Lordships' House as I do not like reading out speeches! But, enough of that.
All the speeches that we have heard so far have had the same recurrent theme—the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, summed that up succinctly—namely, that disabled people must be regarded as individuals who have a right to every facility that is available in our society. They have a right to sex lives; to social lives; to be able to travel to work; to choose where they eat; to choose the way in which they organise their lives. Where they are capable of so doing with assistance, it should be made possible for them to do so. Of course, arbitrary decisions may have to be made and occasionally that may not be possible, but, by and large, disabled people must be given the choice. They must be given assistance to achieve this, so that they do not become a category but remain individuals.
Whenever we run into the problem of "What do we do with these people?", once we start to remember that they are individuals the answer occurs to us very readily. If we remember that, what we are doing here becomes obvious. But most of the time we do not remember that; many of us have to remind ourselves that every single group is made up of individuals. Once we take that on board—whether it be in terms of disability, race discrimination or sex discrimination— the path forward, the ultimate goal, is clearly seen.
But the path to that goal changes over time. The argument about resources has been carefully rehearsed and the Gloucester judgment weighs heavily in the background. It basically states that, yes, people can receive help, but resources play a factor in deciding what help and when. I shall not go into the exact words—I cannot remember them—but that is the essence of it. This means that people should receive social care within their own homes, but under certain criteria it can be decided what that care should or
742
should not be. It varies—the definition is rather confusing—but basically resources curtail the amount of help given.
I doubt whether such a system ultimately makes any great difference to the amount of money saved as the health service often ends up holding the baby for what goes wrong. Often the right kind of social service help and assistance is not given. We have heard, for instance, that the correct mattresses to relieve pressure sores are often not provided, and carers are not available to turn people in bed to prevent pressure sores developing, with the result that people have to be treated for pressure sores, a damaging skin condition which can require long-term and expensive help. If we do not turn things around and get properly organised, we shall ultimately end up increasing costs. We must always look at what is going on.
The independent living fund and the fact that it is means tested was mentioned. It will come as no surprise to hear from a Member of these Benches that we think that means testing benefits is usually counter-productive in terms of social help. One has to go through a bureaucratic process and therefore, on the margins, that will probably waste money—through reassessments and so on—and incur greater costs. The bureaucratic system does not help.
As I said, we are talking about a process of ensuring that people can take part in life on an individual basis. There is no point in going on at great length because there have been many good speeches on this subject. Indeed, the speech of my noble friend Lady Barker made me look to my laurels and to wonder whether I will still be leading on this subject in the near future.
Baroness Barker: You will.
Lord Addington: My noble friend tells me that I will. Evidently she has her eyes set on greater prizes.
We have to bear in mind that disabled people are individuals. If we do not, we shall fail them. The struggle with Government seems universal. What the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said about dealing with departments rings true for every single Minister and for every single person applying pressure on Ministers. It is true of the Treasury and it is true of those who think that their slice of the Treasury cake should be protected. It will always exist. Unless we in this House who have an interest in this subject are prepared to apply consistent pressure, we shall lose.
On certain occasions we get diverted and pushed sideways—it happens all the time. We even had a brief discussion about which government should lake certain amounts of credit. I can safely say that all governments deserve credit and that all governments deserve blame. None go as far as they should; none go as far as they promised in opposition. But we can still apply pressure to them. The Conservative Party can take credit for making sure that the 1970 Bill got on to the statute book; the Conservative government that brought in the DDA can take credit for that; but they can also take a considerable degree of blame for blocking the Private Member's Bill. The jury is still out

743
on the present Government, but I congratulate them on having the commission up and running now. That there was only a council was one of the major drawbacks of the DDA. Hopefully the commission will lead to further steps forward in this area.
But unless we continually push the Government, unless we continually remember that we are talking about individuals and their rights, unless we ensure that we do not get ourselves pushed into dark corners, we shall not continue to make progress. We shall end up returning to this subject more and more often and having debates like this. Ultimately we want to be able to stop looking back and saying what we have done; we want to be able to say that that subject is over and done and finished. When we have done that, we shall all be much happier.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on initiating this important debate and on attracting so many of the heroes of the 1970 Act to speak today. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner, who pointed out how hard the noble Lord has fought for the disabled in this House.
I happily join other noble Lords, from all Benches, in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which was a historic landmark in the progress of disabled people towards taking their full place in society. I pay tribute to the architect of the Act, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. I am proud that my uncle, the then Member for Newbury, worked closely with him throughout the passage of the Bill and was one of the original signatories of the Bill.
I also salute my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who, as Secretary of State for Scotland, enabled the achievements of the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to be extended to Scotland. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who played a key role during the passage of the Bill—indeed, he wrote movingly in his book Acts of Defiance of how work on the Bill helped to restore his confidence after losing his hearing; to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who piloted the Bill through this House; and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, who made their maiden speeches and both introduced important clauses and amendments. Since then they have worked tirelessly and successfully in this House on behalf of the disabled.
The Act was groundbreaking in its time and served as a model for legislation in many other countries. It was the first legislation anywhere in the world to deal with disabled people's access to buildings. Last year I had personal experience of disability. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that access must still be improved.
Access, of course, goes hand in hand with mobility. The Orange Badge scheme introduced under Section 21 of the Act was of immediate and enormous benefit. However, some local authorities still make only a limited number of parking spaces available to Orange
744
Badge holders. That, added to constant abuse, causes endless problems for the disabled and their carers. I very much hope that pressure can be put on inflexible local authorities in this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, mentioned problems of enforcement. I support entirely what she said.
Under the Act, autism and dyslexia entered into statute for the first time. As the father of a daughter with autism and two others with dyslexia, I am eternally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who introduced Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. I am also enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for what he has done for those with learning difficulties.
Thirty years on from the passing of the Act, our task is to address what is the unfinished agenda of unmet need among disabled people. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Gloucestershire case. In essence, the Law Lords' decision has decimated the care assessment and services part of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Thirty years on, many local authorities are ignoring their responsibilities under the Act.
The impact on service provision has been catastrophic. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Needs Must survey. Its findings shocked me; 90 per cent reported a reduction or total cut in help with housework; 72 per cent in help with bathing; 70 per cent in help using the toilet; 79 per cent in help dressing; and 89 per cent in help with preparation or consumption of meals. Those are shocking figures. Statements such as the following are found throughout the report:
"All care was withdrawn all over the Christmas and New Year period. I went without food as there was no one to cook it for me. All baths stopped and my hours were cut by two thirds without letting me know. I wouldn't go through that again. I would take an overdose rather than put up with this".
We have a crisis in community care that the Government must address. Last Friday's debate on the Deafblind Person's Bill was proof in point of the crisis, when the most disadvantaged in our society are being ignored and neglected. Will the Government therefore consider a debate, in government time, on community care in crisis?
One of the main problems facing the disabled and elderly is accessing equipment and assistance. Contrary to Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which places a duty on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide for the disabled and ensure they are informed, the Disabled Living Foundation reports that a disturbing number of people do not know who to approach. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the Audit Commission report, Fully Equipped, published last month. It discovered that standards of disability equipment services are unacceptably low in some parts of the country and that patterns of service provision lead to inequality and inefficiency. Would the Government consider a national advertising

745
campaign, co-ordinated by the Department of Health, to inform people how to access equipment and assistance?
The Audit Commission recommends that the Department of Health should raise the profile of disability equipment services through the National Priorities Guidance, and specific reference should be included in the forthcoming National Service Framework for Older People. Can the Minister confirm that his department will give this matter serious consideration?
This has been a fascinating debate. We have a duty to safeguard the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act against erosion and evasion by those who would dilute or deny services they are under a duty to provide. I very much hope that the Government will be scrupulous in monitoring progress in implementing the 1970 Act and the legislation on disabled people that followed so that disabled people can enjoy equal citizenship.
5.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been a most moving debate and I consider it a great honour to have the responsibility of winding up on behalf of the Government. Like other noble Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose track record over so many years speaks for itself and who, I know to my cost, has been so successful in wringing out concessions from government during the passage of Bills.
It is a particular pleasure that so many noble Lords who took part in those momentous events of 30 years ago are able to debate this Motion in your Lordships' House today. I am very happy to associate myself with the word "hero" used by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris, who was so instrumental in achieving the successful passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which, I am reliably informed, though I am open to correction, was passed on the day the Parliament was dissolved in 1970. My noble friend has been a consistent and powerful champion over so many years for the rights of disabled people. It is right that we all acknowledge what he achieved against so many odds. It is also a particular pleasure for me that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke in the debate and reminded us of his own substantial role in taking the Bill through your Lordships' House, a Bill he described as a fundamental Bill of Rights for disabled people.
It is indeed a unique occasion for the sponsors of that Bill in both Houses to be in your Lordships' House, as is my noble friend Lord Ashley, who was a leading supporter of the Bill. He himself has been such a doughty fighter over many years.
It is invidious to single out names because every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate has brought a wealth of knowledge, experience and commitment to the cause of disabled people. But I would just express my delight that the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de
746
Knayth and Lady Masham, have spoken, as 30 years ago they made their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House on the Bill. My understanding is that during the passage of the Bill both noble Baronesses were successful in making changes to it. It certainly shows that some things do not change in your Lordships' House.
There can be no doubt that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 was, as the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, put it, an extraordinarily significant milestone in the history of welfare legislation. Section 2 in particular represented a major step forward in the provision of services to disabled people by local authorities. Section 2, for the first time, gave local authorities specific duties towards disabled people. It required local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of a range of services for disabled people provided they were satisfied that it was necessary in order to meet that person's assessed needs. As noble Lords will know, the services to be provided included: practical assistance in the home; the provision of recreational facilities; assistance in arranging adaptations to the home; holidays; meals; and the provision of a telephone and any special equipment needed to enable the disabled person to use it.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was undoubtedly a major step forward for disabled people. But it was more than that. As the excellent RADAR publication, Be It Enacted, pointed out on the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Act, before 1970 disabled people were rarely allowed to contribute to society. For the most part, they were closely controlled, looked after in institutions or hidden within the protection of family homes.
"In the whole field of social policy",
wrote the authors of As of Right in 1985,
"there was no disadvantaged group so utterly neglected".
So the 1970 Act was a watershed—as my noble friend Lord Morris said during the Second Reading of the legislation in another place—increasing the welfare, improving the status and enhancing the dignity of chronically sick and disabled people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, the Act was a prelude to other measures to ensure that disabled people should be able to live as normal lives as possible, in their own homes wherever possible, no matter what their care needs or their disabilities might be. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the care and support given to those people needs to enhance their independence, not take it away.
That is certainly the aim of the Government as we take forward work to support disabled people. Since 1997 we have taken a number of significant steps. The Care Standards Bill, which recently completed its passage through this House, will introduce major regulatory reforms to improve the protection of vulnerable adults and children. The national charter, Better Care, Higher Standards, sets out clearly the support that users and carers can expect from housing and social services. The Fair Access to Care Services

747
initiative aims to provide a more consistent approach across the country to eligibility for services. That point was raised by a number of noble Lords.
We have also extended direct payments to people aged 65 and over. There is also provision to extend them to disabled 16 and 17 year-olds and parent carers of disabled children in the Carers and Disabled Children Bill. We have given specific funding, amounting to £750 million, to support preventative and rehabilitative services to help people to continue to live in their own homes. We have taken forward a major programme to ensure that carers receive the support that they need to carry out their caring responsibilities.
I recognise and understand some of the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords. There is no doubt that we need to do more to tackle problems in services for disabled people, to improve quality and reduce delays. In that context, I think it right to refer to the Gloucestershire judgment.
Let me say right away that I understand the concerns that have been expressed by many speakers in the debate. The Government do not believe that the Gloucestershire judgment should have led to changes in the provision of social services. The House of Lords judgment confirmed what had long been the Department of Health's understanding of the law.
The department did, however, after the judgment remind authorities of their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The circular that was issued in November 1997 made clear that the judgment does not give authorities a licence to take arbitrary decisions on the basis of resources alone. It also emphasises that the judgment does not mean that authorities are not under any duty towards disabled people. Once an authority has decided that it is necessary in order to meet the needs of a disabled person for it to arrange a service listed in Section 2 of the Act, it is under a duty to do so. Where individuals consider that their authority is not satisfying these requirements, it is open to them to make a complaint through the social services complaints procedure.
Having said that, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, when he quoted the Needs Must campaign. I want to assure noble Lords that the Government were very concerned by the findings of the campaign in the recently published Out of services report. The report undoubtedly highlights problems in a number of areas, including delays in carrying out assessments, poor quality services and excessive waiting times for adaptations. I believe that the coalition of voluntary organisations which make up Needs Must are to be commended on bringing these very important issues to our attention. I assure noble Lords that the Government will give the most serious consideration to the report's findings.
Inevitably, reference to the Gloucestershire judgment leads to the question of resource availability. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the matter in an extraordinarily penetrating speech. My noble friend Lord Lipsey talked about resource
748
dilemmas faced by local authorities; the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, also made some valid points on the matter.
The Government make the funding of social services a priority. That is clear in the Comprehensive Spending Review which we undertook two years ago and for which the settlement was announced in July 1998. For the first time we guaranteed that the funds available nationally would increase over the following three years, so that local councils could plan ahead knowing what resources would be available. In the three years covered by the spending review, social services will receive an additional £2.8 billion, which is an average of more than 3 per cent above inflation each year.
It is one thing to have the resources; it is quite another to ensure that they are spent wisely. That brings me back to the criticisms made by noble Lords of the variable performance of local authorities. The Government are strongly committed to a more active approach to assessing the performance and monitoring the progress of local authorities in delivering social services. The new performance assessment system that we have developed will produce comprehensive in-year and end-year information on the delivery of services. That will allow concerns about performance to be identified quickly. Alongside a more powerful Social Services Inspectorate and our ability to take action where local authorities are not performing well, it offers a great deal of hope for the future.
Our approach is beginning to bear fruit. Last week, my honourable friend Mr John Hutton announced that five of the 16 poorly performing councils with social services authorities have improved enough to be removed from the list of those subject to special measures.
In talking about resources, one has to come to the issue of charges. In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me a number of questions about charges. It is for each local authority to decide whether to make charges for non-residential services and, if so, how much to charge. The Government's White Paper, Modernising Social Services, recognised that the current scale of variation in discretionary charging is unacceptable. We are considering the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission and we shall consider the survey of local authority charging that is being undertaken by the Audit Commission and the report that it is due to publish shortly. I assure noble Lords that our aim is to move, as far as possible, towards greater consistency and fairness in charging. Fairness is a philosophy that must also underpin access to care, as a number of noble Lords pointed out.
We have a Fair Access to Care initiative. We are putting out guidance for consultation in May 2000. The intention is to review all people with care plans at the start of April 2002, completing that project by April 2003. The aim is to ensure that adults with similar social care needs living in similar circumstances will receive services designed to achieve broadly similar outcomes.

749
It would not be right for me to let this moment pass without referring, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, did, to the launch today of the Disability Rights Commission, which will come into operation on 25th April—30 years late perhaps for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
There is no doubt that the commission will play a key role in achieving our manifesto commitment to establish enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The commission will provide much-needed and long-awaited services for disabled people. It will give them advice and information and support them in pursuing individual cases, and it will play a key role in challenging the outdated and unnecessary attitudes, to which a number of noble Lords have, quite rightly, drawn attention, that still exist in society and among train operating companies and other private and public service providers. Where necessary the commission will take steps to enforce the law. It will also have an important role to play in supporting business and public bodies to fulfil their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to a number of matters that affected people with learning disabilities. He described in graphic detail the enormous changes that had taken place over the past 30 years in the provision of services to people with learning disabilities. One has only to think back 30 years to the enormous Victorian institutions, in which so many people with learning disabilities were almost incarcerated, to note the profound change that has occurred. People with learning disabilities are a particularly vulnerable group. The report Facing the Facts published in November last year showed that there was a wide variation in the quantity and quality of services provided to that group. Just before Christmas we started work on the development of a new learning disability strategy. I note the helpful comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I shall ensure that they are considered as we take forward the work on the strategy.
I should like to turn to a number of points raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the important question of advocacy. I assure the noble Lord that we encourage local authorities to use and support local advocacy schemes, or to set up their own, to meet particular needs. We are fully committed to working with the Disability Rights Commission on the issues identified by the Disability Rights Task Force. We are also looking at advocacy for people with learning disabilities as part of the learning disability strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, also asked about short-term breaks. I fully appreciate just how valuable short breaks can be for disabled people and their carers. To that end, we have introduced a new special grant of £140 million over three years to promote flexible breaks for carers.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made some important points about the need to ensure that users and carers are fully brought into the picture when we develop new services, particularly at local level—there must also be emphasis at national level—to ensure that those who
750
manage and run services are fully acquainted with the expert views that users and carers can bring to the process. I agree with my noble friend that sometimes there is a gap between rhetoric and action, and we must redouble our efforts to deal with that. I believe that that message is as relevant to the National Health Service as it is to local government and other statutory agencies.
A number of important points were raised about the elderly. The National Service Framework for Older People which we shall develop will look closely at some of the issues that have been raised in relation to healthcare services for older people. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that greater investment in money and people in chiropody services may avoid the necessity for older people to go into hospital to undergo much more severe interventions in future.
I shall resist the temptation to discuss with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the question of NHS appointments. We have debated that matter many times in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to access to buildings. We should acknowledge progress; much has been achieved. However, a good deal more needs to be done, as the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, rightly reminded us. In response to the noble Earl's points about access to buildings and taxis, those matters will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, Part III of which requires agencies to make reasonable adjustments to enable people to access services. The remaining part of the Act, which is to be implemented by 2004, introduces new requirements on access to buildings.
I believe that it was only three weeks ago that noble Lords debated a number of social security and welfare issues. My noble friend Lord Ashley again raised the question of means tests in relation to the Independent Living Fund. I can only repeat what my noble friend said in that debate. The fund has always been designed for those on low income, and that intention is reflected in the fund's trust deed. The maximum amount paid by the extension fund is £625 per week, or over £30,000 a year, tax free. In addition, the Department of Social Security announced in January measures to relax the means test. This allows ILF clients who work to keep 45 per cent of their earnings between £30 and £200 per week. Therefore, the maximum earnings disregard has been increased more than three times from £30 to £106.50 per week.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Lipsey referred to the outstanding work of Duncan Guthrie in establishing SPOD, which I believe is now described as an association to aid the sexual and personal relationships of people with a disability. When I was a manager at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford I met Mr Guthrie a number of times since he held meetings at the hospital. That work is extraordinarily valuable and is a visible indication of how the passing of the Act in 1970 broke through a number of barriers and enabled people to think afresh of the needs of disabled people in a much more holistic way.

751
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me to confirm that employment was encouraged but not enforced. The Government's position is that work is the best route out of poverty, including for those with disabilities. Many disabled people would like to work and need support to be able to do so, but we recognise that some cannot. It is a key feature of any civilised society that disabled people have the service and support to enable them to lead good quality lives.
I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, about the Orange Badge scheme. I shall ensure that the DETR is fully acquainted with those comments. The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Greengross, were right to make reference to the Human Rights Act. The Government are undertaking a broad assessment of the likely impact of the Human Rights Act. My department aims to mainstream human rights in health and social care so that they are at the heart of policy, legislation and service delivery.
I refer next to the report of the Audit Commission on disability equipment services, which we debated last week. I assure noble Lords that the Government accept the thrust of the report, which is that disability equipment services need to be improved. We are determined to do better. I echo the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, that it is essential to provide equipment that is of good design and quality.
Time presses. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for giving us this opportunity to reflect on the considerable developments in care for disabled people. As the noble Lord said at the beginning of the debate, we have come a long way since 1970. This debate has allowed us to pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of many noble Lords in your Lordships' House today, along with so many other dedicated people, in ensuring that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act reached the statute book. It was a watershed in this country's approach to disabled people. It laid the foundations on which further progress could be made. It led to a sea change in attitudes towards disabled people.
Much has been accomplished. More remains to be done. I can assure noble Lords that this Government are determined to ensure that disabled people receive reliable and highly effective services and that we shall continue to do all we can to enhance the independence, well-being and rights of disabled people.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have just received a note from the Table that I must end my speech at 5.53 p.m. I feel privileged to have initiated a debate which has attracted such a high calibre of speakers today. I am most grateful for all the kind words spoken about me. I humbly accept them on behalf of my daughter and so many other people with a learning disability.
We have heard today from some of the most experienced and eminent representatives of disabled and older people, their families and carers, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, as the noble
752
Lord, Lord Pakenham, was the chairman of Mencap—then the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children—way back in the late 1950s when I was the chairman of the first ever fund-raising committee of that organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, whose original Act of Parliament inspired this debate, has demonstrated his ongoing concern and sensitivity to issues related to community care support for disabled people, while a number of my noble friends from the Cross Benches, and others—I count them as my friends—from all sides of the House were most generous in their support and unstinting with their expertise in relation to personal services, family carers and disabled people, both elderly and those of younger years.
Other noble Lords highlighted issues raised in the Out of services report. It is an important and timely report which focuses on how our current system of social services measures up to the markers of entitlement established in the CSDP Act. But the Gloucester judgment hangs like an odious miasma over the question of financial resources. I am glad that the Minister gave some positive reaction to that. He kindly sketched ways in which his department seeks to rise to the challenge in particular—in regard to the Gloucester judgment—on the question of charging and advocacy.
Those who work with disabled and older people, their families and carers, will look forward to seeing a palpable improvement in the way the services are delivered on the ground.
Finally, my thanks to all noble Lords for their most valuable contributions. I am certain that if they are noted in the corridors of power they will be responsible for providing not only happy Easters, but happier days and years ahead for at least 20 per cent of the population: those oft-forgotten—although not by us—millions who are disabled, their families and their carers. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Globalisation
5.53 p.m.
Lord Borrierose to call attention to the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that so many of my noble friends and noble Lords have put down their names to speak in this debate. I especially look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, with his lifetime's experience of communication in all its forms, and broadcasting in particular.
The essence of globalisation is that one can communicate, travel, buy and sell across the whole world as easily, or almost as easily, as one could do previously within one's own narrower local community. What individuals can do with their limited resources, businesses, particularly major

753
corporations and enterprises of all kinds, can do on a large scale. In recent years, rapidly growing technology has eased and simplified visual and verbal communication around the globe and enabled goods and services to be offered to customers across continents.
Those changes, combined with an increasing willingness on the part of most nation states to pull down trade barriers, have enhanced the standards of living and opportunities for choice and employment among large numbers of people in all parts of the world. Because of free trade and the possibilities of rapid transport, people can enjoy edible produce out of season, seek out educational and employment opportunities abroad and benefit from the availability of good value products sold by suppliers who may be based anywhere. Competition on price, quality and service, along with the removal of trade restrictions, help to promote the consumer and economic welfare ideal of best value being offered over the widest possible range of goods and services.
Globalisation is creating consumer benefit on an appropriately global scale. So what is the downside? Certainly globalisation is not all benign. I suppose the most obvious downside is that the ready supply of goods from elsewhere to wherever one happens to be can destroy less productive indigenous industries and the jobs that go with them. The consumer's gain may be the employee's loss. Other downsides arise because global capitalism may pay scant regard to the economic and social interests of third world countries; and there are inadequate international controls to restrain powerful corporations.
For many economic, social and environmental reasons, most developed countries of the world have rightly come to consider that to allow business enterprises within their own boundaries complete freedom to exploit the national economy and its own citizens is unacceptable. Restraints are imposed, for example, to ensure that businesses do not create price-fixing cartels or abuse monopoly power which could destroy the very economic justification of the competitive free enterprise system; namely, the provision of maximum consumer value. Free competition, carried forward with vigour and determination, carries with it the seeds of its own destruction because the takeover of rivals and cartel arrangements between rivals may eliminate competition and the incentives to provide good value.
The governments of most developed states— starting with the United States towards the end of the 19th century, and followed by Japan, the European countries and the European Community as a whole— have each sought through regulation to combat those commercial tendencies towards cartels and monopolistic practices in order to preserve and maintain competition as the anvil on which consumer satisfaction and choice can continue to be forged.
Nowadays, modern nation states and larger politico-economic groupings like the European Community have developed rules to ensure that the excesses (I use a general term) of industrial production
754
do not cause havoc to, for example, the environment. "Make the polluter pay" and other policies are used as a deterrent. As industrialisation and the competitive push for more customers and more markets have developed, citizens of democratic countries with some kind of power over their own governments have pressed successfully for all kinds of excesses to be controlled by government, including the excesses of misleading advertising and exploitation, and disregard to adequate health and safety standards.
More and more states throughout the world have accepted the need to introduce and gradually strengthen legislation and regulation to safeguard the environment, the pay and conditions of workers, and safety standards for employees and for customers of goods and services.
However—and this is where I return to my theme of the downsides of globalisation—whereas free trade covers most of the world like a blanket, regulation providing safeguards against excesses of all kinds for citizens, employees and consumers does not. Whole swathes of the old Soviet Union, Asia and Africa are open in a large degree to the benefits of global free enterprise, but also to ruthless exploitation by global multinational corporations, and there is a dearth in those countries of regulatory restraint.
The safeguards, therefore, that governments in the United States and Western Europe have required for the benefit of their own citizens do not extend to the citizens of those less protected parts of the world. It follows, therefore, that companies based in the United States or Europe, whose relationships with citizens of their own countries are constrained and civilised, may rampage with impunity in the rest of the world, particularly in the so-called third world.
That is not to say, of course, that they necessarily do so. Many are responsible purveyors of goods and services, wherever and to whomever they are providing them. But tobacco companies, for example, which sell their products in countries that do not impose restrictions on sale or require health warnings are unlikely to adopt them voluntarily. Rather, they will seek to make up for the falling sales they now suffer in the West by marketing them with greater effort in the East, particularly targeting children to replace those who die or quit. Baby food producers restrained by various legal requirements in Europe may find fewer restrictions on their marketing in other parts of the world.
Bribery, which companies would be ashamed to indulge in when seeking to win contracts at home, may be engaged in and hypocritically justified abroad.
Companies may replace their Western work force with cheaper sources of labour in Sri Lanka, China or the Philippines, where rules against child labour and sweated adult labour are weak or non-existent. Appeals to the morality or humanity of the companies concerned may well be likely to be less effective than the force of law.
Globalisation should benefit the poor and the weak as well as the rich and the fairly well off. But globalisation, in terms of ease of communication,

755
travel and trade, has not been matched by the globalisation of regulation and restraint. The scenes in Seattle last year and in Washington in the past week or so have arisen because of real concerns felt by people, some of them no doubt eccentric or extreme, who are worried about this sort of thing.
The World Trade Organisation and the IMF have the meritorious and perfectly proper aim of reducing ever further barriers to world trade, but it does not seem to me that their aims are matched by seeking to ensure that legitimate concerns about the environment, health and safety and the exploitation of third world workers and consumers are properly met.
Of course, it is no good expecting—it would be impractical to do so—that developing countries would adhere, without delay, to the environmental and labour standards achieved in the West after long struggle and change over many years. Sudden change cannot be expected. Indeed, developing countries may only be able to become developed countries, may only be able to get on their feet, by taking advantage of the fact that at present their standards in these fields are lower. But the aim should be to combine further moves towards globalisation and free trade, the free movement of goods, labour and capital across national boundaries, with some sort of consensus and convergence across the whole world on the globalisation also of anti-trust measures and of basic minima of labour, social and environmental standards.
Multinational companies, unleashed from the restraints of American and European laws against anti-competitive practices and mergers, are liable to dominate the fledgling economies of developing countries unless their home countries concern themselves with the global, and not just the national, impact of those companies' activities.
I believe that the major countries of the world, which do restrain companies within their own boundaries as to their conduct at home, should also restrain them in the way they behave in other countries. Efforts have been made. I do not have time to give many examples, but I take a good example from the United States—that of dealing with footloose American capital moving to Asian sweatshops to employ unskilled Asian labour for wages below subsistence level. I refer to President Clinton's task force and the code of conduct it agreed in 1997, called, conveniently, "No Sweat", imposing minimum labour standards for all American firms in the clothing industry and applicable wherever in the world they employed labour, wherever in the world they chose to operate.
Free markets and globalisation are positive, life-enhancing concepts, but they need to be complemented by many initiatives of the kind that I have just mentioned. We have national governments, we have supra-national organisations, such as the IMF, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank; we have organisations like the European Community; we have bilateral and multilateral agreements. All should be brought into play to ensure the consensus
756
that I have spoken about and to require multinational companies gradually to seek to apply—throughout the world high labour, safety and environmental standards when they operate in other countries.
The distinguished economist Professor Bhagwati, of Columbia University, sometime economic policy adviser to GATT, the predecessor of the World Trade Organisation, said, referring to multinational companies:
"In Rome, they must do not as Romans do, but as we do. Their example would spread".
I beg to move for Papers.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on introducing this debate, and on his timing of it.
We have memories of the battle of Seattle last year and the demonstrations in Washington very recently, and it is right that we should have an opportunity to address, however briefly, the legitimate concerns expressed about the economic, social, cultural and environmental effects of globalisation. I agree with the noble Lord that some of the expressions are violent. Some are unjustified; some are ideologically motivated. But many of them are expressions of completely legitimate concerns.
"Globalisation" is, I understand, a term that originally acknowledged the achievement of the developers at all levels of means of communication, but it is now increasingly used as shorthand for the world economy.
We look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his interpretation of the terms of the Motion. We must consider the remit of the international agencies charged with developing the global economy.
My basic viewpoint—I believe that one should set that out in a debate of this kind—is that throughout my political life I have believed in the prime efficacy of free trade as an unrivalled long-term creator of prosperity. But I have also accepted the need, as I believe did Adam Smith, for ameliorating measures which might be necessary in the shorter term.
In broad terms, the 20th century saw a great battle between liberal ideas on the economy and politics and authoritarian ideas, whether disguised as communist, socialist or nationalist, and modifications of each of those. There is no doubt that the liberal ideas eventually triumphed. However, we must also acknowledge that the social and cultural aims of both sides were often highly desirable and that one side influenced the other.
There is now a danger of following a capitalist model on the development of the unprotected areas of the global economy. If we persist with it, we could force on the world generally and on developing countries in particular a version of capitalism which is completely dominated by an unrestrained profit motive with the idea that the sooner we exploit the

757
situation the better. That is highly undesirable and dangerous and it tends to be regarded as the American model.
However, there are other versions of capitalism which, if advanced and pressed with vigour, will carry a great segment of American opinion, which is the most important in this particular political context, in support of it as a more acceptable and efficacious way of achieving long-term ends without inflicting short-term misery, damage and disruption. One such alternative model is surely that of the European Union. Its emphasis is on achieving much greater freedom of trade, gradually removing national barriers and impediments to free economic and social exchange. In the process, it prudently safeguards important political, social, cultural and environmental goals, but modifies their potentially divisive effect.
This lengthy and often controversial approach has been the instrument of one of the greatest success stories of the 20th century. It rivals, in its way, the success of the infinitely less complex but more dramatic achievement of the dominant political, economic and cultural power of the USA. I believe that it presents an altogether more attractive and desirable version for the nations of the world to follow in developing a happy as well as prosperous global society. A prosperous global society is not necessarily a happy one, especially for parts of it. The global society is much more complex and multi-cultural than Europe ever was.
I believe that the World Trade Organisation and the IMF should be authorised by the United Nations to continue its activities, but with a broader remit to consider economic, social, cultural and environmental consequences of its policies and actions. It is not enough, is it, to say that a free trade policy will benefit "a country" in the abstract if the price of that policy is that virtually the whole economy of a country can be taken over by a multi-national; or that there is a shattering of social and cultural life with either a dictatorial leader; or a very narrow class of people eventually benefiting from the so-called prosperity of the country? We have the need to safeguard the communities of the world from such development.
We in the United Kingdom and the European Union should politically challenge what is widely regarded as the American model of free trade; that is, an unfettered global capitalisation model which operates on the basis that there should be no fettering of the urge engendered by the entirely profit-ridden motive of the financial market. It is argued that global well-being will come faster in economic terms, and therefore eventually and by implication in social terms, if there is little or no interference on social, cultural, environmental or even political grounds.
In the advanced countries of the West, we would not stand for that. However, we stand for it in the development of the global economy. Misery, insecurity and the devastation of social and cultural communities in the short term has been accepted as a price worth paying for the eventual benefit of the world, according to this capitalist model. It is a
758
capitalist approach which I cannot accept and which most people in the world, if properly led, would not accept.
I say that as a great believer in the importance of the Atlantic alliance. I was hissed and booed at Liberal Party conferences when I stood up for NATO when it was extremely unpopular in my party. I have many American friends and business contacts and I know that it is feared that there is a closure of eyes to what is happening in the world economy as regards some of the large multinationals. We need to give a lead in this country and in Europe so that a more balanced view emerges. We need to change the rules.
I have a copy of last year's press release of Mike Moore, Director-General of the WTO, in spelling out the priorities of the Seattle conference. He referred to his own organisation as a rules-based institution. We know that it is restricted by some of those rules and we need to ensure that it can be enlarged. Today's debate is important because we shall extract from the Minister an indication of Government thinking on the subject, the initiatives that they are prepared to take and the grounds on which they are prepared to take them.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Birt: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for prompting this important debate on globalisation, for launching it with a most distinguished thoughtful, reasonable and balanced contribution, and for offering me an opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject other than broadcasting. At the same time, perhaps I may express my gratitude to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the warm welcome that they have accorded me over recent weeks. I thank the officers and staff of the House for their friendly guidance and help. This is a most welcoming place.
I shall focus on the impact of globalisation on the UK. For thousands of years, the movement of people, goods and ideas has had a profound social, cultural and economic impact on every single part of the world. Globalisation has been with us since ships set sail. Other technical advances since then, whether the steam engine, air travel, telecommunications and many more, have all quickened the pace of globalisation. The technological change that we are currently experiencing will accelerate it enormously.
Digital technology has many different characteristics. It allows an infinity of information to be conveyed on fibres and wires. It works on demand, enabling the consumer to call up a myriad of services: what you want, when you want it. Incredible processing power enables you to search and to find the needle in a haystack: the exact information that you want. The technology allows interactivity: communication is two-way and equal. Memory power is increasing and whole archives will soon be maintained on a small disc, whether at home or at the desk-top. The technology is increasingly mobile: what you want, on the move, wherever you are. The technology is global; it does not respect national frontiers: what you want from any point oil the globe.

759
I suggest that any one of those characteristics would bring about profound change in this and every other society in the world. Together, they are revolutionary. I believe that the digital revolution may prove to be at least as significant as was the industrial revolution. This revolution will have many consequences, but today I shall mention only two. First, it will accelerate the globalisation of culture. The globalisation of culture is not new. Just think, as you travel around the world, of the ubiquitousness of the baseball-cap and the trainer. However, it will accelerate even more when any kind of programme is accessible from any other point in the world and watched freely by every kind of person, including young people.
Secondly, digital technology will promote economic growth. As we know, the US economy has now been growing very rapidly and very robustly for quite a number of years, and it has surprised most observers. Silicon Valley is probably responsible for half of the incremental growth during that period of the US economy.
These technologies will place intense competitive pressure on every single kind of organisation. Those organisations will need to rethink the services that they provide to the consumer and they will need to rethink how they provide those services. I give one small example. Amazon.com, from a standing start in Seattle, is now, in only a small number of years, the UK's third largest bookseller.
We cannot, Canute-like, seek to hold back the digital tide. The Chinese can and do try to block independent journalism on the Internet, but in the end such actions are technologically futile; they can always be averted by the consumer. The response to those challenges needs to be positive and not protectionist. The best way to counter the globalisation of culture is to continue to support national cultural institutions of all kinds. I believe that, currently in the UK, we find almost all of our national cultural institutions in remarkably healthy condition.
The best way for the UK to deal with intense global competition is to promote national competitiveness. Here, I believe, there is no cause for complacency. Our digital infrastructure is developing reasonably well in the United Kingdom, but on-line take-up is well behind the world's leaders, even if it is ahead of many countries in Europe. ISDN penetration in the UK is low. On-line costs for business are high. There is weak awareness in UK boardrooms of the significance of the Internet and other new technologies, and little evidence of national industrial readiness in many sectors and in many parts of the UK.
Much of the responsibility for that lies with business, but government can help. First, I believe that a new regulatory framework is needed to promote competition and diversity, both in the supply of infrastructure and services. Secondly, government and the public sector can promote more rapid take-up of new technology: by dealing with individual citizens on-line; by providing all public sector services on-line; by
760
insisting on dealing with all government suppliers on-line; and, most importantly, by ensuring that no child leaves school in the UK without advanced computer skills. It is very hard to imagine that in a few years' time any kind of worker will be effective without them or that any kind of individual will be able to get the most out of their life if they are not computer-literate.
We need a conscious national response if the UK is to harness and not to fall victim to those powerful revolutionary and global forces. I look forward to debating that response with your Lordships in the years ahead.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his excellent maiden speech. It was forthright and succeeded in laying down the law without being controversial. That is no surprise because the noble Lord has been very active in many fields. He has produced, controlled and directed various things in the media, and his career as director-general of the BBC is something which I am sure we shall all remember. I am sure that the noble Lord believes that now that he has left that behind, he can have a good time here. We welcome him.
It is very apt that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, chose to make his maiden speech on the subject of globalisation. I credit him for the fact that in many hotel rooms where I have arrived, jet-lagged, I have switched on the television to watch BBC World. Had it not been for him, BBC World would not have been there. Therefore, the noble Lord was a globaliser long before many of us, and I believe that we shall definitely enjoy his future contributions in the House.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borrie on introducing this subject. Globalisation seems to be everywhere. I believe that this week I have made a speech on globalisation every day; this is the fourth that I have made on the subject so far. There is so much to say that I shall put down some markers.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, globalisation has been going on for a long time, I believe that its latest phase, which started some time in the 1980s, is most important and significant. As many noble Lords pointed out, current technology is very powerful and, unlike previous phases in which technology speeded things up, we are now at a stage where time and distance are almost annihilated. One can not only buy things instantaneously but one can also direct production across long distances. Communications are such that atrocities in the remotest parts of the world are exposed immediately. You do not have to wait for the cable or the stage coach to arrive. It is yet another form of capitalism. It started at the end of the 20th century. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson pointed out, it is the first form of capitalism where there are no rival models. It causes a lot of frustration.
People do not like to call globalisation by its name, which is capitalism. During the 20th century many people thought that capitalism would not last until the

761
end of the century; many others thought perhaps it would change its spots and become more like socialism, communism or whatever. Even the enemies of communism, like Professor Rostow, thought that the best one could hope for was a convergence between communist and capitalist systems. None of that happened. This is now the only game in town. But profitability, and considerations of profitability, will drive the system around. People are uneasy about that. They are uneasy because there was a similar case of globalisation in the 19th century. It was called an empire then. But there was globalisation with a single currency, the gold standard, and there was the British Navy. There was a globalised world in which, unlike today, there was a lot of labour mobility. We forget that the agitation about asylum-seekers and refugees did not happen in the 19th century. In the 19th century no distinction was made between citizens and refugees. We were all told we could move where we liked.
However, today, quite clearly we have not a single currency but free unregulated movement of capital. We have democracies rather than empires. But the Second World War in particular gave us the idea—I would not call it a delusion—that somehow capitalism was controllable within a single nation state; that somehow we could have a compromise between labour and capital with government acting as a referee, as a kind of boss, and allow people to do what wanted to do. It almost worked for 30 years. The period 1945 to 1975 is actually an exception. The more one looks at it one sees that it is the exception and not the norm. Our modern globalisation wants to get back to that period when there were regulatory standards, when capital was made to behave itself and not go outside the regulations and so on. I think that one very peculiar result, which is very hard for us to accept, is that in today's world it is not possible to set up global structures, even if we want them for the best possible reasons.
It is not possible because the world remains largely unequal, much more unequal than any nation state was within its boundaries. Therefore, bodies like the IMF and the World Bank are dominated by the rich countries. Even the United Nations are dominated by the rich countries. Often developing countries, quite rightly, are suspicious of regulatory structures which could be set up, in which they will not have the sort of say they would like. The question of labour conditions is very sensitive—and I do want to provoke my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Brett to say something about this as it is a controversial question.
I spoke at the International Metal Workers' Federation, where people were divided about the uniformity of labour conditions across the world. These trade unionists are divided about whether labour conditions should be made identical. The reason is—and my noble friend Lord Borrie referred to it—cheap labour and therefore it is capitalism exploiting cheap labour. For the people employed that is probably the best job they can get. They have no other alternative. Some people are working at one dollar a day but that is not a bad wage in many countries. Industrialisation of the third world has been
762
speeded up in the last 25 years. One of the reasons— not the only reason—for it is the bigger movement of capital that has occurred as a result of globalisation.
Official foreign aid did not flow in the amount that was needed. Even now it is about 50 billion dollars. Even today, after the Asian crisis, 200 billion dollars are moving across what we call the third world. That is our central dilemma. The central dilemma is that we would like to create our kind of Keynesian capitalism around the world in nice little chunks. That will not guarantee the growth of those really poor countries— China, India, Malaysia, Singapore and so on.
We ought to create institutions. But we ought to create institutions without impeding the growth of those countries. That will help to create better conditions. That is not easy to do, because we will have to bring into play very substantially—much more than is the case now—the representatives of those countries. In the WTO, for example, the countries of India and China want an extension of WTO to the free-up of trade. The fear of globalisation is much greater now in rich countries because jobs are being displaced. And jobs displaced from here to there is good for them, although it may be bad for us. But we are rich, we can adjust. We should welcome the fact that some of the turbulence, some of the troubles that we complain about, are actually the positive side of globalisation. One should not necessarily want to reverse or halt it just so that we are happy and so that no Rover factories or coal mines are shut. But people need goods. Whatever else we may want to achieve as an objective on health, on culture, on environment, we must not make them feel this is once again the rich countries preventing them from growing because those rich countries have had their cake and they not only want to eat it but go on baking it again and again and have it entirely for themselves. That is the real issue of justice and I hope we can made some progress on that.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has introduced a timely and important debate. In introducing it, he has reminded us of his experience as a guardian of rules of economic activity and the application of that experience to the world at large. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, in his splendid maiden speech, if I may say so, has added the technological dimension with its obvious and far-reaching implications. Both of them make it unnecessary for me to dwell on what we mean by globalisation. I think that that is quite clear, at least for this debate. It is the relation of powerful new forces which transcend all traditional and notably all national boundaries.
I share the view of those who see this as an opening up process; and therefore a process of new hopes and opportunities. It is also right not to be naive about it. It is no accident that important analyses of the economic and social effects of globalisation would have titles like The New Alchemists or Living on Thin Air, the latter by Charles Leadbealer, highly recommended by Mr Blair as "extraordinarily interesting".
How thin the air can be we have just seen when the

763
"new economy" shares crashed first in Wall Street and then around the world. There is a strange ambiguity about some of the preferred words of the new economy like "risk" and "flexibility". Is risk a threat or is it an opportunity? Is flexibility a new virtue or a source of insecurity?
I want to highlight two economic and social effects of globalisation which are directly relevant to policy: one to do with education and the other with work. I do that not as a plea to curb the creative powers of the globalising process but to point to some of the side-effects of that process.
"Education, education, education" seems an appropriate enough maxim for what is often called the knowledge society. The economic and social advantages of higher and further education are well documented. People with A-levels and more not only have significantly higher life-time earnings, twice as high on average and even more for women, but also other advantages: they are more likely to have managerial jobs; they are relatively protected from unemployment; they are much more likely to perceive themselves as in excellent physical health; they are less likely to be victims of accidents or assaults; they report fewer educational problems among their children; they are more likely to vote and to be involved actively with voluntary organisations; they are more committed to gender equality and anti-racist values.
Those are conclusions of a remarkable study conducted at London's Institute of Education. I am referring to a paper by John Brynner and Muriel Egerton which was discussed recently at one of those early morning seminars at No. 11 Downing Street.
The clear conclusion must be that it is desirable to make the benefits of education available to more people. The 40 per cent who now advance to A-levels and beyond must be raised to 50 per cent and, who knows, 60 per cent. But—and this is important—what about the remaining 40 per cent? Let us make no mistake. There will be 40 per cent who do not make it to A-levels and beyond. Indeed, that is more likely to be 50 per cent. They have all the disadvantages: lower incomes, higher unemployment, a worse health status, greater exposure to accidents, less involvement in civic affairs and, not least, more educational problems with their children.
The resulting problem of cumulative disadvantages is not just one of inequality in the sense of stratification. Such inequality exists in all societies. The new problem is that two social worlds emerge: one with all the advantages; the other with all the disadvantages. The two worlds barely meet. They may pursue their varied objectives in walking distance from each other, yet they are rarely in the same place—in the same schools, clubs, pubs or even political meetings.
There is something absolute about the divisions created by "education, education, education" as a response to the challenges of globalisation; something absolute for which no remedy has been found. Some believe that the remedy is work. They believe that full employment unites all in the post-modern societies emerging from globalisation.
764
That is an important subject on which I have commented in earlier debates in your Lordships' House. Some noble Lords may remember that the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who I am delighted to see in her place, reported to us on 27th March on the Lisbon European summit. At that time, I expressed some surprise that the employment rate has become an objective and that leaders had agreed to raise it from its present European average of 61 per cent to nearly 70 per cent within 10 years.
My guess is that it is much more likely to go down to 50 per cent, where it already stands in major European countries. Longer education, increased early retirement and a further increase in portfolio working—part time and intermittent as it is—make the return of the old work society increasingly-unlikely.
That too is an economic and social effect of globalisation. But capital no longer needs much labour to create wealth. At any rate, the old relationship is gone which led Keynes to "save capitalism" by increasing the ability of labour to work, earn and spend.
There is, to be sure, enough work to do, but that is not imperative for the creation of wealth. On the contrary, as recent developments in banking and other services show, the less labour that is employed, the more wealth is created, at least in the macro figures so beloved by this Government and their predecessor.
When I write a book about those issues, I shall call it Capital Without Labour. That is not a matter for parliamentary debate. However, it is a matter for debate when a Government who appreciate the massive changes in our socio-economic environment have, so far, failed to see that those include the world of work. Work is no longer the remedy, either for healing a divided society or for reversing the process of social corrosion.
What is the remedy? I believe that the concepts are there, although so far, no one has put them together properly. I list a handful, each of them a subject for future debates in your Lordships' House: stakeholding—that is the involvement of those whose interest in business is not just based on the stock market; citizenship—that is the active participation in the numerous activities of civil society; community— that is the development of local networks of co-operation; the social economy—that is providing income in new ways from tax credits and basic income guarantees to time banks; social service—that is a contribution of time by all for common purposes and in ways which bring different groups together.
All that can be summarised in one word: "glocalisation". The simultaneous blossoming of global and local activities may appear to be a paradox but can in fact be, and probably should be, an answer to the problems of the new economy.
6.47 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the demonstrations in Washington have prompted a few

765
thoughts on non-governmental organisations and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for providing us with the opportunity for this debate.
NGOs represent a bridge between two groups of people, and that echoes much of what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has said. At one end, there are their supporters in the rich world; at the other, the poorest, who are seen both as friends and as victims, in this case, of global capital and by association, the international financial institutions.
The argument runs that globalisation must be an enemy of the poor since it unites free market forces against labour and against the world's weakest economies. It introduces new rules of trade and investment which are bound to favour the well-established monopolistic trans-national companies over vulnerable third world societies.
I do not dismiss that argument altogether since, having worked with NGOs, I have seen the effects of structural adjustments and random so-called enterprise in Africa, Asia and even as near as Portugal, where you can still find the debris left behind by British mining companies. No one will turn them into a tourist attraction. And there are the more serious invisible scars on the lives of the poor.
I recognise also how necessary the Bretton Woods institutions are; how they evidently need to be guided by NGOs as well as by corporations and governments and how painfully slowly they have adapted their policies to the problems of the developing countries. That is putting it politely. Some would say that the IFIs represent economists in industrialised countries who are ideologically opposed to the interests of any country needing protection. Some would say that even the Labour leadership is currently listening to that viewpoint.
Much of the frustration of Seattle and Washington is about the failure of the IFIs to accommodate the interests of the poorer nations, even when they are swallowing the IMF medicine of adjustment and poverty reduction. Uganda is a current example. Who can blame the demonstrators, who represent widely different interests, for uniting to complain about that? The same organisations from all over the world have now become key players in the work of multinational organisations such as the World Bank. Some are now able to influence their policy even from within. For example, they have encouraged the bank's James Wolfensohn in his personal belief that good healthcare "makes good business sense".
Yet the NGOs themselves are learning lessons. About 10 years ago, the first sustained campaign against child labour expressed the somewhat romantic wish that all young people should be in school instead of weaving carpets, polishing gems or making footballs. Unfortunately, that campaign, which led to some genuine awareness of the extremes of child labour, backfired when it became an excuse for some industrialised countries to propose new core labour standards in trade negotiations. The desire to create an international code was nearly undermined by the resentment of the developing countries most affected.
766
Save the Children, to its credit, with a large South Asia programme of its own, was one of the few international NGOs which saw the need for proper balance. This Government are now one of the initiators and main signatories of the new ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour, which should help to take the sting out of the debate. But the example shows that NGOs are not always angels when it comes to footballs or even bananas in hard-nosed trade negotiations.
Nevertheless, wearing my NGO hat, I have no doubt that the actions and research of NGOs in reflecting the needs of the poorest and formulating codes of conduct—which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, described—whether on carpets, baby milk, or through ethical and fair trading initiatives, have been essential in persuading governments, institutions and corporations to shape policies and practices according to internationally agreed trading standards. It was encouraging to hear Mike Moore, the head of the WTO, giving the International Development Committee his views on the necessity for standards, although, as that committee has identified, he will need every ounce of help that sympathetic governments can provide and many more resources if he is to get anywhere near achieving his objectives.
NGOs such as OXFAM have also helped to influence attitudes in our own society in the north, through their work in the education sector and their advocacy here at Westminster, where they have helped to shape our economic and development policy. When it comes to the developing countries, many NGOs now work directly alongside governments, as well as with their own partners and are helping to cultivate a new climate of democratic accountability, even in a country such as Vietnam. Vietnam's President Tran Due Luong's statement to the G77 summit in Havana a few days ago—made available, incidentally, courtesy of the BBC and the Hanoi website—expressed a broadly held opinion in that group when he said that international institutions should be,
"further strengthened to achieve the goals of development, equality, transparency and non-discrimination",
and that developed countries should open their markets,
"for exports from developing nations, offer special and differentiated treatment in world trade and investment to South countries, [and] refrain from using environment, labour and investment standards as disguised measures to restrict and eliminate the competitiveness of developing countries".
Vietnam is a good example of a nation which, despite its past troubles and its present defects is actively entering global markets and even—dare I say— promoting democracy and respect for international institutions. Perhaps the IMF can take some credit for that.
Much of the talk, as we have heard, is about information technology and the speed of communications, especially in education. My son, whose company works in that area, tells me that "knowledge management" is a concept now being used by commercial firms and education institutions all

767
over the world. He says that for him the most exciting prospect is the global sharing of knowledge which was not long ago the province of a few western universities.
I am proud of my own gradual ability to overcome neo-Luddite tendencies. I know about India's enormous success with new technology. But equally, I am aware of the divisions in society which can arise when one section—let us say, Bangalore—is in possession and another—call it Bombay—is denied access. There are questions here about the right to knowledge and information, which is in practice available only to some. Of course it is positive. In the poorest communities, teachers, doctors and social workers can save lives by using the Internet. But the same opportunities become available to the sharks and the less ethically minded companies—dare I say international corporations—which merely speed up the process of their exploitation. We know where most of their knowledge comes from: 96 out of 111 US delegates to the World Trade Organisation came from the US private sector.
The stated advantages of globalisation are not always apparent to those who may turn into its victims. Investment rules without regulations or standards can destroy the livelihoods of, for example, fishing communities which lose out to trawlers or commercial prawn farms, or small farmers who are sacrificed to agribusiness. The drama of the Narmada dams in central India demonstrated how easily the outside world can conspire in human and environmental disaster. In the words of Claire Melamed, a Christian Aid policy adviser, at the UNCTAD meeting in February,
"For investment to be beneficial to poor communities, we need to ensure that … it does not harm the poor by destroying the resources on which they depend".
The efforts of governments and aid agencies to extend micro-credit have proved a highly successful means of injecting capital and increasing income among the poorest, especially the informal sectors of third world cities. Investment in those cities is not just a form of poor relief but a means of bringing them closer to the global economy, giving them more access to the latest skills and technologies.
The EU's Lomé agreement is a unique example of protection in its best sense; not one which will inhibit trade, but one which recognises the strength of individual economies and their historical dependence on one or two commodities. Having heard the two relevant Secretaries of State give evidence this morning, I know that there is plenty of good will around in Government, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. Does he accept that globalisation is not yet favouring the poorest countries and that the market share of the 48 LDCs has fallen drastically in the past two decades to below 0.5 per cent of world trade? Will he confirm that models of duty free access for LDCs such as Lomé must not be threatened under the WTO regime? Finally, does he agree that non-discrimination must not become a sacred cow of any new trade regime?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Borrie for introducing the debate. I wish too to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his imaginative and, indeed, upbeat maiden speech. It must be quite a dilemma for the BBC to know whether it should cover it. In any event, we look forward to many more contributions from that quarter.
There are three aspects of the issue that I want to cover. First, the question of what are the constituencies that we all represent in this kind of debate. Secondly, how can large multinational corporations live in harmony with very varied parent and host nations and their workforces? Thirdly, how does all that fit into the emerging world governance system?
I start from the question of constituencies, perhaps rather surprisingly, because it is worth asserting that we all have constituencies, whether geographical—as in Burton on Trent—or, in my case, a broadly based trade union constituency and, I like to believe, a European and a global constituency. I say right at the start that I am, on balance, upbeat. Let us consider, for example, the transfer of technology to the less wealthy parts of the world and all the other areas mentioned by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Not only am I all for it, but it is precisely what the development movement has been seeking for decades.
After leaving Cambridge my first job included a contract with the World Bank in Uganda on transport infrastructure. As they say about one's first love affair, that country and its problems has a special place in my heart.
Given that politics is about giving people an acceptable vision of their role in society, how can one relate Uganda to a constituency such as Burton-on-Trent? I see that as the issue, rather than assessing upside versus downside per se. Unless we factor in both of those constituencies—I use rather different language from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf —our members will no longer believe that we represent their interests and they will turn to people who claim to represent them more directly.
People's living standards depend, first, on their role as producers—their income, security, pension and so on—and, secondly, on their role as consumers. I do not believe that there is much mileage in juxtaposing one as if, in some sense, it replaces the other.
Incidentally, the trade unions are the only bodies, in what nowadays is called civil society, that have substantial memberships and that make agreements in every part of the world and trans-nationally. That creates an enormously valuable "cement" in the world system that is inadequately understood. Who else will bring together representatives of the work force in the various plants around the world?
It is also worth pointing out that, at present and historically, the percentage of workers in trade unions is the main correlation with equality, both at national and inter-country level. I hope that no one will weep crocodile tears about the growth of inequality and then

769
cast aspersions on the role of the unions. After all, unions are the only support that an individual can have in a negotiation with a large corporation, as the chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, recently adduced in a remarkable lecture.
More generally, what should be said about the role of the large multi-national corporations, a question posed by my noble friend Lord Borrie? In the 1970s those corporations were, according to the UN, transnational corporations. I was a so-called expert adviser to a UN commission with that title.
The terms "multi-national" or "trans-national" are misnomers in that overwhelmingly it is still the case that such corporations are not really multi-national, but ethnocentric, as some academics call them. The board of directors of a Japanese corporation are Japanese; the board of directors of an American corporation are American; the board of directors of a German corporation are German and so on. There are some notable exceptions but that is the general rule. There are glass ceilings for non-nationals of either sex.
I say that such corporations are large, which may be self-evident, but there may be those who would wish to deny that and say that small is beautiful. That may be so, but that is not what we see in the spate of mergers in banking, manufacturing, hotels, airlines, tourism and so on. The main logical corollary of globalisation is that we are no longer able to regulate the economy and industry by national rules alone. Hence the big idea for many of my generation is to use the European Union as a step towards global rules in many new areas. The paradox is that the United Nations' system is not in a position to supervise an overall system of rules, even though there are those—myself included— who say that that is exactly what is needed to bring together the work of bodies such as the bank, the fund, the WTO, the ILO, UNCTAD, and other acronyms that add up to a long list.
The United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations was quite near to agreeing a code of practice, ranging from the rights of host countries to the rights of inward investors and the repatriation of capital. Eventually, it was blocked by an unholy alliance of Moscow and Washington, the former on the grounds that socialist corporations could not be included, and the latter on the grounds that it was all socialism anyway.
Countries like India and Brazil were strong supporters, and still are. The least developed group of countries has the main problem with the drawing up of a global set of rules, as we have found on Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee which is preparing a report on the EU mandate for the WTO, post Seattle.
An interesting fact is that the fastest growing area of globalisation today is the private services sector that is developing bilateral and multilateral agreements outside the scope of the WTO. They are doing so by bringing forward agreements that effectively bite on the internal policy of the host country in many aspects of company and tax law. Therefore, I cannot accept that labour and environmental standards should be
770
excluded from bilateral or multilateral agreements solely on the grounds that they touch on the internal affairs of the country concerned. The only logic in that is that we need one law for the investors and another for the workers.
Where can we find an emerging consensus on all these matters and one that builds bridges between north and south? There can be no better place to start than with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Perhaps I may quote from his address last year at Davos when he proposed a global compact with business on human rights, labour and the environment. The Secretary-General, who has an umbrella role, referred to the fragility of globalisation. He said:
"history teaches that imbalances between the economic, social and political realms can never be sustained for very long … Specifically, I call on you—individually through your firms and collectively through your business associations—to embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards and environmental practices".
One reason why it is said that it is difficult to get teeth into global systems of rules is that the stages of development of countries are too different. That argument has some force, but I believe that it can be overplayed. After all, we have a strengthened International Court of Justice and we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights inspired by Mrs Roosevelt in 1945 and everyone knows that that is formidable.
We certainly have regard to the fact that on some issues we cannot have a global benchmark immediately, such as on maternity rights. But we are not talking about that. In the time available I shall refer to only one aspect raised by my noble friend Lord Desai. Surely it is a canard to say that we are talking about labour conditions being identical around the world. That is a canard and I cannot let is pass. We do not propose that. On the labour front, we propose the four minimum core labour standards of the ILO, which, as everyone knows, relate to freedom of association, child labour, forced labour and discrimination in employment.
I am running out of time, so I conclude by saying that we cannot have a code in the world system that gives business interests what they want—the promotion of free trade alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson has pointed out—and no rules governing anything else. That horse will not run. It does not have the legs and, as I indicated, we need to find a new compact.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, for much of his life the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has been a distinguished public servant so it is entirely appropriate that he should introduce a debate on this subject. All noble Lords are grateful to him.
I have always had great admiration for the good judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, since the day he hired me to present a programme on London Weekend Television. Tonight he has demonstrated again that

771
extreme good judgment. I am sure that noble Lords look forward to many contributions from him in years to come in this House.
My contribution tonight will be somewhat speculative and touch on some of the non-economic dimensions of multinational companies and their power and influence. As much of what I have to say will be in the critical vein, I emphasise that I am fully aware of the manifold benefits which the multinationals have brought and continue to bring to mankind.
It is a truism, is it not, to say that we live in a materialist age? The gradual collapse of Christianity in the West and the sudden collapse of ideological socialism more or less everywhere has left free market capitalism as the overwhelmingly dominant ideology. At the same time, consumerist preoccupations fuel and are fuelled by a radical individualism which has as another expression a personal liberalism bordering on libertinism.
The trouble with capitalism is that of itself it is fundamentally amoral; that is to say, it has no in-built or essential moral values, but only the utilitarian one of maximisation of profit. Of course, I am fully aware, as we all are, of the fact that the majority of individual business and professional people try to bring to their firms their own moral commitments. Charities like Business in the Community and the Prince of Wales Business Forum do good work to that end.
None the less, and while happily noting the many exceptions (particularly among unquoted and small companies), the large corporations live in a tooth-and-claw environment, devoid of sentiment, driven by the bottom line. In that respect the City of London and Wall Street are probably the most ruthless, short-term, short-sighted and narrow-minded markets in the world. Their influence contrasts starkly with other countries, even Germany. I suggest that BMW would never have contemplated doing there what it did here.
The modern multinational often cultivates a sense of being stateless; of having no fixed abode. That suits its attempts to avoid identification with the diplomacy of any specific country—it can get in the way of tough decisions if there are loyalties beyond the company itself—and neutrality often suits its tax purposes.
Huge companies also mean huge salaries, with huge bonuses and option pay-outs. Any linkage with any normal sense of what is fair and reasonable has more or less disappeared. Questions of reward are truly amoral, relating solely to what the market may bear. Those words may be harsh, but the reality is often harsh and we too often pussy-foot around it. We kid ourselves that these grandiose excesses of global-scale capitalism are victimless. But they are not. It is odd that the first Labour Government for 18 years presides over a national society of fast-widening differentials in a rich world of rising poverty. It is little wonder that we now have a full-blown crisis of recruitment even in professions such as teaching, social work, medicine and legal aid law firms.
772
I turn now to the largely overlooked potential conflict between globalisation and democracy. Big business needs big government to control it. After all, that is a key rationale of ever closer integration within the European Union. However, both big business and big government exist uneasily with real democracy, especially where—as is broadly the case—big business will generally only do what is right so long as its competitors are compelled to do the same. Yet endless regulation, which the unscrupulous will in any event ever seek to circumvent, has already reached the point of self-suffocation, with all the obnoxious fall-out which that brings in terms of relative law observance.
It is a futile delusion to pretend that the democratic deficit is mainly a problem of inadequate information. Democracy can be vitalised only by a real relationship between citizens and the institutions of the state, including large businesses. Real democracy is about belonging and identity. On the part of its adherents it requires a sense of some control over their lives— social, political and economic.
But as regards the large multinationals (as ever, I generalise), one finds a combination of distant, anonymous and footloose ownership and control; minimal civic input to the local communities and societies in which they operate; an absence of committed loyalty to the locations in which they operate; plus a policy of mobility of key personnel, which largely prevents those people providing leadership in their temporary communities, and that is crucial. And those and other characteristics, which I do not have time to mention, can and often do put big business at odds with what democracy and society desperately need. I wholly concur with what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said in relation to cumulative disadvantage. I commend to your Lordships the report of the Policy Action Team on community self-help, which is one of the key teams trying to grapple with social exclusion. If we look at the report, we will find that community self-help is now recognised within the Prime Minister's Office and the Home Office as being perhaps the key to dealing with social exclusion.
Of course, one needs a competitive economy for jobs and taxes. It is also true that many more businesses are taking corporate citizenship seriously and that ethical purchasing and investment are rising. But it is also true, as I tried briefly to explain, that there is a bitter harvest from some, if not much, of the globalisation we are experiencing: over-legislation which becomes ever less effective; managerialisation of government; a growing disaffection with democracy; a rapid increase in work-related stress; a widespread decline in levels of work satisfaction; a related decline in family cohesion, with all that that must devastatingly mean; and, above all, a spiritual hunger and a consumerist shallowness about modern culture which looks so good but often feels so empty.
So too we have a global ecology which may already have been blitzed beyond repair, overstretched by the universal dash to ape us westerners. And with it has come a no less radical undermining of the human ecology, so that the very diversity of lifestyles, cultures and to some extent values which make for organic

773
identity, rootedness and self-confidence, are being demolished before our very eyes. The organic is being replaced by the contrived; the particular by the general; the vivid by the insipid.
Of course, I have painted tonight a picture which is too black and white, and in the process done too little to commend what great good is done by multinationals. But I believe that we have become too complacent about the assumed virtues of global materialism. The protesters of Seattle and Washington no doubt instinctively felt more than they could persuasively rationalise. Maybe we suffer the reverse defect.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Borrie for this timely debate, and my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for a devastating critique of the downside of globalisation.
In my contribution I should like to meet the challenge of my noble friend Lord Desai and limit my speech to the impact on employment commissions of globalisation. Before doing so, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on an excellent maiden speech and urge support of one aspect of his remarks; namely, the strengthening of national cultures. As an extensive traveller, it is my unfortunate experience to find, not so much that BBC World dominates the world, but that CNN dominates the world. In my view, civilisation will have ended when every town and village on this globe has a McDonald's and we all speak CNN. CNN is not English and has a vocabulary of around one quarter of that of the normal English-speaking person. But that is perhaps prejudice on my part.
I turn to the vexed question of Seattle—that of core level standards—and attempt to meet the challenge of my noble friend Lord Desai. He said that we must not take away from the developing world the only advantage it has; that is, that it can compete on labour where it cannot compete on technology. I do not demonise the role of multinationals, as some trade unionists do. However, we have to think imaginatively how we can change the attitude of multinationals.
First, I turn to core labour standards. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall said that we are talking of only four basic rights: the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining; the right of freedom from forced labour; the right of freedom from child labour; and the right of freedom from discrimination. That is a compact which any country in the world—whether it be Tanzania or the state of Texas—should be able to sign up to, because those four rights do nothing other than enable workers to seek to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
A month ago in UNCTAD people were still saying that the core labour standards and the social clause that trade unions desire comprise an international minimum wage. That is absolute nonsense. The minimum wage will be what trade unions, employers and the governments concerned determine can be afforded. However, we have to find a format for these rights that is not threatening. I declare an interest as
774
vice chairman of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. We need to debate how we create a mechanism which on the one hand protects core labour standards but which cannot be misused for protectionist purposes.
We all say that we are against protectionism but those who wish not to have a social clause in the WTO are fearful that we do not mean what we say. I wish to debate how one creates a mechanism that could not and would not be used as a protectionist mechanism by a developed country. I believe that we have made progress. In 1998 all the member nations of the ILO— some 174—signed up to a declaration of fundamental rights at work whereby governments accept that their membership of the ILO gives them the responsibility to ensure that they enact in their countries policies of freedom of association and collective bargaining, freedom from forced labour, freedom from child labour and freedom from discrimination. All of the conventions on those fundamental rights have been ratified by over 100 member states. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to Convention 182—this, uniquely, has been unanimously endorsed by the International Labour Conference———onextreme forms of child labour. That is now part of the package.
However, what does one do when a government clearly have no intention of protecting those rights? How do we square that with globalisation? Globalisation will fail unless the vast majority of people believe that they are beneficiaries of it. Twenty years of globalisation in Asia have led to high rates of growth on the part of the so-called "Asian tigers". However, those growth rates had two characteristics: first, the countries concerned had semi-authoritarian regimes which denied trade union rights; and, secondly, not one of them introduced any form of social security. When the Asian crisis arose, Korean factory workers fought in the factories to defend their jobs as they had nowhere else to go. They lost everything with the loss of their jobs. Some 14 million people in Indonesia lost their jobs.
I shall not enter the argument about multinational wages being driven down. However, Nike paid workers 7.60 dollars per hour in the United States whereas in Indonesia it pays 2.35 dollars per day. It claims that is the minimum wage but others suggest otherwise. The Barclay brand of Nike shoes which sold at 81 dollars in the US at the time of the transfer of production still sells for 81 dollars as far as I am aware. Therefore the beneficiaries of that transfer have not been American consumers. To judge from the wage rates in Indonesia, the Indonesian workers have not benefited from that either. Michael Jordan has certainly been a beneficiary, as a 19 million dollar contract to promote Nike would suggest!
How can we help those Nike workers in Indonesia? Nike could double the wage rate and add a dollar to the price of its shoes. However, I do not even suggest that. I suggest that if the workers of Indonesia have the right to form trade unions and the right to bargain with Nike there will, over time, be a sharing of the proceeds. Until the recent change of government in that country that was not possible. I say to those who

775
say that sanctions are not appropriate that it is no coincidence that the decree which ratified all core labour conventions was signed by the previous president of Indonesia on the eve of a decision about whether his country should receive a 43 million dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund. That is not coincidence and it is not democracy because the president of an authoritarian government can sign a decree overnight to reverse a policy that has operated for 15 or 16 years.
How do we fix these principles in the minds of governments and in the minds of those multinationals of which we are critical? As has been said, those companies are not truly multinational. Boards of management tend to come from a single nation state; namely, the host nation. In their home countries they tend to behave in a civilised manner. They are not ogres; they are reasonable men and women—mostly men—with families and religious and ethical beliefs. Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN is appealing to chief executives of multinationals to realise that they have a moral responsibility in regard to the behaviour of their subsidiaries, their managers and their suppliers. I believe that we should take that process forward, but how do we do so?
"Geneva 2000" will be held in June, in Geneva. This is the "world social summit plus five". The noble Baroness who represented the then government at the social summit five years ago is not present tonight. At that summit there emerged the first enunciation of the core labour standards in the form we now know them. The position would be enhanced if the special session of the General Assembly in Geneva in June were to endorse the case that the ILO declaration of fundamental rights should be enshrined in all UN policies. That would include the ILO, the World Bank and the IMF, but not the World Trade Organisation which is not part of the United Nations.
We need to establish a working party in the WTO, if only to determine what is possible. However, at the end of the day some measures need to be adopted that can be applied to recalcitrant rogue states. I refer to Burma in this connection. Forced labour is endemic in Burma. The International Labour Organisation held a commission of inquiry which cost half a million dollars and involved three eminent jurists. A 256-page report was produced which catalogued the horrors to which that nation state has subjected its own people. Burma has been condemned at the International Labour Conference and by the ILO's governing body. It has also been condemned by the UN at large. However, nothing has persuaded the Government of Burma to change their laws to conform with the conventions that they have entered into voluntarily. In such extreme cases an international body—the World Trade Organisation is perhaps the most appropriate in this context—should be able to signal that a change of policy is required if sanctions are not to be applied.
Ironically, in June, the ILO will consider taking action against Burma under Article 33 of the ILO constitution. That is the first time that such far-reaching measures have been considered in 80 years. If
776
the motion is carried any member state can take any actions supported by international law that they deem appropriate to make Burma fulfil its obligations under ILO Convention 29 on forced labour. The issue of core labour standards and their application requires major debate. I fear that the North and the South are talking past each other, not to each other. I hope that such a dialogue will enable us to enjoy the full fruits of globalisation but with civilised standards which can be applied both in the North and in the South.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join others in warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for this opportunity to discuss this ambitious and wide-ranging topic of the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment. At the outset I confess an interest. For 30 years I spent my time at the IEA as a font of teaching on the principles of market economy. As a result I accept some small share of responsibility for having helped to wean both the Tory and the Labour leaders from their post-war delusions over the mixed economy.
It is truly difficult in this civilised assembly to recall that a mere 30 years ago even such outstanding intellectual exemplars as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, were saddled in office with beliefs which today have banished the likes of Wedgwood-Benn and K. Livingstone to the lunatic fringe.
Some of the speeches that I have heard which are now calling for fairly detailed regulation of the globalised economy come from people, let us face it, who once believed that governments could run the commanding heights of the economy; that incomes policy would remedy the inflation caused by monetary incontinence and trade union monopoly; and that entrepreneurship was little more than a front for exploitation; in short, that market forces were a discredited form of ideology.
Where we were once almost all Keynesians, today we are, thank heavens, almost all followers of Adam Smith. Even new Labour politicians, mercifully, have learned that all their ambitions for economic progress—and therefore for future electoral success— depend on working with the grain of market forces. After all, what are market forces except the actions of free men and women acting out the interplay of consumer choice and producer competition in a free society?
In principle, the phenomenon of globalisation means no more than the widening of competitive markets by a dual process. First comes the removal or penetration of national barriers to trade and investment between countries, and, secondly, the unstoppable explosion of information about changing products and services, their relative prices, performance and availability. In simple terms, this process holds out the prospect of speeding-up innovation and multiplying output ever more copiously.

777
Before turning to the undoubted problems, we should almost daily remind ourselves of the neglected boons of global free trade. In 1776, Adam Smith pointed out that there were mutual gains to be had from trade between countries concentrating on that for which they enjoyed the greatest comparative advantage. It now seems so obvious.
For me, free trade is the best panacea available for world poverty. The mindless protestors against the WTO and the IMF who talk of exploitation, must be patiently instructed—perhaps by the admirable noble Lord, Lord Desai—that the poorest countries in Africa, for example, are those least touched by international trade and the dreaded multinational companies. Trade alone has enabled Hong Kong, in a couple of generations, to trade up, as I like to put it, from low Chinese wages to fully European standards.
If the chief economic effect of globalisation is to move faster towards the annihilation of poverty, it cannot be denied that its social effects must inevitably be disturbing and even periodically disruptive. New products and services, different lines of domestic and foreign trade, fresh sources of competition, all threaten existing employment and investment.
I have periodically ventured to remind the House that it should be a little more backward looking. Even the Tories—let alone Labour and the Liberal Democrats—are not sufficiently backward looking. Instead of straining for novelty by seeking some illusory new economics of a third way, I urge all party men to pay attention to the wisdom of the neoclassical economists.
I offer a new name for the 21st century—a new name even, I hope, for the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who knows more than most of us about economic theory. In 1934 the late A.G.B. Fisher, I believe from New Zealand, wrote a book entitled The Clash of Progress and Security. His simple theme was that economic progress was impeded by natural, universal resistance to change.
In 1945 he expanded this analysis with a second volume entitled Economic Progress and Social Security. For present purposes, I summarise his warning that, faced with rapid economic growth, attempts to preserve the status quo by resisting timely adjustment of employment must aggravate rather than moderate the disruptive consequences of change.
Time permits only the briefest examination of some lessons for policy. First comes the importance of giving more weight to competition for consumer choice, which favours new products and injects dynamism while, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has emphasised, monopoly and producer interests always seek to protect and prolong the status quo. But, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I believe that globalisation, allied to media publicity, will on balance prove great solvents of the established dominant producers, the dreaded multinational companies which haunt the unlikely liberal, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
778
Secondly, classical economists have long recognised—and new Labour was quick to emphasise—the continuing importance of basic education, training and retraining, which are among the top priorities if the labour force is to adapt to new opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, did very well to emphasise the limits of present policies in this respect.
Thirdly, if occupational flexibility is important, I continue to think that geographical mobility is no less so. That would imply a liberal policy on road building, land release and development that would certainly be unpalatable to such old Labour lags as John Prescott.
Fourthly, if British entrepreneurs are to respond swiftly to the impact of unforeseen change, it seems a truism that the less regulation with which they are encumbered the better. Even more than the Tories, new Labour has allowed Brussels to hobble small businesses, which should be the seedbeds of flexible economic progress. I solemnly fear that within the next decade or two the restless global economy is likely increasingly to relegate continental Europe, if not the whole of the EU, to an economic backwater.
Finally, for now, conventional social security schemes are not likely to offer more than what Herbert Morrison more than 50 years ago called,
"at best nothing more than ambulance and salvage work".
Faced with the quickening pace of change, families will need more ample financial reserves than the state can or should guarantee. From rising incomes, private savings in all forms, including personal investment and insurance, would be a far better cushion for change than going into debt to tide over the scale of adjustments that lie ahead.
It is a measure of Gordon Brown's complacent myopia that, having soaked insurance companies in his first budget and wound up PEPs, he could think of nothing better than the complex, stingy ISAs. It is high time that we moved towards taxing expenditure and exempting savings, an idea much loved by the late Lord Kaldor. Our aim should be to spread substantial nest-eggs against the fluctuations in family fortunes which must accompany the otherwise enriching processes of globalisation.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing the debate. It has proved to be most illuminating and, at times, quite controversial. I particularly thank him for defining the issues so clearly, as have many subsequent speakers. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his excellent maiden speech. His point about investing in national culture—which found particular resonance with the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Brett— is something that will bear further thought and debate in your Lordships' House.
I am not sure that we have resolved whether globalisation is the Holy Grail that will bring mutual benefits to the peoples and environments of all countries and in trade terms bring increased wealth to

779
many, or whether it is a satanic plot of the multinationals to carve up the world into market places and factories. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on how we need to link constituencies, so that these issues can be debated in different parts of the world with the aim of reaching some understanding and having some common themes, were particularly interesting.
We on these Benches believe that the outcome can be a fairer and more responsible world. We need to make it clear that that outcome will come about only if the rules governing such a process of globalisation are in place and are followed and that the non-observance of the rules will be strictly dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, painted a particularly graphic picture of what happened in Korea and Indonesia when those rules were not followed.
Until now, those around the table in the trade arena wrote the rules and frequently, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, have not even provided a seat at that table for many other stakeholders. It was no wonder that so many developing countries and many NGOs which work on social and environmental issues felt so excluded and angered by, first, the GATT rounds and now the WTO rounds. I do not believe that they are, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, mindless protesters. Many of them have thought deeply about the issues. We certainly need a democratisation of the process.
Just after Seattle a Question was asked in the House on this subject. In reply to one question the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"In a sense the World Trade Organisation is too democratic".— [Official Report, 6/12/99 col. 1008.]
The noble Lord may have been reflecting some of the frustration of the previous weekend when the vote not to proceed had been very difficult. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government's ideas on how all countries can be part of the process—not just that the developing countries' concerns are "taken care of. Developing countries would not be happy with that. They want to have a voice.
The process of globalisation has until now been either unmanaged or mismanaged. It has failed to deal equitably with the three essential pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, reminded us of the comments of the UN Secretary-General on how essential it is to bring those three strands together. Increased economic activity is unlikely to bring any social benefits unless all three of those pillars are balanced equitably. Unrestrained increased economic activity will almost always bring environmental damage. The full realisation that trade and the environment are inextricably linked is a fairly recent realisation. Although the world has begun to understand that there is a relationship, it has not yet found mechanisms to assess the environmental impacts of trade policies or to judge the effects on trade of environmental measures. More sophisticated, but the right way forward, is the use of trade measures to achieve environmental policy aims. The noble Earl,
780
Lord Sandwich, made the valid point that environmental measures must not be seen as disguised trade barriers. Perhaps, regrettably, in the past, they have been used as trade barriers. That would be a misuse of them and would bring them into disrepute.
The issues of environmental degradation are truly global. Global warming, the loss of the ozone layer, the poisoning of water sources and polluted air are not issues that remain within the boundaries of nations or continents. The fact is that the mechanisms for liberalising trade are progressing much faster and are being much more adequately resourced than mechanisms for protecting the global environment and social concerns. Can the Minister say what proposals the Government have for encouraging the international community to resource these areas of work? Are the Government willing to sponsor investigations into the Tobin tax—an international tax raised as a percentage tax on foreign exchange transactions? It has many merits to recommend it. At a time when we are struggling to find resources, it would be one way forward.
The EU and this country have been pressing for greater clarity in the relationship between the WTO rules and the multilateral environment agreements. The environmental aspects have been subject to some very good protocols and conventions, such as the Montreal convention on trade in substances that deplete the ozone layer and in Kyoto on climate change. There is also a convention on biodiversity. They were drawn up in the 1980s and 1990s. Although we have signed up to them, as has the EU, they need vigorous implementation and enforcement throughout the world.
Almost every day in the media we come across new figures of species under threat. Although bigger furry species such as tigers or giant sea otters get more press coverage, the rate of projected loss of plant and insect species is appalling. For how many years have we been worrying about the loss of rain forest—10, 15 or 20— and has the rate of loss slowed down? We are not very good at measuring the effect and taking responsibility for it. If we are not, how can we expect poorer countries to start to implement multilateral environmental agreements? They certainly need additional resources and those could be distributed by the Global Environment Facility. We have the mechanisms but not the resources.
The United Nations Environment Programme is recognised as carrying out most useful work but its budget is tiny—minuscule—at 100 million dollars per year compared to the scale of the problems that require urgent attention. It needs to be given the resources, the powers and the responsibilities commensurate with the urgency of the issues. The environment's health in its widest sense is crucial. It should not be seen as a preserve of the world's environment Ministers, though I pay tribute to Michael Meacher, who made a particularly strong showing at Seattle at the last WTO round. He tried to broaden out the issues and make colleagues understand that the environment should be the responsibility of every department and every

781
Minister. Can the Minister say how the Government view environmental issues? Do they have a cross-cutting international environmental approach?
I wish to turn briefly to noble Lords' comments on the social issues. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, gave an excellent explanation of why we may not be able to create global regulatory structures for social issues. It was very interesting if a little depressing. I should like to think that we would be able to create them. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, expanded on the difficulties of drawing up rules and gave us a detailed and interesting perspective. He said that if we focused just on full rights for workers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, we would be able to come up with something that did not cut across the right of countries to self-determination in terms of labour.
As consumers, we need a better sense of what is the true cost of consumer items. We have no system of knowing what is the true cost of the cheap clothes we buy. If the losers are children and their education in the countries which produce those cheap clothes, we ought to know that. Our labelling system is truly underdeveloped. Indeed, in our own country we have developed neither eco-labelling nor any other kind. We need to provide a lead in that area.
Although I do not want to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—the noble Lord's view of history is undoubtedly longer then mine—he exhorted us to be backward-looking. I should prefer us to be forward-looking. We on these Benches believe that, with our partners in the EU, we can make progress towards a prosperous and environmentally sound world. We need to work with our European partners, and indeed our partners in all parts of the world. The global village needs global government, but it certainly does not need a feudal squirearchy to manage it.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was enjoying the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, until the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and his noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rose to speak. Wracking my memory, I remembered Corporal Fraser in "Dad's Army", who at every turn said: "We're all doomed!". That seemed to be the dismal message from both noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, thinks that the modern world is terrible, I suggest that he joins the castaways who are busy experiencing a Hebridean winter for some dismal and rather silly television programme. I am not entirely sure whether it is made by the BBC or the other lot, but it seems to be a bit of a joke. If the noble Lord wants to experience an older and perhaps gentler world, he should try that. For my money, I prefer where we are now, with all its problems, to the kind of complaints and reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, seems to have about the modern world.
I do not believe that we are all doomed. Thank goodness for the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who in his maiden speech was much more positive and upbeat,
782
seeing the world in a more progressive way and welcoming globalisation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and as I certainly do. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to globalisation being with us since ships set sail. That is true; and few countries know more than we do about sending ships all around the world to create wealth for this and many other countries. The noble Lord missed out the next stage of globalisation—the jet engine. It made an enormous difference to a great many ordinary people. Many of our citizens have abandoned our cold, rain-swept country for warmer climes this Eastertide, thanks entirely to the jet engine.
The real lift-off—space age globalisation—has been that given by information technology. If I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, correctly, he said that we cannot seek, Canute-like, to hold back the digital tide. Nor should we want to. The expansion of ships, navies, travel, and now communication will aid the world economy. According to the International Data Corporation, the number of Internet users world-wide was approximately 142 million at the end of 1998 and will grow to 399 million by the end of 2002. That growth will impact on trade with the advent of e-commerce. There is a Bill before the House on this very subject. It must be the only Bill that is not being taken through this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I must say that the noble Lord encapsulates globalisation: he is all over the Government, globalised by the Government—two debates today, two Questions earlier today, a Bill yesterday. I wonder whether any other government Ministers do any work. The noble Lord should talk to some of his trade union friends about his workload.
E-commerce, worth some 50 billion dollars in 1998, is projected to grow to 733 billion dollars by 2002. That is a huge increase. We can all see it happening. Earlier this year, I was on the other side of the world and I could not help but notice that almost every advertisement on television carried a reference to a website. I have since noticed that that is happening here. I am sorry to tell those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that there is nothing they can do to stop that developing. What we must do, and encourage all other countries in the world to do, is to take advantage of it. There are huge advantages in trade—and indeed in free speech. Is it not true that the Internet provides freedom of speech, even to some whose speech we do not like? It is a terrific opportunity for organisations. It gives them the means to communicate. I mentioned China.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was listening throughout to those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches—for instance to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on education and globalisation. I feel that he may have missed many of our points if he thinks that we are pessimistic.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because I

783
excuse him from most of the follies of the Liberal Democrat Party, including, dare I say, an affection for the euro, but let us not get into that subject.
Globalisation will, in the words of the Economist, lead to,
"faster growth, cheaper imports, new technologies and the spur of [all kinds of competition including] foreign competition".
Of course there is a clash between the people who look at conditions in countries overseas and wonder whether we should be buying the products made there. Like other people in this country, I watch a television programme and wonder whether I should be buying the T-shirt or the football. But the alternative is often not "education, education, education"; it is perhaps the kind of starvation that we see in Ethiopia. It is not a black-and-white issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned, it may be cheap labour, but it may be the best or the only job that people can get, and it is a good deal better than the alternative. We must bear that in mind.
The commerce Minister of Thailand, who will take over as director-general of the WTO in 2002, said this about the question of labour rights:
"I have the feeling that some of the representatives from the developing countries … might take this opportunity to walk away from any agreement on a new round. I know it is an important issue for the United States administration, but to have trade sanctions linked to labour rights violation would be really ultimately highly detrimental".
The poorest people in the world do not work for multinationals. They do not work in modern export industries. They work in subsistence agriculture, or they do not work at all. We should remember that. While I listened with care and interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brett, which was balanced—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is a timed debate and I have only three minutes left.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the same Thai Minister advocated joint talks between the ILO and the WTO on the question that he has mentioned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the debate is time-limited. Normally, we do not intervene. I have a very few minutes left.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was trying to make the point that we must be careful to balance these matters and make sure that we do not drive work, even low-paid work, away from those countries. Once the work arrives there, once it begins to develop, once the wealth—which may not seem very much in our terms—begins to come in to those countries, they will begin to raise their standards, and of course we ought to encourage them to do that. But, frankly, the wealth has to begin there before we start to raise standards. It is a difficult problem.
784
One of the interesting points is that the World Bank, looking at east Asia, has stated that the number of people living on less than a dollar a day fell from 418 million in 1987 to 278 million in 1998. That may still be a large number of people, but the figure is half what it was just a few years ago. One of the key reasons for that measure of decreasing poverty in east Asia was growth in China—which saw an increase of 7.7 per cent a year in private consumption—and growing trade.
I have little doubt that, while many of us might put our hands in our pockets to give a donation to some of the aid organisations in which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is involved, it is perhaps more important that we actually buy their products and that we do not raise tariff barriers against them. Too often people who refer to labour standards, or any other standards, in seeking to raise tariff barriers simply want to protect the developed countries. That is wrong. We must work with developing countries and give them the opportunity to trade with us. We in the developed world are the only people with the money to buy their goods and services and, in that way, to lift them out of poverty.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a characteristically well timed and wide-ranging debate. It is well timed because it occurs at a time when again we see the raising of consciousness in Washington, which also took place at and following the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle. If we debate this matter at a time when there are demonstrations in Washington perhaps we are doing better than they are. The debate is also characteristically wide ranging. If in 2½ hours we are to cover, at the invitation of my noble friend Lord Borrie,
"the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment".
it is very difficult for anyone, particularly a Minister who attempts to sum up, to deal with all of those matters adequately.
This has been a fascinating debate, which has had the huge advantage of attracting the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The noble Lord did exactly the right thing: he spoke on a subject that he knew about but which he was not known for knowing about; in other words, he avoided broadcasting—and an excellent job he made of it.
The only way that I can limit myself is by indulging my incurable preference for talking about the things that we can do something about rather than those that we can do nothing about. If I concentrate my remarks on our approach to globalisation through the main international body concerned with it, the World Trade Organisation, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. Globalisation, which gives rise to this debate, is the increasing internationalisation of economic activity. As many noble Lords have said, the huge increases in international trade and investment have been driven by a rapid change in communication and transport technologies. Here the speech of the noble Lord, Lord

785
Birt, was particularly appropriate. He referred to the power of digital technology and its effect on both culture and economic growth. But these changes have had a profound effect on all countries, both developed and less developed, in the global economy.
There are a number of misconceptions about globalisation, in particular in relation to the way that it affects environment and social standards. Globalisation is neither the destructive force that some people believe it is nor the Holy Grail to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. I just take the view that it is a fact which we can do nothing about; we will not turn it back. Globalisation produces winners and losers. More often than not, the winners are those with open economies who have embraced the global economy. Among developing countries, those with more open economies have consistently grown faster than those with closed economies I do not know whether that provides the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with any consolation. I do not believe that the noble Lord alluded to Popper but he certainly referred to Adam Smith and reminded us of the theory of comparative advantage, which is appropriate to what which we are discussing today. That certainly struck a spark with my noble friend Lord Desai, in his fourth speech of the week. My noble friend did not remind us of his excellent article in the New Statesman last week which covered this very point.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the demonstrators in Seattle and Washington. We have sympathy for them because some of them are like us when we were young, perhaps with the exception of my noble friend Lord Desai who, as I recall, was always on the side of the revolting students. Nevertheless, we have sympathy with those who have an instinctive opposition to what they see as uncontrollable forces which become greater if they are international. They blame globalisation for the destruction of the environment, the undermining of social standards and the gulf between rich and poor. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is still at heart a demonstrator, blamed globalisation for virtually everything in the world today; for example, the destruction of language and the fact that music is no longer comprehensible. He did not say it, but that was because he had only 10 minutes. It is a fundamental mistake to believe that we can turn back the clock on globalisation.
It is right for my noble friend Lord Borrie to expatiate on the downside of globalisation. I also understand the position of those like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who describe the scars of uncontrolled capitalist exploitation, which cannot be denied, but we must work with the world in which we live. We believe that the challenge for governments is to ensure that globalisation acts in the interests of people and the environment and contributes to the goal of sustainable development. That is our aim in the policies that we have adopted, which we seek to persuade the World Trade Organisation and other international organisations to undertake. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, recognises that the inclusion of NGOs in our delegation to Seattle— tribute was paid to my right honourable friend
786
Michael Meacher—was a major step forward that enabled us to set up a new network within the context of the WTO which has done a great deal of good.
It is easy to say that trade liberalisation is important to us. The UK is a major trading country; it is the fifth largest exporter of goods and the second largest exporter of services. In terms of investment stocks, the UK is also the world's second largest inward and outward investor. Therefore, it is vital to the UK economy that we maximise the benefits of global trade liberalisation. But I hope that we go further than that and seek to use the pressure for trade liberalisation for constructive purposes. We see the World Trade Organisation as essential in meeting the challenge of globalisation. The WTO, and its predecessor GATT, has brought enormous benefits in terms of sustained growth in the world economy.
There is a profound difference between the WTO and the IMF, World Bank and United Nations: democracy. After all, in the WTO every single member state has an equal voice. When did the United Nations or International Monetary Fund last venture to censure the United States? Yet both the US and EU have been censured by the World Trade Organisation and have had to act on it—and a good thing too, even if we do not agree with the particular case. The WTO rules offer equal rights to all trading nations to the particular advantage of smaller states. If we did not have a multilateral rules-based trading system smaller countries would not have protection against the greater trading weight of large economies. The multilateral trading system allows small and medium-sized businesses, not just large companies—I shall turn to multinational corporations—to trade freely and with confidence, and that is one of the most important spurs to innovation and improving competitiveness.
I turn to multinational corporations. It is inevitable that as markets become more open companies structure themselves in the best way. Therefore, increasingly companies have become players on the global stage. In the past century we have seen some conspicuously horrible examples of how multinational companies have exploited the countries in which they have operated and to which they have sold.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Desai advocated capitalism in one country. If so, he would have been the Stalinist of new Labour! But I think that he used the issue as an Aunt Sally rather than applauding it.
But of course we recognise the fear—it was expressed most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—that companies may grow beyond the reach of national governments and become powerful enough to exert pressure on governments, in particular those of less well off countries. That is why it is important to heed the call of my noble friend Lord Borrie for considering the impact of globalisation on fair competition. We agree with what he said. We agree that although in this country we have rightly given companies more freedom through deregulation, at the same time we have balanced that with fair trading and

787
competition rules and—dare I say it?—with the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill which is progressing through this House at present.
My noble friend Lord Borrie gave examples of control of misleading advertising and of health and safety. But of course there are many more. It is true that multinational corporations which behave well in their home countries need comparable control of their activities when they are working in developing countries. We shall return to that when we talk about labour standards.
The answer must be that in the multinational trading system we want to advance some of those principles of fairness as well. We take the view that effective competition authorities are in the interests of all countries and consumers, and in particular restrictive business practices in developing countries could be a significant constraint on growth and therefore on the opportunity for the people in those countries to benefit through a better quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, by analogy talked about the task of competition being to ensure that technology is not restricted. I think that that applies very much to the role of competition in multinational trade.
So how do we approach it; and how do we, as one of those participating in the European Union approach to the WTO, approach this multilateral framework of common principles of competition? We present the argument in this way. The more economies are integrated into the global system the more they need competition rules to control the power of global businesses in their markets. It is argued that the absence or inappropriate enforcement of competition rules can create barriers to trade. That is certainly true. A commitment by WTO members to a common set of competition law principles would be a helpful means of addressing both issues. Countries also need to have measures to control restrictive business practices in order to reap the full benefits of trade liberalisation.
I turn to environmental and social controls. These are the other aspects of this issue after competition. Of course there are concerns that trade liberalisation has an adverse effect on environmental and social standards. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was the most eloquent exponent of that view. But we believe that an open, transparent and stable world trading system is not only compatible with progress towards our other aims of promoting sustainable development but also essential for it. That is the way in which we shall have higher environmental, social and other regulatory standards.
We recognise many examples to the contrary. But trade liberalisation can help to improve the efficiency with which the world's resources are used, and the spread of cleaner technology. Rising income levels are associated with improving environmental and social standards. This happens because countries have the wealth to tackle those issues and richer households are more demanding that their authorities do so. Where economic activity is unsustainable—trade can act to magnify it—it is essential that environmental considerations are taken into account.
788
The relationship between trade and labour standards has always been a sensitive issue; and it was today. There have been calls—although not today— for the World Trade Organisation to take on new roles in enforcing environmental and social standards: for there to be a social clause for the WTO. There are dangers here. It would mean the WTO acting in areas which include other international institutions such as the International Labour Organisation—it has found an effective voice in my noble friend Lord Brett—and the United Nations environment programme. We should not make the WTO solely responsible for dealing with environmental and social issues. We need to ensure greater co-operation between the WTO, the ILO and UN bodies so that global problems are addressed coherently.
Specifically we do not think that restricting imports would be an effective way of tackling issues such as child labour. My noble friend Lord Borrie blamed the corporations for child labour; and, of course, to some extent they are to blame. But, as my noble friend Lord Brett recognised, there is also indigenous child labour. Carpet works are not multinationals. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made the same point. The primary cause of child labour is poverty. Trade sanctions could increase the problem by displacing child workers into the informal or non-expert sectors where conditions could be even worse. My noble friend Lord Desai had that right—he had support in the most unlikely form of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—when saying that it is often the best job they have. Of course these are terrible aspects and it is right that we support the four standards expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Brett. But if developing countries are to grow they must have access to world markets.
I turn rather rapidly to the environment. Of all the speakers, only the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this issue. We look to see that trade liberalisation and sustainable development are mutually supportive. We went to Seattle with a number of specific objectives. We wanted a commitment for environmental considerations to be taken into account in all negotiations because we think that there are important synergies between trade, environmental protection and development in such areas as agriculture, fishing, environmental goods and services, and technical barriers to trade. The European Union is committed to conducting a sustainability impact assessment of proposed new trade measures. We completed the preliminary stages of this before we got to Seattle.
We also want a new round of negotiations to include three priorities on trade and environment: first—I hope that this answers the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—greater legal clarity in the relationship between trade measures taken under multilateral environment agreements and WTO rules; secondly, confirming the WTO compatibility of open, transparent voluntary labelling schemes, in particular eco-labelling schemes; and, thirdly, examining the scope for precautionary action within WTO rules. It is important in the interests of all governments to be able to take measures under the precautionary principle

789
which are science based and proportionate in protecting their environments. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support for the existing conventions and for the work of Michael Meacher.
The noble Baroness asked me about the Tobin tax. There is a debate on this subject in another place. I suggest that she reads the Government's reply to that debate rather than expect me to repeat it—since I have not read it myself.
Clearly the WTO is at the heart of many of the concerns expressed by your Lordships and which are in the realm of the possible of politics. Although clearly trade liberalisation and the growth of international multinational trade are an essential element of our objectives for improving the standards of living in the world, and Clare Short and the Department for International Development have ambitious targets in that respect, we believe profoundly that the increasing trade liberalisation will achieve the objectives we want only if it is allied with proper concern for fair competition, employment conditions and the environment.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, suggested, the terms of my Motion were ambitious, my ambitions have been fulfilled. Noble friends from all parts of the House have ranged very widely over the subject. I did not expect each and every one of them to examine every aspect of globalisation, but my ambitions have in more than a sense been fulfilled, because that was done by my noble friend the Minister, who touched on virtually every aspect. We all benefit from that in coming towards the end of the debate.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sports Clubs
8.21 p.m.
Lord Addingtonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support amateur sports clubs in their work for the social development and health of the community.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like first to thank all those noble Lords who put their names down to speak in the debate at the end of an already full and taxing day. I hope that we shall be able to shed a little light on the workings of a part of our community that is very important to many of us throughout our lives, draw from the Government their attitude to future assistance for the development of small amateur sports clubs and give them some suggestions on how they might be able to enhance that assistance.
I must make a declaration of interest at the start. I am captain of the parliamentary rugby team, known as the Commons and Lords rugby team, to which I shall not refer again. Also for 21 years now I have been a
790
member of a small rugby club in Norwich, both as a player and as a vice-president, and occasionally, as in last season, both. It is called the Lakenham-Hewitt Rugby Football Club. I was told that if not my person at least my dignity would be in grave danger if I did not give our results for this season, which were: second in Eastern Counties III North; runners up in the county cup final; played 30, won 22, lost eight; points for 701; points against 269. It is one of our best seasons ever, and we were still only second in two-bit competitions—but never mind.
The club provided the background for my starting the debate. I have been a member since I was 15. My reason for joining was that a friend was playing for the club. I think he was 16, and I was 15. His uncle was also a player in the team, and I decided that it was a good idea to join because I would know somebody there and I could get to the ground easily on the bus from where I lived. The club was then housed in a hut, made of breeze blocks, at the end of a steep slope—steep, at least, by Norfolk standards; steep enough, indeed, to have a dry ski run on it.
I discovered in my first game that the pitch was on a reclaimed rubbish dump, and we were level with a river. I remember standing on the pitch and sinking so far into it that I could not see the tops of my boots. I was not the only person who had to be pulled out after a certain scrum.
We developed the ground and facilities for several years, until the ground became just about playable, when we had to move elsewhere in Norwich because a road was being built. The result is that this wonderful establishment is now on a decent pitch slightly further away, which means that we have to drive to it. It also means that we are linked to a number of football clubs, and a cricket team also operates there.
I am speaking of a social unit which has people from virtually every walk of life and every age taking part. There is mini-rugby going on, for under-7s to under-14s. We then have junior sides under 16 and occasionally under 18. The recruitment of players is very fluid. We also have people of every social environment and mix. I was once part of a front row which went from left to right: worker in a meat processing plant; welder; Member of the House of Lords. It is now: foreman in a meat processing plant; runner of a small engineering company; Member of the House of Lords. It is nice to know that I am the only one who is not upwardly socially mobile.
The mix is also exemplified by the fact that accountants, doctors and dentists have played in the side, together with people who work as labourers, casual workers of every description, people who are unemployed for periods. They can mix, as can people of various ages. That statement may elicit a resounding "So what?", until it is realised that people have: an opportunity to talk on even terms with people they would not normally talk to. Young people have a chance to meet on even terms people who are regarded as economically and possibly socially their superiors, with a subject in common that enables them to interact. There is a mix going on throughout the process that breaks down social barriers.

791
In addition, people come together in a common cause. Both the club houses required a funding effort and co-operation over everything from building the place to marking the pitches and coaching the younger sides. That sort of thing stops those on the outside feeling isolated and helps bring people together. Therefore, it is very important that it be given support.
This is probably the real meat of the debate: what do these organisations need in order to continue doing what they are doing, and doing well? The first thing we need, of course, is the continuation of players and interest. The Government's sports document talks very grandly about guaranteeing two hours' sports activity per week for children at school. I think that is a slight decline, if it is activity and not merely travelling to and from sports grounds. It may well be an improvement for some schools, but not for others.
The document then makes great play of making sure that new sports schools will be set up—I think 101 nation-wide. There is then mention of sports activity areas for people in deprived areas, suggesting that the activity of sport is a good thing because of the amount of self-discipline involved, and that it is good to get people to do something because they want to and not because they are forced. They have to be shown that there is something out there that they can do. The idea of having grammar schools for sport does not sit well with me. As an aside, I would add that selecting somebody to be a sportsman at the age of 14 is not very advisable in many sports for the average male.
How are we to support those who provide this important social service of giving the first taste of certain sports outside school? Rugby union is a good example and certainly cricket is another. The proper facilities are needed for both. I have no doubt that we shall hear much about that later. If we support clubs by making sure that schools provide a "sampling service" and then tell those concerned to go on to the clubs, we shall be doing ourselves a favour.
The document also talks about co-ordinators. I think that the figure is about 600, though I am not sure that that is nation-wide. At least some thinking is going on. There may not be enough money. I do not know how many times the sports budget could be swallowed up by the Millennium Dome costs.
We must try to make sure that clubs such as those I have described are given assistance, first by making people interested in them, and, secondly, by making sure that we do not take money out of them. I do not propose to go into this in any depth, but at present we are taxing many of our sporting institutions as if they were businesses. We are not giving them beneficial rates. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury will have something to say about that. Incidentally, Sudbury was at one point a fixture for my little club. It used to beat us handsomely, and then dropped us. My noble friend will speak about getting something akin to charitable status for sports clubs. I look forward to hearing about that in detail.
792
We must ensure that we allow people to work properly and that National Lottery funding is accessible to the clubs at the junior end. Steps have been taken already, but we must provide support and help by making the process simpler. We must also provide funds to sustain the clubs, not merely the buildings. If we are not to lose this great asset—the places where people learn about sports, support each other and are sometimes recruited to jobs—we must not extract too much from them. We must help them to set themselves up and run and we must not take from them.
Finally, how are we expecting to continue the educational and social developmental work unless we allow the clubs a free hand?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, I want to thank our most distinguished captain of the parliamentary rugby football team, who was very modest about his achievements. He has raised a most important subject tonight. It goes to the heart of sport in the UK.
Let us remind ourselves that for more than 100 years sport in this country has owed its development to the amateur clubs, the amateur administrator and the host of volunteers, former professionals at every level, schoolmasters, parents and grandparents like myself. We look to all of them to lend a hand. A host of sportsmen and women who love their game like nothing more than to give endless time and energy to serve their sport in an honorary capacity.
That amateur contribution has been fundamental to the speedy but sensible growth of each sport in this country. I am sure that as we travel around the country we are encouraged by the great army of volunteers— greater than ever before. There are as many ladies as there are men, and it is thrilling to see them all.
Last year, I travelled through Devon and Cornwall on holiday. I had to keep stopping at the small grounds with few facilities but many people. They had a buzz about them and they were surrounded by youngsters whose eyes they were opening. It was very exciting.
As one would expect, the contribution of professional coaches at the highest level has increased. In some respects, we have a great deal to do to catch up with other countries and their contribution is vital. Where would we be without the PE teachers? The increasing parlous state of sport in schools has somehow brought them on. The curriculum allows little time for sport, but the professionalism of the teachers I have seen has brought a ray of light into our sports starved schools. They take a great deal of pressure off the responsibility of headteachers and I take my hat off to them. The more PE teachers we can have the better.
Today, I want to make a plea on behalf of all the volunteers around school sport. I salute them for their dedication and enthusiasm. They are prepared to devote so much time in all weathers. We need to rally behind them and, more than that, to provide financial support. They are not looking to be paid for their

793
efforts, but the cost of providing footballs, cricket balls and so forth, and of oiling the wheels to make it all fun, is great. Over the years they have put their hands in their own pockets and those of their friends, but the cost is too big for that now. The cost is depressingly high.
I beg the Minister seriously to urge the departments dealing with sport and education to take on board the suggestion that local authorities must be given access to modest funds. We are not talking about enormous amounts of money. They would have the responsibility of providing the much-needed help where it was justified. Many small enterprises need such support and the financial help will be justified.
We talk about looking for investment in the grass roots. We often read and hear about the "grass roots" and must realise that the amateur clubs hold the key to them. At every amateur club there are volunteers, young and old, who have few facilities to assist them. Let us be clear that the amateur clubs in the UK will provide the gateway to the grass roots. The National Lottery money has created a great deal over the past few years. I received the notion with excitement because I believed that it could help just such a cause.
The money is doing a great deal of good, but is it doing it in the right places? And must we sit on such enormous resources of lottery money at the centre? It is causing despair and contempt among those volunteers who say, "We thought we were going to get something, but the government of the day are going to keep it for their own interest". That money is so badly needed to help the voluntary teachers to help the youngsters even more.
I have wonderful pictures in my mind and I am very bullish about sport in this country. We must grab this issue seriously. In my county of Kent all the sports clubs, the cricket clubs in particular, are building on the scenario. They are looking after the under-14s, the under-12s, the under-11s and the under-9s. That involvement can also be seen in tennis, rugby football, soccer and so forth. It is very exciting. I recently visited Suffolk; I was privileged to visit Bury St Edmunds, a lovely place. All they could talk to me about was sport and cricket and Ipswich Town. All their teams were being masterminded by volunteers and I went away very happy having heard about them.
I should like to paint a picture of one person I have come to know well. For a long time, he has been doing a job in Horsham, Sussex, and I mention him because his experience is mirrored across the country 100 times. He said, "Don't make a fuss of me over this. There are many marvellous people in the Midlands and the North and many ladies do the job every bit as well as I do." He is a GP and a good cricketer and rugby footballer. He loves sport and takes a great interest in youngsters. He created one of the first clubs teaching boys in the various age groups. I spoke and presented the prizes at an autumn dinner to celebrate the season. More than 200 young boys of varying ages attend with their parents and teachers. There are prizes for everyone and great enthusiasm. They all go away for the winter believing that sport is something different in life.
794
He has been working on such ventures since 1956— he is now in his mid-70s—and he is still as lively as ever. He has created in his wake many teachers who are doing the same. He visits them in other villages and says, "You have a lovely little ground or play area. Do this on it. We are not working to build the ego of Horsham Cricket Club; we are a springboard to get you all going." He is the most wonderful example to us in sport.
Therefore, if those at the highest level get depressed, each sporting body must fight through that. However, no country has a greater opportunity to benefit from such people's enthusiasm and the way in which they throw themselves into helping youngsters. Anything that the Minister can do through local authorities to give modest amounts to oil the wheels will help the whole show along.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising to speak, I declare my interest in this subject as chairman of the Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club and, as I shall be referring tonight to a cricket club, I should add that I am also president of Adlington Cricket Club.
Before I begin, I want to give an example of a sport in which perhaps not so many people participate. My story concerns Warrington Judo Club, which is very small. Its members modernised the premises and had a great opening. People came from many areas, including Olympic participants. However, having just opened the new clubhouse, they are suddenly threatened by a housing development and they may well have to leave. Fortunately, Warrington Borough Council is trying to find them alternative premises and is liaising with the developer to see whether the clubhouse can be moved to a new site. That is typical of the fight that small clubs face. There are no wealthy members in the club. By their own efforts, they built a new clubhouse only to find that, having opened it, it may be in danger of closure.
Having said that, I believe that we should also comment on some of the good things that have happened. For example, before the start of the debate I found out what had happened with regard to Sport England. Since it came into being, it has made 4,271 awards. Believe it or not, the awards have totalled £1,800 million. In addition, since January, 49 awards have been made totalling just over £14,300,000. Of those 49 awards, many have been big grants, some of them to professional clubs. Nevertheless, many have been awarded to the amateur clubs which we are discussing tonight. The 49 awards since January have gone to a variety of sports: many to cricket, many to rugby union, some to yachting, and boat clubs have benefited, too. However, I am sorry to tell the Minister that, unfortunately, not one rugby league club has benefited. Therefore, I believe that the distribution of the awards needs to be evened out.
I now turn to the lifeblood of amateur clubs—what makes them tick—and, in particular, I want to refer to amateur rugby league in Warrington. I shall tell your Lordships some of the names of the eight rugby league

795
clubs there. They are clubs such as Crosfields and Woolston, and clubs with more exotic names such as Grappenhall Griffins, Ryland Recs, Culcheth Eagles, Burtonwood Bulldogs, Bank Quay Bulls and Latchford Albion. The main point about those clubs is that their members are all amateurs. Some play at a high level—for example, Woolston and Crosfields both play in the National Conference—and all the others play in the North-West Counties League. Therefore, they play amateur rugby league at a good level.
I return to comments made earlier with regard to schools. The apprentices from Warrington Wolves visit schools and, importantly, attract youngsters to amateur clubs in the area. In that way, all the amateur clubs benefit and that is very important for them. As noble Lords said, it is not simply a matter of older people who play at the clubs passing on their knowledge; it is a case of youngsters joining at all levels. Indeed, because Crosfields and Woolston are in the National Conference, they must provide teams at every age from nine to 18. That means that a large number of youngsters take part.
All the other amateur clubs also have junior clubs: some have two and some have three. The young coaches direct the players and, after six weeks, a tag rugby competition takes place with the local amateur club in the area. Therefore, everyone becomes involved in preserving the lifeblood of rugby league. Admittedly, that is taking place in the heartlands, but it has now spread to be a national sport, particularly on the amateur side. Certainly, I believe that what is taking place there is right for the future of the sport.
I turn now to say a little about cricket and, in particular, the Adlington club. I stand to be corrected by more eminent people than myself, but I do not believe that county cricket can continue to draw many of its players from the narrow band of mainly public or grammar school pupils. The band must be far wider than that. If it were not for the presence of league and cricket clubs together, there would no sign of youngsters joining the sport. We all know that many schools do not have the facilities or the playing fields. Certainly cricket is no different from any other sport; it takes up a lot of time which teachers do not have. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that sport in the curriculum is very limited and difficult to organise.
Adlington, admittedly, has one professional player who has played county cricket, but all the work, such as running the bar and preparing the wicket, is carried out by club members. Adlington also has teams of under-11s, under-13s, under-15s and under-18s. Each club in the Bolton Association has the same number of junior teams, and leagues are provided for them by the association. The Bolton League is similarly run; indeed, it is said that on any Saturday afternoon more cricket is probably played in the area of Bolton than anywhere else.
796
I turn from that to speak for a moment about the county club. Lancashire has benefited by dividing the area into the north-west, the north-east, the southwest and the south-east. The club is looking for under-16s and under-19s to play against each other. That could not be done without club and league cricket in that area, which provides future talent for Lancashire. It is trying to make cricket a broader-based game. I believe that that is absolutely essential if we are to benefit.
Having said that, and having spoken mainly about rugby league and cricket, I return to what was said about attracting youngsters to the sport. That provides a way of instilling social cohesion in villages and urban areas. It brings people together because they have one objective. They believe in their club and they believe in the keen games that are played. I believe that that does an awful lot of good. If many of the youngsters, not only in urban areas but in villages, were not in cricket, football, rugby league or rugby union teams, they would find that they had an awful lot of time on their hands. They would not be spending it in the healthy way that we have described this evening or a way that benefits them and brings together social cohesion. Therefore, I say that more help must be given to the amateur clubs. We need to do that. One way forward may be to waive council tax for all amateur clubs; indeed, probably something could be given from the centre to compensate the local authorities for that. More use must be made of giving grants to smaller clubs.
However, one matter of which I am sure—I shall finish on this point because my time is up—is that amateur clubs are the lifeblood of sport. Also, they make for a better and a healthier nation.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, like all noble Lords in the House tonight, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising the subject and giving us a chance to speak about sport. I was delighted to hear about his rugby club. I thought that perhaps the next time that England are due to play at Murrayfield he might send his team instead.
We are united with regard to the importance of the amateur and volunteer in sport. Speaking from my own experience of marking out the ground, rolling the pitch, being a club official, being a president of a governing body and Minister for Sport, one has seen it from all sides of the argument. It is a mounting mountain of frustration. This has not suddenly happened but evolved over years of frustration at the administrative complication of sport and the complication of sporting finance. I think that the countless volunteers are getting thoroughly fed up and are almost in despair regarding the time it takes to obtain grants. The noble Lord spoke rightly about the number of grants that have been given out by the Lottery Commission to the Sports Council, but perhaps he should have put in brackets how long they took to come through. That is where I think people are reaching the end of their tether.

797
We are right tonight to highlight the contribution of volunteers and pay them every possible tribute. I think that some of these grass root volunteers—so well spoken about by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey— should appear in the Honours' List rather than those fleeting experts who play once or twice for club or country, get an MBE and then disappear.
For example, as to time, on Sunday I was asked to re-open two tennis courts near my home. They were reconditioned tennis courts, so planning permission was unnecessary. All that was needed was a grant to resurface them and repair the fences. It had taken over three years to get through the Sports Council, the local authorities and other bodies for a grant, three years of volunteers' hard work to resurface two tennis courts, which took the contractors only two days. We must try to speed up the action by the various bodies that are involved in sport. We thank the volunteers, the CCPR and others which represent the governing bodies for the time they give to sport. We must recognise them and give them all the praise we can.
The Minister for Sport and her department should tell the Sports Council and the local authorities that they need to simplify the red tape that is holding up the development of sport in this country. I know that the Minister will say that he is accountable for the financial expenditure. If industry took the same amount of time to take decisions as sport does, Heaven help the country's economic future. Of course government occasionally give a bad example, like the Wembley fiasco, and the Minister knows my strong objections to the way he changed the lottery so that less money went to sport and other money went to good causes, which I think was inappropriate. We need to synchronise how we can improve matters. I believe that our local sports clubs, and therefore our communities and community centres, must work in very close co-operation with our schools. Then I believe there is a way forward for development.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, says, we put a great deal of responsibility on the PE teachers. Mainly they are in the secondary schools. We are woefully short of PE teachers in primary schools. We must try to improve that as soon as we can. I acknowledge that we also have to improve what has been improved—the dual use of school facilities by schools and the community; for example, swimming pools, gymnasia, squash courts and so on. I know there are always problems with janitors and who is responsible for damage to the school in the evening and so on. None of this is insurmountable. We have to work at it as hard as we can.
It is from the schools that the sports club will recruit. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, through mini-rugby and other ways we have to involve the sports clubs and the schools working together to develop sport in the area. There is no doubt at all in my mind that competition in sport and team games does an immense amount to develop character in young people. That is what is so important in improving the whole environment of a community. Sport is necessary to develop character, to develop leadership, to understand and not to question the decision of the
798
referees, the umpires and to develop good sportsmanship, and, where possible, to help where we can with outward bound activities. We have to push youngsters to the limit, not to the extent of being foolhardy, but as far as we can to ensure that they can see what can be achieved if they really put their minds to it. We have to work at that. Stemming from that, we will see youngsters coming into the sports clubs to play all the games that we have been talking about tonight.
The schools have to bring the sports clubs into the schools. If we do not have PE teachers, let us bring a coach from the rugby club, the cricket club or the hockey club to help with sports education outside, to look after school matches, and to attend away matches. Inter-school competition is extremely important. If you have a good school team doing well in inter-school matches, that will raise the morale of the whole community. I think we must bring the sport clubs to the schools. As children leave school and carry on in their late teens and into their 20s they will continue to join the clubs that mean so much to us at the present time.
At all times, as I think my noble friend Lord Cowdrey touched on, we must make sure that sport is enjoyable and fun, otherwise we shall lose the children from day one. They must want to come back and keep coming back. That will develop their experience and their skills right on into later life.
There are many matters that one should like to touch on tonight, but one cannot in a few minutes. Certainly I believe that the country is taking the drugs issue seriously, but I think that nationally and internationally we are letting down the sports world by not having a strong drugs policy throughout the world. Whenever anybody is tested positive for drugs, everyone seems to try to find an excuse for that. We have to introduce tough measures in order to prevent drug-taking in sport.
I should like to talk about disabled sports. I have been to the Special Olympics and have seen what can be achieved by supporting those who are less fortunate. It has been very interesting listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, about rugby league. For the first 70 years of my life, as a rugby union enthusiast I was not really allowed to speak to anyone in rugby league. Even when I was a Scottish selector, if one of the candidates had been on the telephone to Leeds or Wigan, he would be out for good. Now the league cup final is to be at Murrayfield in a fortnight's time. It shows how time and attitudes change. I welcome it. We have to keep working on that as much as we possibly can. Tonight is not the night to talk about our new UK sports institutions and so on or about developing high-quality athletes for the Olympics.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we all have tremendous hopes for Great Britain in the Olympics. Medals will count but the base of the pyramid must be right. That is what we are talking about tonight—the base of the pyramid. If a youngster is outstanding, the facilities and the finance must be in place to take him forward to Olympic and world-class sport. I fear that if we do not make decisions quickly and if we continue

799
to dally year after year on crucial decisions, it will take much longer than I should like. However, I hope that we can reverse some of these slow decisions in the near future.
9 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for introducing this debate and for doing so with great awareness of the importance of the social contacts that are made at a typical amateur sports club.
One can safely say that sport reaches the parts that others do not reach. There is no doubt at all that in an increasingly divided society, the role of the community amateur sports club is quite indispensable.
I do not often recommend government reports, but I do not know how many noble Lords have a copy of the Home Office document called Report of the Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help. That is one of the 18 PATs that were set up by the Government when they were returned in 1997 to try to grapple with the extremely intractable bundle of problems that we call social exclusion.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read one paragraph of the report because it is totally germane to what we are talking about this evening. It is in a chapter entitled,
"the philosophy of community self-help".
It states:
"But self-help is an end in itself, as well as a means to an end. It is at the core of the empowerment of communities … It is about involvement and consultation, but also about moving towards self-sufficiency. It is, in its purest form, about communities shaping their own destiny—doing, not being done to … So it can reasonably be said that community self-help, the subject matter of our Policy Action Team, underpins that of all the other seventeen. Without effective self-help, it is unlikely that any other measures of community regeneration, however well resourced, will provide long term solutions to long term problems".
That just about says it all. It explains why this debate is so crucial and why I suspect that in this House we all agree that there are steps which the Government could and should take to deliver their own analysis.
Although I admire the report, there is only one mention in it that I can find of an amateur sports club. That is reference to a tiny little football team, which I believe is called the Lambeth Tigers Football Club— God bless it—which, like many tens of thousands of football clubs, provides that which no other agency can provide. The key to this is that they say that they are doing it for themselves and not having it done unto them.
Another report which I believe was published last week is from the Government Office for the East of England and is entitled Draft Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia. In the chapter on tourism, sport and recreation, it states:
"In providing facilities every effort should be made to minimise the need to travel and make the most effective use of existing resources, for example through enhancing facilities in village halls and the community use of schools facilities".
800
Again, that is admirable stuff but there is no reference in the entire chapter to amateur sports clubs.
One message which should go out from this House this evening is that amateur sports clubs are not just there; they are there in their tens of thousands. They cross class divides; they cross occupation divides; they cross age divides. It is not necessary for someone to create them, if that could be done. They are there.
Therefore, I hope that we shall all support the notion not that money is showered on amateur sports clubs from on high, with all the bureaucracy and complications to which other noble Lords have referred, but that the Government should not just consider but get on with encouraging citizens to give to their own sports clubs; to unlock that continuing self-sustaining resource of member subscriptions and grants which will, I believe, make a substantial difference to the facilities which clubs can provide and, in particular, the extent to which small amateur sports clubs can reach out to local schools where, as we all know, the level and quantity of sports provision, particularly team sports, has been sadly declining and declining badly.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for repeating what I have suggested in previous debates. But it is an important matter and, since the last debate, a great deal of energy has been put into the notion of obtaining tax exemptions for gifts to community amateur sports clubs which are akin to those available to charities.
I shall not bore your Lordships with an exposition as to why community amateur sports clubs are not already charities. That is for another day. But suffice to say that the CCPR, Sport England, the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union and virtually every sports association with which we have been in contact support the notion that tax exemptions should be made available to community amateur sports clubs as though they were charities.
The benefits which would flow from that would be, without question, substantial. It would mean that giving would come out of the gross income of the giver and enable the sports club concerned to recover tax at standard rate. It would have the advantage of the extra allowances announced by the Chancellor in the last Budget, and they are substantial. It would mean that people could leave money in their wills with no inheritance tax payable. It would mean that they could give assets and snares without them being taxed. It would mean that the clubs could avoid the penalisation to which my noble friend Lord Addington referred; namely, taxation of their measly interest and dividend income, if they have any.
The problem of confining those exemptions to a class of amateur sports clubs that would keep out undeserving cases is one which has been grappled with in detail. There is now a working definition which is supported by all those bodies which I mentioned, including the National Playing Fields Association. It is felt that it would be a workable, practical definition.

801
I conclude with a quick reference to the proposal's virtues. The beauty of it is that it requires no administration by government. It will not get caught up in government. It will have no cost to government. I see the Minister is pursing his lips, but that is true. The only cost to government will be the exemption itself. Since the exemption will be only one-third to one-quarter of the amount given by the citizens themselves, I put it to the Government that that is about the best conceivable value that they could get. There will be no administration costs save in respect of the Inland Revenue which would police it. I have had an extremely useful and constructive discussion with the Inland Revenue on those issues and it will be possible to cope with them.
We have a keen, committed Minister for Sport. We have support from all the relevant bodies. There is a crying need. The patience of this House is legendary but it is reaching the end of its course. We need to make as much noise as noble Lords can. I hope that the Minister in summing up will say that he, too, will make a noise, because this is a reformation which is "win, win, win".
9.7 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with some humility I rise in my usual position as tail-end Charlie. Your Lordships may hear in the course of one or two of my remarks how I deserve that position in a sporting debate such as tonight's. I start by declaring an interest, first, as the honorary patron of the Scottish Jujitsu Association. When I was installed in that esteemed position—I have not as yet had an opportunity to put it in the declaration of interests—I was given—dare I say it?— a sexy pair of pyjama-like garments and an honorary black belt that excited my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
Secondly, I am honorary patron of Forfar Athletic Football Club; thirdly, I am a fan of a well-known premier league club well known to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. As a real sporting enthusiast in your Lordships' House, it is a wonderful privilege to hear a real sportsman at all levels who practises and who has done so much, both in your Lordships' House and clearly still does in his community: the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
I remember seeing my noble friend Lord Cowdrey play cricket all of 45 years ago—in the flesh, as well as elsewhere. It is typical of him that he continues to put in vast amounts of his time and talent, not just in your Lordships' House but in the way in which he has described. We are extremely lucky to have him here and I suspect that his county is extremely lucky to have him in all types of sport.
Looking at the Speakers' List brought me back to early morning when I quite often put on the radio and hear of the marvellous teams to which my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm referred in rugby league. We hear about "the Rhinos" and "the Bulls", but when I heard of the "Warrington Wolves" I am afraid that I did not immediately think of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that cuddly colleague of mine across the way.
802
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, was right on the button when he mentioned league cricket. I seem to recall, probably about 40 years ago—perhaps less—a young West Indian cricketer by the name of Rohan Kanhai, whom I believe was playing as a professional for Aberdeenshire in the Scottish counties league. My noble friend Lord Cowdrey and certainly my noble friend Lord Monro will know that Scottish cricket tends to be in need of mittens and earmuffs, certainly until midsummer, although clearly in Langholm my noble friend is slightly warmer, south of the hills. I can tell him that in our neck of the woods frostbite will catch you in April, certainly in Lochside park. It just goes to show that league cricket in Scotland and England is alive and well and can be the bedrock for wonderful stars and world stars at their particular sport.
My final declaration of an interest in amateur sport is that for four years I was captain of the Lords and Commons ski club. One cannot find anything more amateur than that. In my youth I was told I was too small for football and rugby. At cricket I was told that I was far too useless. That was out of 500 boys at Eton. I was told to take up scoring. At least that put me on the right path to become a chartered accountant. I am delighted that at least one had some knowledge of that.
Skiing has done wonders for me, quite apart from putting me in the orthopaedic ward. Many of my noble and honourable friends are no strangers to the orthopaedic ward. I believe that I have paid five visits to hospital. Before my noble friend Lord Cowdrey beams too much, I know that the husband of one of his sister-in-laws has paid six visits to the Davos hospital. This year, I believe that the right honourable Member for Devizes actually ran into his own daughter. That is amateur skiing. Both of them finished up in the same ambulance and in adjacent wards in Davos hospital. That just goes to show that amateur sport goes right throughout Parliament and indeed, across the water and perhaps, as far as we know, across the world.
Certainly, skiing and other sports have—not to put too fine a point on it—enriched my life. They have made friends for me throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world. Where else would an electioneering Conservative Peer find pints of lager not poured over him but given to him? I discussed football with a bunch of pensioners in a working men's club and we all agreed that we could do a considerably better job than some of the most select professional players. That aspect of friendship is important. If sport has done so much for me, let alone for my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and indeed for my noble friend Lord Monro, who has given a considerable amount of his time and talent as Minister for Sport and for the Scottish Rugby Union, what can it do for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of small, and perhaps larger, boys and girls throughout this land?
At whatever standard they pitch in, I am reminded of the late Marquess of Exeter. In 1980 in a debate about the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games; the noble Marquess said that sport is not about the Olympics—he had won a gold medal in, I think,

803
1924—but about small boys and girls. I thought of myself staggering around Kensington Gardens getting fit for the Lords and Commons skiing. It is for all of us.
If that friendship has helped me and so many noble Lords, what can it do for all the boys and girls who, first, have pleasure in sport and, secondly, show some aptitude for sport. If they have aptitude, as my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, recommended—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle suggested amateur rugby league in Warrington, the heartland of rugby league—that aptitude will go towards talent. With hard, and harder, work on that talent it seems that a new lifestyle can emerge.
I suspect that the players of, say, Warrington Wolves, work one hundred times harder than any of us amateur sportsmen. They receive enormous professional help. However, I believe that none of that can start unless there is good groundwork in schools, and unless there are facilities in clubs, in gymnasiums and, as in my home town of Kirriemuir, in swimming pools. With the right facilities the mothers and fathers, together with occasional professional help, can encourage boys and girls and see that they start in the right way. All that depends on Government, whether local or central, having some input, be it large or small.
I know that we shall receive some encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising the debate.
I conclude by saying that I have just returned from a visit to the Royal Air Force establishment at Innsworth where we had a lengthy discussion with the Royal Air Force medical services. The experts in that branch of the services were particularly keen to see that PT instructors had more and more training in sports injuries, not just because the boys and girls who are joining the services are so unfit, but because we ask more and more of them. The more sport that boys and girls can play before they join the services, let alone when they are serving, the more it will help to keep them fit. That aspect of sports injuries is particularly relevant to men and women of the services today. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has to say on these wicked cracks. In fact, at about six o'clock on Saturday I did pass by the Old Swan of Liverpool, basking in a blue glow. Like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not just for initiating the debate, but also for being such a wonderful example of a sportsman.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I would not dream of making any further jokes about Everton Football Club. The last time I did so, I received what can only be described as a threatening letter from an Everton supporter. I am steering well clear of that.
I welcome the noble Lord's comment about swimming and swimming clubs. I have a great nephew who swims for Fleetwood Swimming Club. When I
804
went to watch him I was amazed by the amount of voluntary work that goes on in swimming. I was impressed to see how youngsters get involved in local swimming galas through to national competitions.
The pleasure in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell is that one finds out something new about him every time he speaks. I knew that he skied in an Everton shirt, but now the thought of him going to bed in jujitsu pyjamas adds something else.
One regret I have is the reduction in the number of all-round sportsmen. Specialisation at an early age has removed the all-rounder from the scene, but, thank goodness, not from the House of Lords. At 8.15 p.m. the Minister addressed the House as economics, indeed, Treasury Minister and 90 minutes later, after a quick shower and a change of strip, here he is about to address us as the sports Minister.
I always consider the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as the C.B. Fry of the House. At least in this debate he has heard practical ideas. Whether he is wearing his sports hat or his Treasury hat, I hope that he will not approach the matter with a closed mind. The suggestions of cutting red tape, securing extra funding and encouraging greater co-operation between schools and clubs are all worthy of merit.
This debate has rightly emphasised the importance of the amateur clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, laid great emphasis on that. I still get a thrill when I look at the team sheet and see myself listed with Colin Cowdrey. I again pay tribute to the national work he does in promoting sport. Ministers might well listen to his call for a better distribution of lottery funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, paid tribute to non-fashionable sports like judo. Boxing clubs, again not always a fashionable sport to defend, often sited in deprived city areas, can do a lot for social inclusion and deserve to be complimented. As I mentioned, I feel the noble Lord, Lord Monro, was right to talk of the cutting of red tape. We know that we have to look after public money. But these clubs are being run, not only by amateur players, but also by amateur administrators, and too much bureaucracy can clog up the system.
The noble Lord was also right about giving emphasis to the base of the pyramid. I like the idea of our winning medals and competitions. But we look back to the perversion of sport that took place in certain regimes like East Germany, and we can see that the pursuit of elitism and the idea of the result being everything is wrong. It is at the base of the pyramid that we want the emphasis.
My noble friend Lord Phillips returned to the question of tax concessions. Whether we are talking of tax concessions or charitable status, I believe that where there is a will there is a way. Perhaps in his dual capacity the Minister should look at that. It is a way of getting money to the amateur sports clubs with the minimum of bureaucracy. I know that the National Playing Fields Association supports the idea, although it feels also that if tax concessions or charitable status

805
are granted to clubs there should be some safeguard for club assets, not least the playing field if the club is ever wound up.
I have mentioned most of the speeches. Let me make one anticipatory comment. This has been a little bit of a boy's night out. But it is important to emphasise that sport is not only for boys; it is also for girls. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will remind us of that when she speaks. As my noble friend Lord Addington said in opening, it is the social and friendship aspects of amateur sport that are so important—promoting active citizenship, encouraging young people away from crime, promoting health, and promoting social inclusion. Those are benefits we have all come across in our time.
Just to prove to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that it is not only Warrington that has exotic names, my first sports club was Thornton Phoenix. We played on school playing fields, on park pitches and on King George V pitches. It was a tremendous experience. I can still remember the first time we were changing in a tin hut and there came a knock on the door. We opened the door and were faced with three little boys wanting autographs. Never were three little boys given autographs so quickly; it was quite an experience.
I make the point also that it is not just a matter of school and amateur sports clubs. I want to see the professional clubs involved. I pay tribute to two clubs near where I live now, occupying the same ground. The first is Watford Football Club and the other Saracens Rugby Club. Both have imaginative schemes in the local community, bringing the children to see how the club works, meeting the players and helping with training. That could be emulated and encouraged.
A Sporting Future for All has been mentioned. That reflects the Minister's practical approach. I leave the Minister with two points tonight. The White Paper commits the Government to stem the sale of sports fields. When I referred to an article in the Daily Mail in January, the Minister rather imperiously slapped me down and said that the Government had the matter in hand. However, the Observer of 13th February bears a headline,
"Scandal of playing fields that Labour didn't save".
I am sure that the Minister has all the statistics to hand but there is still a suspicion abroad, and much empirical evidence, that the sale of sports fields is continuing. The Government will not be judged on their slogans but on people's experiences at the "sharp end". The Government will be found out if they do not defend sports fields.
Many suggestions have been made with regard to financing. Sport is one of the great driving forces of successful television, but sport makes for good television and not vice versa. I do not care whether Ministers do this by means of tax, levies or voluntary schemes but they must shake down to the grass roots some of the enormous sums of money that televised sport receives. It is not right that that money should be enjoyed only at the top level of sport. We seek initiatives from Ministers to shake clown this money
806
from television to the grass roots to sustain sport. I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating the debate. I declare an interest as a member of Woking Golf Club and of the Chris Lane Club. I cannot say that I share the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of wallowing in mud as part of a rugby scrum but I regret to say that on occasions I have certainly wallowed in mud when I have driven a golf ball offline. Last weekend I watched professionals do that at Sunningdale.
Sport matters. Those are the opening words of the Conservative Party's paper on sport that was published in February this year. Just two weeks ago the Government finally published their long awaited sports strategy. I note that they kick off with exactly the same words. As imitation is the best form of flattery, who am I—it is the most sincere form of flattery, as the Minister says—to complain? As the Government appear to have incorporated some of our good ideas in their strategy, we must be on a winning side at the moment.
As many noble Lords have said tonight, sport is vitally important to the physical and mental health of the nation, as well as being, of course, a multi-billion pound industry. At its best sport is exciting, passionate and hugely enjoyable. If anyone ever doubted that, they need listen only to my noble friend Lord Lyell to realise what enthusiasm for sport can inspire. Indeed, someone who makes a 700-mile return trip to watch Everton deserves congratulations from someone, even from an Arsenal supporter such as myself!
In short, sport can help to improve our whole quality of life. A testament to the huge popularity of sport is the massive and invaluable contribution that amateur clubs and their volunteers make in this field. My noble friend Lord Cowdrey was right to draw attention to the importance of the contribution made by volunteers to school sports. As he said, that is the gateway to the grass roots of sport.
Community spirit and national identity are fostered through sport. For the individual it offers a sense of personal accomplishment; it has health-related benefits; it teaches people how to win and lose with equanimity—although I am not too sure when I have taken part in sport that I have lost always with equanimity, but I keep trying—and it can improve cognitive skills such as literacy and numeracy.
For society as a whole, sport can help to reduce the level of crime; it can help to channel aggression; and it can play a vital role in dismantling social and ethnic barriers. We should work to ensure that no one is excluded from enjoying sport on the grounds of disability, race, background or gender.
When I met representatives of the Women's Sports Foundation yesterday, I was impressed by the work that they are doing to improve and promote opportunities for women and girls in and through

807
sport at every level. The Conservative Party welcomes the foundation's national action plan, which has recently been published, and wholeheartedly endorses it.
It is also crucial that members of ethnic minorities are not excluded from playing, organising, refereeing or watching sport at any level as a result of racism.
It is important that governments should recognise the immense and positive contribution which sport brings to our communities across the country, ensuring that the requirements of sport are properly taken into account across the whole spectrum of policy and in funding decisions.
It is also important to recognise that sometimes the best thing that governments can do is simply to leave amateur sports clubs to get on with their own lives, with as little regulation and interference as possible. Governments should avoid taking measures that unfairly or unnecessarily impede the development of amateur sports clubs.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, it is important that sports structures in the United Kingdom should be as simple, co-ordinated and well-understood as possible. Yet, at the same time, we must recognise that there is merit in the very diversity of our amateur clubs. We should welcome their vibrancy and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. If too much bureaucracy is imposed on them, it simply stifles that enthusiasm and individuality. My noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm was right to draw attention to the need to simplify the red tape that entangles sports bodies, especially when they come to apply for funds.
I, too, pay tribute to the army of parents and young people who already give up huge amounts of their spare time to organise sport for others and, of course, to play in it themselves.
The Conservative Party believes that it is vital that we should use the tax system to help and support the amateur sector and its volunteers. Genuinely amateur clubs—others say that there is an acceptable definition of such clubs which encompasses those which do not pay players appearance money, have open membership rules and spend surplus money on their own activities—should perhaps enjoy charitable status or other concessions which will make it possible for them to thrive. Certainly charitable status would encourage people to give more to charity; people could see their money going directly to help their local sports organisation.
I pay tribute to the work carried out patiently behind the scenes during the past year or so by Sport England to push this whole debate forward. It submitted a comprehensive response to the Charity Commission's review of the Recreational Charities Act 1958. It has held talks with a wide range of those in the political world, including the Conservative culture, media and sport team.
Last October my honourable friend Richard Spring asked a series of Written Questions in another place about charitable status and voluntary sports clubs. I
808
shall not go into the response given by the Minister for Sport in another place, but certainly I am aware that many discussions have taken place since that occasion and that all are hopeful that some progress has been made. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress in practical terms the Government have been able to achieve.
I should like to raise one further matter—it has been touched upon in general by one or two noble Lords— which was brought to my attention by the Nationwide Conference, and I thank it for its, as usual, helpful briefing. It concerns the issue of the diminishing availability of sports fields that are adequate for amateur sports clubs, in particular our junior and youth football clubs. I am not complaining about the falling number of playing fields. I am looking here at the availability for use by amateur clubs of existing sports facilities.
Many schools no longer hire their facilities or make them available to local youth teams on Sunday mornings for a variety of what to the schools are good reasons. They may not have a caretaker available or willing to be on duty in the morning. I am advised that that problem has become increasingly bad in the south of England where clubs are in demise having been unable to find adequate facilities or the local pitch hire is too expensive. It now costs as much as £60 to £70 per match to hire a pitch in places such as Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and those with adequate changing facilities, such as dressing rooms and showers, are even more expensive. One may pay £60 to £70 per match just for a field—without any facilities.
Junior clubs simply cannot fund the escalating cost of facilities, which is reducing the number of teams in competitions, particularly in the youth age group 16 to 18 and amateur Saturday/Sunday morning teams. What measures do the Government believe could be adopted to address this problem?
We on these Benches recognise the importance of the role of amateur sports clubs and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the concerns raised by all noble Lords. It is important that we resolve them—for sport matters.
9.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for triggering a wide-ranging and stimulating debate. Those who are familiar with my lack of sporting prowess will be amazed to learn that I have an interest to declare. I am the father of the secretary of the Black Rose of Highgate Cricket Club—the Black Rose of Highgate, I hasten to say, being a free house on the Archway Road in Highgate. But it is a quite respectable club.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go over in any great detail the issue of sport in schools. We debated it a few weeks ago and it is the second of the three legs of the sports strategy which we published two weeks ago. Before I go on to the issue of amateur clubs, I want to echo the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to all those adults who take part in

809
helping school sports on a voluntary basis. They do a marvellous job. As the noble Lord rightly said, they do it without pay and sometimes even at their own expense and very often with inadequate thanks or recognition.
Before I leave the issue of school sports, I want to respond to what the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Monro, said about the interrelationship between adult sports and schools. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about co-operation between the outside world and schools. We have the World Class Performance Programme, which is helping élite performers. One of the conditions of the programme is that they should volunteer to carry out a minimum number of school visits every year as part of an ongoing development plan to raise the aspirations of young people in sport and in life.
More than that, Sport England is setting up 600 school sports co-ordinators to organise coaching, after-school activities and inter-school competitions. Kate Hoey, the Sports Minister, announced last week the first areas to benefit from this £60 million Lottery programme. The co-ordinators will work with schools and local authorities to give children more opportunities to take part in after-school activities. That includes organising inter-school competitions in the major sports and other activities such as coaching sessions, training, sports days, swimming lessons, fitness courses and outdoor pursuits. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who expressed concern about these matters.
It has properly been a theme of the debate that there are enormous social and health benefits to be gained from sport, particularly amateur sport. Millions of people watch and take part in sport. It is such a topic of conversation that I have just been handed the score for the match between Manchester United and Real Madrid. It is 3:2 to Manchester, with one minute to go. Indeed, the match is probably over now.
The Government are determined to ensure equality of opportunity for all in every area, including sport. We shall continue to take steps to remove obstacles that prevent people making the most of their abilities. Our policy of sport for all is aimed at encouraging everyone into sport. The degree to which physical activity makes a contribution to health is well-known. It can bring about a reduction in coronary heart disease, strokes, hypertension, osteoporosis, colon cancer and obesity, and it can improve mental health.
We want to see more people from all parts of society taking part in sport and active recreation. In particular, we want to see more participation by those groups who are less likely to be involved at present: the elderly, women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to women in sport and to ethnic minorities. I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. Applications to lottery sports funds are required to demonstrate ways of encouraging the participation of women when applying for funding. As regards ethnic minorities, on 21st March Kate Hoey launched a new charter designed to end racism in sport, drawn up by
810
Sporting Equals, a partnership project set up by Sport England and the Commission for Racial Equality and backed by national governing bodies.
Sport offers tremendous opportunities to participants. It is a powerful tool in shaping attitudes and behaviour. If we want a fitter, healthier population, demonstrating qualities such as co-operation, responsibility, self-discipline and determination, we need to encourage the widest range of sporting activity, in particular at an amateur level.
But of course, government do not run sport. Sport belongs to the millions of people who play, officiate, organise and support it. That is the way it should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recognised that point. It is a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because of the enthusiasm and commitment of the people who run sport, many of whom have spoken in this debate; it gives protection to the values of fun, friendship and fair play which underpin the role that sport plays. But it is a weakness because it means that the organisation of sport is fragmented. It is run by hundreds of organisations, many of them highly professional, but some relying entirely on poorly supported volunteers with very limited resources.
There is a clear role for government to provide opportunities and encouragement for as many people as possible to take part in sport, to offer leadership to the sector in order to help the many bodies which agree to contribute to common aims and a split of responsibilities, to ensure that we maximise the contribution that sport makes to people's broader priorities such as better health and education and pride in our nation. I am happy to add to what we can do the aim of cutting red tape, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and a number of other speakers. A Sporting Future for All spells out the Government's vision for sport and our commitment to achieving that.
Before I leave that point, I ought to say a word about funding. It was referred to first by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, who repeated the claim that I have heard him make before that there is less money for sport now than in the past. That is simply not the case. The Exchequer funding is well known: it is £34 million for Sport England and £13 million for UK Sport. It is the first increase in Exchequer funding for many years.
In addition, lottery funding through Sport England this year and next is in a range between £470 million and £590 million; and funding from the New Opportunities Fund includes £80 million for out-of-school learning and £125 million for open spaces. Both of those include provision for sport. Within that global figure community amateur sport is ring-fenced. Sport England states that 75 per cent of its expenditure will be devoted to community sport. There is also specific emphasis in the White Paper on grass roots funding, which was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Hoyle.
What does the strategy mean for amateur clubs? It means giving a lead to key players in delivering sporting opportunity and excellence. We recognise the importance of a wide provision of facilities, and we need to improve information as to what is available. In

811
particular, we see strong potential in the thousands of sports clubs in this country. Schools and clubs must be the first step on a clear pathway to higher levels of competition for those with ability and a desire to progress.
A number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Hoyle and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in referring to their own amateur sports clubs, put flesh on the description in the White Paper of hub and satellite clubs. The vast range of activities that they undertake is a good exemplar of what we mean by hub and satellite clubs and how they can help each other.
As to charitable status for sports organisations, I acknowledge the role which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular has played in the work being undertaken by the department together with Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association to devise a particular form of tax relief to help sports bodies in their role in the community. The Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey, is made very well aware of this every time she visits community clubs across the country. For that reason, the matter is being considered actively by the department and will be discussed with the Treasury, although I cannot say what the outcome will be.
We have also discussed with the Charity Commission the question of sports clubs seeking charitable status, but that can be a very difficult process. The Charity Commission is reviewing the register of charities. Last year the commission issued a consultation paper on the Recreational Charities Act 1958. There are concerns about how the term "social welfare" in that Act is interpreted and junior sections of clubs can become charitable concerns. The Charity Commission will consult on charity law and sport later this year but obviously will not itself change the
812
existing law. I note what my noble friend Lord Hoyle says about rate relief for sports clubs. This is primarily a matter for local authorities themselves, although I note my noble friend's point that any rate relief that they give should be made up from central funds.
Very little reference was made to playing fields. Therefore, I believe that I can rely on the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, last time. First, In 1998–99 there were 800 applications for the change of use of sports fields, only six of which were granted against the advice of Sport England. Secondly, although disposals still take place—we do not advocate a complete halt which would freeze playing field provision in this country in an undesirable way—the number has reduced from 40 to six a month. If the noble Lord is concerned about what he describes as "a suspicion abroad", I hope he will reassure those who voice it that we are keeping to our manifesto commitment.
In view of the time, perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness about the issue of access to school playing fields by junior clubs.
As to drugs, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, the Positive Futures initiative was launched on 27th March. The particular aim of Sport England, the Youth Justice Board and the UK Anti-Drugs Coordination Unit is to help vulnerable 10 to 16 year-olds, and in the first year the cost, spread over 24 projects, will be about £950,000.
I have reached the end of my allocated time. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and all who have taken part in this debate. Our document, A Sporting Future for All, covers three key areas: sport in schools, lifelong participation, and sporting excellence. We have had the opportunity to debate sport in schools. I am very pleased that we have had this opportunity to debate lifelong participation.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.