Sitting of 14 November 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (UIG PIER, SKYE)
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Regional Council (Uig Pier, Skye); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 20 November and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the most recent United Nations resolution on the subject of the Falkland Islands.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): We voted against this resolution. It is not mandatory. We are not prepared to enter into negotiations on sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but we remain ready to re-build confidence with Argentina by means of a dialogue on practical ways of improving bilateral relations.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the case of the British Government—and, indeed, of the British people — would be a good deal stronger if social and economic conditions in the islands were nearer the norms of 1984 than those of 1784? Is it not a fact that the principal proprietor and factor in the Falkland Islands is one company, whose profits go to absentee shareholders? Is it not also a fact that Lord Shackleton some years ago reported that the land should be made available to the Falkland Islanders? Why are the Government not pursuing that aim more vigorously?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's references to the distinctions between 1784 and 1984 are rather obscure. There has been press speculation about the private contracts which the Falkland Islands Company entered into with individuals. Those contracts were all entered into
    666
    freely, without coercion. There is no evidence that would lead us to suppose—and we have checked with the Civil Commissioner — that any degree of coercion was involved in the agreement of those contracts. We are satisfied that under the auspices of the Falkland Islands Development Corporation there will be a gradual approach—as Lord Shackleton recommended—to the question of land subdivision and redistribution. That will take time, but steps are being taken.
    Sir Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently returned from a visit to the Falkland Islands? There is no doubt that the people there are 150 per cent. British and that for us to talk about sovereignty at present could mean only that distance and expense had weakened resolve and honour. Although we can talk to the Argentines about many things, including minerals and oil, does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot now or in years to come sell British people unless they wish to live under a different regime, and there is no doubt that the Falkland Islanders do not wish to do so?
    Mr. Renton: I am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have recently visited the Falkland Islands, and I hope that they all had a most instructive time there. Much of what my hon. Friend said, I endorse. We believe that the Argentines will realise that sovereignty is not for negotiation and that, putting that aside, they wilt themselves search for means by which we can talk about how to improve relations between our two countries on a bilateral basis.
    Mr. Heffer: I shall set aside the question whether it was right or wrong to go to war with Argentina—an action which I personally supported at that time. However, now that — as a result of the war — there is a democratically elected Government in Argentina, should we not seriously discuss the future of the Falkland Islands with that Government? Is the Minister aware that, with our finances, we should not pretend that we can sustain the islands for ever, when they are bound to become a bigger and bigger white elephant and supporting them will not serve any purpose for the future of this country?
    Mr. Renton: Like the hon. Gentleman, we welcomed the restoration of democracy in Argentina. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed it in a message to President Alfonsin last December, and our ambassador to the United Nations made strong reference to it in his speech in the Falklands debate. Although the hon. Gentleman talks in those terms, has he thought about the rights of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination? In our wish to begin talking to Argentina about progress to more normal bilateral relations, it would be sensible for Argentina to realise that the transfer of sovereignty, which is what Argentina means by talking about sovereignty, is not on.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that President Alfonsin was completely opposed to the invasion of the Falkland Islands and should, therefore, be supported on that account? Was it not wrong for one org of Government—not the Foreign Office—actively to discourage Conservative Members of the European Parliament from meeting President Alfonsin on his recent visit to the European Parliament? Is that not completely contradictory to what the Conservative party stands for, and more like the behaviour of a squalid Socialist Council?
    Mr. Renton: We believed that the European Parliament's invitation to President Alfonsin was inappropriate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said "inappropriate", bearing in mind the fact that one member of the European Community—Britain—does not have diplomatic relations with Argentina and that Argentina has not yet agreed to a formal cessation of hostilities with Britain. In those circumstances, my use of the word "inappropriate" is perfectly fair and reasonable.
    Mr. George Robertson: What is inappropriate about the European Parliament inviting the newly elected President of a republic to address it—a President who kicked out the junta who invaded the Falkland Islands—and allowing Conservative Members of the European Parliament, who have also been elected, to listen respectfully to someone who has a mandate? As someone who has just returned from Argentina, I assure the Minister that the newly elected Government have a genuine, deeply felt desire to achieve a settlement that will be in the interests of Britain, Argentina and, crucially, of the Falkland Islanders. Should we not expect from the Government a reasonable response to such a conciliatory feeling before it becomes impossible to sustain such conciliatory feelings in that country?
    Mr. Renton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back from his trip to Argentina, which I am sure he found useful. I must stress that on many occasions during the past 12 months we have sought opportunities for the sort of talks with Argentina that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The formula that led to the Berne talks was arrived at after months of negotiations, and following an initial message from Britain. We did not break the formula that had been agreed for Berne; the Argentines broke it by their insistence on talking about sovereignty. We hope that, putting sovereignty on one side, we will be able to talk with the Argentines about a range of options that will lead to normal bilateral relations between our countries.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to those hon. Members who have questions later on the Order Paper, I ask for briefer questions.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Ethiopia.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Ethiopia, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to go out later this month to look at relief operations.
    Mr. Home Robertson: One hopes that this relief operation will be making headway. As the Foreign Secretary will eventually have to carry the can for the cuts in the real value of the foreign aid budget announced by the Chancellor earlier this week, is the Minister prepared to give the House a clear, categorical undertaking that the aid programme for Ethiopia and other famine-hit areas will be expanded in line with the clearly expressed demand of the nation?
    Mr. Rifkind: It has already been made clear to the House that any recent decisions involving public expenditure will not affect humanitarian aid to Ethiopia.
    Mr. Baldry: Would it not be better for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go to Brussels, rather than Ethiopia, and take a firm lead in the Council of Ministers to persuade the other nations of the Community that, at a time when our granaries are groaning with grain, it should cut through the budgetary red tape and ensure that sufficient supplies reach drought-affected Africa?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware that my hon. Friend has returned from a trip to Ethiopia, during which he saw many horrors, and his views are listened to with great care and attention. The British Government, in the person of the Prime Minister, have already taken an initiative within the Community, and, thanks to that initiative, since October the Community has already agreed on £35 million-worth of food aid to go to that country.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The monetary figures being bandied about as being the prospective cuts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for next year are similar to the figures that would provide the 600,000 to 750,000 tonnes of grain required for basic feeding over the next 12 months. Will the Minister bear that in mind when he, or his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, visits Ethiopia?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, and the House as a whole, will appreciate that such is the scale of the problem faced by Ethiopia that it is necessary to pursue an international response. Britain has shown a willingness to make substantial contributions, and we have taken the initiative in multilateral and international organisations. It is through international co-operation that the greatest impact can be made.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, when he visits Ethiopia, to point out to that Government that if they spent on food the vast amounts of money that they spent on celebrating the Marxist revolution and buying arms from Russia fewer people would be starving? At a critical time such as this is it not appalling for the United Nations to be proposing to spend £15 million on building a conference centre in Ethiopia?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A country that finds it impossible to provide basic food requirements for its population should think carefully before using its resources on what many would consider to be less essential matters.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Having assured the House that there will be no cut in the short-term food aid, will the Minister assure the House that there will be no cuts in long-term aid? He will recall that most people in the world said, after the appalling famine in Ethiopia in 1972–73, that it should never be allowed to happen again. Is it not true that unless we give such countries long-term aid during the next few years we shall face further crises? Is it not as important for us to give them long-term aid as it is for us to give them immediate emergency food aid?
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept that the long-term problems of Ethiopia require more than just emergency food aid. The hon. Gentleman, who has just returned from that country,

    669
    will agree that the immediate problem on which the international community should concentrate is that of the many thousands who face imminent starvation unless there is an adequate international response.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Is it not a matter for congratulating the Government that they have provided emergency relief and food aid to Ethiopia, not just in the past few months, but over at least two years before that? Under the definition of continuing humanitarian aid to Ethiopia, will my hon. Friend be able to sustain development designed to offset the effects of drought in Ethiopia and other countries if the budget of the Foreign Office is not compensated for exchange rate changes and inflation rate rises overseas?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right when he says that British aid to Ethiopia began not just in the past two months. In the past two years no less than £13 million worth of food has been given directly by the United Kingdom to help overcome the problems of starvation in Ethiopia.
    As for the longer term, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to look at the competing claims of Ethiopia and other countries for assistance via our general overseas aid policy.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Minister agree, first, that the scale of the human tragedy in Ethiopia is such as to make ignoble and unworthy the sort of political point scoring into which he was tempted a moment ago, and, secondly, that the scale of the existing tragedy in Ethiopia far dwarfs the amount of aid which is being given by Europe and the United States? The famine in other African countries, notably Sudan and Chad, which border Ethiopia, is fast approaching the same scale. Therefore very much more humanitarian aid is needed immediately. If similar disasters are to be avoided in future years, development aid must be vastly increased above the level that Her Majesty's Government have so far found fit to provide.
    Mr. Rifkind: I acknowledge at once that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of political point scoring he does so from a position of great experience.
    On the wider issues that he raised, I think he will accept that long-term economic aid for Ethiopia or any other country takes account of considerations which go far beyond the relief of immediate suffering and potential starvation. I am sure he will accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be applying the usual developmental criteria in deciding how to use the available resources.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: No. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman may ask only one supplementary question.

    Turkey
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between Her Majesty's Government and Turkey.
    Mr. Renton: Turkey is an important and valued NATO ally of the United Kingdom. We welcome the progress towards the return to full democracy made since the elections last November, but look forward to further steps in this direction.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Minister not think it ironic that the American Government are making such a fuss over the elections in Nicaragua when we see Turkey, as a member of NATO and of the Council of Europe, still under martial law, repressing human rights and imprisoning trade unionists and peace campaigners? Will the Minister make clear to our Government, to the Turkish Government and to the United States Government the British people's repugnance at such double standards?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman complains of the slow progress towards democracy in Turkey, but he must recognise that in the local elections this March more parties took part than in the national elections last November and that 33 out of Turkey's 67 provinces will have had martial law lifted by 19 November. I understand and share his concern about human rights and about the trial of the trade unionists to which he referred, but he might like to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has had four discussions in the past 12 months with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Halefogln, at two of which the question of human rights was raised.

    Israel
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Israel.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I visited Israel from 28 to 30 October. I was able to have friendly and open discussions with senior Ministers in the new Israeli Government on international and bilateral issues. I explained to them our support for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and for early progress towards a settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute. I also had a most useful meeting with Palestinian representatives.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on the way that he handled that visit. Does he agree that now is a very appropriate time for a new and major United States initiative to achieve peace in the middle east? Would not that initiative benefit from the fact that the Israeli response, for better or worse—and it is to be hoped for better—would be the response of a national coalition Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that the Arab-Israel problem cannot and will not be solved simply by being neglected and that time is not on the side of those who argue that. There is a case for seeking once again to move forward the search for a peaceful conclusion of the differences there, and the completion of the American election provides a fresh opportunity for considering that matter actively. Whether the existence of a coalition Government makes it easier or more difficult to see progress is a matter about which I reserve judgment.
    Mr. Johnston: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with the Israeli Government the absolute necessity of halting Israeli settlements on the West Bank as a precondition for any initiative of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and state that that point was being put strongly to the United States Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was certainly one of the points to which I drew attention. I drew attention to the

    671
    need to have regard to both principles — respect for Israel's right to a secure existence and respect for the right of the Palestinians to self-determination—if there is to be progress towards a solution. I made it plain that the Israeli settlements were illegal, that their continued existence represented an obstacle to peace and that a freeze on that policy would increase confidence in Israeli intentions.
    Mr. Latham: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his successful visit. Will he take this opportunity to put his weight behind a strengthening of UNIFIL and its redeployment in south Lebanon to help bring about a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces and at the same time to protect Israel's northern frontier and its communities in Galilee?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have long favoured an expansion in the size and mandate of UNIFIL to facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli troops. Indeed, the idea was first put forward by this country in September last year.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the improved relations between the United Kingdom and Israel fostered by the Foreign Secretary's visit, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reaffirm the Government's opposition to the Arab boycott and reconsider the continued authentication of Arab boycott documents, which is so greatly resented by Israel and by those who believe in free trade among democratic countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly renew our deploration of all attempts by third parties to restrict trade with Israel and thus of the boycott itself. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, just over a year ago we completed a review of the kind that he requests on Foreign and Commonwealth Office authentication. We concluded that it would not be right to change the present position. It is a standard legal procedure and does no more than confirm the validity of the signature. It is true that this causes continuing anxiety in Israel—I heard and took note of it—but I do not wish to encourage the belief that we intend to renew the review.
    Mr. Walters: As the illegal Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank are a major impediment to progress towards peace, what further steps does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to take, possibly with our European partners, to ensure that that major obstacle is removed?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall be considering the matter yet again in the European Community in the light of the re-election of President Reagan, but I do not wish to encourage the belief that we shall be launching a new initiative — [Interruption.] I appreciate hon. Members' amusement at that comment, but it is all too easy to generate the hope of some dramatic new breakthrough when what is really needed is sustained application by the European Community, in consultation with the United States, to try to get the parties to move forward along the lines that I have described. I shall certainly seek to promote progress in that direction.
    Mr. Concannon: Having been involved in the Palestinian problem for nearly 40 years, since 1945, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his robust statement regarding the Palestinians and for meeting their representatives. Is there any chance of some action to follow those final words?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the interests of Israel as much as of the Palestinians the problem cannot be left to fester, as it is likely to get worse rather than better. It is thus important to urge on both sides the need to move towards recognising the principles that I have enunciated and to start the negotiation process. We shall do all that we sensibly can within the European Community and in concert with the United States, but the 40-year duration to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is one reason for approaching the matter with a cautious, though energetic, disposition.

    Stockholm Disarmament Conference
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest session of the Stockholm disarmament conference.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): In the third session, which began on 11 September and ended on 12 October, the British Government, in close consultation with other Western delegations, continued their efforts to develop a detailed discussion on the practical confidence-building proposals tabled by the West at the outset of the conference. The neutral and non-aligned countries participated in this. To our disappointment the Eastern countries did not appear ready to discuss details either of these measures or of their own vague declaratory proposals. The conference resumed on 6 November.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm and stress that it was the United Kingdom Government who put forward specific and attainable proposals, such as the notification of the structure and deployment of military forces and the observation of military exercises, and that it was the Soviet Government who, sadly, not only failed to respond to those specific proposals but indulged in what can only be described as well-worn propagandist platitudes that have done nothing to build up confidence and trust between European nations?
    Mr. Luce: I can confirm that it was the United Kingdom Government, in conjunction with our Western allies, who earlier this year put forward practical proposals designed to enhance the exchange of information about the structure and deployment of forces and of the mandatory observation of regular military activities. The purpose of those proposals is to build up trust and to try to reduce misunderstanding and the element of surprise that could arise as a result of potential aggression. So far, we have simply had declaratory measures from the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc and a total unwillingness to talk about those practical measures. We have the political will; the test is whether they have.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister agree that the re-election of President Reagan at least allows a new opportunity urgently to reopen talks on arms reduction, but that the serious problem will now be to persuade the Soviet Union that the "evil empire" type of rhetoric has ended and that the President and his Administration mean business? Will he take every opportunity in Stockholm and elsewhere to convince our allies of their responsibility to show that we are all interested in reducing tension and arriving at the agreements that are so urgently necessary?
    Mr. Luce: I must agree that the re-election of President Reagan gives a renewed opportunity for the Western world and the United States to pursue the question of arms control with the utmost vigour. I believe that the President of the United States wishes to do that and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to work closely with the United States in supporting, for example, its proposals that there should be discussions of arms restraint in outer space and in urging the Soviet Union to be sensible enough to come back to the negotiating table, which must surely be in its interests.

    Libya
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's relations with Libya.
    Mr. Luce: Four of the hostages detained by the Libyan authorities earlier this year are still being held. We continue to make vigorous representations through the Italian protecting power, and through other channels, to secure their early release. We look to the Libyan authorities to give a fair and open trial to the two who were recently charged with security offences. While British citizens are being held without justification we cannot begin to look at ways of dealing with other problems between us and the Libyan authorities.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend go somewhat further and confirm to the House that we will not give in to Libyan blackmail by entertaining at any time a swap of the two British citizens who have been arrested with terrorists held in Britain? At the same time, will he confirm that those British citizens in Libya at the moment are being adequately represented?
    Mr. Luce: I must endorse strongly what my hon. Friend has just said. There can be no blackmail whatever as a result of the four citizens who have been detained. If we, as a Government, were to follow the policy of handing over those who have been convicted in British courts of terrorist offences, that would undoubtedly greatly increase the danger to British subjects in many other parts of the world. We cannot conceivably contemplate that.
    We are watching the interests of the four citizens with great concern and are taking action with regard to Mr. Russell and Mr. Anderson, against whom we believe that there are now charges, to clarify the nature of those charges, to ensure that they have adequate legal representation and to work hard to ensure that their trial is open, fair and is held as early as possible.
    Mr. Ryman: Will the MInister confirm, or deny, that Libyan nationals are being trained in this country by the NCB in the use of computers which could easily be adapted for military purposes?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot give a specific answer, but I shall look into the matter. We broke off diplomatic relations with Libya on 22 April 1984 in the light of the terrible incident in which WPC Fletcher was killed. We do not have any official relations with that country, but ordinary trade continues. There are still 4,000 British subjects in Libya and I hope that the House will take note of that.

    Departmental Costs
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said on 27 June, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is continuously seeking to reduce costs. The process is continuing despite the increasing demands on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which were recognised by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its report on the FCO and ODA Supply Estimates. Measures which are being taken or planned to control running costs include, for example, travel and freight arrangements, office cleaning and secretarial services and computerisation of certain accounting processes in the ODA.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's swift and humane action in Ethiopia will be unaffected by any expenditure review currently in process?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I give my hon. Friend the immediate assurance that in the course of the review of my programmes there will be no reduction whatever in the allocations made for humanitarian aid to poorer countries, including disaster or famine relief of the sort now being given to Ethiopia and elsewhere, and that any effect on the overall aid programme will be modest, and certainly not on the scale suggested in some newspapers. I am taking a very careful look at all the overseas activities apart from aid for which I am responsible, including the British Council, the external services of the BBC, military training and assistance, and diplomatic representation, and I will decide where adjustments can best be made al the national interest.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many of us believe that there is no case for any cut—even a modest one — in the aid budget? Given the problems of the Diplomatic Service with the movement of currencies, is it not reasonable that that should be met out of the Contingency Reserve? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that if he makes savings he will cut back on some of the larger missions and not reduce the number of missions? It is a sign of success that over the past 20 years the Foreign Office has expanded the number of missions by 19 per cent. while having a 20 per cent. cut in the Diplomatic Service. Even single diplomat missions are better than withdrawing from any country.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman understands from his own experience that the programmes of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have to be managed within the framework of the Government's economic policy as a whole. He is right to draw attention to the scope for savings in the area that he has identified, but the fact that there has been a cut means that the scope for further progress in that direction may be limited. However, I assure him that no possible option will be excluded from my consideration.
    Mr. Rippon: Is it not the height of folly that we spend billions of pounds on defence and yet appear to grudge every penny spent on foreign policy? In view of the

    675
    importance of the issues involved, will my right hon. and learned Friend produce a White Paper setting out the precise nature and purpose of any cuts that he has in mind?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. and learned Friend must understand that the balancing of all policies—whether on defence, Foreign and Commonwealth representation or on the substantial domestic programmes which are themselves having to face reductions—must be undertaken by arriving at the best balance of judgment. The House will be kept informed of my conclusions in the usual way.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm the estimate of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), that the figures announced on Monday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer imply a cut in real terms of between £30 million and £100 million in the expenditure for which the Foreign Secretary is responsible? How can he possibly justify any cut in the aid programme when recent events have proved that it is now desperately urgent to increase it by at least 50 per cent. so that it represents the same proportion of national wealth as under the previous Labour Government?
    How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify any cut in other instruments of British foreign policy, already cut well beyond the bone in some cases, when the Government are increasing their expenditure on the European Community by £200 million more than planned earlier this year? Does he think that these priorities reflect a rational view of Britain's interests?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The reductions achieved in Britain's contributions as a result of the Fontainebleau negotiations are substantial and amount to about £2½ billion. The Labour Government's arrangements achieved not one penny saving. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that all Governments have to arrive at a set of decisions which fit alongside each other in the allocation of their programmes. He must remember that when he performed the Chancellor's duties he announced reductions in the aid programme of £50 million in three successive years. That was a reduction on a much more substantial scale and it did not exclude an impact on the poorest people.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Spain and Portugal
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress in negotiations, on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC.
    Mr. Rifkind: Negotiations have been substantially completed in 10 of the 17 chapters in the Spanish accession negotiations, and 11 of the 17 chapters in the Portuguese negotiations. Negotiations continue on the outstanding issues, including such difficult problems as agriculture, fisheries and Spanish industrial tariffs, with the aim of resolving them in time for Spain and Portugal to enter the Community on 1 January 1986.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is not the date of accession rapidly receding once again? Will this not be seen as a sign of a lack of enthusiasm and good will on the part of other members of the European Community? Does the Minister
    676
    agree that it is unfortunate that Portugal and Spain are linked in the accession negotiations, because the Portuguese negotiations could be concluded earlier than the Spanish negotiations?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is right to attach importance to the date of 1 January 1986. We still believe that that date can be adhered to. There has been more progress in the Portuguese negotiations, but even they are not yet complete. It seems sensible therefore, since many of the issues are similar, for the negotiations to go hand in hand.
    Mr. Body: As Spain has been building up the largest fishing fleet on the continent of Europe in preparation for entry into the Common Market, will my hon. Friend make plain this afternoon to what extent he can give an assurance to the fishermen of England — the fishermen of this country—that their livelihoods will not be endangered?
    Mr. Rifkind: We attach enormous importance to the issues that affect the fisherman of the United Kingdom as a whole. Negotiations involve fisheries, which is one of the most difficult issues to resolve. We have made it clear that the common fisheries policy, which was agreed only after many years of difficult and delicate negotiation, cannot be disrupted as a result of Spanish accession. I believe that the Spanish authorities are realistic enough to realise that any fisheries agreement must take account of the existing interests of member states.
    Mr. Johnston: What will the Community be able to do to help Portugal when it joins? It is the poorest country in Europe. Unless there is a significant increase in the Community budget to enable expenditure to take place in Portugal through the regional and social funds, will not all the talk about political good will and democratic stability be seen as empty rhetoric?
    Mr. Rifkind: Portugal will be the poorest member of the enlarged Community and cannot be required to be a net contributor, however much the existing arrangements might otherwise point in that direction. Negotiations are still to take place on the own resources chapter and I am sure that all the circumstances will be taken into account.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the fishing industry and about the threat posed by Spain, but does he accept that there is considerable alarm and hostility over the possiblity that the whole question of fishing will now be pushed off until after Spain's accession? Does he agree that the uncertainty which that will cause will be incredibly damaging, not least to the fishermen of the south-west of England?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that there is any danger of that. The main issues to be resolved during the current negotiations concern the length of the transitional period, transitional arrangements for access to waters and resources and fishery relations with third countries. All interested parties realise that the Community must reach a view in advance of Spain's accession. I am sure that that point will be put to the Spanish Government with great force.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition share the Government's concern that Spain and Portugal should be admitted to the Community on schedule? We are also concerned to ensure that the interests of the fishermen of the whole of the United Kingdom are protected. Is the

    677
    Minister aware that the Opposition share the widespread outrage of the British public at British criminals being able to hide in Spain outwith the jurisdiction of British law? Can the Minister confirm that a condition of Spain's accession will be an agreement on extradition? How far have we progressed towards that?
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement on behalf of the Opposition confirming that they, too, attach importance to Spanish and Portuguese membership of the Community.
    Extradition matters do not fall within the negotiations for Spanish membership of the Community.

    Joint Policy Commitments
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European Economic Community Government's Foreign Ministers regarding joint policy commitments; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Community Foreign Ministers last met at the regular Foreign Affairs Council on 22 and 23 October. A special Foreign Affairs Council met yesterday to discuss the enlargement of the Community. As usual in the Council, discussions were aimed at reaching agreement on matters of Community policy.
    Mr. Skinner: Did the Council discuss the disposal of the food mountains? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets his counterparts, will he tell them that for the past decade or more people in this place—the so-called opinion-formers from the middle classes from both sides of the House, but especially from the Social Democratic and Liberal parties — have always told people that if only Britain was in the Common Market we could look after the starving millions in Africa and elsewhere? What happened to all those dreams? Where are the visionaries now? Are there not literally thousands of young children in Ethiopia, Sudan and elsewhere, with pot bellies and matchstick legs? Is not Latin America up to its neck in debt?
    What happened to all those dreams for the Common Market? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Community to dispose of the food surpluses and feed those hungry mouths rather than send the food elsewhere?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one should doubt the Government's concern to do everything possible to meet the problems of poverty throughout the world. The hon. Gentleman's perception of almost all the foundations of his question is fatally flawed in thousands of respects. The Community, through co-operation, has been able to generate a substantial increase in food production. It has been able to finance from scratch the Lorne programme of aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and intends to continue in that direction. It would be a great deal more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would begin to discard some of his offensive and ridiculous illusions.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the most important joint policy commitments is that to a genuine common market in services? We are encouraged by what he said recently in Bonn about establishing that market. Can he tell us how much further he hopes to go in the near future?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of the establishment of a
    678
    genuine common market in services as well as in goods. We have been laying emphasis on the need to achieve that — for example, for insurance, road haulage and air transport services. We shall continue to press the case in all the Council's dealings with these matters—not least because it is only if we achieve a continental-wide market for services as well as for goods that the Community can make the contribution to reducing unemployment throughout the Community which we all believe it can make.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How could the Foreign Secretary prevail upon himself on his recent visit to Germany to mislead the credulous and ignorant Germans by assuring them on what he knows well is not the case, namely that there is preponderant enthusiasm in Britain for membership of the EEC?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is because I believe that the cause which the right hon. Gentleman has pursued with such tenacity over the years in the opposite direction is one which is receiving diminishing support.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pursue energetically with his colleagues the excellent proposals in the Fontainebleau document submitted by the Prime Minister dealing with vital matters of joint working, including majority voting on major decisions and greater political integration?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We attach importance to the Community operating its institutions in such a fashion as to achieve decisions expeditiously, and not have important policy changes of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend impeded by that cause. We do not support any changes in the structure of the treaty on voting procedures, and neither the Fontainebleau nor the Genscher-Colornbo agreements envisage any change in that respect
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I return to the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that a public who are deeply moved by the plight of those caught in the Ethiopian famine view with bewilderment the fact that the EEC, which has the capacity to eliminate the famine, has done so little so late? Does he accept that the amount of grain so far released by the EEC is barely 1 per cent. of surplus stocks and less than one tenth of the amount which the EEC is currently converting into animal feedstuffs for Europe? Does he understand that it is offensive that the Government should announce this week increased expenditure on the storage of surplus grain brought forth by the common agricultural policy although it is cheaper to ship the surplus grain to Ethopia than to store it in Europe? What will he do to press his colleagues within Europe to respond with more generosity and more humanity before it is too late to respond?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman fails again to perceive the issue as a whole. It is necessary to overcome the Community's capacity to generate surplus food in many directions, at great cost, which cannot be disposed of in any way. That is one of the policies which the Government have been fighting and will continue to fight. It is a difficult one to sustain. There are many inside and outside the House who recognise that the Government have been taking the lead in pressing the Community to expand its aid programme to famine-ridden areas. Since

    679
    the beginning of October £35 million-worth of aid has been given in that way, substantially as a result of the lead given by the Government.

    Common Foreign Policy
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Community foreign policy.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Progress is being made within the Community to establish an increasingly strong and effective common position by Community countries on matters where they can sensibly act together on external affairs.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that greater co-operation on foreign policy within the Community remains a principal objective of Government policy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly will. The increasing use of Community procedures for political co-operation is something to which we attach importance. We believe that there are a number of areas in which we can more effectively act together and we have concerted our policy in that way.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one area in which the Community was agreed was that of the Venice declaration? Does he regard it as rather sad that that declaration has not been pursued to a conclusion? Will he take this opportunity to welcome the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to proceed to hold a Palestine national council on 22 November in Amman? Does he recognise that that is an initiative which should be responded to by the European Community partners?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The extent to which the Community was able in the Venice declaration to formulate a common position on the right approach to the Arab-Israel dispute was important. We shall consider at an early opportunity the possibility of making a further contribution to that process.
    Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while it is essential that the Community should be able to respond to disasters, it is essential also in disposing of the surpluses to which reference has been made that we should not undermine agricultural development in the Third world?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. One of the wider consequences of the production of surpluses within the Community at the expense of the taxpayer is the risk of doing real damage to countries which should be able to generate more successfully their own programmes for food production, and of doing longterm damage on a much wider scale.

    Own Resources
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Foreign Affairs Council has decided on a definite date for the introduction of the new system of increased own resources for EEC member states.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, Sir.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that, long before the introduction of any increase in own resources, he will make a clear statement to the House that the preconditions he has set for the reform of the CAP and the budget have been met, and that the House will have a full opportunity to debate those issues?
    Sir. Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, before any proposal for increased own resources is presented to the House, there will be opportunities for debating it. In considering that matter we shall continue to attach importance to effective implementation of the Fontainebleau-Brussels agreements on the need for budget discipline and continued progress in securing the necessary reforms of the common agricultural policy which were set in hand on 31 March.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend set about scrubbing that aspect of the Fontainebleau agreement to do with the increase in own resources? The Government's justifications for an increase in own resources are the accession of Spain and Portugal, which has been deferred even further into the future, and the reduction in agricultural expenditure, which will not occur. That has been confirmed by the fact that the agricultural levy cannot even be applied properly in France. If my right hon. and learned Friend reads Old Muckraker in "Private Eye", he will discover that we are being done for an extra £100 million a year for selling Common Market surpluses of gram from our country.
    Sir. Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will not be in the least surprised to know that I cannot give him any such assurance. Provided the conditions to which we have repeatedly drawn attention are fulfilled—the House will have a opportunity to consider them—we shall, in due course, bring forward a proposal to increase own resources.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the system of food from own resources linked to a common agricultural policy generally is obscene? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said that it rings rather hollow for Conservative Members to talk about the problems of the Third world, which, incidentally, were not discovered in 1984, but which were the inheritance of imperialism and colonialism. It is the height of obsecenity that food should mount up in Europe while millions of people in Africa and other parts of the Third world are starving.
    Sir. Geoffrey Howe: I cannot begin to share the hon. Gentleman's view that the common agricultural policy is obscene, or anything like it. The common agricultural policy was conceived to achieve a number of objectives, all of which are important — first, the production of ample food resources in Europe; secondly, the achievement of reasonable prices; and, thirdly, the achievement of both those aims in a fashion that protects the living standards of those who work in the agricultural community. All those objectives have been achieved, but, unfortunately, they have involved the production of surpluses in some commodities at high cost to the taxpayers. There is nothing unique about that in the common agricultural policy. Agricultural protection policies in, for example, the United States cost similar amounts. The task of controlling agricultural subsidies and

    681
    producing a sensible agricultural policy is bound to take time, and that is why we want to reform, but not destroy, the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Foreign Secretary made plain to the French Government directly the wholly unacceptable nature of their refusal to implement the arrangements for the milk quota?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made it plain to all the Community Governments that implementation of the quota regime established as a result of decisions taken on 31 March is of fundamental importance. It is, in fact, crucial that that regime should be observed throughout the Community.
    Mr. Budgen: What hope is there of general reform of the CAP when the first tentative steps towards reform through the super levy are being evaded or delayed by West Germany, France and Italy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is plainly necessary and essential to press for the full implementation of the super levy, as agreed, as a foundation for that stage of the reform.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Has the Foreign Secretary noted the statement by French officials that they agreed to this week's statement on budget discipline because it allowed sufficient flexibility to continue with the CAP? As France is patently making no effort to control its extravagant and growing agricultural surpluses, why should the House agree to increase own resources to continue to subsidise those surpluses?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because the formulation on budgetary discipline which is coming close to agreement and endorsement is an undertaking that will bind the Council. It is an obligation that will also bind the Commission. It will serve to fulfil the need for effective implementation of the Fontainebleau conclusions.

Points of Order
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to your many and varied activities, you might not be aware that Dr. Mahmut Dikerdem and five of his colleagues have been released from prison. They were imprisoned because of activities in the Turkish Peace Association. I wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary about this matter on question No. 5. You did not allow any supplementary questions on the question about Turkey. On the next question, which I agree is equally important, you allowed five supplementary questions. I wondered whether we could have more supplementary questions on Turkey in future.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We allow 20 minutes for EEC questions, and I am not complaining about that, but we allocate only 40 minutes for the rest of the world. When one recognises that certain matters such as South Africa and central America, all rather important issues, could not be raised today — if you look at the Order Paper you will see questions 10, 12 and so on—it seems to me that the amount of time allocated to foreign affairs is far from sufficient. Will you bear that in mind, and ask the Leader of the House whether this matter could be reviewed through the usual channels?
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it connected with that matter?
Mr. Faulds: It is another matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with this point of order first. I shall take them one at a time.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having just chaired the Labour party conference, I have the deepest sympathy for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am greatly obliged. In answer to the point of order, may I say that we made slow progress today on foreign affairs questions. I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the shortage of time for foreign affairs questions, but that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the usual channels, and not a point of order. I have to make a judgment every day on what the House considers to be the most important subjects. I judged today—I hope that I was not incorrect—that the Falklands, Ethiopia and the situation in the middle east were of paramount importance.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If this is within your province, which I think it is, at this early stage in the new Parliament will you discourage the seemingly growing practice whereby official Opposition spokesmen more and more frequently ask questions from the Back Benches as ordinary Members, thereby reducing the time for Back Benchers on both sides to put legitimate questions?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is legitimate. Every Member must have the opportunity to put his question at Question Time. It is a different matter when calling a speaker in a debate.
Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could draw to your attention the embarrassment and inconvenience caused to hon. Members when a question on the Order Paper is called but not fulfilled because the Member is not present. In my case, I particularly wanted to ask a question—I had formulated quite a clever supplementary question—but was not able to ask it. The point that I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope that hon. Members who cannot be in their place to respond when their questions are called by you should let you know, and perhaps we could be advised that they will not be here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A great many hon. Members—indeed, most hon. Members—let me know if they are unable to be here at Question Time. That is a courtesy that we should continue. Mr. Faulds.
Mr. Faulds: At last Sir, thank you. As to supplementaries, what should some of us do — [Interruption.] I do that all right. What should some of us do to ensure that our apparent invisibility can be even momentarily lifted?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that I was unable to get the hon. Gentleman in today. [Interruption.] It is a serious matter. There is a very short time for foreign affairs questions, but it is not a matter for me. After a long recess, there are many questions that hon. Members wish to ask about countries that they may have visited. Today it would not have been possible to get every hon. Member in who wished to ask a supplementary question. I am very sorry about it.
Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you not recall that it was not so long ago that we had 55 minutes for foreign affairs questions and that they took place once every three weeks rather than once every four weeks? Would it be possible for you to take up that matter in view of the complaints that have been made on both sides of the House, and to ask the usual channels to look at the matter once again?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The most effective course would be for the hon. Gentleman to do that himself. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 30 NOVEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Rob Hayward

  Mr. Tony Speller

  Sir Peter Mills

Opposition Day
[1St ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
Opposition Day

  Schools and Further Education
  Mr. Speaker: I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move,
  That this House, believing that the future of the nation depends on developing the skills and abilities of all children and sharing the concern felt by parents and teachers about inadequate educational provision in many parts of the country, deplores the squeeze on educational spending which, as reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate have warned, are already threatening standards in schools and colleges, and believes that investment in education ought to be improved and increased.
  Last January the Secretary of State made a speech at Sheffield to the north of England education conference in which he set out a plan for raising standards. He modestly called the plan bold and ambitious, but realistic. One week ago the Secretary of State was complacently puffing the same plan in the Queen's Speech, but today, nearly one year after the Sheffield speech, the House is entitled to more than a complacent puff. It is entitled to an honest assessment of how much has beeen achieved.
  As the Secretary of State knows, I welcomed the Sheffield speech because it accepted that comprehensive schools had standards and because it was a sign that at last the Government were beginning to concentrate on some of the real educational issues—the curriculum, examinations, teaching quality and the rest. However, we were always sceptical about the Secretary of State's ability to deliver. I expressed three anxieties at the time. The first concerned resources. Here was the Secretary of State talking about raising standards when his advisers, Her Majesty's Inspectors were warning him that the squeeze on resources was undermining the standards of provision in many areas.
  Our second worry was that unemployment and social deprivation, a great deal of which has been caused by the Government, was making the job of teachers and schools far more difficult.
  My third warning and worry was more personal. The Secretary of State's track record as a Minister is scarcely reassuring. Not even his most enthusiastic supporters can be confident about the prospects of success of a Minister who, in previous incarnations, brought off the incredible hat-trick of being one of the most fervent advocates of high-rise flats, being the man who carried out the disastrous reorganisation of the National Health Service and being responsible for introducing to British industry, at great public expense, Mr. Ian MacGregor.
  I must observe, though with more sorrow than anger, that the Secretary of State's strategy is now running into the sands. There are two principal reasons for that. The first is the manner in which he has attempted to carry out his plans. The second is his failure to win additional resources to back the plans. As regards the Secretary of State's performance, I congratulate him on his decision in principle to introduce the 16-plus, but we want to see how it works out in practice. We also want the resources to go with it. Despite one or two good things, he has undermined
  686
  the prospect of eventual success by his tendency to believe that he knows best, that he can change education by Elizabeth house diktat, by his abrasive handling of the educational partners, especially teachers, and because he has handed over a large part of education to the Manpower Services Commission.
  I should like to give two examples of the Secretary of State's high-handed approach. In his Green Paper on parental involvement he rejected the advice of the educational community which favoured a balanced solution. Instead, the Secretary of State proposed that there should be a majority of parents on school governing bodies. Not surprisingly, his proposals have been opposed by virtually everyone in the education community, especially organisations that represent parents. Then we had the Secretary of State's extraordinary peace studies initiative. Despite having received only seven complaints —I know there were only seven, because I asked him—he alleged without a shred of evidence that teachers and local authorities were teaching in a biased way.
  The Secretary of State has spent most of the year issuing a stream of circulars and papers from the dizzy heights of Elizabeth house, but he has made little effort to enter a real dialogue with those whom he seeks to influence—local authorities, educationists, teachers and parents. The Secretary of State simply fails to understand that one cannot bring about change in British education by diktat. There must be dialogue, consensus and partnership. The right hon. Gentleman's handling of the teachers has been especially crass. Everybody knows that the Secretary of State's plans need the support of teachers, yet the right hon. Gentleman has continually criticised the teachers in a generalised fashion. He intervened disastrously in this year's pay negotiations and has now tried to short-circuit the Burnham negotiations on conditions of service by threatening to legislate unless teachers accept his version of assessment.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to stick up for education. He encouraged the invasion by the Manpower Services Commission of the secondary school curriculum, under the guise of the technical and vocational education initiative. We have also seen the abject capitulation of the Secretary of State when he decided without consultation to hand over large parts of further education to the MSC. Only united resistance by local authorities and trade unions, and an intelligent volte-face by the new chairman, have created the opportunity for a constructive compromise. It is as yet no more than an opportunity, and no thanks are due to the Secretary of State even for that.
  Now there is the appointment of Lord Young. Who is responsible for the education of the 14-to-18 age group — the Secretary of State, or Lord Young? Does the Secretary of State agree with Lord Young that the school leaving age should be lowered to 14? We are entitled to know. To sum up, the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman's performance in carrying out his plans has not lived up to his initial promise at Sheffield.
  I know that the Secretary of State does not like hearing about cash. To make him feel good for a moment, I can assure him that the Labour party understands as well as he does that raising the level of educational achievement is not just a question of money. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that roar of approval from the Conservative Benches. Raising the level of educational achievement is also — as the latest report by Her

  687
  Majesty's inspectors points out — about improving the match between the qualifications and experience of teachers and the jobs that they are called upon to do, raising the effectiveness of teachers' perceptions of the needs and potentials of pupils, varying teaching styles and approaches, and improving the ability to manage.
  However, as the report also points out, even those processes are not cost-free. If we want the right teachers in the right places, if we want adequate provision of books and equipment and if we want schools and colleges that are decently maintained, we must provide the necessary resources. Our case against the Government is that they are failing to provide the money to finance the existing system adequately, let alone the improvements which the Secretary of State wants.
  During the past year I have had the opportunity and good fortune to travel to the north, south, east and west of our country and visit over 150 schools and colleges. On the whole, I have found that the teachers are doing a good job, that the children and students are well taught and that much is being achieved. However, in many areas, shortages and deficiencies are becoming glaringly obvious. There are shortages of teachers in key subjects such as mathematics, physics, crafts and design, there are inadequate supplies of books and model equipment, and there are leaking roofs and peeling walls. There is also the growth of pay-as-you-learn. Parents are paying not just for extras but for the basics of education. That is wrong in principle, and unfair on the areas which are less prosperous.
  If the Secretary of State believes that I am a subjective witness, he should consider the HMI reports, which are based on visits to nearly 1,500 schools, and on examples from all 97 local education authorities. The latest report shows a shortage of books in one fifth of lessons seen in primary schools; unsatisfactory provision of books and equipment in two fifths of local authorities; moderate or substantial parental contributions in three quarters of schools visited; and more reliance on parents than before. What should worry the Secretary of State especially is that in only 14 local education authorities was the provision regarded by the HMI as satisfactory in all respects.
  The Secretary of State cannot say that the position is improving when he receives the sort of report that was published last week on educational provision in Norfolk. HMI, his advisers, warned him that,
  "The officers, advisers and teachers…are all operating in a system that not only has no slack in it, but which is already decidely over-stretched."
  The report also spells out clearly that schools will be unable to meet national demands for improved standards without more funds. The Secretary of State should take that seriously. I am glad that, unlike some Conservative chairs, Mrs. Gillian Shephard welcomed the report and said:
  "It gives us strong evidence for our discussions with those who set the levels of Government grant."
  That is a sensible attitude.
  While on the subject of the HMI, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity this afternoon to reaffirm its independence and to dissociate himself from the ludicrous and biased inquiry about the role of the HMI conducted among Conservative chairmen—an inquiry in which his junior Minister was so unwisely and perhaps
  688
  predictably involved. The Secretary of State should at least understand that shooting the messenger will do nothing to improve our children's education.
  A reading of all the HMI reports—the Secretary of State prides himself on reading them all—shows that Norfolk is not an isolated example; in some areas, its spending is near the average for the shires. The Secretary of State should consider the lower spenders, such as Somerset, West Sussex and Hereford and Worcester. Not only the shires have problems. Dudley's director of education has issued a cry for help—
  Mr. John Powley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about Norfolk because I represent a Norfolk constituency. However, does he agree that it did not help Norfolk education authority's case for improving resources in the education budget to maintain school buildings and equipment when the settlement to the teachers was above the going rate and above what had been agreed? That meant a reduction in resources for the areas to which the HMI report drew attention.
  Mr. Radice: The settlement was not above the going rate; it was above the Secretary of State's assumption about pay. The Secretary of State got it wrong, and we cannot blame the teachers for that. Teachers' pay is still far below the level that it reached under the Labour Government.
  The director of education in Dudley said that some schools had not been painted for nearly 20 years, and nearly 50 of his schools were inadequately cleaned. He
  further said:
  "The disgraceful state of the committee's schools is now undermining morale, lowering educational expectations and militating against a sound education for the borough's pupils."
  There were many other examples as well.
  I know that the Secretary of State's stock answer to all such criticism is that a lot of money is already being spent on education, and what is needed now is redeployment of resources. The Secretary of State's announcement on the abolition of minimum grant and the charging of tuition fees has shocked many parents and pupils. The announcement on tuition fees was the latest development of pay-as-you-learn. Parents of many thousands of students will be expected not only to meet in full the living costs of their sons and daughters but some of the costs of their education as well. Does the Secretary of State plan to introduce a scheme for charging parents full-cost fees as charged to overseas students, of £3,500 for art subject students and £7,000 for medical students? What are his future plans? I am sure that many constituents of Conservative Members will be anxious to hear what the Secretary of State has to say this afternoon.
  No doubt the Secretary of State will also tell the House that the provision for education and science in 1985–86 is to be increased by just over 4 per cent. In real terms that represents a slight decrease in total spending. He will probably refer to the so-called planned increase of 6 per cent. in local authority spending on education. However, I hope that he will admit, because he knows it perfectly well, that the £10,259 million put aside for local authority spending on education is a peculiar figure.
  The education expenditure steering group, which contains some of the Secretary of State's officials, confirmed that merely to maintain existing policies the Government would need to give local education authorities £10,734 million or £475 million more than the

  689
  amount that the Government are planning for 1985–86. I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm those figures, because they have already been confirmed by his officials.
  Before the Secretary of State leaps up and tells me that I have forgotten the unallocated margin of £600 million —he always tells me that—I assure him that I have not forgotten it, but I believe that education will not get much more than 50 per cent. of that unallocated margin. The truth is, and the Secretary of State knows it, that the majority of local education authorities are likely to be worse off and not better off as a consequence of the Government spending plans for 1985–86. His officials have already admitted that.
  The next stage of the Secretary of State's argument is that the existing resources should be redeployed or better used. Those are the Secretary of State's polite phrases for saying that there should be cuts. However, let the voters be clear. The Secretary of State wants local authorities to make further cuts in school meals and milk, and that is said in his press release. Despite the High Court judgment in the Kent case, he also wants dinner ladies to take cuts in negotiated levels of wages and conditions.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Why not?
  Mr. Radice: Because they are extremely badly paid already.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: I know of local education authorities that have reorganised the employment of dinner ladies, have brought in part-time workers rather than full-time workers and have saved a lot of money. They are quite happy, and this can happen in other areas as well.
  Mr. Radice: I am glad to take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that they are happy. But that is not my impression going round local authorities. I have met many dinner ladies who are extremely unhappy. Often they have no choice. Either they accept or they have no jobs. A pistol is being held to their heads. However, it remains true that since 1944 school meals have played an important part in our education service.
  Then the Secretary of State turns to what he describes as the so-called extravagant authorities. That is his doublespeak for the authorities that try to live up to their statutory obligations and which, as the ILEA polls show, have the support of their voters for so doing. However, the right hon. Gentleman never explains how cuts in the budgets of these authorities—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Haringey?
  Mr. Radice: If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, I shall give way to her when I have completed my sentence. The right hon. Gentleman never explains how cuts in the budgets of these authorities will help authorities such as Norfolk, which need to spend more. To take the example of the largest authority, if ILEA followed the advice of the Secretary of State and spent at its Government-set target level it would begin to attract the central Government money which it does not get now. The result would be not more central Government money for such counties as Norfolk but less. That is the reality, and I should like the Secretary of State to confirm it.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: How does the hon. Gentleman explain that Haringey's cost per unit is the second highest, yet it was roundly condemned for its standards by Her Majesty's inspectors?
  Mr. Radice: In my view the chairman of the education committee was absolutely right. She said that she would take the HMI report very seriously, unlike some Conservative chairmen. We in the Labour party have never suggested that every aspect of education was perfect and that such problems as it had could always be solved by money. Money has to be properly used. However, we do not say that it is possible to improve the situation by cutting, which seems to be the policy of the Conservative party.
  What makes matters even worse is that the Government's policies are so perverse that if such authorities as Norfolk and Dudley try to raise more resources through the rates, they immediately run into the Government's targets and penalties system. That is a classic "Catch 22" situation. Her Majesty's inspectors say that they think an authority ought to spend more. The Department of the Environment says that it cannot and that, if it does, it will lose money. The victims of this absurdity are the children who are the nation's future.
  The question for the Secretary of State to answer is when and how he will live up to his obligations and provide the extra resources for the low-spending authorities. It is a question that he constantly ducks. He does not want to answer it. He never has so far.
  R. H. Tawney wrote:
  "What a wise parent would desire for his own children a nation, in so far as it is wise, must desire for all children."
  Every wise parent wants access to nursery education for three to four-year-olds. Every wise parent wants a high standard of decently resourced primary and secondary education. Every wise parent wants a decent education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds leading either to jobs or to well-resourced further education or into a far more open system of higher education.
  I recognise that these are ambitious objectives. But if we are to survive and prosper as a country in the 21st century we shall need this kind of education provision. If the Secretary of State asks where the money is to come from, my initial reply is that such a question is downright impertinent coming from the main architect of the policies that squeezed our economy more severely than that of any other major industrial country in 1981, tore the heart out of British industry and, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) pointed out an Monday's Guardian, created 2 million extra unemployed.
  My second reply is that, even on the Government's assumption of economic growth contained in the Green Paper on spending plans for the next 10 years, there is room for extra education expenditure. There is no doubt about that.
  My third reply is that under a Labour Government our economy will grow faster and we shall be able to spend more on education. We cannot help doing better than this Government.
  My final reply is that as a nation we cannot afford not to invest in education. Investing in education is investing in our future.
  4.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the future of this nation depends on developing the skills and abilities of all children; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies for raising standards of education for all abilities by action on the curriculum, examinations and teaching quality; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's policies for securing the most effective use of the substantial resources available for the benefit of the education service.'.
  I shall try to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) as I go through what I have to say. However, at the beginning of my remarks, because he attempted to flaunt his party's record and prospects, I must mildly take issue with some of his comments.
  Looking at the record, one sees that the growth rate under the 1979 and so far under the 1984 Conservative Governments is substantially higher per annum than it was under the Labour Government of 1974–79, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out yesterday, and was not interrupted when he did so by any Opposition Member.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Sir Keith Joseph: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. My remarks are on the record, and the hon. Gentleman should refer to the report of yesterday's proceedings in Hansard.
  When it comes to which party has cut public expenditure most fiercely, I am slightly ashamed to say that I have to give the palm to the last Labour Government. When they had to call in the International Monetary Fund, they succeeded in cutting public expenditure more fiercely than we, for the benefit of taxpayers and the public as a whole, have so far managed to do.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North produced the piety that a Labour Government would preside over greater growth. On the records of Labour Governments it is highly unlikely that a future Labour Government would intend to spend more on education. But can the hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment that, if there is another Labour Government, he is authorised to say that more than he inherits will be spent on education?
  Mr. Radice: Yes, I am authorised to say that. I also say that the country is only just beginning to recover from the tremendous onslaught of the policies associated with the Secretary of State on manufacturing output. We are only just recovering from the level of manufacturing output that there was in 1979. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the facts. My right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer made the same point, and he was not interrupted by the Chancellor. I remind the Secretary of State that the Labour Government spent £600 million more on education than on defence whereas the Conservatives are spending £3·5 billion more on defence than on education. It is a matter of priority.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has added to the credibility gap which I believe will prevent the Labour party from ever being re-elected. He has added to the infinite number of pledges given by the Labour party which failed to convince the voting public at the last election and will fail again.
  692
  It has proved no easy task for any Government, Labour or Conservative, to control public spending. It is as though the Government of the day were struggling like Laocoon with the snakes of public expenditure without ever quite vanquishing the commitments from the past. Nevertheless, the Labour party deserves some credit for facing the difficulties because it was the Labour Government who invented cash limits. The Opposition should take pride in having designed that instrument to try to limit the burdens on taxpayers and ratepayers.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot escape by quoting the old relativities of defence and education spending because his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has warned the Labour party that for a Labour Government to move from nuclear to conventional emphasis would require at least as much, if not more, spending to secure the country's defence, which he properly accepts as a top priority. That being so, Labour spokesmen cannot expect to raid defence spending for easy transfer to social spending. They will have to grapple with the same problems as we face.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Keith Joseph: No, I am anxious to make progress. I rejoice that there is some common ground between the two sides. Both sides want improved standards and both sides accept that adequate resources are an essential ingredient. We may argue about what is adequate, but just as the hon. Member for Durham, North accepts that resources are not the only ingredient, so we accept that resources must be adequate.
  Where the hon. Member for Durham, North went wrong was in criticising the resources available for education in 1985–86. The result of the Government announcements is that in 1985–86 education will be £600 million better off than in 1984–85 after allowing for the abolition of national insurance surcharge and the transfer of £64 million to the Manpower Services Commission.
  Mr. Radice: That is not a real increase.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Of course, it is not a real increase to the tune of 6 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has forecast 41½ per cent. inflation, so there is a real increase of 1½ per cent. In addition, however, one must take into account falling school rolls— a further significant reduction is expected compared with the current year — although the smaller population of students will probably rise by one quarter less than the fall in the school population. However one looks at the figures, there is a substantial improvement. Nevertheless, I accept that many authorities will find it hard to do all that they want to do even with that extra provision.
  Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the majority of local authorities will be better or worse off as a result of the spending plans announced on Monday?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Comparing 1985–86 with 1984–85, most of them will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Worse off."] No, I am seeking the right adjective. Most of them will be usefully—I cannot say "substantially" and I am cautious about saying "significantly"—better off. The overspenders, of course, will not be better off and the local situation

  693
  must depend to some extent on the extent to which the school population and the student population in the area meet the national average.
  When we have finished arguing about these important minutiae, the fact remains that after years of constant criticism from the hon. Gentleman the pupil-teacher ratio is lower than ever before and expenditure per child is at record high levels. I accept that local education authorities have to grapple with all the problems of diseconomies of scale, but the House should take those two substantial criteria into account.
  In replying to the various criticisms, I wish first to justify the Government's constant emphasis on the scope in many education authorities for redeployment of resources to higher priority education expenditure from lower priority education expenditure. For example, about 30 local education authorities, including a couple of Labour-controlled authorities, have achieved substantial savings on school meals by various means which I shall be happy to spell out for the record if anyone wishes to cross-examine me. I do not believe that those authorities are harder hearted than others. They are simply better custodians in the interests of the children of the very large amounts of public money made available to them.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: During his visits to schools, the right hon. Gentleman must have seen children eating just chips and gravy or chips and curry for their lunch. That certainly worries me. Does it not worry the Secretary of State?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Children from households where there is poverty—households receiving family income supplement or supplementary benefit—are entitled to free school meals and those free meals are provided everywhere in England. If other children are provided by their parents with less than we would regard as desirable, or prefer to feed themselves in some particular way, we may well regret that, but I do not believe that there is a case for returning to the old universality.
  I must also emphasise that there are other ways to save money for redeployment within education. I congratulate the local education world for its continuing effort to take out surplus places. It is not a popular task and it is laborious, but we are on the way to the target of 1 million surplus places being taken out of use set by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) or his predecessor in office to be achieved by spring 1987. Nevertheless, there is scope for still futher redeployment.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) intervened effectively to point out that money provided for maintenance in the education allocation would have been adequate if it had been used regularly for that purpose over the previous decades—which it has not been in every case by any manner of means — to fulfil at least a respectable slice of maintenance. But, as my hon. Friend says, there is all too often a raid upon the maintenance provision — indeed, a raid upon book and equipment provision — when teachers manage to negotiate with their employers a larger pay increase than has been provided for them. Teachers have not yet come to terms with the fact that when they succeed in raising their pay increase it is at the expense of teacher numbers or other provisions in the local authority budgets.
  Mr. Foster: How much of the Secretary of State's boast about the record pupil-teacher ratio is as a result of the so-called raids upon other aspects of the education budget and also the so-called overspending authorities? Is he not on the one hand boasting about a record pupil-teacher ratio and on the other criticising those authorities which have been giving him the results?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, there is an element of truth in that, but the hon. Gentleman and I may share the view that there is still room for redeployment of money if only more local authorities would copy the example of the economies achieved by some of their colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North made an assertion about what would happen if ILEA managed to reduce its spending to such a level that it once again received grant from the taxpayer. I confimi that his analysis is correct.
  The hon. Gentleman made much play of the shortages revealed by Her Majesty's inspectorate's annual report on the effects of local education authorities' expenditure policies. He is right to draw attention to them—they concern us all—but he is wrong to imply that those shortages are new and that matters have generally become worse under this Government. What a pity the previous Labour Government did not publish the HMI reports. They might have given the hon. Gentleman cause to look at the questions a little more deeply.
  Let us be clear what Her Majesty's inspectorate did say in the most recent report. It found that in autumn 1983 there was over the country as a whole a small improvement in the levels of appropriate resources in schools and colleges, particularly as regards the provision of teachers and books.
  Mr. Radice: Read the next sentence.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say what I want to say.
  I pointed many times to the significant improvement in pupil-teacher ratios under this Government. It is not just a statistical phenomenon. It is having its effect in schools. Thus, this year Her Majesty's inspectorate reported that in about one eighth of the schools visited their performance was judged to be adversely affected by one or both of an insufficient number of teachers, or by the presence of teachers whose initial qualifications and subsequent experience did not match the jobs required of them. Four years ago Her Majesty's inspectorate reported that almost one fifth of schools did not have satisfactory provision of teachers. That shows that there has been a marked improvement. Of course, there is scope for further advance, but the situation is not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, getting worse.
  Mr. Radice: I hope that the House will forgive this textual analysis, but I did ask the Secretary of State to read out the sentence following the one which he quoted, and he did not. Let me read it now:
  "But these improvements were patchy between and within LEAs, phases of education and institutions, and must be seen against the low baselines of some aspects of provision noted in previous years."
  Sir Keith Joseph: Surely the hon. Gentleman is emphasising the point that I made. If the Labour Government had published Her Majesty's inspectorate's reports earlier, they would have revealed even worse base lines—that is what the report is saying—than they are legitimately criticising now.

  695
  I accept that none of the HMI reports has presented a wholly satisfactory picture and that this year's was no exception. For instance, it drew particular attention, as the hon. Gentleman says, to the patchiness of improvements around the country—both betweeen LEAs and schools within authorities—and to the deterioration of school and college premises because of inadequate repairs and maintenance. On both counts I share the inspectorate's concern.
  But we cannot solve the problems simply by spending vastly more. The country just cannot afford it. Unemployment would go even higher if we tried to do so. We must look also to the need to secure better value for the money that we are spending.
  The HMI report is useful on that aspect, too. The inspectorate makes it clear that in many cases there is scope for bettter deployment of existing resources and for better perceptions by heads and teachers of resources needed for good education, as well as, in some cases, absolute increases in the levels of resources.
  Her Majesty's inspectorate identified the factors most commonly influencing effective learning as the quality of teaching, the identification of pupil and student needs, the levels of resources available, and the ability to manage and deploy those resources. It stated firmly that without clearer agreement about what it is that the resources are intended to help achieve and consequent careful planning and development, and without adequate and continuing training for teachers, the addition of more, different and better quality material resources will not of itself maintain present quality levels or lead to desirable changes and improvements.
  That is the task that faces us, and in facing it we would all do well to avoid over—simplification of what is a complex question—the relationship between levels of resources for education and its quality.
  I want to emphasise at this point what a difficult task teachers have if they are to be effective. That is why I regard the present teachers' salary structure talks as so important. They range across many aspects of teachers' work and recognise the need to relate that work and the way in which it is rewarded to changing circumstances.
  The main ingredients of a successful outcome from those talks will provide for a closer relationship, more amenable to local education authority management, between teachers' pay, performance and responsibilities; a more precise definition of teachers' duties, including the supervision of pupils at midday and the provision of classroom cover for absent teachers; systematic arrangements for the formal appraisal of the performance of all teachers linked to provision for in-service training, promotion and deployment, and enabling the best teachers to be appropriately rewarded.
  As I said in the House last Thursday, I should like to see a successful outcome from those talks because satisfactory agreements on those issues would lead to improvements in the quality of education offered by our schools. Therefore, I hope that the representatives of the local authorities and the teachers' unions engaged in the discussions will be successful, although I recognise the problems of bringing complex negotiations in that field to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Reform proposals will need to pass three stringent tests if they are to come to fruition. First, they must be
  696
  negotiable between the parties. Secondly, they need to be educationally acceptable and hold the realistic promise of delivering improvements in the classroom. Thirdly, they must be affordable. As for the latter, I hope that the teachers' leaders will not mislead their members, as they did earlier this year in the 1984 negotiations, as to what level of pay settlement might be regarded as reasonable.
  The autumn statement made earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor shows that the Government fully intend to keep faith with the inescapable fact that we cannot spend more on public services such as education than is consistent with the country's ability to pay. To do otherwise would put us back on the destructive road to wage-push inflation and still higher levels of unemployment.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North asked me about the Sheffield speech and the progress under it. The speech announced the fourfold Government initiative that is intended, with the help of teachers, local education authorities and parents, to raise the standards of children of all abilities in our schools. I have never pretended that that speech did more than set in place the necessary conditions for the raising of standards.
  I remind the House briefly that the four parallel initiatives cover the more rigorous selection and training of teachers, an attempt to reach a national agreement on the curriculum, a transformation of examinations towards clearer absolute assessment and the introduction of records of achievement so that children's performances outside the classroom can be assessed and recorded. All four initiatives are progressing according to the publicly announced timetable. Again, I cannot pretend that they have yet begun to have an effect, and I hope that no hon. Member will chide me for that, as there was never any pretence that they could have an instantaneous effect. However, the schedules are all as announced.
  I turn to an area upon which I believe the whole House can unite in seeking more information. I refer to research into what explains the different standards in different schools. I announced in the House on 1 March 1984 that I had asked the Department to undertake two studies before considering the potential for further research into school standards. I have now received reports on the two studies and these will be published shortly. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  The first of these studies extends the earlier analysis by the Department, published as statistical bulletin 16/83, of factors affecting examination results in different local education authority areas. It shows an even higher correlation—over 70 per cent.—than the earlier analysis between examination achievements at school and social background factors, probably reflecting the more recent information available for these factors. I explained in my earlier statement that it was expected that the extended study would provide limited insight into the effect of other factors on examination results. In the event, after taking account of the effect of social background—I stress that — the new study shows no more than a slight relationship at local authority level between pupils' examination achievements and the level of resources, including teaching resources, available to their schools, and a similarly slight statistical relationship with the proportion of pupils in grammar schools.
  The second study was designed to examine the scope for carrying out further research on these relationships at the level of individual schools or groups of schools. This

  697
  study also shows a strong statistical relationship between examination results and social background factors, and again does not show a very substantial relationship with other factors such as the level of resources available to the schools. It also demonstrates the difficulty of extracting suitable data on social background factors from census material. Difficulties over the use and interpretation of data relevant to social background are also indicated by research commissioned by the Department and undertaken by the university of Leeds, which examined, inter alia, the development of suitable measures of home background. A report on this research is being prepared. I impose all this on the House because it is the background against which we can make further progress.
  The two studies carried out by the Department thus show a strong relationship between school pupils' examination results and socio-economic background, but they shed little light on the influence of other factors on school pupils' performance, or on the wide variation in examination achievements among pupils from similar socio-economic backgrounds. I believe that it would now be research into the factors giving rise to this wide variation, which may be factors related to the way the school carries out its work rather than external to the school, which is likely to be most relevant to the development of the Government's policies for improving standards in schools, particularly if the research also includes other measures of pupil performance.
  I have concluded that I would not be justified in providing funds for more research along the lines of the Department's recent studies. I am, however, willing to consider proposals for research ranging more widely and exploring the relationship between the social background of pupils collected at the level of individual pupils, a range of school outputs including public examinations, and a range of school inputs such as resources, the achievements of pupils on entry to secondary schools, teaching quality, the organisation of the school and its internal practices including teacher expectations, curriculum continuity and homework. Such research would be complex and expensive and could not be expected to yield results in less than three years. I shall want the Department to discuss any proposals in detail with the applicants before I decide on financial support.
  Since that offers help only over the middle distance, I shall tell the House of a new initiative that may help in the slightly nearer future. Hon. Members will be aware that in announcing the Government's decision to adopt a single system of examination at 16, the Government also announced their intention that there should be distinction awards to recognise the breadths and levels of performance of those whose new GCSE grades and subjects reach a defined standard. The Government intend to add another level below distinction to encourage both the breadth and level of performance. Below the distinction award, we propose to introduce an award that will be called a merit award, which will recognise a breadth and level of achievement that is lower than that of the distinction award but which is still commendably wide and high. I hope that that will prove to be a further stimulus towards excellence.
  Mr. Radice: Is that not reintroducing the 0-level by another name?
  Sir Keith Joseph: No such thought is in my mind. The award stands self-justified by its objective. In due course, I shall spell out the definition.
  698
  The Government and I were chided for the announced increase in the parental contributions made to some students in higher education. However, the Government have no plans to charge parents the same amount as overseas students. The purpose of that extra contribution is, first, to meet the cost of higher student awards: and secondly, to enable the Government to provide some more badly-needed money for basic research in universities and through the research councils. I believe that the strong national asset of basic scientific research should be supported in that way, and that is why the Government have asked the families of students to pay the extra contributions.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the problem of many of his supporters, who find it very difficult to justify this increasing tax on families, many of whom have other children at home and large financial commitments as a result, when at the same time we are increasing the payment to farmers who have had a bumper record harvest this year. Is there no way of squaring this circle? How does my right hon. Friend intend to deal with those students who have obtained places in higher education and who are deemed to be receiving parental contributions sufficient to pay towards the fees, if the parents do not cough up the money? Will there be sentries on the gates to stop them getting into their classes, or what will happen?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I have no answer to either limb of my hon. Friend's question. The world is not a perfect place and no Government have yet managed to secure that all parents provide what their children need. That means that those children must show initiative in coping with the problem. Mercifully, I am not responsible for agriculture.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is important that all young people should be treated equally? Does he realise that some girls whose parents come from the Indian sub-continent have considerable problems because their parents do not consider that they should go on to higher education? Consequently, their parents will not fill in the application form for a grant; thus, although the family may be on an extremely low income, those girls will lose any grant. Furthermore, they will have to find their own fees if they go on to higher education. Is that not an extremely unfortunate development from those proposals?
  Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman has a way of overcoming the problem I should be glad to hear it.
  I hope that I have answered the questions asked by the hon. Member for Durham, North. I can report to the House that we are on schedule with the Sheffield policies, but we do not expect instant transformation from them. I have announced various initiatives in research and for the encouragement of standards. I have explained our support for discussions between local education authorities and teacher organisations which are broadly encouraging. I ask the House to vote for the amendment and against the Opposition motion.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: I am pleased that in the preface to his remarks the Secretary of State said that he was sure that both sides of the House were interested in improving education standards. Time arid again his party has postured as the party committed to the

  699
  maintenance and improvement of standards and quality. Tory Members have often pointed their fingers at the Opposition Benches and implied — if they have not openly accused — that we were opposed to good standards and quality in education. It is time to expose the fallacious premise on which the Tory party's claim is made.
  After five years of Conservative Government and their proudly proclaimed commitment to quality and standard in education, what is the reality? In 1975 the Bullock report emphasised the importance of literacy, stressing that the ability to read was crucial, not just because we were becoming a society of form-fillers, but because the inability to read seriously impinges on individual freedom. A browse of Hansard just after the publication of that report reveals various examples of Government Members stressing the need for literacy and increased book provision in schools.
  The Conservative party manifesto is not my favourite reading One section is entitled
  "Schools: The pursuit of excellence."
  In response to the HMI paper on the curriculum entitled
  "English from 5 to 16"
  the Secretary of State emphasised the essential part that the teaching of English must play in the school curriculum. He said that English was
  "a tool and a channel of learning in all subjects for the great majority of pupils in England and Wales."
  On 6 November the Government pledged themselves to continue to develop policies to raise education standards. We must examine how the claims are borne out by the facts, as opposed to the soothing statements from the Department of Education and Science. I do not doubt the good faith of the Secretary of State and many Government Members. If they are committed to quality in education and the laudable aims in the Bullock report, we can presume that they have a commitment to the provision of books in schools. Reading is impossible without reading material. I am reminded of "Desert Island Discs" when the presenter asks a composer whether he would take records or scores to the island. The composer always chooses scores on the ground that he can hear the music in his head. We cannot expect teachers to tell the class, "Turn to page 57 of the textbook—in your head."
  In 1978–79 expenditure on primary school books was £19·9 million. In 1982–83 it was £27·9 million. Taking into account a 14 per cent. drop in pupil numbers and the book price inflation rate, expenditure should now be £29·2 million. The shortfall is £1·3 million.
  National averages and national figures are meaningless in a country with such huge regional variations. In my borough of Knowsley spending on books per primary school pupil was £4·52 in 1982–83. That sum was worth only £2·65 at 1978–79 prices. The drop is 12·8 per cent., using the book price index. Knowsley spends 41 per cent. of its total budget on education. It is all the more surprising that the Secretary of State, when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) whether he would seek additional money for education, replied that he was not convinced that, overall, more was needed. The minuscule increase in the Chancellor's statement does not alter that. I wonder what sort of earthquake it will take to convince the Secretary of State and other Ministers of the need for more expenditure on education.
  700
  There are areas of utter wretchedness in the country, although one might not have thought so when listening to the Chancellor's statement on Monday. Part and parcel of that wretchedness is educational deprivation. John Hughes wrote in The Guardian on 4 September:
  "To focus the discussion on the links between poverty and deprivation in our communities and an improvised state education system is to raise issues of inequality in their most acute form. For we are not only neglecting and wasting human capital and potential on a vast scale: we are palpably undermining the assumptions, palpably repudiating the necessary value systems of any mature political and social democracy."
  The reality is that in the deprived regions everything mitigates against an individual's educational development. Massive unemployment rates, a decaying environment, life in an overcrowded upstairs maisonette, hardly creates an atmosphere conducive to self-fulfilment. The oasis of hope in such an environment has been the school. However, there, too, morale is collapsing.
  Expenditure cuts have their visible effects in fewer books and equipment, deteriorating buildings and, as the HMI report of May 1984 states:
  "In some cases the circumstances in which education takes place and the availability of appropriate resources in the right quantity was found to be such as to make worthwhile learning well-nigh impossible."
  Equally pernicious, if not more so, is the invisible effect of expenditure cuts — the collapse of morale among parents, pupils and teachers. The Government emphasise such issues as parental choice, but we all know that parental choice works on the assumption that the majority of parents will not exercise it. Parents' morale is collapsing because reality for them in areas such as Knowsley is a dole queue, shortage of money and life in an area with a total lack of educational ethos. Parental choice for them is a sick and irrelevant joke.
  Teachers' morale is collapsing in a contracting profession. Avenues of promotion are being closed rapidly. After 10 years, many teachers are simply worn out. Of course, there are good and bad teachers—there is good and bad in every profession. There are even good and bad Secretaries of State. But to hammer the teachers, as some Conservative Members do, when those teachers often give their all throughout an exhausting period is no way to improve standards and quality in our education system.
  We must also consider pupil morale. I would like to see those centres of excellence referred to in the Tory manifesto in all our deprived areas. However, we must understand where we are now if we are realistically to build for the future. We are faced with the appalling paradox that it is in the areas of highest unemployment and greatest deprivation that the pressure is on the young people to leave school at 16.
  In the MSC briefing on the careers service in London, it was noted that Barnet, with a staying-on rate at 16 of 72 per cent., found that 33 per cent. of those who left school were unlikely to find jobs. In Tower Hamlets, with a staying-on rate of 41 per cent, 62 per cent. of those who left school were unlikely to find jobs. My borough has a staying-on rate of 46 per cent., but during the past three years, first 85 per cent, and now 80 per cent., of our school leavers have been without permanent employment. That seriously affects what we are trying to do in our schools.
  The Secretary of State told the House last week that it was a question of the relevance of the curriculum, the effectiveness of the teachers and support from the home.

  701
  He should have realised that those are precisely the things now at risk in the current climate of educational expenditure. That is why I place emphasis on the provision of books. The Secretary of State and the Government must realise the harsh, unpalatable fact that many youngsters, once they leave school, will never read a book again. School is the only place where people can be introduced to reading as something worthwhile in itself.
  The HMI report commented on the instances of unsatisfactory educational provision. These relate precisely to the children who do not have a second chance for a decent education. That is why I was struck by the Secretary of State's choice of words in his speech last week. He used the word "affordability". I have checked a few dictionaries, but could not find any reference to that word. Unfortunately the Conservative party see afford-ability — if I must use that dreadful word—in money terms only. Just for once tonight, I hope that Conservative Members will discuss it in its wider context.
  How can we, as a society, afford to waste the talents of so many of our young people? Even from a utilitarian point of view, it is crazy to squander the nation's single greatest resource. From the individual view—shared by those of us who, perhaps naively, see education as the means of self-fulfilment and enrichment and a means of conquering the often squalid conditions in which so many of our young people are born—affordability, as defined by the Secretary of State, demonstrates how the Government have all their priorities wrong. That is why I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the motion.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) mentioned teachers' pay. I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the salary structure talks. Like him, and all hon. Members, I hope that they will be successful. It is essential to avoid another period of the classroom disruption that we saw earlier this year. Not only is that bad for classroom morale, but it runs strongly against the Government's efforts to raise standards and is destabilising for both teachers and children.
  One thing that might help the public, and the teachers themselves, when considering the cost of salaries and the totality of education spending is a system by which we could know the actual running costs of each school. Parents and others could then see what it really costs, on a carefully broken-down basis, to run each school. Those figures should include any debt charges resulting from those schools having been built relatively recently.
  I appreciate the problems of monitoring performance and rewarding efficiency in the teaching profession. The salary talks will be difficult. However, there is a case for asking for outside industrial advice if the talks run into difficulties. Industry has for many years monitored efficiency and rewarded performance and those involved in the teachers' negotiations could learn much from that.
  The status of teachers is important. The changing role of their job and the need for more in-service training is changing public attitudes towards the profession. It is especially important for teachers to realise that they should be a stabilising influence on the children they teach. We must bear in mind the general unease caused by unemployment in many homes and, alas, the fact that so many children come from single-parent homes. Before we
  702
  again find ourselves in any of the difficulties that we have experienced this year, I hope that the teaching profession will ponder long and hard on the influences for good that they can bring to bear.
  There have been many quotations from the HMI report, especially by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). He left out one point that he should have included in his speech. In the principal findings section of the report it states:
  "It is apparent that teachers, schools, colleges and LEAs are providing an adequate education for the majority of pupils and students."
  Mr. Radice: I acknowledged that point when quoting. I gave my impression, having visited more than 50 schools and colleges throughout the country.
  Mr. Madel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but Conservative Members would have appreciated greater emphasis on that point, especially as the hon. Gentleman spoke about what the Government should try to do.
  The report says that the level of resources available and the ability to manage and deploy them by all levels in the service depends to a great extent on proper management of resources. It states:
  "In secondary schools, poor management of resources by the department or individual teacher was a particularly critical factor associated with those lessons seen in which the work was judged less than satisfactory."
  That emphasises what Conservative Members have said in many of our debates. Unless the resources are properly and effectively managed, poor learning occurs and little is achieved—the very things that we all want to avoid.
  My right hon. Friend, in a written answer on 12 November, referred to the provision for in-service training. If we do not improve that, the anxieties referred to in the HMI report will not be allayed. My right hon.
  Friend said:
  "Grant of £17·5 million will be available in the 1985–86 financial year."
  My right hon. Friend then identified three projects, two of which are especially important in improving our education service. One is a special programme to support the introduction of the general certificate of secondary education, and the other is the teaching of craft, design and technology in schools. I hope that included in the budget figure will be an element to ensure that in managing those projects teachers will have an opportunity of learning something about management development and general ability to manage financial resources. The new examination system and the necessary improvement in craft, design and technology cannot be effective unless those managing them are up to date in the management of resources. I hope that some money will be available within the budget of £17·5 million for that purpose.
  I commend the Government for their support for the establishment of British school technology. I do so for what British school technology is doing to encourage the development of technological education within schools and for the way in which it is helping in practical ways by running in-service courses for teachers and helping authorities plan and organise their provision in technolgical areas. It is a pity that no mention was made of that by the hon. Member for Durham, North. That is a definite plus to the Government, to the education service and to young people passing through the education service.

  703
  I fully support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing in his new system of examinations in laying greater emphasis on practical tests. However, according to the Joint Council of Examination Boards, some schools do not as yet have the facilities to ensure that practical tests in science can be effectively carried out. An adjustment in local authority spending will be essential if practical tests in science are to be fully carried out in line with what the Government are proposing for the new system of examinations. Where local authorities do that and have to spend more to ensure that what they provide can cope with the practical tests, I hope that there will be no danger of their falling foul of any penalties for overspending or colliding with the Department of the Environment when it comes to rate support grant provision.
  In the long written answer of 12 November there emerged what the Government foresee happening in non-advanced further education. One important sentence reads:
  "There are inevitable uncertainties about student numbers. The plans"—
  these are the plans for non-advanced further education—
  "assume some limited increase in the participation rate of 16 and 17-year-olds in future years."—[Official Report, 12 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 56.]
  Those two sentences highlight a growing problem for young people if they want to return to non-advanced education or go straight on to it from school. We have the complicated 21-hour rule and 12-hour study rule which determine whether a student will receive benefit.
  The ability to be trained and retrained is essential to careers, and much depends on the lengths and levels of initial education attainment and access to continuous education and training after a person has left school. By altering the rules on benefit in a sensible cost-conscious way we can bring more young people back into the education system if they cannot get a job and ensure that they and the country benefit from the many excellent education facilities that we have. I am not advocating a blank cheque or vastly increased spending. I am suggesting that, in view of all the new courses in schools and the improvement in schools, especially in technical education, a growing number of young people will probably want to come back after school into education and benefit from it. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that student financial support is sensible and reasonable for those young people.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the debate on the Gracious Speech last Tuesday the Prime Minister referred to the need to expand support for wealth-creating free enterprise rather than a wealth-consuming public sector. The Secretary of State's comments this afternoon have echoed that sentiment. It is important to recognise at the start of a debate on education that the public sector provides a major contribution to creating the nation's wealth and that an educated population's ability to provide economic success as well as social success is dependent on ensuring that we have the best standard of education that we can afford.
  I suggest that the Secretary of State has not addressed himself this afternoon to whether we can get the best
  704
  standard that we can afford. It seems that the Government are not prepared to afford as much as is necessary even to maintain standards, let alone improve them.
  There is a good reason for considering ways of improving the quality of education and it is right that money is not the only answer, but parents, as well as teachers and children, are aware of the almost weekly reduction in standards and availability of support within our schools. The Government will pay a high price if they fail to recognise the strength of feeling among parents when they see a clear reduction in standards within schools that has a specific effect on their children.
  Some interesting observations have been made on the discussions on teachers' pay and conditions. If we knew no different, we might think that the Secretary of State was engaged in a free-ranging discussion on teachers' pay and conditions with a view to making a fair and proper assessment of their role in society. However, we all know that constraints within the education budget allow for a total increase in the wage bill of only 3 per cent. With those constraints, it is not possible to have a proper discussion on what teachers' relative pay should be. Their pay should reflect their proper position in society when set against other forms of employment and our objective in ensuring that we have a motivated teaching profession. Secondly, their pay should reflect the work that they are expected to do. We are expecting them to cope with an increasing work load with rapidly changing curricula.
  Mr. Powley: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a valid argument, but if the Government were able, within the constraints that he has mentioned, to allocate more resources to education, how would he devise a system whereby the extra resources were directed to the maintenance of school buildings and the provision of books and pencils, for example, and not to a higher proportion of the total allocation being taken in teachers' salaries?
  Mr. Bruce: I would accept that argument if I were not aware that the Government have not afforded to education the protection that they have claimed to afford to the Health Service, for example. They are using opportunities within the education service to reduce the real commitment to education. That is where the difference lies between the Government's approach to education and other parts of the public sector. The majority of parents would resist and reject a declared reduction in overall and real funding in education, but that is what we are seeing. The Government quote statistics such as expenditure per pupil against the background of falling numbers and falling rolls, but they know, as do parents, that in individual schools class sizes are found frequently to be growing while available resources are frequently falling.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): It is necessary in this sort of debate to discuss the level of resourcing of the education service, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main issue should be whether the available money is being spent effectively and not so much the amount of money that should be spent?
  Mr. Bruce: I agree with that. However, there has been an erosion of teachers' pay over the past few years, and it appears from what the Secretary of State has been saying that teachers can expect their real pay to be reduced still

  705
  further in coming years. If that happens, we shall have a demoralised teaching profession. Teachers are already leaving their profession, and almost by definition it is the best who leave because they are the ones who receive the best offers outside the profession. The erosion of teachers' pay will discourage the right quality of person from entering the profession. I suggest that the erosion has occurred to such an extent that we are likely to suffer real damage in terms of the quality of teachers, because the Government have not yet conceded the need to take account of that fact.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: I must continue. I do not have much time.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I have given way twice. I want to make a number of points.
  Mr. Conlan: I might help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman might help me more by allowing me to develop my argument.
  I have a thick file of letters that I have received from parents about the specific problems they are experiencing at all levels of education and about the cuts that are affecting them.
  Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: If the alliance were allocated another speaker in this debate, I would be more than happy to give way. I should like to make the best use of my time and I must, therefore, continue.
  I shall work through the main areas of education and show where the shortfall is taking place. I shall start with the youngest in our society. I cannot remember the exact quotation, but I believe that the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, placed great store on the expansion of nursery education. Since the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, however, there has been no such expansion. There has been a freezing, if not a contraction.
  Mr. Dunn: The voluntary sector has expanded.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the voluntary side has expanded. That is the point that I was just about to make. Play groups and nursery schools are not the same, although they apply themselves to the same age group. Play groups have expanded rapidly. In the absence of alternative provision, play groups do a good job. I have had considerable contact with the play group movement, and I know that it is finding it increasingly difficult to accept responsibility in an area in which the Government do not accept responsibility. The operation of play groups is, properly, constrained by Government legislation. That constraint affects costs. The play groups have to run services, which must be paid for by parents. The play groups are effectively means-tested and the variation in charges is considerable. The cost per child can be extremely high in a community where there is a lack of accommodation and facilities. The position becomes extremely difficult for a parent with two pre-school age children, and those on low incomes may find it impossible. If the Government argue that the voluntary sector has expanded, they should show a little more willingness to
  706
  help by reducing operating costs. I stress that I do not believe that play groups are a substitute for nursery schools; they are a complementary service.
  Because of falling primary school rolls and Government constraints making local authorities reduce the number of teachers so as to get costs down, there is a definite loss of quality. There is a real cut in the availability of support teaching. There are increases in class sizes and more composite classes. Those aspects are observable. Parents are aware of them and do not like them. In the school attended by my son the provision of subjects such as art, physical education, music and drama has been cut in one blow, across the board, by 25 per cent. In some schools there has been a cut of 50 per cent. The cut means that, where there was one art period a week, there is now one a fortnight. If the art period falls on a holiday Monday, there is only one art period in the month. It is hardly worth the bother of having an art period—but I must not give the Under-Secretary of State ideas. I believe that most parents feel that the previous minimum is the least that they should expect. They are not impressed when the Government say that the expenditure cuts are not leading to real cuts in the educational provision. In my book, there is a real and perceptible cut, which parents rightly resist. Parents are filling my postbag with their complaints.
  The position in secondary schools rightly gives most cause for concern. Although children suffer if their preparation in primary schools is not good, the prospects of those children who are caught in a bad time at secondary school are most at risk. The Secretary of State referred to changing teaching methods and changing curricula in secondary schools. Dedicated teachers are expected to provide more pupil-teacher contact, and most have responded to that need. Teachers are expected to undertake more preparation, yet often they must do so with fewer resources and less pay.
  What is happening in Scotland should be of interest to the rest of the country, because we are pioneering the new secondary school curriculum. I assure the House that, although the net result is potentially exciting, the curriculum is worrying in practice. The implementation of the new curriculum involves each teacher and each school in preparing their own courses, producing the material. for those courses and assessing substantially the quality of the work produced. That involves a massive amount of additional preparation work outside normal contractual time. Teachers are doing that willingly, but, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, some teachers feel that it is imposing an unacceptable burden. Regrettably, but perhaps understandably, some of those teachers are refusing to implement the new curriculum in the hope of forcing the Government to take some action on pay and conditions. I believe that all hon. Members think that such action is regrettable.
  What can I or the Under-Secretary of State say when teachers state that the Government do not take notice of them when they are dedicated and get on with the job? The teachers say, "They just exploit us. They take advantage. How can we persuade the Government that we have a fair case if they consistently ignore us when we are reasonable?" The teachers have so far been extremely reasonable, because they value the parent-teacher relationship and know that industrial action in schools is damaging. I do not believe that any hon. Member would deny the fact that industrial action should be avoided at all

  707
  costs. The Government should not exploit teachers shamelessly when they know that there is a real grievance that must be redressed.
  It is not simply a matter of saying, "Give the teachers more money, and the job will be done." During the past week, I completed a tour of all the secondary schools in my constituency. Teachers are frustrated and angry. They say that giving more money would not solve the problem and that what they have been asked to do is virtually impossible. I have met teachers who have had to work through the night as well as on Saturdays and Sundays to get material ready. They have had to photocopy great quantities of material and to produce audio-visual material — yet there has been no increase in the resources budget. Not one penny more has been allocated.
  It is hardly surprising that the whole situation could well come crashing down about the Government's ears. I regret the fact that there is no Minister from the Scottish Office present to listen to this debate. I would impress upon a Scottish Minister the fact that he must recognise that the position in Scotland requires an independent review body on teachers' pay. If such a review is not granted soon, the secondary school curriculum will fall apart around the Minister's ears. I am worried not about what will happen to the Minister but about what will happen to the children who will be caught in the consequences. I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of those children.
  Teachers in Scotland are being asked, with no extra resources and no real evaluation, to introduce not only the new Munn and Dunning curriculum but the 10-to-14 action plan and the 16-to-18 action plan. Any reasonable Government must recognise that if they want teacher motivation and delivery of services, they must treat teachers differently.
  I regret the fact that certain Conservative Members have sought to divide parents from teachers and to exploit a difficult situation. I suggest that those Conservative Members will not succeed. Teachers and parents must be on the same side — on the side of the children — to persuade the Government to provide the necessary resources. It is not helpful for chairmen of education committees to say that parents have been spoilt. It is not helpful for those chairmen to say, "In the past we have given parents too much, and they should be prepared to accept these cuts simply as a recognition of the fact that we have been far too generous in the past." Such statements are not helpful. They are even less helpful when they come from councillors and people in authority who are taking decisions and are not even sending their children to the schools that they administer. I feel that if they did—this is not just a cheap point—they might show more interest in what is going on in the schools they have opted out of.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Government driving a wedge between teachers and parents. Does he not feel that the positive moves that the Government have made to put teachers and parents side by side on governing bodies is completely contrary to what he has said, and is a clear sign of the Government's desire to unite parents and teachers in a partnership for the benefit of the pupils in the schools?
  Mr. Bruce: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I rather suspect that the Secretary of State's motivation was precisely the opposite, because it was an attempt to try to undermine respect for teachers.
  Of course parents should be more involved in the running of schools, but the professional has also to be able to make professional decisions. I hope that the Secretary of State will produce a revised proposal that will take account of the fact that parents should be involved but that the professionals, nevertheless, should not be undermined. I accept the sincerity behind the question, but the object is to ensure that parents and teachers work collectively for the benefit of the children and, if necessary—I believe that it is necessary — collectively to show the Government their dissatisfaction with the lack of resources.
  I am interested in special schools. Increasingly the ideal is to try as far as possible to integrate children from special schools into ordinary schools. One or two authorities have, perhaps mischievously, misconstrued that as a way of undermining special schools. The evidence suggests that the integration—which will require specially qualified staff and support—within the environment of the mixed ability and ordinary schools requires resources. That move is progressing relatively slowly.
  I am interested in the teaching of the deaf as I have a deaf daughter. She is at the Aberdeen school for the deaf. There are one or two proposals that might have caused anxiety to those involved in teaching the deaf. The first is the report of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers which suggests that the Government might consider not requiring a specialist qualification for teachers of the deaf in future. I should be grateful, and so would a great many other people who are involved, if the Minister could assure us that he had no intention of pursuing that recommendation, and that he recognises that teachers of the deaf need special qualifications, as they always have in the past, and that they should continue to have them.
  Will the Minister also give more positive encouragement to introducing an opportunity for deaf people to teach deaf people? It is undesirable that all teachers of the deaf should be deaf, but it is also undesirable that those deaf people who have something to contribute should be excluded from the profession for what to some extent seem to be bureaucratic reasons. I believe that it would be a great advance if the Government could provide more positive encouragement for that.
  Although this is a debate about schools and further education, it is true that many of the people going through our schools are looking forward to going into further education and universities. The measures that the Government have proposed include reduced grants and the abolition of the minimum grant. There is a suggestion that up to 11,000 students will have to pay a full-cost £520 contribution towards their fees. That is a burden that should not be imposed and one that is likely to fall unfairly on those students. The Government should not move further down that road, as they are effectively taking from many people the opportunity to benefit from the further education that they wish to enjoy.
  While I and my colleagues appreciate that there is a genuine need to improve the quality of education, and to consider methods of improving it, that is rather subjective, and cannot be done by cutting resources. If the Government do not take seriously the representations that

  709
  are made and the detailed information that they are receiving from their inspectorate — that real cuts in resources are having real and damaging effect on education, which will become worse over the next year or two if the Government's policies persist—the generation going through our schools today will live bitterly to regret the fact that they went through under this Thatcher Government. I and my colleagues will be voting with the Labour Opposition.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: It is inevitable that the Inner London education authority should feature early as an example in any debate about value for money in education. Casting my mind back, I realise that I have been involved with inner London education in one way or another for more than 40 years.
  Throughout that time, parents, teachers and ordinary people in the street have pleaded that the provision of education should be less political. I can understand what they mean by that. We recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that there is common ground between us — education is about providing the skills which allow a child to develop into an adult and to live a fulfilling and rewarding life. The difficulty in the past has been how that common ground can be achieved and by what policies. There have been political differences about policy. In inner London, as is inevitable all over the country, the education authority has been politically divided.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to a further aspect. Education in London has become more political over the past decade than ever before. The signs are that it will become more political still. In the 1960s and early 1970s many saw that an education authority was an implement for social engineering and social change. It could be done by the adaptation of the curriculum, by the programming of teachers along certain learning paths. Attitudes in society should be changed rather than giving learning skills to pupils.
  That was a development which should be noted with some anxiety. Over the past few years, the politicising of education has gone a stage further. With the present administration of the ILEA there are one or two features at which we should look with greater care and anxiety. During the past few days ILEA's leadership has said that it feels that it has been misrepresented in the House. It is worth, therefore, identifying one or two points that we can see emerging.
  I suggest tentatively that the present leadership of ILEA sees the ILEA as being not just an instrument for education or an implement for social change, but a weapon with which to conduct warfare against the Government on a front rather wider than education. The redeployment of resources has been the opportunity to join battle. We have seen evidence of it in the past months. One may ask how such a situation has come to pass. I suggest that there has been a systematic approach over a number of years. There has been an attempt to ensure that those elected on the Left of the Labour party are prepared to subscribe to the party's 39 articles of belief and to ensure that they do not step out of line and express any views contrary to that belief. That is perhaps something that we must accept as being part of the to and fro, the give and take of political life in the
  710
  elective area. We can recognise it as an overt political division, and I do not make any harsh judgment on that basis.
  We have seen, however, a change whereby the members of the authority have sought to see that the political divisions permeate to other levels. There is clear evidence over the past few years that many senior appointments in the administration have been made or at least coloured by the political persuasion of those who seek those appointments. Not only has this trend affected the officers of the authority, but it has been noticeable in the appointment of the governors who are political nominees. Political associations appoint some of the Labour governors on the various governing bodies of the schools. We have seen evidence that those associations have made it a requirement that those governors do not represent views that they hold personally, but should subscribe to and vote along lines that are put to them before the meetings take place. Therefore, there has been an opportunity to affect decisions and make sure that the attitudes of members of governing bodies and of the officers to some extent politically coincide.
  But things have gone a stage further. Over the past few years, there has been a development in the appointment of head teachers. I have sat on head teacher panels in ILEA for several years. In the early days, there was a requirement to assess the candidates to see whether they were of the right educational calibre to give leadership and of the right administrative ability to preside over a whole round of activities, which the head of a school is required to do. However, today there have been clear signs from the questions that have been asked of an intention to probe the political attitudes of candidates. I am not saying that that is happening in every case, but it is happening in a significant number of cases. We should be alert to that factor and take such steps as may be necessary in due course.
  We have seen that attitude in the appointment of head teachers and again in teacher training, where political attitudes are explicit in many courses of study. I should like to give an anecdotal example of a mature teacher who had been teaching for many years, and was very experienced, but who lacked the teacher qualification—the licence to preach — that would be necessary in future. Therefore, she sought an in-service training scheme that would allow her to get that qualification. She was among several other mature students on that course. They found it a salutary experience in one way that mature teachers were being instructed in the art of teaching by those who had little or no classroom experience. That was stimulating enough, but what stuck in their gullet, the point that annoyed them most and that they could not swallow, was the fact that the philosophy put forward in the course was so totally alien to their experience of what was right in the classroom, where there was a neutral political standpoint and an objective point of view. They were told that explicit political attitudes were right and proper. Mature students with classroom experience can assess the quality of what is being put before them and discard the dross, but those who do not have that experience, especially young teachers, are not so well able to judge, so the situation is more ambiguous and bewildering for them.
  There is also evidence that in inner London the curriculum itself is being manipulated somewhat cynically towards political ends. Several courses might be seen as

  711
  politically desirable at the Fabian summer school, but it is not appropriate to teach them to children in inner London, who need to gain the skills that will give them the opportunity to make their way in the world and earn their living in later life.
  These things are happening concurrently and tend towards a certain end. That end has become apparent in recent weeks. It is apparent that ILEA is on a conflict course with the Government and the Secretary of State. One can see that these elements that I have sought to identify are now being mobilised. I received a letter the other day from a constituent who said:
  "My son is a pupil at"
  a school in my constituency.
  "Today I received a letter from the school, signed by the Headmaster"—
  he names the headmaster—
  "saying that the school will be closed on 7 November because members of the National Union of Teachers will be taking strike action as a protest against ILEA budget proposals and the imposition of Rate Capping on the Authority's finances."
  Such an approach is an abuse of a head teacher's position. It is an abuse of an authority's position. It should not use children as the emissaries of such a political message. There is an important issue here, but it should not be fought in the classroom. Such approaches are entirely reprehensible. My correspondent continues:
  "The letter goes on to request parents to register their views with their Members of Parliament."
  That is why my constituent wrote to me. He adds:
  "May I assure you of my wholehearted support for the Government's action in bringing this spendthrift authority back to reality … ILEA must be prevented from squandering any more millions of pounds of ratepayers' money. As a Southwark ratepayer I feel doubly penalised."
  Interestingly enough, in this case the approach was counter-productive, but few parents have the courage to write such a letter in the face of authority. Few parents who thought that would dare say it. Few governors who felt that could say it in open meetings where they are in a minority. There are some sinister elements that should be identified and brought out into the open if we are discussing whether ILEA has a good case for being rate capped, for redeploying its resources or being considered special. The present administration of ILEA is not presenting a good case. In fact, it is letting down the children of inner London.
  To end on a more optimistic note, I congratulate the Secretary of State on making sure that the ILEA of the future remains a unitary body serving deprived areas of inner London as well as more prosperous areas, and at the same time ensuring that it is a directly elected and democratically sensitive body that can recognise educational need in inner London and make an assessment of the proper price that should be paid in achieving the standards that we require.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) down that avenue, except to say that, as a former education administrator, I always look to the professionals of ILEA as examples of the height of professionalism and as representing all that is truly progressive in the education service. The hon. Gentleman's description of what is going on in ILEA was not credible, but he knows his own area best.
  712
  I shall confine most of my remarks to non-advanced further education. The education service resents some of the messages that come from Conservative Members—although not from the Secretary of State—who denigrate all those who serve in the public service. It has become almost a dirty word to many Conservative Members to say that one works in the public sector. It is as if everyone who worked in the public sector was an inferior animal who would be working in the private sector if only he could get a proper job.
  I have worked in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The level of dedication in the public sector is at least the equal of that in the private sector, where the rewards and the perks of the job are so much greater. I should like to put on record the Opposition's appreciation of the dedication of teachers, administrators, cleaners, caretakers and dinner ladies to the state education service.
  I wish that Conservative Members understood how much their ill-thought-out statements about the public service affect the morale of those who work in it. There is a crisis of morale in the teaching profession, and the Secretary of State would do well to address himself to it. I was glad to hear him recognise the difficulty of the teachers' task, because it is not widely recognised. We should all say how extremely difficult it is to teach today when many of the old models of authority have been broken. Many teachers wrestle with problems which their predecessors of 30 or 40 years ago would not have recognised or been able to cope with. We should all support the teachers, who are trying to contend with the many social problems which society is throwing up. Parents are often unable to deal with them, as are the social services. All too often such problems fall to be dealt with by teachers, heads of department or head teachers.
  Some people like to pretend that all teachers live in a cloistered atmosphere and are unaware of and uninterested in the problems of the real world, but many people in further education have worked in industry and commerce and are only too familiar with their problems. That sector of the education service is at the interface between education and training and industry and commerce. It is difficult to cope at that interface.
  In the past few years further education has had to wrestle with the repercussions of the collapse of manufacturing industry. That collapse has devastated large parts of the country, especially County Durham. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and I are all too familiar with the devastation that has resulted from the destruction of jobs in the area. It has been difficult to sustain the education service in those circumstances. The involvement of employers in training has often collapsed even faster than industry. Further education has had to find students and then contend with the impact of advanced technology. Some hon. Members are more or less experts on the repercussions of advanced technology, but most of us are unaware of them, especially in education and training. The uncertainties of advanced technology have to be coped with daily.
  I remind the Secretary of State that the education and training part of the education service is at the sharp end of our problems over competitiveness. It can be argued that the further education service has a greater contribution to make to the country's competitiveness, to our ability to handle the impact of advanced technology and to cope with the social and economic changes that are riding roughshod over many parts of the country. People who

  713
  provide further education and training must therefore not be ignored or denigrated. They do not live in a cloistered atmosphere. They have always had to draw their students from industry and commerce and have had to prove to industry that their courses are relevant and that the quality of their teaching is high.
  Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and agree with much of it. Does he agree that the Department of Environment's initiative is absolutely right, as it ensures that people in colleges of further education have the full benefit of working in concert with employers and that they, with money provided by the Manpower Services Commission, will supply the very technology and information that people in colleges need?
  Mr. Foster: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I was about to consider that matter, so, if she will bear with me, I might be able to agree with some of what she said.
  We face a great problem over how to implement change in the education service. Every Secretary of State for Education and Science has wrestled with the problem of getting people in the education service to agree a plan of action and then to achieve a set of objectives. It is understandable that Secretaries of State want more power to achieve change, but decision making in the education service is diffuse. We have to persuade local education authorities, colleges, heads of department, boards of governors, perhaps academic boards and teachers, that what we have decided is best.
  Many people in the education service long to impose change. We are impatient for it, as it never goes as fast as we should like. Politicians might have only a short run. The Secretary of State has been with us for a long time —some might say too long—and he might continue in office for some time yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At least he has the support of his Back Benchers. He has been fortunate in that he has been able to pursue a course of action and see it through. What puzzles me is that he has not chosen to take on the authorities or to change the constitutional arrangements by which education is administered. Rather he has chosen to stand on one side. The Secretary of State has chosen to turn a blind eye while the further education service has been raped by the Manpower Services Commission.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: That conjures up an interesting picture.
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps at some other time we may discuss the implications of rape in relation to the MSC.
  Where was the Secretary of State when the decision was made to take a quarter of the further education service from the local education authorities? What part did he play in those discussions? Did he feel that he was doing education a service when he allowed that to happen? Did he not owe it to the education service to stand up for it and fight in its corner? How will he be able to deliver the good will of the education service — of the local education authorities, the colleges, the principals and the heads of department—when he stands on one side and allows them to be dealt with in that way by the MSC?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Because I take the view that non-advanced further education, like most other aspects of education, is patchy—it varies from the excellent to the not-so-excellent — I assume that the interests of local
  714
  education authorities, principals and lecturers are not always the same as the interests of students, and my interest is the students' interest.
  Mr. Foster: I accept that explanation from the Secretary of State. He sweeps aside the dedication of those involved in further education—the principals, lecturers and departmental heads.
  Sir Keith Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foster: The Secretary of State says that his interest in the students is better informed and more dedicated than that of those involved in further education.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Perhaps my hon. Friend can find out whether the Secretary of State now accepts the compromise. Also, why does the Secretary of State feel that students can influence the MSC and so improve the quality of their courses, although there is no real democratic accountability, but that they cannot influence the local education authorities through the locally elected councils?
  Mr. Foster: That is a point that I wished to make. Any Secretary of State must want more power to implement change, but to stand on one side and give that power to the MSC, whose structure is unresponsive and insensitive to the forces that have to be persuaded to implement any changes, is not the way to use that power. The Secretary of State may achieve his aims in the short term, but only at the expense of upsetting all those forces within education which he must reconcile to his ideas.
  I deal now with the point raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). I have never regarded the MSC as the big black beast which must be resisted at all costs. I welcome the money from the MSC for the youth opportunities programme, because that money can be used as a lever for change within education. I take the same view with regard to the rest of work-related non-advanced education. By all means let us use the money from the MSC as a lever for change, but the Secretary of State for Education should not stand on one side, wash his hands of the matter and say that it is nothing to do with him and that the MSC is in a better position to influence the situation and is better equipped to deal with educational institutions.
  Does the Secretary of State accept the compromise being worked out between the education authorities and the MSC under its new chairman? Would he like to tell us whether, in his view, the arrangement is satisfactory?
  Sir Keith Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foster: The Secretary of State does not wish to tell us at present. I do not regard the MSC as a malevolent influence within the system. Money from the MSC should enable us to implement work-related schemes which will be relevant and responsive to the needs of industry and commerce. However, the MSC is acting in a most insensitive way — a way almost calculated to cause uncertainty and disruption within education. The Secretary of State will regret his abrogation of his responsibility in that respect.
  The Secretary of State must wrestle with the problem of the necessity to provide a variety of support for young people in the 16 to 19 age group. Some young people are in receipt of unemployment benefit, some get an allowance from the youth training scheme, some are able

  715
  to use the 21-hour rule, some receive a meagre educational maintenance allowance from the local education authority and some get nothing at all.
  There is a great opportunity here. The problem of youth unemployment is horrifying. I have been highly critical of the attitude of the Department of Education and Science to the youth training scheme, and I believe that the Secretary of State himself should have played a much greater part in the discussions.
  We can deal with the problem in a constructive way, or we can miss the opportunity to do so. I believe that many of those who gain nothing from school could, between the ages of 16 and 19, be motivated by the youth training scheme to understand the value of education and training. However, the Secretary of State must realise that many young people are dissuaded from staying on at school or embarking on further education because they receive no income support. I am thinking in particular of children from very poor working-class families. That is a great waste.
  We must not pretend that the YTS is the best way of catering for the needs of all those students. Very often, it would be better for them to stay on at school or go on to further education. We must find some way of giving those students and their families an incentive to pursue what is for them by far the better course. I would not denigrate the YTS in any way, although it needs to be improved. However, a substantial proportion of young people would be better advised to stay on at school or go on to full-time further education. The Secretary of State ignores the fact that many children from poor families cannot afford to do so.
  The Labour party is committed to a comprehensive scheme, lasting at least two years, in which the YTS will be part of an integrated system of further education and training. Staying on at school and in further education will be part of the integrated scheme. Youngsters can enter the youth training scheme, then go back into the education system, and then perhaps proceed to another aspect of education and training during the two-year period. I admit that the scheme would be expensive, but we must work out a way of persuading those for whom it would be best to stay at school or to proceed to full-time further education.
  There is a great divide in the House, especially between the Conservative party and the Labour party, about the society that we want. We cannot pretend that politics has no part in education. Politics will always be an integral part of discussions about education, because we are talking about resources and how they should be allocated, how many students should continue in full-time education and what that full-time education should be.
  The Secretary of State must understand that he cannot cry for an improvement in standards across the board and then talk as though resources were irrelevant. I recognise that we need more than more resources if we are to improve standards in schools and in further education, but to talk as though resources are irrelevant to that objective is to deceive the electorate. We cannot deliver better standards in education without adequate resources, and in failing to stand up for the education service at Cabinet meetings, and in offering cuts time after time, the Secretary of State has let down the education service and
  716
  an entire generation of students. If we cannot afford to invest in our young people, we do not believe in the values which we say we uphold.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: As I listened to the final comments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), I thought that I would be able to agree with what he said. However, I cannot accept his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will find much agreement for his statement that resources are not irrelevant to the achievement of excellence. The divide between the parties to which he referred does not mean that those of us who believe that resources should be used more efficiently also believe that there is merit in restricting resources. We are aware that, in education as in many other public services, more money could be used wisely and well. However, we are not always certain that the extra money would be used wisely and well.
  If we had extra resources for education we might follow the example of our cousins across the Atlantic. In the state of Florida, whose economy is beginning to expand, from September of this year the junior high and high schools will have an extra period in each day's schooling—three quarters of an hour extra schooling. That is a recognition of the fact that there can be a desire for more education, not simply better education within given parameters. In California—another state that has benefited from the growth of the American economy—in September of this year the college semester began a week early. Each semester will be a week longer, which is again a recognition that, in some cases, more education is desirable and can be better.
  However, we must remember that in Florida parents pay for the writing materials, stationery and art materials that their children take to school. There is a different participation by parents in Florida in paying the costs of education, and, a much higher proportion of fees is paid by parents and students than happens in Britain. Even if resources were widely available, we would have to examine closely how those increased resources were allocated to ensure that we got the best value.
  I shall confine my remarks to the allocation of resources. When it has been debated in the past, it has tended to mean the allocation of resources between those who are directly concerned with teaching in the classroom and those outside. That is an important factor. Even after all that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers have done, about half of those paid out of the education budget today will never face a classroom full of pupils. There is room for redeployment of resources in the education budget away from those who are not directly concerned with education and towards those who are.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that resources could be better deployed in schools. I was a teacher for many years, and then a head teacher, and I know that a problem in many schools is the growing burden of administrative duties that are carried out by skilled teachers. I hope that we can reverse that trend, because the best teacher—who often obtains promotion to head of department or head teacher because of his skills in the classroom—is not always the best administrator.
  We have already heard this afternoon about the current review of teachers' pay and conditions. One of the most revolutionary and desirable changes that could be made

  717
  would be to offer a system whereby the excellent teacher was rewarded as a career teacher in the classroom, not by being given an administrative post or by a reduction of his time in the classroom.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House visit schools regularly, and are often shown young pupils doing remarkable work with computers, which I welcome wholeheartedly. However, it is odd that only a few of the schools that have excellent computer programmes for pupils as aids to learning and as training for future careers use computers for their administration. Most schools keep their records on pieces of paper or cardboard in filing cabinets. If the information was recorded electronically so that it could be brought back instantly, it would save an enormous amount of time and effort by teachers who are asked to fill in returns and to make lists of pupils.
  There is no need for records to be kept in schools, although that happens all too often. If schools had terminals from a mainframe computer at the education office, it would be unnecessary to ask head teachers to send lists of pupils who met certain criteria, because that information would be available at the touch of a button. The school would not be bothered with such administrative tasks, which all too often fill the time of the most skilled teachers, who would be far better employed teaching in the classroom.
  I make it clear that I am not suggesting that education is no more than teaching in the classroom. I recognise that the education budget has to cover a great deal more than that. It has to cover the costs of administration, of building and of providing equipment. I am not belittling these needs. However, one way in which we might achieve the excellence in education that is the object of both sides of the House would be to ensure that the very best teachers were rewarded so that they continued to make their contribution in the classroom during their careers rather than being diverted into an administrative role. If we could achieve that, and ensure that our best pupils were taught by our best teachers, we should also achieve excellence.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is talking about rewards. From where will the money come?
  Mr. Griffiths: I have said that I would like to see increased resources as and when they are available, and out of that I should like to see increased rewards for the best teachers. At the moment, the allocation of funds for salaries is geared to the ability of the nation to pay, as is recognised by the Department of Education and Science, which knows what the allocation is likely to be. I should like teachers to be rewarded within the present totality of salaries for excellence in teaching rather than being promoted into jobs that require them to devote their time to administration. Within the totality of existing salaries, more money going to the best teachers rather than to administrators would be helpful, and as and when greater resources become available I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I would wish more resources to be devoted to this.
  I agree with much that is implied in the Opposition's motion, but they are taking too narrow and too limited a view. It is necessary for us to recognise that only a small increase in excellence in education can be achieved by increases in resources. What is needed is careful thought and management of the resources, on whatever level they may be provided.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I shall take up several of the points made by the Secretary of State. This is one of the rare occasions when hon. Members who would like to do so can take him on about some of the statements that he regularly makes from the Dispatch Box when he tries to fool the House into believing that expenditure in education is for ever expanding. The only person that the Secretary of State is fooling is himself. Educationists and chief education officers, wherever they are, say that things are getting not better, but worse.
  In some authorities, the shortage of the basic resources of education such as books is so critical that teachers have been breaking the law by using machinery illegally to photostat textbooks so that the children can complete courses. This is so serious that writs have been issued against certain local authorities. The teachers are merely attempting to cope with the savage cuts that have been experienced, not only in their salaries but in necessary requirements such as books. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) talked about an extra computer for the school secretary to help with administration. However, in education the need is far more basic than that.
  Often, the Secretary of State is tempted to play the numbers game when he talks about pupil-teacher ratios. I shall point out one or two anomalies that show that things are not as simple as the Secretary of State would have the House believe. It is true that there are falling rolls, but it is not simple to match schools with falling rolls to the number of teachers. For example, one cannot say that numbers in a primary school are so low that the school will be closed and the pupils will be concentrated in another primary school four miles away. In many instances, although such a solution may be economic, it will be difficult to close the original primary school because mothers have very young children who cannot travel long distances. For that reason, uneconomic schools may need to be kept open.
  The Secretary of State attempts to fool the House with his numbers game, but his theories do not hold water. He should stop playing the game. because it is far from being as honest as we should expect of him. If the Secretary of State wishes confirmation of this theory, I suggest that he initiates an investigation into the problem of schools with falling rolls and trying to staff them with teachers, when schools already have so many problems.
  With great pride, the Secretary of State quoted savings from school meals. This is a vexed problem for many local authorities. Making savings in school meals means that local authorities are serving junk food menus, which are no longer nutritional and do not provide a balanced diet for the children. Some authorities, including mine, have high incidences of poverty and in many cases the midday meal at school is the only main meal that the child will have. For this reason, educationists believe that it is essential that a child should have a balanced diet at school. It is not good enough to say that the kids can be provided with food at home so that at lunch time they cart have merely a sausage roll or a cheese bun. That is not giving them an adequate meal, even though savings may be made.
  I remember that some years ago, under a previous Conservative Government, the Prime Minister was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. She had the

  719
  idea of stopping school milk. My authority was outraged and up in arms about this, because it recognised that school milk was essential and was good for the development of the child, and even good for education. The local authority on that occasion countermanded the order. Instead of breaking the law, we introduced free soup. However, the then Conservative Government were not satisfied and tried to introduce regulations to deny the children their free soup. Talk about cuts being made in the cost of school meals is nothing new. Such efforts to cut costs are a constant nag, because education has become a whipping boy and millions of pounds are always being lopped off its budget.
  Dr. John Marek: The position is even worse than my hon. Friend describes. If a child is given a cheese sandwich, there is at least some nutritional value in it. The cheese contains calories and there are carbohydrates in the bread. But in many schools that I have visited children now go for chips with curry sauce. Some sort of soup is poured over the chips. I really cannot see the nutritional value in such food. Incidentally such a meal costs 50p. — for chips with some sort of soupy, curry-like liquid on them. That is what children are having today.
  Mr. Eastham: What my hon. Friend says typifies the true position. Our children are now being served junk food in schools, which cannot be in the interests of good education.
  Mr. Dunn: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, who talks about the city of Manchester, an area which I know well. I am curious to know why he thinks that the Labour Government, who succeeded the Conservative Government of 1970–74, did not reintroduce the provision of milk in schools.
  Mr. Eastham: The Minister does not know Manchester as well as I do. I have lived in Manchester all my life, other than during my national service. When we had the reorganisation of local government in 1974, the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester county council had a licence to spend 2p. Hon. Members will remember that there was a licence for a local authority to spend a certain amount of money. It was decided to spend that money to allow the 10 districts to provide milk. It was done because there were two local authorities that were not Labour but Conservative. The Labour Government told local authorities that they could now supply free milk if they wished to do so. However, the two Conservative authorities in the Greater Manchester area had no intention of reintroducing the provision of milk. As a result the Greater Manchester county council—the upper tier for the 10 authorities—said that it would provide it. Those are the true facts about the provision of school milk.
  We talk a great deal about examination results. They are an issue very dear to the Labour party. But it is not unreasonable to point out that many factors are involved in getting good examination results. Children have to live in decent homes. They do not do very well when they live in terrible slums. We have many problems in the inner city areas, where the Government are doing next to nothing to improve housing conditions. If a child has homework to do, it is essential that he goes to a decent home, possibly with central heating, and to a room where he can study.
  720
  I realise that the majority of Government supporters do not come from poor homes. They do not appreciate what it is like to live in a slum and consequently they do not understand the importance of other amenities in addition to classrooms. Bad housing is another reason why children in our inner city areas do not achieve very good examination results.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Just now I heard a Government supporter ask about Liverpool. Will my hon. Friend comment on the worth of providing a temporary flower garden, which is about all that this Government have done for Liverpool, when set against the real poverty of opportunity for children in the north-west generally and the real poverty of the backgrounds of these children? However valuable a flower garden might be, it does not solve these problems.
  Mr. Eastham: I would never refuse anything from this Government. If they want to provide a few flower gardens, at least they will make life a little more tolerable. However, I do not think that Government supporters should imagine that they will make a devastating contribution to an improvement in standards of education.
  We have had numerous reports on education—the Newsom report, the Plowden report and the Robbins report. All of them made one basic point. All of them recognised the need to spend money. Until the Government are honest enough to say that it is necessary to provide money, we shall never achieve the standards of education that the House wants to provide.
  There is no shortage of resources in private education. I remember watching a television programme a couple of years ago about some of the posh, fee-paying schools. It was said with a certain amount of pride that even the rowing equipment was worth £250,000. In some of our schools we cannot even afford textbooks. That underlines the dishonesty of the Government. They know these facts but they try to cheek their way through and convince people that they really care. We know that they do not care. Actions are better than words, and we are not getting the necessary resources.
  Education is always the whipping boy of Conservative Governments, and no longer does education have its rightful place among the professions. It does not have the prestige to which it is entitled. We have this constant haggling every time the teachers as a profession make representations for decent pay. As time goes on we shall get what we pay for, so we shall have low morale among our teachers and, as a consequence, we shall have steadily reducing standards of education.
  In this debate we are discussing two sections —schools and further education—and there is one major problem about our schools which was touched on by one of my hon. Friends earlier today. It refers to maintenance grants and the unequal subsidies. There is a great deal of confusion in all local authorities. In massaging the unemployment figures the Government have decided to spend money on the Manpower Services Commission, and grants are to be paid to young people under its scheme. There are other education answers such as discretionary grants, which the Government tell local authorities they may give if they wish. But if they do they get into difficulties with the Treasury, which says that they are spending too much money. What is more, very often the grants are means-tested, which causes further problems.

  721
  Local authorities should not be penalised if they wish to give grants to encourage young people to stay on at school. Sometimes, obviously, school leavers will benefit by staying on in education, but some can do so only if there is some financial benefit for them. Instead, they say to themselves that if they go on the dole they will get unemployment pay so they may as well stay in bed and collect money for doing so. That is no use to anyone. It is of no benefit to the young people concerned and it is of no benefit to the country's future. Other children stay on but their parents receive virtually no assistance. If the Government genuinely wish to give equal opportunities to children, that aspect should be cleared up.
  The Secretary of State periodically announces that he intends to impose a curriculum but local authorities are given no clear idea of what is in his mind so they do not know where they are going.
  I hope that the Government will also give us some answers about the effect of falling rolls on parental freedom of choice. There is no easy solution. Popular schools are filled to overflowing while pupils rattle against the sides of the other schools. It is time that the Department suggested some logical solution.
  The word "privatisation" is constantly wafting around and it seems that there may be some more of it in the offing for education. This naturally causes restlessness in the work force. Staff are entitled to be treated with respect. They are not parasites. Many education authority workers providing school meals and other services do a first-class job, although they are often underpaid. They are entitled to security and to some idea of where they are going. It is all very well to talk about parents' rights, but it should be remembered that teachers and other staff are often parents as well.
  In further education there was great resentment when it was discovered that the new money for Manpower Services Commission training was being taken away from education. I remember being told by the Minister that £60 million was being transferred. That was not new money. It was just a bookkeeping exercise, taking money from further education and slinging it into the Manpower Services Commission in an attempt to kid people that the Government were spending more money. There was quite an eruption over this and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities made it clear to the Government that there would be no co-operation. We are now told that there is to be some kind of peace formula. If that is so, may we take it that the Government intend to bring back some kind of sanity into spending in these areas?
  The special problems of the polytechnics have not so far been raised in the debate. It is time that the Government applied themselves to problems such as capital allocation. Polytechnics suffer the annual problem of having to replace obsolete equipment. High technology equipment such as computers is very expensive. It is a matter not of a couple of hundred pounds but of several thousands of pounds. If they are to train students for industry they must keep abreast of technical developments, but they are falling far behind in the attempt to kit themselves out with the necessary equipment.
  On the subject of training in education, even the Government must admit that not all educationists agree with the Government's new theory that education authorities should be training students for specific jobs. Many of them believe that their business is to provide education for the child's entire future. People tend to
  722
  change jobs three times in their lifetime, so it is more important to provide a broad education. Moreover, specific requirements are constantly changing. The Select Committee on Employment recently took evidence from industrialists and we found that many of them did not really know what they wanted. For instance, five or six years ago there was a shortage of production management engineers. In the four or five years necessary to produce the necessary specialists, however, developments in robotics meant that many of those trained people were not required. Therefore, we should not be fooled into rushing to provide everything that industrialists say that they need. We should be developing talent so that people can adapt to the changing needs of industry.
  The purpose of today's debate is to impress on the Government that excellence in education cannot be achieved on the cheap. Education is an investment for the future and it is vital for this country's survival into the next century.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I have no hesitation in supporting the Prime Minister's amendment. For the first time, we have a Secretary of State who has turned his attention to the 40 per cent. of school leavers who, in his own words,
  "after 11 years of compulsory schooling, show no apparent benefit from having been at school."
  He has also said that to do something about this
  "The keys are effective teachers and motivated pupils",
  that
  "Teaching effectively is a hard job"
  —I entirely agree—and that the Government's first job was to raise the quality of teachers.
  That is not best achieved by talking of teachers as commodities in a supply and demand situation. As a former teacher, I know that teaching is very much a vocation. There are very few professions of that kind in which the ruling system is that of supply and demand. With falling school rolls, the profession is contracting. Pay is also part of that. There have been enormous fluctuations in pay increases for teachers in the past 10 years or so. This has led to an uncharacteristic militancy on the part of teachers, for whom money has traditionally been a secondary consideration. The Secretary of State, employers and teachers all want to succeed in finding a new structure for future pay arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) spoke wisely on a number of issues. We should all remember that education administrators, and indeed councillors in local education authorities, have a unique propensity for causing deep gloom among teachers, parents and pupils, often to the detriment of their children's education. That is often not intentional, but, perceived from a teacher's point of view, it can be very damping.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that all the problems of society tend to end up on teachers' plates. That is often true. That is why much more community support is necessary for our schools and teachers. I speak with feeling as a former parent-teachers' association chairman and a former elected parent-governor, but that works both ways, and increased specialisation by teachers, including at primary level, can lead to a freezing out of parents from the educational process — a weakening of that partnership between parents and teachers.

  723
  I was in the United States recently looking at education and I was impressed by the fact that the teaching profession there seems to be less jealous and more welcoming of parents into classrooms and the education process. We should bear that in mind.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on his commitment to a change from a relative examination system far nearer to an absolute system in which young people will in future be tested not on how they compare with other young people, but on what they understand, know and can do. Many teachers welcome the concept of criteria-related grades. That step will improve motivation, among both teachers and pupils. Pupils will be tested according to their potential.
  The amendment speaks of
  "securing the most effective use of the substantial resources available for the benefit of the education service."
  Those substantial resources are provided not just for the benefit of the education service but for the benefit of the community, and there is one aspect of that which we neglect at our peril.
  I want to concentrate on the need for our young people to be made much more fully aware of the dangers of substance abuse. Today, my regional health authority is considering a report which it commissioned on the rising tide of drug abuse. Like many other hon. Members, I have discussed that matter with local police, the local education authority and the district health authority. In common with everybody else, my education authority has a curriculum for social and personal education in its schools and within that there is a unit on community responsibility for drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. I stress the words "community responsibility" because that is how we should be tackling the problem, particularly in schools. However, my education authority confines that curriculum to the fourth and fifth years, and I am not convinced that that is adequate.
  There seems to be agreement that because of trends in the availability and price of marijuana and cocaine, because there are doubts about the efficiency of the voluntary code for retail sales of solvents such as glue and butane, and because there is no sign of a downturn in the consumption of alcohol, its social acceptability and its use and misuse, we probably have about two years before we shall have to face major problems of chemical dependency among our young people.
  I welcome the Government's initiative on drug abuse and the work of the ministerial committee responsible for co-ordinating Government action in that area, but are my right hon. Friend and his Department represented on that committee? The Government must take a long-term and broad view and the solution of the problems of substance abuse must start with education.
  I had so many questions in my mind about the issue of substance abuse that I went to California last month with the prime purpose of examining prevention and rehabilitation projects. I found that some 60 per cent. of high school children have had experience of marijuana or cocaine, or both. There is no easy transfer of solutions. It cannot even be said that a similar situation will arise here, but we ignore California's experience and conclusions at our peril.
  It is often said that to talk about drugs and substance abuse in schools encourages experimentation and their use
  724
  and abuse among young people. The best evidence suggests that that is not so. When perhaps it is so, it is the result of general comment in general studies in schools, probably by a teacher with the best of intentions who is not supported by a rigorous curriculum in the school or education authority. There is also a body of evidence which suggests that education on alcohol, drugs, tobacco and solvents should begin when a child is as young as eight years old. Later, it may be too late.
  Two of the most experienced teams in the United States have produced programmes which I commend to my right hon. Friend. Many San Francisco schools have widely adopted a sophisticated model chemical policy which is designed to institute clear chemical abuse prevention programmes within their schools. It stresses the interrelation of student, family and community and the importance of teacher training.
  The Centre for Human Development in Lafayette, California, has developed a programme which has been widely used and proven throughout schools in the United States. It involves a mutual support network for teenagers with alcohol and drug problems, known as NEAT family groups. NEAT stands for "new experience in affection and trust". That is an untranslatable Californian expression of the need for young people to become more confident in their ability to succeed in school, in their relationships and in life in general.
  The Department of Education and Science is to be congratulated on the careful advice that it has given to local education authorities on drugs and drug-related problems, but the time has come when we can no longer rely exclusively on circulars from Elizabeth house to prevent the waste of human resources—people—and the family tragedies which result from all forms of chemical substance abuse, whether we are talking of tobacco, alcohol, solvents or drugs.
  I draw two conclusions. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department should play a full part in the co-ordination of the Government's drug abuse policy. Secondly, education authorities should take a lead in establishing community-based school-centred groups to act on local problems. The local education authority is too big a unit. The problems of Swindon are different from those of Salisbury, and those of Trowbridge are different from those of Amesbury. The headmaster of the Stonehenge comprehensive school in Amesbury told me on Monday of problems there relating to the Stonehenge festival, the spectacle of drug availability and the wholesale disregard for the law which inevitably goes right through into the school and community.
  If such community-based groups could be established, membership should undoubtedly include not only teachers and parents, but doctors, police, social workers and local churchmen. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, substance abuse occurs among schoolchildren, but often after school hours and off school premises. It is a community phenomenon.
  It is still true that prevention is better than cure. Cure and rehabilitation is another area of great deficiency in Britain, but it would be inappropriate for me to talk about that now. We cannot afford to be complacent about substance abuse in our schools. Many problems face education, but that is one which we can prevent from becoming worse while the situation is under control. For once we can avoid lurching into management by crisis of a major social threat if we all have the will to act now.
  6.49 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which dwelt on a very serious problem. I had great sympathy with almost all of his speech. However, he also said that he would congratulate the Department of Education and Science and I cannot go along with him on that. Although it may perceive the problem, it has not done enough about it. It is one thing to send out circulars saying that something should be done about glue sniffing, but there are also possibilities for action. Legislation could be introduced making it impossible for young children to buy glues and various chemicals. Certainly more could be done in that way.
  I urge the Department to look again at the problem. After all, it is a serious problem and has existed for 50 or 60 years in the United States. I believe that in large measure it arises because of the uncertain future facing many young American children. That problem is now coming home to roost in Britain. One cause—although perhaps not the major cause—may be that children go to school, not because they will eventually go on to higher education or vocational training, or because they will then obtain jobs, but simply because there is nowhere else to go. Their parents want to get rid of them between 9 am and 4 pm. When they finish school, they will have no future and will be thrown on to the scrap-heap.
  There are various schemes, such as the youth training scheme, which are intended to give children the impression that there is a future, but children are not that daft. They know that the schemes last for a year and that after that they have to find a job. But they cannot find jobs and they know what their older peers are doing. Consequently, there is a lowering of morale. Children do not know what to do, and that is one of the factors that make many of them go to places in which they can sniff glue and other substances.
  Although that is an important subject, I want to talk about higher education and the curricula—
  Mr. Hind: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate, instead of being wheeled in to waste our time, he would know that the debate is about schools and further education.
  Dr. Marek: Higher education is contained in further education.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Although the debate is on further education in schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dwelt, without apology and at length, on the grant cuts that have arisen from the autumn statement. Many of us would like the opportunity of speaking on that subject as well.
  Dr. Marek: I think that this is a wide-ranging debate. I have read the motion and the amendment, and I think that I am in order. I hope that Conservative Members will make interventions, but that they will be interventions of substance and of logical argument and that they will not raise mere peccadilloes as to whether one is using the right terminology.
  I shall concentrate on what happens to schoolchildren and on what is taught in schools and in courses of higher education. I was a lecturer at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, for nearly 20 years and, although I
  726
  have not seen the report, I have it on good authority that this year the principal of that college said that some students do not now find places and that the situation is the worst since the last war. I stress that a principal and an eminently respected figure in the community has said that the situation is the worst since the last war.
  It is not good enough for Conservative Members to give facile excuses about the problem being simply a question of a little more efficiency or economy, and I do not expect them to say that if only students were shunted from one institution to another everything would be all right, or that students numbers have increased, and so on. That principal understands the position, and he says that the situation in his university college is the worst since the last war.
  There was a time when universities had quinquennial planning and were able to plan five years in advance. Such systems are efficient. If institutions, colleges and schools know what their resources are to be, they can plan for their starting numbers. They can also make projections about students numbers and plan efficiently. To be fair, the previous Labour Government must to a certain extent take responsibility, but what happened then is as nothing compared with what is happening now under a Conservative Government.
  The rate support grant figures are often changed, and consequently local authorities are under pressure because they do not know from one year to the next what their financial obligations will be, or how much money they will have at their disposal in order to provide for the education services in their areas.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will be well aware that a bombshell has fallen on another section of further education and training with the announcement that the information technology centres' programme, which was supposed to be the jewel in the crown of the new training system, is to be cut. The Department of Trade and Industry will not top it up after this year. That is a cruel blow to what was supposed to be the jewel in the crown of a new sort of training for young people.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that valid point. It might be carrying it too far to say that the Government should be interested in education above everything else, but they should see education as a vital and necessary function of government if they are to provide for succeeding generations. Unfortunately, the Government put their medium-term financial strategy at the top of the list and are concerned with reducing public borrowing as far as possible. They do not like public expenditure, and it does not matter one whit whether generation after generation of schoolchildren are ruined, because the Government are not interested in that. They are concerned only with reducing public expenditure or the public sector borrowing requirement to, say, 1 per cent. of gross domestic product by some future date. That is a great pity.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the summation of the situation is that if the state has to provide it will cut that provision back to the minimum? The Government seem to believe in the policy that if one can afford it one can have it, and that if one cannot afford it one will not get it.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is quite right. One has only to look at the figures for assisted places and private education to see that that point is proved. The Government are against public expenditure. The Department has even produced various figures for students entering colleges and universities, but they are quite unrealistic. Some of those figures have had to be changed. The DES "Report on Education 100" brought the figures up a little, but suffice it to say that the University Grants Committee does not believe in the X or Y variants for projected student numbers. It is all part of the Government's grand design to reduce public expenditure. Meanwhile, education suffers.
  I support education as an end in itself. I support the notion that anyone — whether a school child, student, worker or pensioner—should be able to avail himself of education if he can benefit from it in any way. It is the Government's duty to provide a system of education in which that can be achieved.
  I want to ask the Secretary of State a question, but unfortunately I think I know his answer. I have heard him say different things during Question Time on education, but everyone has a chance to redeem himself. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that education should be available to all who can benefit from it? If he does not, why not? Surely the nation's wealth is in the generation that is growing up. We shall pay dearly if we waste talents.
  The Clwyd county council is going through its budgetary exercise. Class sizes in the county are among the largest in Wales, but the council plans to cut the number of secondary school teachers by at least 122. That is planned so that the grant holdback provisions will not be too onerous. It is a substantial cut that is proposed by the officers. If they had decided to produce a budget with no holdback, many more teachers would be involved than the proposed five or six in each comprehensive school.
  One headmaster has written to the parents of each of his pupils. He said:
  "Quite simply it will mean that the school will not be able to provide the depth and variety of education that is the right of every child in the country. To be more specific: the 'O' level and CSE groups in Welsh, French and Religious Education will have to be combined. Examinations groups in Physics and Child Care will disappear."
  It is deplorable that an important subject such as physics will disappear. Certain computer studies and design groups will also disappear if the cuts take place.
  The letter continued:
  "German, Modular Technology, Pottery and Domestic Science are all at risk. All classes will have increased numbers."
  The school concerned is Ysgol Bryn Alyn. It says something that a headmaster feels so strongly about what is happening to his school and the provisions for it that he has to write such a circular letter to every parent.
  I find the situation deplorable. If the Government have any sense, and if they care about the wealth of the country and the generations to come, they will do something quickly.
  The Teacher of 28 September 1984 says that half the schools studies in a survey used the help of unpaid parents to undertake essential school work. That cannot be right. If we want a proper education system we must pay for it. I am not saying that we are squandering money, but education costs money and needs investment. Eventually we shall be repaid, because we shall produce a civilised and educated population to create the wealth that we need.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend referred to parental help in schools. In which type school and in which areas do we expect the most help from parents? Does not the need for such help emphasise the divisions in our education system?
  Dr. Marek: That is a valid point. I do not like the terms "middle class", "working class" or "ruling class", but the middle classes can afford to provide the textbooks and "minding" duties at certain times. They can afford to provide the little extras. In working-class schools, where there is the greatest deprivation, such extra help cannot be provided. Parents have no incentive because they know that even when their children are educated there will be no jobs for them.
  Yesterday the Clwyd education committee voted not to implement cuts, but to go for a standstill budget for next year. That has to be ratified by the full council, but if a standstill budget is agreed and I were to ask the Secretary of State for Wales what he thought of that he would say that he would have seriously to consider rate-capping Clwyd county council next year. That is deplorable. We should try to unscramble the mix so that we can provide an education system which our people deserve and from which they can benefit.
  In recent months steps have been taken to try to decrease the term of the standard three-year degree course to two years. There are arguments for doing that. Education is a life-long process and some people want to spend one or two years in further education before gaining vocational experience and then going back to education. I see the argument against the standard, rigid three-year pattern.
  I suspect that the Government are trying to make the change because of their overriding desire to cut public expenditure. I hope that the Minister can reassure me. I hope that if changes are made it will be because of the desire to improve the balance and increase the mix of courses to allow different students to complete their education in the way that they wish. That is important to the development of education.
  The two-year course for the diploma of higher education, introduced as a result of the James report in 1972, required two A-levels for entry. It was not a success and was abandoned because it was thought to be second-rate. I do not want the Government to pile on the agony by trying to make the majority of students enrol for second-rate education courses.
  Three years are necessary for most courses. Students need a year to get used to higher education, which is different from that which they receive in school. Then they need a second year to digest the education. Only in the third year do they see the design of the course and the education system. Three years is particularly necessary for engineering courses. Some people are pressing for a four-year engineering course. Vocational courses often last five or six years. A law course at university takes only three years, but students have to continue studying beyond that. Medical courses also take longer than three years.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will resist his Treasury taskmasters when they ask him to squeeze another £100 million out of the higher education budget. I hope that he will say, "No. So far, but no further." We must have a higher education system of which we can be proud and

  729
  which will produce engineers, doctors, professionals and, more than that, a better-educated and therefore wealthier and more civilised nation.
  I wish briefly to discuss course content. There have been little babblings from the Department about what should or should not be taught in our schools. What we teach, how we teach it and when we teach it is important to educational development. The Secretary of State complained bitterly about the content of the sociology course at the Open University. He said that economists had told him that it was wrong. Of course, those economists are his own paid lackeys. The right hon. Gentleman has instilled changes into the course. He should be careful about doing that, because extremism in both directions —Fascist and Stalinist—starts from such actions.
  We know what happened in Germany before the second world war, and we know what is happening in Russia today. It tells its teachers that they must teach Marxism. If I told Conservative Members that our schools must teach Marxism between the hours of 9 am and 10 am every Monday and Wednesday, they would howl me down with screams of protest. The Fascist ideas in Germany resulted from the abandonment of consensus on what should be in a core curriculum. The Secretary of State said that our schools should teach history. He said that we should be proud of our past. If that is taken too far, it could lead to sad results.
  I know of one or two actions of which I, as a British subject, am not very proud. I wonder whether anyone is proud of what we did as a nation in the opium wars in China. I wonder whether that is taught in our schools. It should be, because it is part of our history.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be proud of the fact that we are able to learn from our history? We do not have distorted history. It is important to teach that history and to learn from it.
  Dr. Marek: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, there should be a balance of all types of history. I shall give a few more examples—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. Conservative Members have been taught about the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo, about the capture of the Falkland Islands and the turfing out of the Argentinian Governor 200 years ago. There is more to our history than that. I am making a serious point about the development of education. It is central to the motion and the amendment.
  What about the treatment of conscientious objectors in world war 1? We are now beginning to learn of the Fascist and racist attitudes of the ruling classes during the 1920s and 1930s. We may have to wait for a few more decades before all is known.
  We cannot be proud of what we have done in India. We used the Indian Army to police the whole of the Empire. That was paid for by the taxpayers of India. We destroyed India's textile industry. How could we be proud of the Amritsar massacre? Is that taught in our schools? What about the secret treaty of London in 1915 to bring Italy into the war? I wonder how many children are taught about that. There was our appalling intervention in Russia in 1918—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. This is interesting history, but I am finding it a little difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the motion before us.
  Dr. Marek: My remarks are central to the motion, because I am referring to educational development. It was the Secretary of State who said that we should teach history in a certain way. I must mention Ireland, our non-action after the potato blight, the highland clearances and the use of torture since 1945 in Northern Ireland, Kenya, Palestine and Cyprus. Of course, there are good parts to our history. My point is that we should allow our schools the freedom to teach. There should be no interference by the Secretary of State. This country has always believed in religious freedom, free speech and political freedom. We should also have the freedom to educate according to the wishes of our community.
  Of course, I accept that there is an argument for a core curriculum. Everyone should learn certain things. No one would dispute that everyone should be numerate and able to multiply nine by seven and come up with 63. However, at a higher level of education there may be some argument about what should be taught. Some people may say that in the first year of university a mathematician should know how to solve linear differential equations with constant co-efficients. If there is a general consensus that something should be taught, it should be considered for inclusion in the core curriculum. However, if a body of opinion believes that something should not be taught, the Government should not impose that core curriculum against its wishes, because that would be to embark upon extremism. No nation can walk the road to righteousness without any guilt. Everybody feels guilt. Nothing is white and nothing is black.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the two major points that I have made in my speech. Irrespective of what the right hon. Gentleman says, local government does not have the facilities to provide a proper education system. Any of my hon. Friends could give countless examples of that—deprivation, not sufficient textbooks, bad school meals, not sufficient equipment and recreational equipment, not sufficient teachers and not sufficient subject possibilities.
  One of the major causes of the problem is that, although the Government say that it is for the county councils to determine their priorities, we all know that the county councils have no fat left on them and that their financial priorities are limited. They have a difficult job to do if they are to provide any sort of moderate education provision. Will the Secretary of State stand up for education and ask for some education expenditure to be closed as disregarded expenditure? That would be a step in the right direction. I suggest that he goes to the Treasury to hear what it says. It will say no, of course, but we would judge him by the progress that he made in that fight.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the comments that I have made on a core curriculum. If we are to impose a core curriculum with the aim of furthering education development, it can be introduced only if there is consensus among the community at large that it is the right thing to do. That will be necessary wherever it is introduced and at whatever level.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: I mean no disrespect to Opposition Members who know that they have spoken at great length, who have never been less than engaging and who for all I know are experts on the subjects on which they speak, when I say that Conservative Members know as well as they do what it is like to try to sneak across the lobby only to feel the heavy hand of a Whip on their shoulder. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) must feel a sense of great bitterness when he considers the immense contribution that his once great party has made to education and at the same time surveys the empty green Benches behind him.
  Mr. Sayeed: This is the first Opposition Supply day of the Session and one would expect Opposition Members to talk about a subject which concerns them passionately. The degree of passion which they feel for education is revealed by the presence now of only six Labour Back Benchers. There have been no more than four, five or six throughout the debate.
  Mr. Parris: I agree with my hon. Friend but I shall not pursue that line. I am the last person to attempt a tour d'horizon of education—
  Mr. Pawsey: May I gently draw my hon. Friend's attention to the few Labour Members present in the Chamber and to the lack of alliance Members? My hon. Friend might care to speculate on the whereabouts of Social Democratic party and Liberal party Members. These are matters that perhaps my hon. Friend should refer to and we look forward with interest to what he has to say.
  Mr. Parris: I shall resist the temptation to do so and I shall speculate no further.
  I planned to say a good deal on primary and secondary schooling, but almost all of it has already been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends and so I shall not repeat it. I am restrained from launching into that subject by the immensely kind and courteous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, received a small delegation from my constituency earlier this week to talk about the proposed closure of Hazelwood school. I shall say no more on that subject beyond venturing to him the thought that a county council which is about to spend £50,000 on recalling all school stationery to have it overprinted with "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones" might find it in its heart to keep going a smashing little school. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will come to the same conclusion.
  The debate earlier in the Session on higher education preceded the autumn statement and a number of contributors to the debate have referred to the increases in parental contributions for which the autumn statement has paved the way. I hope that, as a vice-president of London Conservative students, I shall be forgiven for saying a few words about the increases.
  I do not pretend that the levels of student grants or parental contributions are the most important subjects in further or higher education. The most important element is the maintenance of our institutions and the improvement of the quality of teaching within them.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the area which he represents the issue of student travel grants is of considerable importance because of the
  732
  distances that students have to travel outside the Matlock area? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I know the area fairly well. Perhaps he will agree with me that the cost of travelling to college in Derby, Sheffield or surrounding areas, where specialist facilities are available, is of importance to students in the area.
  Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman interrupted my flow. In common with many other hon. Members, I intended to lay the ground, by a statement that I did not suppose that what I had chosen to speak about could be considered the most important matter in the world, for an explanation that I considered my chosen topic to be rather important. I accept that the levels of student grants and parental contributions must always take second place to maintaining the institutions and the teaching within them, but that has become precisely the problem for students and their parents.
  When, as now, there is a shortage of resources, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to take difficult decisions in deciding where the resources should go, when he has to choose between maintaining the level of the student grant and keeping parental contributions at the current level, and when he has to consider cutting into the resources allocated to the institutions themselves, he must make his decision, as he has on the basis that the most important consideration is the maintenance of the institutions, and that that must be done sometimes at the expense of the level of student grants. He has made the right decision.
  That has been done year after year, and every year we have snipped a little more around the edges of the living standards of students and around the edges of the provision that we make available to help parents to maintain their children at college and at university. That snipping has continued over the years and it has been felt every year that there are more important things on which to spend the money than student grants and parental contributions. That will be the position every year, but the result of the snipping is that the real value of student grants has fallen steadily and the assistance that the state is able to give parents has similarly fallen. We are approaching the stage at which many students and parents will find themselves in genuine difficulties.
  The changes unveiled in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that parents with an income of £13,000 will have to pay an extra £79 a year—an extra 10 per cent. on their previous year's contribution. Parents with an income of £18,000 will have to pay an extra £333, or 26 per cent. more than they did in the previous year. Those with an income of £20,000 to £22,000 will have to find an extra £725, or 46 per cent. more.
  These increases will make life very difficult for students. They face difficulties when their parents are unwilling or unable to pay their full share of the contribution. There are difficulties for students who have to maintain themselves even on the full grant because its real value has fallen by about 16 per cent. since the grants were set and instituted in 1962. The real value has declined in London by 32 per cent. All these factors make life increasingly difficult for students in higher education.
  I accept that my right hon. Friend has made the only decision open to him. I accept also that when resources are scarce the institutions and the quality of teaching within them must be protected almost at all costs. However, I

  733
  hope that my right hon. Friend understands that student grants have been cut by about as much as students are able to stand and that parental contributions will have to be increased accordingly. That will be a sharp and cruel blow to many parents. It would not be fair to go very much further along the road that the Government and previous Governments have been following.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I began my teaching career in those expansionist and exciting years under the Administration presided over by the present Earl of Stockton, whose maiden speech in another place yesterday I much appreciated hearing. The early 1960s were a challenging period in which to begin teaching. It was a time of great optimism, when bringing the advantages of further and higher education to many more young people was seen as not only a major opportunity but a necessity. As a teacher starting then, I had the pick of any job. There had been the beginnings of the expansion of higher education during the Macmillan years, but there were too few teachers for the jobs available. It was a time when we saw ahead falling rolls, eventually bringing smaller classes with all the benefits that they mean in education.
  The spirit of optimism then, when as a new entrant to the profession I was perhaps more enthusiastic than I became later, contrasts to some extent with the times in which we live today. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), who talked about the collapse of morale, but one must recognise that there is low morale today in many school staff rooms. It must be recognised also that, in many classrooms, young people look to the prospect of obtaining employment with increasing pessimism, and we must not ignore that aspect.
  There is much that is positive in the contemporary education scene. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to his office a candour and an intellectual honesty that has rightly challenged many of the practices that became accepted in the 1970s and that are now widely regarded as having led to much that is second-rate. As we have been clearly reminded more than once today, my right hon. Friend has presided over a period during which pupil numbers have fallen more than teacher numbers, so that at 17·8 pupils per teacher we have the best pupil-teacher ratio ever.
  Expecting that there would be more Opposition Members present, I wrote that no amount of mocking from the Opposition can deny that fact—but there is no one there to mock. The best we heard came from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who condemned the Governments of the 19th century. We are now in the 1980s, and if the hon. Gentleman had had much to say that he felt would condemn the Government's policies, I am sure that he would have said it.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It seems that the hon. Member is not looking carefully around the Chamber. If he does, he will find that there are almost as many Opposition Members present as Conservative Members. If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about the improvement in pupil-teacher ratios, is he satisfied with the fact that more than 1,250,000 children are taught in classes of more than 30 students and more than 170,000 children are taught in classes of more than 40 students?
  Mr. Carttiss: I do not think that anyone would be satisfied with anything in education that does not represent the ideal that Rousseau saw as acceptable. We must live in the real world, where the parents of those children must pay taxes and rates and are already finding that burden too heavy.
  The view that more money will mean better standards comes across the whole time. What goes on in our schools depends less on finance and more on personnel—the teachers. One of the disadvantages in the great expansion of teacher training places in the 1960s was that some entrants were inadequately prepared and were not motivated for the profession. I welcome the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the need for a regular appraisal of teachers' performance. He has rightly emphasised that there is an absolute requirement for that.
  Except during the probationary year that so many of us went through when we entered teaching in the 1960s, we were never examined for competence in the classroom. We were never required to submit ourselves to objective assessment.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "objective assessment"? Who is to conduct those systems of appraisal of teachers in the classroom?
  Mr. Carttiss: The profession has often sought to exercise its ability to judge the quality of its members, and there would be considerable encouragement of that aim. The teaching profession has sought to establish itself—I have been a member of it and have sought to back its campaign—to obtain the sort of competence that would be judged acceptable by those fellows who are successful in the profession. Teachers in the classroom know very well the colleagues who are incompetent and those who are able and whose example they wish to follow. There is no difficulty in the Secretary of State introducing a method of objective assessment so that colleagues in the profession and the advisory service—in many parts of the country that service is highly skilled—have an opportunity to see people at work in the classroom more regularly than has been the case.
  Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is already an objective assessment of how schools are going — the HMIs' assessment? If it is possible to assess objectively what the schools are doing, it is, therefore, possible to assess objectively the performance of teachers, and that is already being done by professionals.
  Mr. Carttiss: There is merit in my hon. Friend's observations, but I do not share his view that the inspectorate is necessarily the right body to perform that task. One would not necessarily see the HMI report on Norfolk as an example of everyday factual experience of teaching in ordinary situations, from which HMIs sometimes seem to be distant. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is carefully considering that aspect. I hope that colleagues in the teaching profession will recognise that nothing but good for their status and the regard in which they are held in the community can come from a method of objective assessment. Many teachers are undertaking objective assessment now. I talked about people entering the teaching profession in the 1960s when I started, and how they were not assessed more than once

  735
  in the one year of their probationary service. The fact is that many of those teachers have gone on to take Open University courses. They have taken on part-time degree courses at their local university. Within the profession, a large body of people have already sought to improve and extend their qualifications and expertise. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who left the Chamber a few moments ago, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) were right to speak highly of the majority of teachers.
  Between 1971 and 1981, the population in Norfolk increased by 70,000. Proportionately, that is a larger and faster growth than most other counties have experienced. It represents a faster growth than for the nation as a whole. Although recently there has been an increase in the birth rate, that population growth comes mainly from people moving from other parts of the country — often, it seems, from those parts of the country administered by profligate and high-spending Labour-controlled authorities. Although we experience the problem of falling rolls in some parts of the county, schools are overcrowded in others.
  The HMI report on national trends published in 1982 expressed anxiety about resource provision in four local authorities in particular. That led to Norfolk being condemned as one of four local education authorities at the bottom of the league. The then chief inspector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have emphasised that that did not refer to performance, but it led the county council to ask the HMI to make a general survey of four specific areas of the county. The report gained national attention at the beginning of this month and prompted a letter in The Guardian from the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), most of which I agree with.
  Although I have had some doubts about the practical day-to-day teaching experience of HMIs generally, to which I have already referred, on the whole I should not wish to denigrate the value of their report about Norfolk, nor would I dispute most of their conclusions.
  The education committee of which I have been a member for 17 years cannot escape its share of responsibility for some of the criticisms in the report levelled at the lack of resources. The county council, rightly in my view, has consistently sought, year by year, to limit its expenditure. It has been economical since the distinguished Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, Tony Crosland, said, "The party is over," in reference, all those years ago, to the need to restrain local government spending.
  Norfolk's net expenditure on education for 1983–84 was £104·8 million. That was almost equivalent to the assessment of grant-related expenditure on education for rate support grant purposes. If the county council budgets at the same level—allowing for inflation—to provide for the same requirements next year as it financed last year, in Norfolk we shall be running into penalty. I ask my right hon. Friend to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment the need to look again at the way he and his Department have been dealing with the consistently low-spending local authorities in East Anglia, because the major part of county council expenditure is on education, and that is where we cannot contemplate more reductions.
  736
  Norfolk has already gone on the long road towards rationalising and economising in the provision of school dinners. I can never understand why people become upset about children choosing chips and gravy. I suspect that only about one child out of 200 in any school goes for that abomination. Most children have their pocket money and buy what they want. Those who are entitled to a free school meal have it to the value of 50p and they do not have to spend that on chips and gravy; they can spend it on a piece of meat and plenty of salad. I reject the view that we should not be studying means of economising on our school meals service to enable money to be spent on school books and equipment and to provide teachers. That is something that Norfolk has done.
  Dr. Marek: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman could find anywhere in the country where he could have chips and meat for 50p. If the children have 50p, I am sorry to say that it is chips and gravy for many of them.
  Mr. Carttiss: I have had the privilege this morning of showing around the House 40 young people from a middle school in my constituency. I should be delighted for the hon. Gentleman to have lunch with me there. For 50p plus VAT for adults, he will find that he can have chips and a piece of meat at the West Flegg middle school, Martham, as I know.
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Carttiss: Many of us in Norfolk took a long time to be convinced that bringing in a comprehensive school system would achieve improvements in the quality of education. Some of the problems identified in the HMI report relate to anxieties that some of us had about comprehensive schools generally. I do not regret the fact that reorganisation came about eventually, but at a pace that we thought was right. Incidentally, the legislation put through the House by the then Socialist Administration, denying local authorities the right to determine their own system of education, represented then a major infringement of local powers that makes the current cries from the Opposition Benches about rate capping hypocritical in the extreme.
  Our unwillingness in Norfolk from 1974 to 1978 to abolish our grammar schools led to the then Labour Administration declining to approve various capital expenditure schemes unless they led directly to a comprehensive school system.
  The anxieties to which I have referred are not unfamiliar and are related to the possibility that
  "Much of the work of secondary school pupils would be geared towards those of average ability."
  That was the anxiety that we felt about comprehensive education. That is one of the judgments on some of the schools in Norfolk today that we read in the HMI report. It also says that it
  "is a problem by no means confined to schools inspected in Norfolk."
  We must support and encourage the teachers, and I believe that hon. Members are interested in and keen to give teachers the praise that they rightly deserve for the enormous amount of time that they give up during their lunch hours and evenings. It is a pity that some of their leaders in the professional associations, which have now affiliated to the TUC and see themselves more as industrial bodies than professional organisations, do not show the same recognition of that dedication to duty. That is not a question of spending policies.

  737
  There is more that I wish to say but, in contrast to the hon. Member for Wrexham, I know that several other Conservative Members are anxious to contribute to the debate. I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative on the curriculum. It needs to be broadly based, relevant and balanced. I was interested in the comments about ensuring that everyone knows all about the opium wars. I thought that the modern trend in the so-called progressive element was towards peace studies—to show everyone how, by throwing down our arms, we would ensure peace. That was the mistake that the Chinese made in 1840–41.
  The Secretary of State has spoken about the common ground that exists in the House. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have happily provoked from the Opposition Benches, which earlier had seemed dead, I believe that there is common ground between us. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has shown his ability to agree in some measure with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Durham, North.
  There is much more to be said, but I believe that the Government's current education policies can be backed with complete confidence. However, while more money does not mean, ipso facto, better education, we need to recognise that less money will not produce a higher quality of education.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: To a great extent this debate has dealt with English matters, but it would be wise to remind ourselves of several universal truths.
  I should like to ask the Tory, party several questions. I have been stimulated to do so by the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). I sometimes wonder who on earth teaches the members of the Tory party. There must be a special little school producing those extraordinary philosophies and ideas—from chips with gravy to chips with everything. I do not think that anyone will disagree when I say that this is the most mean-minded and philistine Government that Britain has suffered since the 17th century. Charles I was not bad but this Government—
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend is being too harsh on the English.
  Mr. Buchan: Of course, Charles I was Scots, but he had particular problems.
  This most mean-minded and philistine Government have a hatred of learning. I should like to examine what has been done by them and by the Secretary of State. I should like to remind hon. Members of the wise words of Marghanita Laski, who wondered what on earth would be the response if we had no libraries, but someone, for example in the Greater London council or the House, stood up and said that he had a good idea, stating, "Let us put up a building, four walls and a roof, put shelves in it and books on the shelves, and let people borrow the books free of charge." Imagine the reception that that idea would get from Conservative Members, who would see it as another phenomenon of Red Ken, and as the Left paying out more public money. Victorian philanthropy introduced libraries, and it is several degrees more progressive than the present Tory party. It is extraordinary, but that is precisely what would happen.
  What worries me are statements about books by the Minister for the Arts, Lord Gowrie, who is also
  738
  responsible for libraries. He made an extraordinary speech when opening a library — one of the products of Victorian philanthropy that Tory Members seem to hate so much—deploring the fact that not enough was being charged. He recommended the library to charge for every possible service related to it. He recommended that where it was legal for the library to make charges it should do so, because, if a charge was made, the user would appreciate what he or she was getting. It is an extraordinary philosophy that when a charge is made the user will appreciate what she or he is getting. There is only one profession of which that would be a proper description —prostitution. The prerogative of the harlot through the ages has now become the philosophy of the Government.
  The Tory party is the party of gentlemen. The definition of a Tory gentleman is someone who develops a life of enhanced leisure. The Tories are making sure that plenty of leisure is given to people. There is leisure for the unemployed, but they will not let it be enhanced leisure.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) admitted that he thought that the Government should spend more, so he pleaded guilty to the charge that there was a lack of books, to which the school inspectors' report drew special attention?
  Mr. Buchan: It is true not only of the hon. Gentleman's area in Norfolk but—
  Mr. Spearing: But of Oxford too.
  Mr. Buchan: Nothing is sacred from the juggernaut of the philistines in the Tory party, not even Oxford.
  Another sinister development is the proposition that is going around in the Treasury to extend value added tax to books and publications. It is no use saying that the Government would not do anything as monstrous as that. They have been capable of it. For example, they have already extended VAT to takeaway food. There are only about three more areas left into which VAT can be extended. The first is children's clothes, the second is food, in addition to hot takeaway food, and the third is books and publications. Clearly, the Government do not want to arouse the anger of mothers by putting VAT on children's clothes. They do not want to face the contumely that would come with the extension of VAT to all foods. They had enough trouble with Chinese takeaways. That leaves books and publications. We know that their beady eye is fixed upon them.
  That has never been repudiated. We have tabled question after question asking the Government to state publicly that they will no longer consider the proposition of putting VAT on books. They have carefully avoided doing any such thing. I should like to remind Tory Members that that proposition was last put forward, in August 1940 by Kingsley Wood, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the time when Churchill was exhorting us to fight on the beaches, but the Government were saying, "Let us put a tax on books." What happened? The whole House of Commons, including A.P. Herbert, said, "We are fighting for the things that matter. We are fighting for values. We shall not put a tax on books despite the difficulty that this country is in." In the height of that crisis in the summer of 1940 that proposition was rejected by the House not only with contempt but in a gale of laughter. That imposition of VAT would have had to apply

  739
  to all books, including the Bible and, as A.P.Herbert said, it would have been the first time in history that the word of God had been taxed.
  But the Tory party is prepared to do that. It says, "Shakespeare—poof. The Bible—poof. Let us get the money in." That is what the Tories' concept is. They say that if it is good to make a charge, it is even better if one can add 15 per cent. to it. Thus VAT becomes a sort of good so that the customer will appreciate books all the more. If he appreciates being charged, he will appreciate it more if 15 per cent. more is added to it. I hope that before the night is out the Minister will tell us that the Government will not go ahead with the noxious proposition of putting a tax on books.
  Mr. Powley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not privy to any information as to what the Treasury might do in the next Budget, but is he aware that books and publications are subject to tax on the continent, in many European countries? Will he apply his mind to the thinking behind the actions of Socialist countries in the EEC that put a tax on books, periodicals and so on?
  Mr. Buchan: I cannot think of any Socialist Government who initiated a tax on books, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that almost every country in Europe imposes a tax on books. That is precisely why we are worried. Tory Members want harmonisation of taxation. Furthermore, as costs are rising and as the ludicrous common agricultural policy continues, there is a growing demand for a bigger return from VAT. The Government have already increased by 40 per cent. this year the 1 per cent. on own resources. They can do one of only two things. Either they can increase VAT to meet the costs or they can broaden the range. When I have questioned the Treasury on that, I have been told that the Government's policy is to cut back on personal taxation, that is the tax on income, and to place tax on spending, in other words VAT. I challenge any Conservative Member flatly to deny that the Government will not tax books. I pause, as Shakespeare said, for a reply, but none dare reply, as they know that their Front Bench is capable of such a monstrosity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If that is the case, I should like one Conservative Member to stand up and deny on behalf of the Government that they will not do it. They did not do it in 1940 when our backs were to the wall. Not one Conservative Member trusts the Government enough to deny it. That is the extent of their faith in their own Government.
  If books and publications are to be taxed, there will be, by definition, a tax on knowledge and learning matter. A tax on learning and knowledge is a tax on democracy as it is not possible to have democracy unless there is an informed democracy. One of the problems at the moment is the profound attack on democracy that the present price of books presents, but that ignores the financial censorship that would arise from a tax on books. If Conservative Members do not remember 1940 they may remember when a tax was last put on publications. It was the Stamp Act of the 18th century, the result of which was Britain's loss of the American colonies. That is a hell of a price to pay for taxing books.
  Dr. Godman: Might I compliment my hon. Friend on raising the level of the debate? That is to be expected as
  740
  he is a product of the Scottish education system. Is he aware that the Western Isles council has had to make the sad decision not to buy any books for its libraries this year because of the Government's refusal to give it the assistance that it badly needs?
  Mr. Buchan: I know about the acute problems of the Western Isles. My hon. Friend has given a sad commentary of the state of affairs to which the Government and their minions in the Scottish Office have brought us. If there was one thing of which we were proud in Scotland it was our devotion to learning, books and education. The Western Isles' main exports used to be herring and professors.
  Dr. Godman: And master mariners.
  Mr. Buchan: I apologise; I should have remembered my hon. Friend. The problem can be seen to be acute, not so much as a result of the philosophy of the Minister for the Arts, who believes that what has to be paid for is good for people — with all the dangers that that holds for schools and universities—as by considering who leads the Conservative party. When the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education and Science she was known by the children of Britain as Maggie Thatcher, the milk snatcher. Have we forgotten that? There is something else. It was under her vice-regal control of the Department of Education and Science that museum charges were imposed. It is important to education and to an understanding of the world that museums and galleries should be open to all. She ran into difficulties because many of the bequests in our museums were made on condition that they be shown freely. One thinks of the Erskine of Torry bequest by which the Government were so badly hurt when attempting to introduce charges in Scotland. The matter is serious because charges are being encouraged by the Minister for the Arts and because the maritime museum has been given permission to make charges. Permission has been given on the premise—the philosophy of the prostitute—that if a charge is made the user will appreciate what he or she gets. The Minister said that making charges will encourage people to go only if they have a real interest—so that they will not go just on a whim. I favour people going to museums and galleries just on a whim. None of us knows what sparks off a kid's interest and desire to expand knowledge. I would prefer that people went into a museum to shelter from the rain rather than just stand in a bus shelter.
  We see the same attitude from the Secretary of State, who is no longer here—I was about to say, "Who is no longer with us", but that would, perhaps, be too good to be true—in regard to arts schools. The Government are pressing schools of art to amalgamate and merge under some phoney economic argument when the whole point of education in the arts is to have individuality in our independent free-standing schools or colleges of art. We can see the effects of that pressure on one of our great national institutions, the Royal College of Art. It will now halt entry into the department of environmental design. After allowing the freebooters of the 1950s and 1960s to despoil our cities, the Government are now stopping people from studying how to create a better environment. Entry is also being halted into the design education unit, environmental media studies, and the department of design research and the intake into the departments of

  741
  painting, printing, photography, ceramics and cultural history is to be reduced. The Conservative party really hates culture.
  Mr. Spearing: Yes, the Tories tax it.
  Mr. Buchan: They are the new philistines. I regret to say that the Tory gentlemen have long gone.
  The Secretary of State has concentrated on design but the best British design has not come from the consciously mechanical or industrial design schools. Many of the great advances in design for which Britain is known throughout the world in recent years have come out of the art schools. Fashion design, for example, came from art schools. Faced with all of this evidence, we realise that the Government dislike learning. They have a price for everything and a value for nothing. As a result, some institutions are fighting back. I was delighted to learn that deans of faculties of arts at most of our universities have formed a standing committee to defend values and to say that there is more to life than creating efficient robot societies. Learning is concerned with rather more than that.
  Some of us will have to fight to defend civilisation in the face of this philistinism. Perhaps we can get just one mark of response from the Government today showing that they will no longer encourage charging for entry to museums and that they will drop the nonsensical proposition of taxing books. They should turn their attention to providing our people with the enhanced leisure that should be the result of education.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road that he signposted. I found it interesting that he embraced Victorian beliefs. He talked about Victorian values and philosophy, and it is clear that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have much in common. Only on one thing did I seriously fault him. I was under the impression that we lost the American colonies because of a tax on tea, not a tax on stamps.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not want to give a history lesson, but the most important factor in bringing together the 13 colonies was the Stamp Act, which was a tax on publications, papers and legal matter. The tea in Boston harbour was a nice little exciting coup d'etat rather than an effective cause.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member will agree with me that it was the exciting act of theatre in Boston that brought matters to a head and effectively led to the loss of the colonies.
  I intend to speak to the debate, which is more than Opposition Members have done. The fact that they have had to wheel in speakers to talk about opium wars, India and Ireland, to bolster their argument, and to take up time, is an indication of the paucity of their thinking.
  The opening speech by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) was disappointing. It seldom rose above the level of the cheque book. Today we have been subjected, not to cheque book journalism, but to cheque book education. The Opposition do not seek to judge education by standards. They try to judge it by the amount of funding available. That seems to be the main thrust of the Opposition's argument. Their argument seems to be
  742
  that more money automatically equals better education. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Durham, North has returned to his place. No doubt he will intervene in due course. The Opposition's premise is a doubtful one and is not borne out by the facts.
  Concern about education is not new. Parents and educationists have felt disquiet for years. If there is any doubt about that, I remind the Opposition of the education Black Papers which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) did so much to bring into being. They were published in the mid and late 1960s.
  If Opposition Members do not like references to Black Papers, they should remember that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) initiated the great debate on education and educational standards in 1976. That debate was an attempt to draw attention to what was properly seen as a decline in standards. But if money were the answer, why did education not greatly improve between the years 1960 and 1980? [HON. MEMBERS: "It did."] No, it did not. Expenditure increased dramatically in that period. On primary schools it increased by 60 per cent. in real terms and on secondary schools by 44 per cent.
  That is not the only measure that can be used to gauge the amount of spending on education and decide whether more money really equals better education. An alternative is to consider public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product. In 1960 the percentage in France was 3·4 per cent., in West Germany 3·7 per cent., and in the United Kingdom 4·2 per cent. In 1970 the percentage in France was 4·9 per cent., in West Germany 3·7 per cent., and in the United Kingdom 5·3 per cent. In 1980 the figure for France was 5 per cent., for West Germany 5·6 per cent., and for the United Kingdom 5·8 per cent. We have spent more than our competitors and yet we remain concerned about the quality of education. Opposition Members have not proved the connection between more spending and a better quality of education.
  Mr. Radice: Opposition Members may have failed to prove the point, but the hon. Gentleman has just done so. Spending increased in the years that he mentioned, and examination results also improved greatly in that period. The percentages of those passing A-levels, those gaining five O-levels or more, and those leaving school with some examination successes rose in that period.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman has not followed my argument. If what he says is correct, why was it thought necessary to produce the Black Papers? Why did the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth open the great debate? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Examination results improved, but they did not improve by 44 per cent. We were not getting value for the money invested in education. There is no automatic relationship between increased spending and an improvement in education.
  Mr. Bermingham: Nobody said there was.
  Mr. Pawsey: Opposition Members seem to be arguing that more money equals better standards.
  Mr. Bermingham: Unless the hon. Gentleman did not take either A-levels or O-levels, he may know from personal experience that the standards required to pass O-levels and A-levels rose substantially between 1960 and 1980.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, either. If that is so, why did his right hon. Friend start the great debate? Why were the Black Papers published? Why has there been concern among parents, teachers and Governments about the quality of education?
  One cannot judge the education service by the funding. Funding is only one of the benchmarks that can be used. Perhaps a better reason for the expressed concern might be found in the reorganisation of education between the early 1960s and early 1970s. Can it be coincidence that it was during and after that major reorganisation that concern about standards properly began to surface? Can it be coincidence that the move away from a selective to a comprehensive system coincided with an expression of disquiet about standards of education? It is fair to say that Her Majesty's inspectors have drawn attention in report after report to the low expectations of teachers. They say that pupils are not stretched and that lower standards are tolerated.
  Perhaps we could change all that by bringing together the more academic pupils. That would generate a healthy spirit of competition, which would stimulate their interest and that of teaching staff. I would not argue the case for another major reorganisation of education, but we should encourage the LEAs to allow the emergence of schools which would cater for the academically bright.
  My right hon. Friend has already said elsewhere that he will consider any schemes for a gradual movement away from the comprehensive principle. It might be worth reminding the LEAs of that point. We should be spending less time arguing about money, and more time debating the education system itself.
  I should like to put four questions to the House. First, does the present education system cater for the brighter pupils? Secondly, does it give job satisfaction to the teaching staff? Thirdly, does it provide value for money? Fourthly, and most importantly of all, could we not improve upon the present system? Even by the criterion of the Opposition, that more money automatically means better standards, we are not doing as well as we should. However, it is fair to remind the Opposition that spending per pupil in real terms has increased since 1979 and that the pupil-teacher ratio in the United Kingdom has never been better.
  Incidentally, opposition Members might turn their attention, not just to the pupil-teacher ratio, but to the Opposition-Government ratio. It is surprising how few official Opposition Members are present for a debate initiated by the Opposition.
  Mr. Radice: Where are the Conservative Members?
  Mr. Pawsey: This is an Opposition debate, but the Opposition are having difficulty in sustaining it. That is my criticism of Labour Members, and it is a criticism that will stand. When hon. Members read the debate in Hansard, they will agree that Labour Members do not care about education. If they did, they would now be in the Chamber.
  Despite what Labour Members say, falling rolls do not invalidate the figures that I have provided for pupil-teacher ratios and higher per-capita spending. The education service must respond to a dramatic reduction in pupil numbers. That is the choice of parents; it is not a draconian measure introduced by Whitehall. There is no Herod in Elizabeth house.
  744
  To emphasise the point about falling rolls, it is interesting to note that in 1977–78 there were 8·5 million children in our schools. By 1990 that figure will have dropped to 6·6 million. Such a remarkable reduction in pupil numbers represents a dramatic revolution that will echo through society for decades to come, and the implications of that revolution must be fully understood.
  Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced measures that will lift standards. I say that deliberately and despite the somewhat cavalier comments of the hon. Member for Durham, North. My right hon. Friend has sought to improve the quality of teaching by making available an additional £8·5 million for in-service training. He is ensuring that student teachers will spend about 15 weeks at the chalk face. Moreover, they will specialise in age ranges and in one or two subjects. He is making available to local education authorities a further £14 million to help them to employ replacement teachers, to improve training in school management and to help to overcome the problems of shortage subjects.
  My right hon. Friend will be calling for a regular appraisal of teachers. Clearly, he believes that there is a positive relationship between well-trained teachers and higher standards. He is right to draw that conclusion, because education depends above all on the interaction of minds. The teacher holds the key. There is a fairly simple equation in education: if there is good head teacher, he will attract good staff; if there is good staff, it will be a good school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear those echoes of agreement. I join Conservative Members in applauding the work of teachers, who do their best in what are not always the easiest of times.
  Mr. Spearing: On Thursday of last week, in reply to an intervention in which I suggested that the Secretary of State wished to impose on teachers a cut in pay, the right hon. Gentleman implied that he would be willing to contemplate a little more pay for teachers, or even more than that, if they agreed to the system of evaluation that he is now presenting. If that is so—the Secretary of State is here and can correct me if I am wrong—does the hon. Gentleman believe that he will get the best from teachers by saying, "I will cut your pay unless you accept my system of appraisal, even if it is accepted as possible"? Would he be a good headmaster?
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is using his parliamentary expertise to pose a question to me which, had he been here at the start of the debate, he should have more properly put to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, he will forgive me if I do not answer him. It will teach him to be here earlier next time.
  I welcome plans for more parental involvement. Those plans will raise standards, because, irrespective of party dogma, parents will undoubtedly seek the best for their children. They are unlikely to promote peace studies, for example, if that promotion is at the expense of mathematics or English. Parents, using the powers which I hope they will receive in the not-too-distant future, will ensure that the standards at their children's schools are as good as they can be. Nothing concentrates the parental mind as much as their children experiencing the latest progressive fashions.

  745
  I read with some interest in The Times yesterday an article entitled, "Why Meacher was the last straw", by Mr. Eric Moonman, a former Labour Member of Parliament, who has now seen the light. He said:
  "Members of local health authorities who are also Labour Party members are being asked, on House of Commons paper, to record, for the benefit of Mr. Meacher, details of the sex, age, political affiliation and voting habits of all members of the authority."
  That is what is happening in health authorities. If Labour Members have their way, how long will it be before a letter on House of Commons paper goes to school governing bodies? We do not want that. We need more involvement of parents in the schools which their children attend.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am being pressed not to give way by my hon. Friends, who have a genuine interest in the debate. I have given way a great deal, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not do so now.
  I was disappointed that no Labour Member referred to religious education. The subject interests many thousands of parents, and I hope that the safeguards with reference to religious education that were built into the Education Act 1944 are retained, because they are so important.
  The Gracious Speech mentioned the European Court ruling on corporal punishment, and to comply with the ruling the Government will soon introduce a Bill. It is an unhappy matter. It is unfortunate that the European Court did not give sufficient consideration to the customs and traditions of the United Kingdom. We have used caning as a means of discipline for many years, but other countries have different systems. In France, schools believe in suspension, and when a child is suspended from a French school the social security benefits which are normally paid are not given for the duration of the suspension. That is a much more draconian punishment than the one we employ in the United Kingdom. It affects not only the child but the whole family, and that is to be regretted.
  Eastern European schools operate a different system. The child's misdemeanours are posted on the notice board at the father's workplace so that all his colleagues can see what his child has been up to at school. How would Opposition Members take a Bill that sought to introduce that in place of corporal punishment? It is an unhappy business to recognise this court ruling. I realise that we have little choice if we are to remain within the law, but it is unfortunate that the traditions and customs of our country have not received fair consideration from the European Court.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A few moments ago the Labour party was accused of not taking education seriously, in a speech that, with great respect to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), contained not only error, wrong assumptions and cant, but an over-large amount of rubbish. To start at the end, the hon. Gentleman does not know or recognise that we are the only country in the civilised world that seems to think that it is permissible for children to be beaten, sometimes in public, for their misdemeanours. The
  746
  Americans, the Canadians, the Australians, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Poles do not need to do it—across Europe nobody does it. Apparently, we have some hedonistic instinct that leads us to tolerate such behaviour. My only regret is that the Government did not have the courage to go all the way and ban corporal punishment once and for all. As sure as night will follow day, corporal punishment will come to an end in both the public and private sectors before the century is out. When it does, we shall have taken one further step on the road to civilisation.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Teachers are now being left very isolated, with few sanctions that they can enforce. In ideal circumstances, there would be massive parental support when there is indiscipline by the child in school. However, much consideration has to be given in these less than ideal circumstances to ways of providing support to teachers if corporal punishment in schools is to be finally banned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the meantime we should not rush headlong until we have established sanctions that are acceptable and will be supportive of teachers in classrooms. On many occasions they have to face assault from unruly pupils.
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart after the horse, as is normal. In removing corporal punishment, we are seeking to remove a barbaric practice that has been shown by psychiatrists to have effect in later life. As well as removing corporal punishment —this is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will follow the Opposition into the Lobby tonight—we should be putting into schools the support system that teachers need and deserve, and that are called for in our motion. The interesting difference between the Opposition motion and the Government amendment—a difference that occurs in many other matters—is merely of one missing word. The word missing from the Government motion is "investment", which is present in our motion. The Government seem frightened of the word "investment".
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth failed lamentably to speak about investment. I do not propose to go over his speech inch by inch, because that would take a long time. His speech could be readily answered because it contained so many errors of fact. I agree that pupil-teacher ratios are falling, as are the numbers of pupils. Do we not have a heaven-sent opportunity as a result? We have the buildings, but we are now talking about mothballing schools, closing them or selling them. This is the Government of the quick buck. Anything that they can lay their hands on and sell , they will get rid of. whether it is playing fields, schools or whatever. What do they do with the proceeds? Do they invest in our industries or society? No — the money goes in handouts to their supporters, when it should be going into investment, because education is an investment in the future. It is an investment in the generations to come.
  I am not satisfied with the standards in our schools. In the past 20 years, they have increased greatly, but they are still not high enough. I want to see more investment. I want children to be better educated. People should be able to go back later in their lives for further education, which is further investment in them as human beings and further investment in our society and in our future. That is the sort

  747
  of education system towards which we should be moving, but we are not. At best we are standing still, and in some cases we are declining.
  Over the past 20 or 30 years, HMI reports have said that only one fifth of LEAs have made satisfactory or better provision for library assistance, the programme of maintenance in schools has continued to be less than satisfactory or poor in 54 of the 97 LEAs, and in two fifths of the LEAs the provision of books and equipment was less than satisfactory. Nothing seems to be right—we are simply not meeting standards. Why is that? I have the horrible sick feeling that the reason is that many of the sons and daughters of Government supporters are in private sector schools. The rest of us can go to the wall in the public sector. I have said before and I shall say again that the Government's attitude is, "If you can pay for it you can have it but if you look to the state to provide it you will get the minimum to get by."
  I welcome the movement from examinations to assessments in the Sheffield speech. I have some experience of the education world, having taught for about a year, been a governor of many schools and a vice-chairman of a further education college for some years, and having gone through the system myself. I have always felt that to judge a child on the results of examinations such as the 11-plus, O-level or A-level, which is one performance, is unfair. He or she might not be well or might have trouble at home, or have pressures on him or her. It is far better for the child's development during that year of schooling to be the measure of its advancement. That reflects the child's capability, so I welcome this movement.
  However, I am worried about the problem of a national curriculum. Education is meant to reflect the area where the child is educated. The needs of Durham and of Surrey are in some ways different, because of the different environments, and education should reflect those environments. I am worried about the idea that "London knows best".
  Mr. Spearing: Whitehall knows best.
  Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is correct —Whitehall knows best.
  There should be certain levels in mathematics, science, English, history and other such subjects, but I do not accept the concept that the content of the history course can be laid down, because that can reflect a political view, and it worries me. There might be, just as there was last Session, a move by a Government Back Bencher to ban peace studies, for example. Children have a right to be taught such subjects. Once we begin to ban, to proscribe and to say that this or that shall not be taught, we are on the road to totalitarianism. It is the road that was trodden in Germany in the 1930s and in parts of Russia from 1918 onwards. It is a road where Big Brother or Whitehall knows best. That is what worries me about a national school curriculum. I do not object to levels of attainment being suggested and agreed by discussion. I object to dictation from Whitehall or anywhere else, because that is not in the interests of the children.
  Many Opposition Members are deeply worried about education. We do not believe that we have yet put enough investment into it. We have improved it and, in many Socialist-controlled local authorities such as my own,
  748
  levels of achievement have been improving. I know from personal experience as a member of a local education committee for some six years that levels went up steadily over that period. However, Opposition Members do not believe that we have gone far enough. We know that there is still a need for more. We know that improvement is necessary, and we are determined to see that society gets what it deserves, which is a first-class education service. But that requires investment, which we fear this Government will not make.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: It has been rightly said in this debate that the standard of education has not changed for the worse in terms of resources since 1979. Looking at the amount of money spent on each pupil in our system today, we see that more money is being spent proportionately than ever before. The pupil-teacher ratio is better. We are spending £7·7 billion, which is a great deal of money and which compares extremely favourably with the year 1979–80, when only £4·6 billion was spent.
  During that period, we have seen a great drop in the number of pupils. I do not seek to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the education system should merely stand still on that basis. The purpose of my argument is to encourage him to have vision, to look at the sort of education system that we want in the future and, therefore, to plan ahead.
  I appreciate my right hon. Friend's problems. All of us do. We have an economy which is dependent to too large an extent on oil exports. We have to strengthen that economy so that, in the future, basic industries can produce, without the aid of oil, sufficient money to pay for good education and social services systems.
  I was always brought up to believe that the time to plan was when one had nothing. In my opinion, this is the time to plan.
  The position today is quite simple. We face a social revolution that we in the House cannot afford to ignore. In the future, people will not work in the way that they have in the past, on the basis of full employment. That being so, the sort of education system that we have to create is one that will prepare people for fewer working hours, for earlier retirement and for staying on longer at school. We should be planning that system now.
  Two factors come immediately to mind. The first is the need for greater training and education for the jobs of the future, which inevitably will require skills. It will be no good to have no skill. Only those with skills will have jobs. We must also educate for leisure. That is the way that we must go and we must look at our education system in that light.
  The days of the cycle in which one left the family and had a child, that child went to school and was educated, he left school, found a job and immediately began the cycle again, have gone. Society is changing fundamentally, and that is the message that we have to get across to the pupils in our schools. It is the educative function that we must get across to them.
  I appreciate that there are problems today with funding, but looking to the future we must produce the best quality teachers. In my opinion, it is wrong that we pay a head teacher in a primary school £12,000. Bearing in mind the responsibility of the job, it is a wholly inadequate salary. A grade 1 teacher on scale 1 starting to teach earns about £75 or £80 a week take-home pay, with all his training. We

  749
  have to rectify this for the future. We have to give people an incentive to go into the teaching profession. Only in that way shall we produce the best education system.
  We face falling rolls in our secondary schools of dramatic proportions in the next few years. We must work towards protecting the curriculum base of those schools, and that means—
  Mr. Dunn: Now.
  Mr. Hind: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. I agree that we must begin now and work towards it.
  A third factor that I press upon my hon. Friend is the need for the implementation of the Warnock report and providing the resources for bringing disabled children into our schools and making sure that they are properly cared for and suitably able to be taught.
  A fourth factor has already been alluded to by one of my hon. Friends. It is to take the politicisation out of our school system. At present, we have too much of it. The Lancashire education committee, with which I am familiar, provides a good example. There are areas of my constituency which time and time again elect Conservative councillors with enormous majorities, yet the schools and their governing bodies are dominated by Labour party supporters, who do not represent the community. I impress upon the House the need for governing bodies that are community-based. What is more, I do not mean just parents, because I do not go all the way with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in wanting to see a majority of parents. I want to see parents and teachers from the area.
  I quote the example of a school in Aughton in my constituency, where a local councillor with a majority of 1,000 votes was removed from her post as chairman of the governors by a woman who stood against her and got fewer than 100 votes simply because she belonged to the party in power. That is quite wrong.
  Still in Lancashire, I hear from governors and head teachers that where they have had chairmen of governors belonging to the Labour party they have been told not to press for further resources because those resources should go into other areas which were obviously of greater need. I could not agree more, but when it comes to televsion sets, videos and basic teaching equipment, surely they should be distributed on an equal basis. There are arguments for special teaching facilities for deprived areas, but they do not extend to painting walls and providing the basics in our schools. This should not happen, and we must prevent it in the future.
  I quote another example, that of Aughton St. Michael's, a Church of England school. It was located on two sites, and an agreed proposal was put before a subcommittee of the Lancashire county council to locate the school on one site and to build two new classrooms. The chairman of the Lancashire education committee walked in and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are not doing this." All the governors and everyone else involved believed that the proposal was going through, but the whole thing was stopped there and then.
  The introduction of peace studies is a typical example. Instead of allowing the subject to be dealt with in religious education, history or general periods, we are allowing politics to interfere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, authorities such as Lancashire county council are doing one thing that should be stopped—putting politics before children.
  750
  We must have vision and that vision must include an increase in nursery education. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has that in mind as an important objective as soon as resources are available. We have done a good job with the resources currently available. Let us now plan and build for the future the education system that we all want.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: As a Lancashire Member, I must first correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that the situation on governing bodies is a new development since Labour took control in 1981. When the Conservatives were in control at county hall they controlled every governing body in Burnley, although the majority of people there elected Labour county and borough councillors as well as a Labour Member of Parliament. I agree that there are problems with the present system, but criticism cannot be levelled at one particular political party. I agree that governing bodies should be more representative of the locality and that a county-wide basis is perhaps casting the net too wide.
  I agree, too, that insufficient attention is paid to nursery education. Far more resources should be devoted to providing education facilities for the under-fives. Due to the foresight of the former county borough before local government reorganisation my area is fortunate in having good average provision in this respect, but I know that there is an acute shortage in many parts of the country.
  In an age of new technology, a changing society and new developments in industry we must recognise that education and the leisure industries will have an increasing role in the future. We must accept that education will not end at the age of 16 or 18. People must be able to move in and out of education at all stages of their lives and resources must be made available to meet that demand, which will undoubtedly increase considerably in the years ahead
  I do not speak as an education expert, although I was chairman of one governing body and served on many others before I was elected to the House last year. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) that the morale of teaching staff is at a very low ebb. When I was chairman of a governing body I had the difficult task of choosing just one out of a very large number of applicants. I was also aware that many of those who were appointed were then unable to advance, due to the lack of movement. Voluntary redundancy terms have also had to be negotiated. Lancashire has recently had to announce that a further 200 voluntary redundancies will be necessary to keep within their budget constraints. It is regrettable that so many excellent teachers at all levels have had to leave the profession in recent years. The recent announcement is a further blow to education in the area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South also mentioned the shortage of books. Only last weekend my 15-year-old daughter, who is studying for O-levels next year, asked me whether I could photocopy her English literature book, "A Man for all Seasons", because there were not enough copies and she had to return it on Monday. Having been unable to buy a copy on Saturday, I had to photocopy the book at 11 pm on Sunday so that she could give it back on Monday. Acute shortages of this sort must be rectified.

  751
  Education will be a major growth area in the years ahead and it needs more, not fewer, resources.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I must correct the view of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who implied that all Conservative Members came from privileged backgrounds and thus could not understand the problems of people living in the slums. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the house in the east end in which my parents still live and in which I lived for many years, but it could scarcely be described as a palace. I certainly did not come from a privileged background. I had an ordinary state education and I am delighted to say that I sit very comfortably on the Conservative Benches. The Opposition should not judge us so harshly. We genuinely understand the difficulties of people being educated in areas with housing problems.
  The Conservative election manifesto last year contained a commitment to improve education standards. Bolstered by the Education Act 1980 we are now moving towards that end. Parental choice and reorganisation of governing bodies will all help towards that. Naturally, however, people become concerned and frustrated when progress is not so rapid as one would wish. Indeed, some people believe that in some schools under some local authorities there is not a full commitment to improving standards. Happily, that is not the position in my constituency, which is blessed with excellent infant, junior and secondary school teachers. They are hard-working and dedicated people.
  Since January, however, we have faced unexpected problems because in the past 12 months more than £1,500,000 worth of damage has been done to schools by arsonists. There are 59 schools in my constituency and 43 of them have been attacked. I have appealed to Essex county council to launch an immediate inquiry into the security of our schools and I am glad to see that it is taking up the matter urgently. The local police and fire services have reacted marvellously in seeking the co-operation of local headmasters, residents and other affected persons to try to prevent any further attacks.
  I emphasise that there is little point in worrying about education provision while our schools are inadequately protected. It must be the responsibility of all local education authorities to provide adequate caretaking facilities, suitable alarm systems and evening patrol security cover. There can be no doubt that all parents support us in our desire to see improvements in the standards of education. They rightly adopt the maxim that parents cannot give their children brains, but they can at least give them the best start in life.
  The pupil-teacher ratio between 1950 and 1980 has decreased by 20 per cent., which many would say has helped tremendously. However, I smile when I consider my education in the London borough of Newham. I was often in classes of 50 and the teachers still gave us excellent tuition and kept order to a high standard.
  I wanted to talk about the excellent college of further education in Basildon, but, unfortunately, time does not allow.
  Education is one of those subjects on which everyone considers himself an expert, if only on the premise that at some time we have all been to school. Advice comes from
  752
  all quarters—the Government, the Opposition, myself, teachers, parents, the unions, and so on. But before putting our clever theories forward we should remember that it is the future of young lives that we are talking about and, ultimately, the future of the nation.
  9 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Most people in Britain can think of hundreds of reasons why we need to improve and extend education. Few can think of reasons why we need less education and why we should be contracting it. With all the arguments before the Secretary of State, the Chancellor should have had little chance to cut the education budget in his autumn statement. Nobody in Britain really wants tax cuts if they are at the expense of denying our children the opportunities that many of us have enjoyed.
  The Secretary of State should have been like the stoat — able to mesmerise the floppy rabbit. Instead, the Chancellor has savaged the Secretary of State. Despite all the educational and social arguments, the Secretery of State has allowed his Department to be cut, and cut drastically.
  It is amazing, having surrendered in that way, that he can table such a complacent amendment which talks about
  "developing the skills and abilities of all children"
  Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about a cut. There is not a cut, either in money terms or in real terms. The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said. There is a 6 per cent. increase in money against a forecast of 4·5 per cent. inflation and a 2 per cent. fall in school populations.
  Mr. Bennett: I am sorry that the Secretary of State seems to believe his own statements. The figures show a rather different picture. There is an increase of £540 million in the expenditure for next year compared with this year — 4·1 per cent. extra expenditure. But given inflation of 4·5 per cent. that is a cut of 0·4 per cent. The Department's press release talks about opportunities for improving services if, for example, there are further economies in caretaking and cleaning costs. The protection of educational spending depends on teachers accepting a pay increase, which I am sure none of them will find acceptable. Less money will be available for education next year.
  Therefore, the Government amendment is extremely complacent. It will not do anything at all to improve education opportunities for the handicapped child or for the child whose parents are on supplementary benefit. It will deny higher education opportunities to many students, particularly those referred to earlier, whose parents disapprove of their behaviour or just do not think that higher education is suitable for them. In the next 12 months the Government will deny educational opportunities to many people.
  I also feel very aggrieved that once again the Government are turning to school meals for further economies. There have already been many exchanges in the Chamber about the number of children who end up having nothing more to eat than chips and gravy. As a result, many of them do not get the full benefit from their education. There is considerable evidence that children are not alert enough in schools because of the conditions under which they are brought up. I think that it is now a joke among school kids that school dinners will not spoil their

  753
  appetites in between the bags of crisps. That is a reflection of the way in which we have allowed food standards in schools to diminish.
  In the past 12 months the Secretary of State has been trying to convince the country that student numbers will fall over the next few years and that resources for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education may be cut by 1 or 2 per cent. However, the country has decisively rejected that. So the Secretary of State, instead of accepting that student numbers should be increasing, is trying to achieve his ambition of fewer students by imposing a savage cut in student support. That is probably one of the worst aspects of the way in which the education service is being cut following the autumn statement.
  In the Secretary of State's press release he has accepted a £18 million cut in capital expenditure for education. Not only will education suffer as a result but the construction industry and the capital equipment manufacturers will also suffer. The Secretary of State's press release assumes that there is a possibility of an expansion in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds staying on in education. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and others have argued the importance of encouraging young people to stay on in education instead of drifting away into youth training schemes and so on. But the reality is that many drift away from education because of the economic difficulties of staying on at school. If their parents are unemployed, it is extremely difficult for young people to face up to staying on at school, with the extra costs and problems that it causes for the parents. It is high time that a comprehensive system of income support was introduced for those 16 to 19-year-olds who choose to stay on in education instead of going on the dole, joining youth training schemes or taking jobs which are perhaps not suitable for them and consequently force others on to schemes.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West said that the Government—I am pleased to say—have been able to increase the amount available for in-service training. But the increase in money is extremely small. Over the country as a whole, I think that it works out at about £35 per teacher available for in-service training. Given the Secretary of State's long shopping list—and I approve of much of it— to try to improve education standards, the amount of money available for in-service training is pitifully small. If we want to make a reality of ensuring that most primary schools teach science effectively and improving the curriculum in secondary schools, far more money must be available for in-service training. It is a question not of getting one or two specialists retrained, but of giving most teachers the opportunity at some point in each 12-month period to obtain some in-service training.
  When the Secretary of State issued his press release there seemed to be many areas in which he was apologising for cuts. But there was no reference at all to many other areas. The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) drew attention to the Education Act 1980 and to the whole question of dealing with the special education needs of young people. The Education Act was right in principle, but it was a disgrace that the Government did not produce any resources to implement it. There are still no resources to implement it. Consequently, there are carefully
  754
  prepared statements about the needs of those children but they only highlight the fact that there are not the resources to do the right thing.
  The principles of the Act have been implemented, but we are denying them by failing to make the resources available. We do not have enough nursery places for handicapped children. When the legislation was going through the House everyone agreed that nursery education was important for all children, and that it was particularly important for handicapped children. We agreed that the education of handicapped children should begin as early as possible to help them overcome their handicaps.
  No money is available to train teachers in ordinary schools to teach children with special needs. As a result, integration does not work. No money is available to adapt buildings. The Act places a duty on local education authorities to provide education for 16 to 19 year-old handicapped youngsters. Little provision is made for that age group. Any Secretary of State who tabled an amendment such as that on today's Order Paper should have on his conscience the fact that we are still doing far too little for handicapped youngsters in our education system. If we want to make the 1981 Act work we must find the resources.
  The Department's press release says that the Secretary of State has asked the caretaking and cleaning services to pay for the extra books, the extra equipment and the repairs. It states:
  "If costs can be contained and savings made elsewhere—for example, in caretaking and cleaning costs—there should be scope for some further improvement in expenditure per pupil compared to 1982–83 levels".
  The Secretary of State is being harsh if he expects the cleaners and caretakers to pay for improvements.
  When I visit schools I am upset because I see pupils and teachers working hard. So often the lack of repairs and cleaning gives a wrong impression of a school. Many parents think that a school's standards are poor because of the lack of care and maintenance. We should now spend money on repairs and maintenance.
  I often hear parents say that a school is in such a bad state that they should volunteer to do the cleaning or repairs themselves. We should not have to run our education system in that way, but I suspect that the Government are hoping that people will feel that the state maintains and repairs so inadequately that they should volunteer to do the work themselves.
  The Government have talked about making a little more money available for books and other equipment. A critical HMI report was issued in 1981–82 and for a year there was a substantial increase in the money made available for books and materials. After that improvement, provision slipped in secondary schools and remained the same in primary schools.
  What are the Government to do about school books? The rumour is that VAT will be imposed upon books. That is something for the Budget and it will be deplorable if it happens. It will have a crucial impact on the education budget for next year. A 15 per cent. increase in the price of books and other written materials means a 15 per cent. cut in expenditure. The Government must make it clear now that they will not impose VAT on educational materials and books. If they will not give that undertaking, I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear that he will compensate fully for any VAT on the education budget.

  755
  There is another area in which the Government's record is deplorable—nursery education. There should be better nursery provision for the handicapped. Despite evidence of the great benefit to children and parents of nursery education, there are no proposals in the autumn statement and there is no money available for the expansion of nursery education.
  A large number of our primary schools have spare cash and capacity. A large number of unemployed teachers could attend conversion courses on nursery education. Indeed, we have a large number of unemployed nursery nurses. We have a considerable opportunity to expand nursery education, yet the Government appear to be determined to let that opportunity pass. In the EC, especially in France and Germany, nursery education is taken for granted. Almost all three and four-year-olds in those countries enjoy nursery education. Few three or four-year-olds—in Britain enjoy nursery education.
  I think that the Minister is becoming worried about the Government's education policy. He is obviously upset about the mounting evidence in the HMI reports about the lack of resources. However, rather than acting on those reports, he is keen to muzzle their publication. I hope that he will come clean and say that he is fully committed to publishing the HMI report. It was his Government who began publication of the reports. I hope that he will make it clear that he has no intention of reneging on that.
  The Minister does not appear to be too happy about the Secretary of State's belief in market forces; he is beginning to realise its disastrous effect on teachers. The Secretary of State continues to tell the House that there is no shortage of teachers, so they must be well paid. I find a shortage of trained people for craft, design and technology in almost every school that I visit. Many schools are short of teachers of physics and chemistry. The Minister appreciates that it takes time to train teachers—at least three or four years. Indeed, it takes longer than that. Third and fourth-year pupils must decide whether they want to be teachers.
  While the Secretary of State relies on market forces, the Minister has gone out of his way to draw attention to a new film aimed at recruiting more primary school teachers. There has been a nice press release, and I understand that the Minister is becoming worried about the supply of primary school teachers. I am glad that he has said that an additional 2,000 must be trained each year in the late 1980s.
  However, if that film is shown to a group of sharp third and fourth-year students, they will immediately ask how much the teachers are paid and how long is a teacher's training. The Minister can tell us that a newly trained teacher receives about £7,239 a year. No doubt one pupil in the class will ask how long is the training for a policeman and how much does he earn. It takes much less time to train a policeman than it does to train a teacher, yet that policeman earns almost £3,000 more than a teacher. I am glad that the Minister is launching the film with such enthusiasm, but he must look carefully at the teachers' rates of pay. The market economy will be as great an influence on recruitment as the film will be.
  I understood the Secretary of State to say in his speech that if the teachers made a further sacrifice next year there would be a little more equipment and a little more of this
  756
  and that. Teachers are bitterly disappointed with the way in which they have been treated in this year's pay negotiations.
  If the Secretary of State expects teachers to accept a 3 per cent. increase next year, he will be disappointed. They will not accept 3 per cent. next year and he must realise that he will have to find some extra resources. If he does not, he will destroy morale to such an extent that any attempt that he wants to make to improve standards—an attempt that I believe the whole House would like to see — will be abortive. That will happen because of his failure to pay teachers an adequate sum and to make it clear to them that the Government have a belief in them.
  It is unfortunate that the Government and their predecessors have had a tendency in recent years to seek far more central control of education, especially of the curriculum. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State is not prepared to trust teachers, local education authorities, parents and pupils to decide what is relevant to them. It seems that he does not trust local democracy and that he feels that it is far easier for a Secretary of State to be able to dictate to local schools what they should teach rather than cajoling and persuading them to opt for a certain course.
  Foreign language teaching fails almost the majority of the population. Even when students have managed to achieve O-level French, many of them have an almost total inability to communicate in French.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the courses that are being run at the St. Martin's teacher training college at Lancaster, which have spread the capacity to speak French at all levels throughout Lancashire and Cumbria? They are outstandingly good courses and there are graded tests. Even the parents join in. These courses should be spread throughout the country.
  Mr. Bennett: I am well aware that some imaginative work is being done in some areas but I am aware also that the standard of many who have passed through the education system and passed the tests is very low when it comes to a practical use of the language. Central direction will not improve upon that.
  In many areas there is a major problem in motivating children to learn a foreign language. Perhaps it is all too easy for us to think that we can safely assume that many in other countries will speak English. In many areas there will be greater motivation to learn a language other than French as a second language. It would be far more sensible of the Government to say that all secondary schools should aim at teaching youngsters a second language. It is ridiculous for them to say which language it should be. It would be far better for a decision to be made locally on the most suitable second language to teach.
  It is especially unfortunate that the number of youngsters who have learnt Russian has declined steeply in recent years. There are very few people who learn to speak Japanese while at school. However, the Japanese are only too willing to speak English while selling to us. If we want to sell to the Japanese, those engaged in the selling should speak Japanese. How many schools are teaching either Russian or Japanese?
  I think that almost everyone is keen to see primary science developed but it is extremely difficult to say what elements of primary science should be developed in a particular locality. It is clear that the skills that need to be

  757
  developed in primary schools can be catered for through physics, chemistry, biology and botany. It would be far more appropriate for an individual school, depending on the environment and the skills of the teachers, to choose how to teach primary science instead of having the subject imposed from the centre.
  I have said many times in the House that we proudly claim in Government publications that we have a free education service without acknowledging that there is a series of charges that impose problems for youngsters from families on low incomes or living on benefits. I am only too conscious of the fact that, when I was a young teacher, it seemed simple to say to parents that 50p was needed for a trip for geography field work or a history visit, never stopping to think that other people in the school were doing the same. As a parent, I am well aware that kids come home from school and say, "Can I have this? Can I have that?" Some schools have to supplement the local authority provision by running Christmas fairs, raffles and other fund-raising efforts. Many of those programmes place financial pressures on low-income parents.
  I have referred to the problem of 16 to 19-year-olds and the numbers who ought to go on the youth training schemes rather than stay at school. A grant would make a great deal of difference to those students.
  The way in which the Government handled the announcement on student grants was appalling. The Government have not yet met the National Union of Students to discuss this round of student grants. Unilaterally, the Government announced the abolition of the minimum grant and the imposition of fees on people who will not receive any grant.
  When I challenged the Secretary of State about the problems of those youngsters whose parents will not even fill out forms because they disapprove of their sons or daughters going into higher education, he said, "Give us a solution." There should have been full discussions with the NUS and an attempt to solve those problems before unilateral action was taken.
  There has been an amazing about-turn by the Conservative party. The Prime Minister, when in opposition, said that she wanted students to be independent of their parents. Last year and this year the Government moved massively in the opposite direction and have made increasing numbers of students more dependent on their parents.
  I should have liked to have the time to discuss further education a little more. The House should return to this subject, to which it gives far too little attention.
  Mr. Parris rose—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall not give way now.
  We pressed the Secretary of State to tell us whether he was now satisfied that a compromise had been worked out between the local authorities and the MSC. We were not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was saying that he was not satisfied with the compromise, or was saying that at that stage in the debate he did not want to say anything. The Under-Secretary of State should tell the House whether he is satisfied that a compromise has been worked out and where he sees it going. The proposals to take from the colleges 30 per cent. of the work in non-advanced further education which is vocationally orientated and give it to the MSC caused a great deal of in the colleges. That change seemed to be unnecessary.
  758
  I have no evidence that employers are dissatisfied with what the colleges are able to do. Many employers want the colleges to do more and to have better equipment, but basically they are not dissatisfied with what the colleges are going to do. That is another example of the way in which the Government want to remove people's democratic opportunities to influence colleges and hand the work to the MSC, which is in no way accountable to local democracy even though, to a certain extent—not all that great—it is accountable to Ministers. I strongly argue that we want clear information about how the Government see developments.
  The Government should spend a bit more time looking at what has happened to apprenticeship schemes. Such schemes were crucial in many instances to feeding people through the process of further education into higher education. Because of the decimation of industry and the even greater destruction of apprenticeship courses, the approach through further education into higher education has disappeared. Much more time should be given to debating that aspect.
  The complacency of the Secretary of State as shown in the amendment sums up his position. It seems that, at the end of his political career, he is losing his opportunities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Many more years".] Many more years? Well, let us see. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) who reminded the House that the Secretary of State's career started with the high-rise flats. He went on to reorganise the Health Service. He was enthusiastic about monetarism in the 1970 to 1979 period. He was at the Department of Industry when he pretty well decimated British industry. He was the man who brought Ian MacGregor to this country. I do not believe that he can be pleased about that. In the Department of Education and Science he had an opportunity to repent of some of the crises that he created.
  Instead of setting about doing what is necessary for education—many people agree with what the Secretary of State has been saying about education—he has failed to put the money where he has put his words. That is a fundamental failure. It is no good talking about raising educational standards, expanding educational opportunity or giving a fair deal to the handicapped unless the Government come up with the money. That is the problem. The Government's record in education has been one of cuts and a failure to take the opportunities to expand education when the money was available from North sea oil to do so.
  We have had a tragic missed opportunity, but we shall not know what opportunities the country has missed in education until the Japanese come selling to us. I suggest that the House should vote for our motion and decisively reject the amendment.
  9.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Perhaps I should start by telling the House about a matter of particular pride for Conservative Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of his appointment to the Front Bench of our party.
  This has been a most interesting, intriguing and, at times, strange debate. We have had speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for

  759
  Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Paths), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). We have had a strange assortment of speeches from Opposition Members, from the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I apologise for sounding like a railway announcer.
  We hoped for great things during the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench, promised us last November a Supply day on education. He mentioned it once, twice or three further times, but we heard no more about it. That was promised and threatened over the past 12 months, but after today's performance and the general lack of commitment by the Opposition in the debate I rather suspect that the hon. Member for Durham, North wished that he had not bothered.
  We have been here for the whole afternoon and we have listened with interest, care, calm and courtesy. As one of the nicest men in this place, may I say that I had hoped for rather more than we received. This debate was to be the showpiece. If it was the showpiece, I should love to see the Rolls-Royce model.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Member may have forgotten that at 6.53 pm on Tuesday 3 April 1984 he made a speech. His memory has plainly just gone.
  Mr. Dunn: I remember the speech well. It was one of the best I ever made. As I am starting in a relatively good frame of mind, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member on his re-election to the shadow Cabinet. I am delighted that he was reappointed to the education brief. I am also pleased that he has rejected the invitation to join the alliance. I am delighted that he intends to stay in his own party to fight for the cause in which he believes, at least for the time being.
  When the debate started, I expected a tremendous barrage of speeches, comments and points of view and, in truth, there have been many good speeches and sensible comments. But I must say, because I feel that I should, that there have been no speeches from the Social Democratic party and only one from the Liberal party. I am so disappointed—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: But Conservative Members usually complain if more alliance speakers are called.
  Mr. Dunn: Of course I am complaining. This is an Opposition day. If education is so important to the alliance, it is a pity that more members of it were not here during the day. Therefore, Conservative Members are more impressed by the eloquence of absent Members than by the nature of the speeches that have been made.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an enormous improvement to many debates if there were no speeches from the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party?
  Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but as we are approaching Christmas we must express charity and good will.
  I have said that the Department of Education and Science can be a power for extreme good and, occasionally, for evil. In the five years that we have been in government that Department, under two Secretaries of State, has been a power for enormous good, dynamism and improvement in the education service. I remember a distant time when there was, in the words of one of my young son's books, a "wicked witch" called Shirley Williams who occupied the Department of Education and Science and did disastrous things. Her actions were supported by Opposition Members, veterans such as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others whose constituencies I have forgotten. During that time, there was an all-out assault on good standards and centres of excellence. Much of the blame for some of the faults in the maintained education service lie absolutely and resolutely at the doorstep of the Labour party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred to the great debate started by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). At that time we all wondered why the right hon. Gentleman did what he did. He started the great debate, and there were headlines in the papers for about half a day. Then nothing happened. If one looks back at the course of education history and attempts to establish the high points of Socialist education policy as well as those of the Conservative party, one finds that at the time of that great debate there was not even a bang, but a whisper — [HON. MEMBERS: "A whimper."] Perhaps it was a whimper, or a Wimpy. But the fact is that nothing was done by the Labour party in many years of Socialist Government of which we and, I suspect, Labour Members can be proud.
  In a recent debate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) promised that expenditure on health by a future Labour Government, if ever there were one, would increase by 3 per cent. That amounts to about £500 million in cash terms. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that that was the bottom line, which I assume is the minimum amount by which the Labour Government would increase expenditure. The hon. Member for Durham, North was canny when he was asked a question on expenditure by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 8 November. My right hon. Friend said that the hon. Gentleman
  "must tell the House and the country whether he will commit a future Labour Government, if there ever is one, to provide more money for education via the local education authorities."—[Official Report, 8 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 310.]
  In reply, the hon. Member for Durham, North talked about the relativities of defence and education expenditure. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman was caught on the hop. My right hon. Friend posed the same question again today and we received the same answer. I accept that expenditure would increase under Labour, but by how much?
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Dunn: Let me finish the question first. By £100 million? By £500 million? Today, the hon. Gentleman gave a list of demands for more expenditure on this, that and the other and things yet to be thought of. The hon. Gentleman must ultimately put a figure on it.
  Mr. Radice: There will probably be some time before the next election and I seem to remember that the Conservative party, when in opposition, did not put a figure to any of its plans until just before the general election. Indeed, I do not think that it gave any figures at all. We are committed to spending more on education. I shall certainly not give a precise commitment at this stage. I have no intention of doing that.
  Mr. Dunn: I assume, therefore, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West is in the doghouse as he has done just that. If the hon. Member for Durham, North chooses not to answer the question as I should like, so be it, but I reserve the right to refer to it in future, and I shall.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made a reasoned speech and some interesting points in a telling way. He asked me to comment on the concordat between the Manpower Services Commission and the local authority associations about the proposals on training for jobs. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) also referred to it. I understand that the chairman of the MSC has reached an agreement with the education leaders of the local authority associations which I understand the associations have endorsed. The Government welcome that outcome and are grateful for the co-operation that is now offered by the local authority associations. As the House knows, that will be in the interests of young people. I am sure that both sides of the House are delighted with that result.
  I must thank the hon. Member for Durham, North for causing me to be on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement for five weeks running. He mentioned the HMI expenditure report. I should like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend said earlier today. We have no intention of varying the present and long-standing arrangements for securing the professional independence of Her Majesty's inspectorate. The practice of publishing HMI reports, for which we take credit, is new and we should all continue to think about how they can be used to the greatest benefit of the education service. That is especially true of the annual report on the effects of local authority expenditure policies.
  My right hon. Friend warned about the dangers of oversimplification. I can understand why the press restricts itself to headlines about shortages of resources, but it is less easy to know why, despite all that has been said, Opposition Members insist on saying that levels of provision have got worse during the Government's term of office and that spending much more would automatically improve the quality of education in schools.
  The most recent HMI expenditure report noted an overall improvement in resource levels and made it quite clear that the quality of teaching, the proper indentification of pupil needs and the effective management of resources are essential complements to the provision of resources in securing good education.
  The hon. Member for St. Helen's, North—
  Mr. Bermingham: South.
  Mr. Dunn: East or West, it does not really matter—commented on the absence of evidence from the past on which to make a comparative judgment. He did not hear my right hon. Friend observe that we did not have published HMI reports from earlier years so we could not
  762
  know how low the base line had been in earlier years. We should remember that it was a Conservative Secretary of State who decided to publish HMI reports.
  Mr. Bermingham: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but would he not accept that we are not interested in comparisons? We are interested not in the past but in the future. We are commenting on the deficiencies shown in the reports, in the hope that the Government will repair them and that future reports will show fewer deficiencies.
  Mr. Dunn: We are conscious of that point. My point is that, if some of the problems had particularly deep historical roots, earlier publications would have revealed them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West made some glowing remarks in my absence. I am sorry that I was not here, because it is always nice to be complimented. He also referred to the decision of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council to call in its writing paper and envelopes so that they could be overprinted with the slogan "nuclear-free zone". I understand from a report in the Daily Star of 12 November that such an action would involve the authority in the expenditure of about £50,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] The article states:
  "Defending what he claims to be a non-political decision, education committee chairman Frank Revel says 'The money we are spending is just a drop in he ocean'".
  In Derbyshire, £50,000 is nearly 4 per cent. of total expenditure on school books in 1983–84. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Durham, North so that he can join me in condemning such a gross abuse of expenditure. I see that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene. That is game, set and match to me.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: In my part of the world we have an expression—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister sought to give way to another hon. Member, not to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).
  Mr. Dunn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Paisley, South will not mind if I say that I would rather talk to the organ-grinder.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I am only a tenth of the way through my speech.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member has not said anything yet.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman must listen patiently.
  The Government's plans for local authority expenditure on education for 1985–86 are consistent with our commitment further to improve standards of attainment by pupils. It is up to the LEAs to make the best use of the substantial resources available to them. That means taking every opportunity to redeploy resources as school rolls fall.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that this year, in practice, local authorities have had to borrow from other areas of the rate support grant some 12 per cent. to subsidise education budgets and that if they

  763
  are to balance their books they must make substantial cuts in education or continue to redirect resources intended for other areas such as personal social services?
  Mr. Dunn: I am aware of the problems of LEAs in connection with the competing calls on limited sums of money. I have been a member of a local authority myself—the London borough of Southwark. It is essential to understand that the concern of LEAs should be to get the best value for money. If that means that local authorities — whether Labour or Conservative — will consider alternative means of making the same pound stretch further, more power to their elbow. I would have quoted figures to show the advantages of privatisation, but with only 10 minutes left, and 90 per cent. of my speech still to come, I shall probably not reach them.
  The hon. Member for Blackley made an interesting speech, which confused me a little, about the problems of Manchester. I accept that Manchester, like any inner-city area, has problems. None the less, Manchester has got to grips with the problems of surplus places and has taken some schools out of use. The city of Manchester, which is controlled by the Labour party, has a duty to go further and consider the benefits of privatisation. It should consider carefully the advantage to the ratepayer. Labour Members talk about opinion polls which say this, or say that so many ILEA people say that; we have never had an opinion poll of the ratepayers. Ratepayers are a much-denied, much-deluded and much-abused category of people, and the Labour party does not take their views into account, as was shown by the example of Derbyshire.
  Mr. Radice: What will the Minister do about Norfolk?
  Mr. Dunn: It is a very flat county, Norfolk, but I hope to go there some day and examine the provisions.
  Mr. Radice: I am glad that the Minister will consider visiting Norfolk some day. I was there the week before last and I visited the schools whose provisions the HMI criticised. The Minister and the Secretary of State must answer this question: when and how will they provide the resources that are necessary to improve educational provision in Norfolk?
  Mr. Dunn: The chairman of Norfolk education authority made it plain that she intends to examine the report with interest and will use it as and when she can. Someone said earlier that my actions in relation to the HMI showed that I was trying to shoot the messenger. The reverse is true. We have given the messenger some arms. The Labour Government did not publish HMI reports, and one wonders whether they would have published these.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich asked about political appointments of head teachers or teaching staff. I must speak for all hon. Members when I condemn those occasions when people are appointed to positions of responsibility in local education authorities because they are good politicians rather than being good for the jobs to which they are appointed. I am sure that I speak for Labour Members as well as Conservative Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned teacher appraisal. I welcome his remarks and his support for the objective assessment of teacher competence at various stages in a teacher's career. The facts are already known to the teachers. The Secretary of
  764
  State and I must now create a way of gathering those facts objectively and rewarding those who need to be rewarded, or helping those who need to be helped, in the best way possible through the local education authority.
  New teachers entering the profession must be adequately trained and suitable for the demanding task that faces them. Our White Paper entitled "Teaching Quality" announced proposals to strengthen initial teacher training. I am pleased to say that they have been implemented. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have issued rigorous criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses, and have established a council for the accreditation of teacher education to examine each course against those criteria. The House will know that the council started work in September and is expected to complete its first review of courses three or four years from now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West referred to the advantages of in-service training. The Government welcome in-service training in whatever level it is adopted, if it is to the benefit of pupils and teachers. However, we must address a question to those who organise and take part in in-service training. At the end of the training, do the people who have taken part know more and react better, and have they gained from the experience of undergoing in-service training? If the answer to that question is yes, then in-service training is adequate and worthwhile, and must be to the benefit of all concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred to the problems caused by the European Court's decision to end corporal punishment in schools. As the House will know, in the Gracious Speech we announced a forthcoming Bill to secure compliance with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of February 1982, that parents who hold a philosophical conviction against corporal punishment should be entitled to have that conviction respected. The Government are bound by that ruling, and can do no other than give effect to it. The choice was between abolishing corporal punishment altogether and creating a system giving parents an option about its use.
  Several hon. Members have referred to peace studies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear his views to the National Council of Women of Britain on 3 March this year. He argued then that, as pupils mature, they should be encouraged to apply their reasoning powers to important issues of the day, including such questions as the morality of war, the conditions that lie behind war, and so on. No matter what standards we set, and what guidelines are laid down by local education authorities, the problem of the perverse teacher in the classroom with 23 children can never be eliminated. We must place our trust in the tolerance and professionalism of the teachers. I hope that those who might seek to abuse their privileged position will refrain from doing so. That must be right.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: No.
  Mr. Buchan: What about VAT on books?
  Mr. Dunn: VAT on books is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I have a right in a free society to make my own speech in the way that I choose.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered the Green Paper on parental influence in schools. We believe that governors have a greater role and a greater sense of stewardship than they had previously. It is up to the governers, either with the new powers—whatever they turn out to be — or with existing conventions, to operate within their schools, to become familiar with the teaching practices and activities that take place in schools. If more governors went round the premises for which they were appointed, some of the errors and abuses referred to by some of my hon. Friends would not take place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also referred to religious education in schools. Religious education will always have a vital part to play in the education of all our children. The religious education provisions of the Education Act 1944 are part of a settlement between the churches and the state, which underpin that Act. We have no plans to amend the 1944 Act.
  The hon. Member for Blackley referred to a number of problems in Manchester, especially the problems of food and diet for the poor, and I shall write to him about that.
  Socialism has failed in this debate. The Labour Opposition will put it to the vote, but will undoubtedly lose. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Government's amendment and against the motion put down by the Opposition.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 274.

  Division No. 8]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Alton, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Craigen, J. M.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barnett, Guy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Tony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Deakins, Eric

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dixon, Donald

  Blair, Anthony

  Dobson, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dormand, Jack

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ewing, Harry

  Buchan, Norman

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Campbell, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Foster, Derek

  Clarke, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  Clay, Robert

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Cohen, Harry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Coleman, Donald

  Godman, Dr Norman

  766

  Gould, Bryan

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Park, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Pike, Peter

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Prescott, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Radice, Giles

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Randall, Stuart

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Redmond, M.

  Home Robertson, John

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Howells, Geraint

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Johnston, Russell

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ryman, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lamond, James

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Mrs H. (W'hampt'n NE)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Smith, C. (lsl'ton S & F'bury)

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Snape, Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Edward

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Strang, Gavin

  McGuire, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Madden, Max

  Tinn, James

  Marek, Dr John

  Torney, Tom

  Martin, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weetch, Ken

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  White, James

  Michie, William

  Wig ley, Dafydd

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Gordon

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Nellist, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amess, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Ancram, Michael

  Burl, Alistair

  Arnold, Tom

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Benyon, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cockeram, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Crouch, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bright, Graham

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  Browne, John

  Durant, Tony

  767

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Evennett, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Farr, Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Favell, Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Fletcher, Alexander

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Forth, Eric

  Knowles, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Knox, David

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Lamont, Norman

  Freeman, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Gale, Roger

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Galley, Roy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gael-Jones, Tristan

  Lester, Jim

  Glen, Dr Alan

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Staff's)

  Goodland, Alistair

  Lilley, Peter

  Gown, Ian

  Lloyd, Ian (Haven't)

  Greenway, Harry

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fare ham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Ground, Patrick

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Grylls, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maclean, David John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Hannam, John

  Madel, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Major, John

  Harris, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Harvey, Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maples, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Marlow, Antony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Mates, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mather, Carol

  Hayes, J.

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hayward, Robert

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mellor, David

  Heddle, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Henderson, Barry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hickmet, Richard

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hirst, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Holt, Richard

  Moore, John

  Hooson, Tom

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Howard, Michael

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Mudd, David

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Newton, Tony

  Jackson, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Jessel, Toby

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  768

  Ottaway, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stern, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Parris, Matthew

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Stokes, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Pawsey, James

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powley, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Raffan, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tracey, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Waddington, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rost, Peter

  Walden, George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitfield, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Silvester, Fred

  Wilkinson, John

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Woodcock, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Spence, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spencer, Derek

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury.

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Question on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the future of this nation depends on developing the skills and abilities of all children; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies for raising standards of education for all abilities by action on the curriculum, examinations and teaching quality; and welcomes Her Majesty's Government's policies for securing the most effective use of the substantial resources available for the benefit of the education service.

PETITIONS

  Infantry Training Depot, Crickhowell
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tom Hooson: I rise to present a petition by Crickhowell, Cwmdu, Llangattock, Llangenni and Llangynidr community councils in the county of Powys. Their grievance concerns the announced intention of the Secretary of State for Defence to phase out the infantry training depot of the Prince of Wales division at Cwrt y Gollen, Crickhowell, by 1986.
  The petitioners are 44 community councillors and they pray that the House will prevent this step. Being myself resident in the immediate vicinity, I know that they truly reflect the strong desire of the area to retain the Army as a good neighbour.
  In addition, the councillors undoubtedly speak for Wales. During the highly publicised speculation about the future of Cwrt y Gollen through the early summer months, we attracted widespread support for the depot throughout the Principality.
  Ever since Agincourt, Wales has provided infantry soldiers for the British Army, yet today Cwrt y Gollen is the sole remaining Army training depot in Wales. That powerful factor of the Welsh nation's historic identification with the Army must be added to the councillors' concern at the impact of closure on the local economy.
  The petitioners pray that Cwrt y Gollen will be retained as a military depot, and we must hope that all possibilities, including its use by the Territorial Army and the other armed services, will be explored.
  To lie upon the Table.

PETITION

  Drug Addiction
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, mainly in the Possilpark district of my constituency, and on behalf of the residents of the Ruchill area in the adjoining constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Indeed, he wishes to associate himself with the petition.
  The residents of those districts and indeed, of the Glasgow area, are very perturbed about the problem of drug addiction. Indeed, the first name on the petition is that of Mrs. McHugh, whose son Derek tragically died only a few months ago from a drug overdose. The petition urges the Government to do something about the problem and to curb the activities of drug traffickers in our cities. It states:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of the residents of Possilpark, Ruchill, and Glasgow showeth
  That we are extremely concerned about the level of drug addiction within our communities.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge Her Majesty's Government to introduce more drastic measures to deal with the problem of drug abuse and will curtail the activities of drug dealers in this country;
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I beg leave to present the Petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Ethiopia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: As the House may know, I, together with the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—both of whom, Mr. Speaker, I know wish to catch your eye later—returned late on Sunday after a six-day fact-finding visit to Ethiopia, which included much travelling in drought-stricken areas, including Tigre and Wollo, extensive discussions with senior members of the Ethiopian Administration, the Ethiopian relief organisation, and with the United Nations and other non-governmental organisations such as the World Food Programme, field directors and relief workers of voluntary organisations such as Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund and the Red Cross.
  In the limited time available to me, I do not intend to attempt to describe the consequences of the famine. It is not a famine of biblical proportions; it is worse—it is a holocaust of hunger. There is mile after mile of burnt, brown, barren land that has been without rain for four years. The rivers are dry and local supplies of food are long since exhausted. What should now be a season of harvest is a time of despair and desperation. It is difficult adequately to describe the dimensions of the disaster and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is shortly going to Ethiopia to see for himself that holocaust of hunger.
  As the world community has at last awakened to the reality of the drought, there is now some hope. Food is starting to reach those in need. The Ethiopian relief agency, the RRC, with the now total support of the Ethiopian Government is moving heaven and earth to get the most desperately needed supplies of food up to northern Ethiopia and the Ethiopian authorities are making every effort to feed everyone, wherever they might be.
  The voluntary agencies, their field officers and relief workers are doing fantastic work. I am certain that every penny that has been donated to Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, the Red Cross, CAFOD and other relief agencies is being put to the best possible use. The grain that Oxfam sent to Ethiopia, together with grain donated by British farmers in the "Send a Tonne" appeal was unloaded in record time and is now being distributed to those in need.
  Oxfam field workers in Ethiopia are giving invaluable help and guidance. The Save the Children Fund is giving the chance of life to thousands of children and their mothers. At Korem alone, the Save the Children Fund is daily feeding about 18,000 small children and their mothers. The Ethiopian Minister of Health, who is responsible for co-ordinating Ethiopian relief operations, asked us to go to see him and personally requested us to pass on to the people of Britain the sincere and heartfelt thanks of the people of Ethiopia for all that the British people have done so far in sending funds and food.
  There is no doubt that the recent actions by the British Government have served as a catalyst for action. The arrival of the RAF Hercules at Addis Ababa was a visible sign that Britain and the rest of the world were coming to help. The arrival of the RAF shamed Russia and the eastern bloc into responding. The RAF is doing fantastic
  772
  work ferrying food to areas which until recently were without any food whatsoever. Its professionalism is outstanding. I hope that the RAF will be able to stay in Ethiopia until all urgent needs are met.
  I am conscious of the many other practical ways in which Britain is helping both with food and funds. I acknowledge the leadership that the Prime Minister has given in the Council of Ministers in galvanising the European Community into action. I appreciate the considerable efforts by the Minister for Overseas Development both here and in Europe to stimulate as much help as possible.
  Food is now getting to people in need in Ethiopia, albeit in small quantities. There is now some hope, but there is also considerable apprehension that what needs to be a consistent 18-month campaign may become on 18-day wonder once it is no longer the focus of the world's attention. There is apprehension that, unless sufficient supplies of food are sustained, thousands upon thousands of men, women, mothers, fathers and children will die early next year. They will starve to death as grain supplies are once again exhausted.
  The Save the Children Fund and other relief agencies estimate that people in the drought-stricken areas of Ethiopia require a further 520,000 tonnes of grain to save the millions of lives at risk until next year's harvest. That is about 60,000 tonnes a month, which is only half the rations recommended by the United Nations. At best it is only half a loaf a day per person.
  As of last week, only 30 per cent. of that food had been pledged by the world community. Much more will have to be found if thousands are not to die. The figures that the Minister has been given—I suspect by the World Food Programme —of the anticipated arrivals of grain over the next few months are wrong and bear no relation to the information that we gained in Addis Ababa last weekend.
  That grain can come only from the West. Those who, like myself, campaigned vigorously for Britain's memberhip of the European Community did so in the firm belief that Britain and a united Europe could give the world a lead. This year Europe enjoyed a record grain harvest. Our granaries are groaning with grain. Literally millions of tonnes lie in the intervention stores. The people of Britain will not forgive us if we hoard surplus grain here when, elsewhere, thousands are dying simply for the need of such grain.
  The farmers have already been paid for the grain in intervention. The only budgetary consideration is the difference between the cost of storing the grain and the cost of shipping it to Ethiopia. The signs are that it costs more to store.
  Jim O'Keefe, the President of the European Community, spoke in Brussels last week of thousands dying once all budgetary possibilities were exhausted. He said:
  "We may face a situation in March or April this year when, despite our best efforts, and having exhausted all the possibilities within the Community budget, hundreds of thousands of people are dying."
  All that appears to be in danger of being exhausted is the will and resolve of the politicians who control the European Community, and the bureaucrats who administer it, to cut the red tape in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people in the European

  773
  Community that our surplus grain should be pledged in whatever quantity necessary to save the starving. Britain should take a further lead.
  Ten years ago, Ethiopia experienced drought and famine. The world said, "Never again." It has happened again. Ten years ago, at the world food conference in Rome, Kissinger said that within a decade no child in the world need go to bed hungry. A decade later we witness children dying and starving for want of food.
  Ethiopia and other African countries are hungry for change. That change can come only if we and others provide sufficient development aid to assist agriculture in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa, so as to enable farmers to grow more food to tackle hunger. If we do not do this we shall find that thousands more die from starvation each and every year.
  Any cut in Britain's overseas development budget will be a shortsighted and retrograde step. If anyone asks why we should help to take on the responsibility, the answer is simply that we are, at heart, a Christian people and a Christian nation.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: am grateful for the opportunity to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). I shall never forget the sights that I saw last Thursday and Friday in Ethiopia. They will live with me for the remainder of my life.
  I plead with the Minister to accept that the Government must make it quite clear, as soon as possible, that the world will produce sufficient grain to meet the needs of Ethiopia. Only 30 per cent. of Ethiopia's requirements have been offered by donor countries. It is essential that the countries with a food surplus should quickly commit themselves to ensuring that the needs of Ethiopia are met.
  It is important to ensure that supplies are delivered regularly during the next 12 months and that we do not find that nothing is delivered in one month, which means that the people of Ethiopia will go short for a month.
  The tragedy of Ethiopia is that the famine hits the headlines only when the media can show skeletal children on the television screen. There was a drastic famine around Korem in 1965. Some have suggested that one in two people died. Most of us know that in 1973, 250,000 died in Ethiopia because of the famine.
  As the hon. Member for Banbury informed us, everyone said that that could never happen again. Yet, 10 years later, it is happening again. I shall be haunted by the fact that in five or six years it could happen again. We must examine the situation in Korem. It is a vast dust-bowl area, yet it could be a productive agricultural region. At Alomata, we have been assured there is an adequate water supply just 17m below the surface which could turn the whole area into a fertile land.
  That area is capable of ensuring that, at least in that one area of Ethiopia, no further famines must be endured. It should not be beyond our ability and imagination to ensure that we give sufficient aid to Ethiopia which enables simple pumping and simple drilling to turn it into a food-producing area.
  I plead with the Minister to ensure that Ethiopia receives the short-term aid that it needs, that it is delivered in an even flow and, above all, that Britain makes certain that it never happens again. We should never again be
  774
  faced with the pictures of horror that will haunt us for years to come. We must ensure that we carry out the aid that I have outlined.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I appreciate the Minister's announcement that he will view the scenes for himself. I asked him to do that early in the year, but he did not think it appropriate.
  When the Minister visits Ethiopia, he will see what we are accustomed to seeing on our television screens night after night—the individual horrors. However, he will also see what our screens do not portray, which is the scale of difficulties confronting the people in the 14 affected provinces in Ethiopia and the wider areas of Saharan Africa. The Minister will appreciate that the scale of the disaster is grander and wider than can possibly be portrayed on television.
  The position in Ethiopia has been bad for almost 10 years. Indeed, the area has been accustomed to food shortages during that time. I know that during the past two years the Government have taken action to help Tigre and other provinces. I have no doubt that the Minister will return from Ethiopia with the same conclusions as we did —that it is all too little, too late.
  The estimates that are made by the Ethiopian Government and the relief agencies suggest that between 7 million and 10 million people are in the drought-affected areas, 43 per cent. of whom are children younger than 14 years of age. The calculation of the relief and rehabilitation commission, which is the Ethiopian Government authority dealing with the crisis, is that 520,000 tonnes of food will be required. That calculation is based on a United Nations figure which has been divided by 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will bear that figure in mind when he has discussions with the authorities in Ethiopia. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the Ethiopian authorities have received only 30 per cent. of the required essential grain commitment to date.
  If the statement of the relief and rehabilitation commission that we heard on Saturday is true, there is a possibility that, far from Assab being clogged up, there will be nothing to shift within the next few days if the grain shipments do not arrive. An efficient delivery system is operating from the port and the internal distribution system is well primed with food. The food has been taken from the ports up country to the stores and distribution centres. Unfortunately, further supplies are not on the horizon in supply ships to the extent and in the quantities that are needed. The fear was expressed on Saturday that the grain will not be delivered regularly to enable the excellent efforts of the Royal Air Force to be implemented in moving the grain up country in a regular and orderly manner.
  The relief agencies have estimated that about 600,000 tonnes of food supplies will be needed over the next 12, to 18 months. The bulk deliveries that will have to be made will cost a good deal less than the possible cut of £106 million in the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that has been discussed. We do not have to meet the entire cost ourselves, because I think that we should act in concert with our allies in the European Community, America and Australia. However, I think that we should

  775
  take a lead in delivering the relief from the international community that will prevent the risk of almost 900,000 avoidable deaths. That number of deaths would be intolerable and I hope that the Minister will return from Ethiopia and do everything that he can to prevent avoidable deaths.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House has listened carefully to the brief but moving and vivid speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I think that everyone will agree that it is right to have the debate. It will be a short debate, but in the quarter of an hour that has passed we have heard some valuable contributions. I shall do my best to answer the questions and respond to the issues that have been raised, but it is not possible to present the full picture within the time imposed by an Adjournment debate.
  As the House knows, I hope to go to Ethiopia to see the situation for myself. During my visit I shall meet representatives of the Ethiopian Government and of those who are serving so admirably with the voluntary agencies, the members of our splendid Royal Air Force team and our ambassador and his staff, who are all serving us and the people of Ethiopia extremely well. Most importantly, I shall see for myself the sights that have moved us so deeply in the past few weeks and months.
  The debate has been primarily about the need for food and it is that to which I shall address my remarks principally. Before doing so I shall make a few comments about the past, which has been discussed a good deal. It is argued that we have not done enough to help Ethiopia since 1974 and that what we have done both directly and through the multilateral agencies has served only to sustain an iniquitous system and wrong-headed policies. The lack of aid and the supply of it are blamed as contributing to the present disaster.
  It is true that we have not felt able to run a full-scale development programme in Ethiopia, and I shall say why. In the troubled province of the Tigre we supported an agricultural development project but, by 1976, difficulties with politics and security—one of our people was shot — made it seem pointless to continue. Ethiopia's agricultural policies brought declining incentives to peasant producers, marketing controls that discouraged production and the allocation of scarce resources to state farms that produced little of the nation's food. There were also human rights problems. We have however continued with what bilateral assistance we could to help with training and the short-term benefits of disaster relief and food aid. Contrary to the impression sometimes given by the media, we have given Ethiopia more help to combat famine in the last few years than we have given to any other country. This has been given as disaster relief, food aid, and our share in food and emergency aid from the Community. The fact remains that the need is dire, and it must be met.
  The question of the use of European food surpluses as food aid has been raised, and I think that we all know that it is in the minds of many members of the public. The existence of these food stocks in the European Community
  776
  naturally leads people to expect a generous response with food aid in emergencies. In the last 12 months, 72,000 tonnes of grain have been delivered under the Community's food aid programme to Ethiopia. A further 10,000 tonnes of grain will arrive next month, and 25,000 tonnes for food for work projects will arrive in two shipments in February and April next year. The House will be pleased to hear also that the Commission announced yesterday a new commitment of 25,000 tonnes which will arrive next month. The Commission is planning now to send an average of 10,000 tonnes a month, including the amounts already pledged, to Ethiopia during 1985.
  Inevitably, that aid costs money. It is sometimes said — it was said this morning on the BBC — that it is cheaper to send grain surpluses as food aid than to store them. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has argued that point, but it is not really true. The grain has been brought into store, but it would normally be sold, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, when market conditions allowed. If the grain is sent as food aid, it is obviously no longer available for sale, and the Community's taxpayers foot the bill. The grain has to be both paid for and shipped, and the internal distribution costs have to be met. In the present circumstances in Ethiopia, donors have to take a major responsibility for the internal as well as foreign exchange costs. The cost of buying and delivering a tonne of grain as food aid from Europe to the famine areas in Ethiopia is £250 — more than 10 times the annual storage cost, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food put at £20 a year. The needs of Ethiopia and other drought-affected African countries must be met, but there are substantial costs, and the Community cannot bear the burden alone. I do not think that anyone expects the Community to do so. The United States has recently pledged 130,000 tonnes, the Canadians 80,000 tonnes this year and the Australians 25,000 tonnes. The Community's relief effort must therefore be seen as part of the international response by many donors. The relief commissioner, whom I saw a day or two ago on his way back from the United States, had been profoundly moved by the response in North America. A substantial international effort is being mounted, and that is exactly what is needed.
  The World Food Programme reports that arrivals at Assab are subject to some uncertainty, but it puts them provisionally at 61,000 tonnes in December, 53,000 tonnes in January and 57,000 tonnes in February. Forecasts of arrivals at Djibouti and Massawa are not available in any detail, but it is probable that additional supplies, including the additional 25,000 tonnes from the European Community, will arrive through those ports as well as the supplies diverted from Assab. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has challenged those World Food Programme figures. Obviously, that is something into which I shall look carefully.
  I am determined that the momentum generated within the Community will not be lost during the course of next year. I welcome the Commission's intention to continue substantial shipments to Ethiopia throughout 1985. I am pressing for the urgent needs of drought-affected areas to take priority in 1985 over regular food aid programmes and for early decisions on the allocation of the 1985 programme.
  I am glad that the aid given by the Community and other Western donors has stimulated the Soviet Union and its allies into providing help, particularly with transport. We

  777
  should remember that their provision of military equipment and advice has encouraged the ravages of civil war, which have added to the problems of the region. We do not support the secessionist groups and do not wish to interfere in Ethiopia's politics, but I urge the Ethiopian Government and those who oppose them to set aside their differences and to co-operate in bringing relief to the thousands who face death by starvation. We pledge ourselves to help the Government and people of Ethiopia in this task and to do so in close co-operation with the other donors, multilateral bodies and voluntary agencies who share this objective. The responsibility for co-ordinating these efforts rests largely and inevitably with the Government of Ethiopia and I am glad that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has appointed a co-ordinator to assist them. We wish Mr. Jansson every success in this important work.
  Turning to the future, we must look to the multilateral agencies, and in particular the European Community, for the kind of assistance that can help avert further disasters. The pattern of negotiation agreed under the Lomé convention enables the Community to achieve the right context for aid much more effectively than could be done by a single donor. The pragmatic approach taken by the Ethiopean Government to famine relief makes me hope that a similar approach can be adopted to longer-term agricultural development. I understand that the latest discussions between the Government of Ethiopia and the World Bank have shown encouraging signs of that. The problems of Ethiopia have to be seen in the context of famine and the threat of famine elsewhere in the world, especially in Africa. There are many needy people in many countries and the answer is to be found, not in creating new institutions and bureaucracies, but in using most effectively those that we have already.
  In closing, let me remind the House of some of the things that we are doing to help Ethiopia in its need. In the last three weeks we have sent Land Rovers and other supplies for the voluntary agencies and tomorrow we shall be flying out mobile workshops for Ethiopia's relief and rehabilitation commission to help it repair vehicles needed to transport food. We are responding quickly to other requests put to us by the commission, recognising the valiant efforts that it is making to get food to the hungry. In the same plane, tomorrow, there will be blankets, plastic sheeting and food kits for distribution by the voluntary agencies to those who are cold and hungry. Hon. Members have referred to the airlift of food and other supplies within Ethiopia by the Royal Air Force. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that he hoped the Royal Air Force would be able to stay in Ethiopia until all urgent needs had been met.
  As the House is aware, we have agreed to supply two aircraft for three months. We think that, with the two Air Force Hercules, there are enough planes in Ethiopia at
  778
  present to transport essential food and relief supplies. Keeping two aircraft fully operational in the country also involves the use of five aircraft and 100 men. I believe, from all the reports that I have heard, that our Royal Air Force team is doing a splendid job.
  As I said earlier, our help is not limited to Ethiopia. The House will know that I approved recently £250,000 for relief in Chad. That will support a Red Cross feeding project. In addition, I have in the last few days earmarked up to £500,000 for drought relief in the Sudan, much of it for projects identified by British voluntary agencies. We are doing what we can and what is more, we can be sure that our contributions get through to the hungry, and for that I pay a special tribute to the many workers and others who face hardship and danger to achieve this goal.
  There are many more things to be said, and many more things will be said in the House about the problem that we are discussing. I hope that nothing I have said has given any impression of complacency. I believe that what has to be done is urgent and extremely important.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are all grateful for what the Minister has said and for the fact that he is going out to Ethiopia to see conditions for himself. Will he give us an assurance that as soon as he comes back he will make a statement in the House, assuming that the Leader of the House makes it possible?
  Mr. Raison: I shall consider that carefully. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is up to the Leader of the House to determine whether I can make a statement, but I note his point.
  Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the reports in the press that much of the effort of some of the multilateral agencies has been wasted because of in-fighting and that there must be a more co-ordinated and friendly effort between them in future if aid is to get through more quickly than at present?
  Mr. Raison: I do not think that the in-fighting has been in Ethiopia. It may happen in other places from time to time, and that can be worrying, but my impression is that, given the sudden, enormous surge of activity, the system out there is not working too badly, and I believe that with the addition of a special co-ordinator, and with strengthening in one or two other ways, it will work increasingly well.
  We are trying desperately to do the right things. We shall have to keep it up. The problem will not be solved in a week or two We all know that. However, progress is being made in meeting a challenge that is obviously of enormous importance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health and Social Services Boards
  Health and Social Services Boards
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Governing Bodies (Representation)
  School Governing Bodies (Representation)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Offenders (Trial Delays)
  Offenders (Trial Delays)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  West Germany
  West Germany
  Spanish Accession
  Spanish Accession
  British Rebate
  British Rebate
  European Union
  European Union
  Budget Discipline
  Budget Discipline
  Spain and Portugal
  Spain and Portugal
  Financial Obligations
  Financial Obligations
  Reforms
  Reforms
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Oil Exploration and Production Equipment
  Oil Exploration and Production Equipment
  Johnson Group Cleaners (Merseyside)
  Johnson Group Cleaners (Merseyside)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. John Preece (Appeal Court Transcript)
  Mr. John Preece (Appeal Court Transcript)
PRIME MINISTER
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
WALES
  Roads
  Roads
  Holyhead
  Holyhead
  Housing
  Housing
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Sheep
  Sheep
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India
  India
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Latin American Debts
  Latin American Debts
  British Consulate, Durban (UDF Members)
  British Consulate, Durban (UDF Members)
  Central America
  Central America
  British Embassies and Consulates
  British Embassies and Consulates
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  South African Citizens (Trial)
  South African Citizens (Trial)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Namibia
  Namibia
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Chile
  Chile
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Gibraltar (Spanish Citizens)
  Gibraltar (Spanish Citizens)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Soviet Foreign Minister
  Soviet Foreign Minister
  Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons
  Intermediate Range Nuclear Weapons
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Poland
  Poland
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Outer Space (Arms Control)
  Outer Space (Arms Control)
  USSR (Jewish Emigrants)
  USSR (Jewish Emigrants)
  Soviet Union (Visas)
  Soviet Union (Visas)
  Israel (North Sea Oil)
  Israel (North Sea Oil)
  USSR
  USSR
  Egyptian Citizens
  Egyptian Citizens
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Life Sentences
  Life Sentences
  Drugs Convention (Council of Europe)
  Drugs Convention (Council of Europe)
  North Cornwall (Swimmers)
  North Cornwall (Swimmers)
  Boys on Remand (Adult Penal Establishments)
  Boys on Remand (Adult Penal Establishments)
  Court Cases
  Court Cases
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Immigration Act Prisoners (Transfer)
  Immigration Act Prisoners (Transfer)
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Mentally-sick Persons (Police Guidelines)
  Mentally-sick Persons (Police Guidelines)
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Television Reception
  Television Reception
  Kerb Crawlers
  Kerb Crawlers
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Housing Laws (Guernsey)
  Housing Laws (Guernsey)
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  R v Mr. Gillow (Costs)
  R v Mr. Gillow (Costs)
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Intimidation
  Intimidation
  Isle of Man and Channel Islands
  Isle of Man and Channel Islands
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Mobility
  Labour Mobility
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
ENERGY
  Intellectual Property Rights
  Intellectual Property Rights
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Value Added Tax (Deregistration)
  Value Added Tax (Deregistration)
  Books (VAT)
  Books (VAT)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Capital Gains Tax Retirement Relief
  Capital Gains Tax Retirement Relief
  Unemployment (Cost)
  Unemployment (Cost)
  Oil (Gross Domestic Product Earnings)
  Oil (Gross Domestic Product Earnings)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Leeward Islands
  Leeward Islands
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
TRANSPORT
  Local Authorities (Transport Policies and Programmes)
  Local Authorities (Transport Policies and Programmes)
  M1-M6 (Lighting)
  M1-M6 (Lighting)
  Falling Objects (Unidentified Aircraft)
  Falling Objects (Unidentified Aircraft)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Public Service Vehicle Test
  Public Service Vehicle Test
  Mr. J. T. Beasley
  Mr. J. T. Beasley
  Cross-Channel Link
  Cross-Channel Link
  Brampton Bypass
  Brampton Bypass
  Level Crossings (Pedestrian Safety)
  Level Crossings (Pedestrian Safety)
SCOTLAND
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Roads
  Roads
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  NHS (Pay Beds)
  NHS (Pay Beds)
  Government Forensic Service
  Government Forensic Service
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  New Town Development Corporations
  New Town Development Corporations
  Housing Defects Act 1984
  Housing Defects Act 1984
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Expenditure Targets)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure Targets)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Specific and Supplementary Grants
  Specific and Supplementary Grants
  Local Authorities (Fees and Charges Income)
  Local Authorities (Fees and Charges Income)
  Beaches (Pollution)
  Beaches (Pollution)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Brixton Cares for Kids
  Brixton Cares for Kids
  Tenants Charter
  Tenants Charter
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government (Manpower)
  Local Government (Manpower)
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Private Flats (London)
  Private Flats (London)
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  General Development Order (Planning Controls)
  General Development Order (Planning Controls)
  Planning Inspectors
  Planning Inspectors
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Computer Services (West Midlands)
  Computer Services (West Midlands)
  Benefits (Dundee)
  Benefits (Dundee)
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Burnley
  Burnley
  Hospital Treatment Statistics (Mid-Staffordshire)
  Hospital Treatment Statistics (Mid-Staffordshire)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Patients (Money)
  Patients (Money)
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Skin Hospital, Manchester
  Skin Hospital, Manchester
  Injectable Contraceptives
  Injectable Contraceptives
  Doctors
  Doctors
  NHS (Spectacles)
  NHS (Spectacles)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Pensioners (Telephone Charges)
  Pensioners (Telephone Charges)
  Drugs (GP Prescribing)
  Drugs (GP Prescribing)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
  Dairy Quotas
  Dairy Quotas
  Land Settlement Association (Tenants)
  Land Settlement Association (Tenants)
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Slaughtermen
  Slaughtermen
  Priorities Board
  Priorities Board
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  Nuclear War
  Nuclear War
  Cereal Stores (Intervention)
  Cereal Stores (Intervention)

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

The Lord Bishop of Durham
David Edward, Lord Bishop of Durham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Liverpool and the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
The Earl of Airlie—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Buchan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TV Reception in Scotland
2.42 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve TV reception in remote hill areas of Scotland.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, under the third phase of the BBC and IBA joint engineering programme the broadcasting authorities aim to extend ultra high frequency coverage to all unserved areas with a population of less than 500, wherever this is practicable. Although no lower limit is specified, communities of less than 200 are in practice unlikely to benefit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, may I tell him that the community I am taking as an example is that of Glen Prosen, in the county of Angus, where 24 people are clubbing together to spend more than £2,000 on providing colour TV in their homes, which is absolutely necessary if people want to stay in the glen? Not only do they have to pay that money, but the first advice the BBC gave them was on where to purchase their colour licences for £46. To add insult to injury, the Home Office charged them more than £100 for a transmitting licence.
Does not the noble Lord agree that it is practical for the BBC to spend £2,000 to achieve an income of more than £1,100 per annum? Surely, this comes into the realms of practicality and of gross margin costing at least. Will the Minister not agree to look into this matter to establish whether, if the BBC will not do that, they will remit the expense of the colour licences to these people?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the colour licence fee is charged for a service given. The noble Lord's real concern, I think, is with the cost of the licence to
310
transmit from the relay station that the inhabitants of Glen Prosen are installing. That fee is fixed at a level only to cover expenses incurred by the authorities in making clearance of the frequencies wanted, both nationally and internationally.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the same problem applies to the hill areas of Wales. Will the Government not consider making a financial contribution towards communities of under 200 which, after all, have to provide their own private television reception aerial, as it were? As it is important to prevent further rural depopulation in remote areas, would this not be a worthwhile social investment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern, but he should not think that we are doing nothing. The actual cost of providing a transmitter for an urban population is, on average, 5p per head of the viewing public. In rural areas it is between £50 and £100 per head, so there is a considerable amount of help already being given.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the county of Cumbria there are a number of areas with a population of about 500 where it is not possible to receive any signal on ordinary sets and where the residents have to pay about £25 a year to a private company to obtain a signal—and this after 30 years of independent broadcasting and at a time when the programme companies are bulging with money? Why do they not fulfil their statutory obligations and serve these areas?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the obligations rest on the authorities and not on the programme companies; but the noble Lord will, I imagine, be very glad to hear that the programme in fact extends to populations of less than 500 and, therefore, to the populations with which he is concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the total population of communities under 500 and the total population of communities under 200?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords, I cannot. I can tell the noble Lord that it is estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 people in Scotland are at present unable to receive a usable UHF television service.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us the figures for England and Wales, respectively?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid I shall have to write to the noble Lord with the answer to that question.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1980 the BBC sent their engineers to investigate the problem of reception in Strath Glass, and in particular at Cannich and Tomich, and led the local community to believe that it would have a relay station for 625 coverage in 1984? However, according to a letter I received in October from the director-general, nothing is likely to happen this year. Will the

311
noble Lord draw the attention of the BBC to the disappointment and frustration that all this delay causes these very isolated communities?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was not aware of the correspondence, but I shall draw the attention of those concerned to what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord comment on my first supplementary, in which I said that £ 1,100 a year extra money was a good return on an outlay of about £2,000? Will he put it to the BBC that this is a practical way of providing the necessary service?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is superficially attractive, but from the inquiries made earlier today I understand that the expense of installing equipment to the standards which the authorities rightly think necessary would be a good deal more, and that the figures would be rather different from those that the noble Lord suggests.

Export Credits: Future Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their future policy on export credits and whether they will ensure that British agricultural exports are not disadvantaged as compared to other countries in the EEC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will keep available a wide range of facilities to assist United Kingdom exports and at the same time will continue their support for international agreements to limit credit terms and to minimise associated costs to Government. Agricultural exports from the United Kingdom are entitled to the full range of appropriate Government support services, including ECGD's credit insurance guarantees where the risks involved are judged acceptable. Other countries in the European Community make support available against similar criteria.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that apparently helpful Answer. But will the Government ponder and, indeed, accept the great damage caused by failure to provide export guarantees and export credits, similar to those in the EC, and that we are losing our long-term competitiveness as an exporter? Can my noble friend tell me whether, this being less than equal to the French, it has resulted this year in the French exporting their corn whereas most of the British corn has, very regrettably, gone into intervention at great cost, as was mentioned yesterday by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I am not aware of the anomaly with regard to the French to which he drew my attention. The arrangements in force under the Berne union of export credit insurers, as with the OECD sector agreements, ensure that there are similar, if not totally equal, credit terms throughout the Community. As for my noble friend's question about the French sale of grain, I am sure that he knows better than I do that this year's record grain surplus in the United Kingdom has posed a totally new problem. I can say that Her Majesty's Government are looking at that problem in isolation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the frustration felt by many companies in the United Kingdom, compared with companies in Europe, at the delay before they are informed whether they will be allowed to export items out of this country? The average processing time when a British company applies to the EEC is in the region of six weeks. In Germany it is four, and in France, five.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is referring to export licences or to acceptance of credit loan arrangements through the ECGD.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Credit loan arrangements, my Lords.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I understand it, the timescale that the noble Lord has instanced is the exception rather than the rule. But if he has in mind a particular example, I should be happy to look into it for him.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm what I understood him to say; namely, that British grain exported from British ports to third countries qualifies in exactly the same way as any other British commercial export for ECGD cover, where that is available?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord possibly misunderstood me. Grain exports are normally guaranteed to a length of 180 days. There have been exceptions to that; for example, the two-year term which was given in the case of a shipment of grain to Morocco. Normally other hard goods, if I may call them that, qualify for longer periods of credit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the difference in cost between exporting grain immediately and putting in and out of intervention? I understand that it is very significant.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the likely saving of such storage costs is one factor which the Government are taking into account in considering the representations which have been made and to which I alluded in my earlier answer with regard to the exceptional surplus this season.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, leaving out the agricultural aspects of this matter, is the noble Lord aware that whatever formal arrangements have been

313
reached between various members of the EEC and ourselves, and indeed outside the EEC, in practice, somewhat mysteriously, other countries seem to be able to get more favourable terms than those offered by the ECGD? Is he further aware that, despite the overriding necessity, which I am quite sure the Government recognise, of making every possible effort to increase our exports, the ECGD's attitude to applications appears to be getting increasingly stringent?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot leave aside the agricultural issue since that is exactly the Question on the Order Paper. It is a connected Question about the export credits and ensuring that British agricultural exports are not disadvantaged; so I cannot leave that aside. I would, however, remind the noble Lord that the ECGD is required to operate on a commercial basis. Consequently, ordinary commercial considerations have to be taken into account. On his last point, I fear that I cannot agree with his suggestion that the ECGD's attitude leaves something to be desired.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it might be useful if he were to consult the National Farmers' Union, the agricultural workers' union and the specialist engineering organisations concerned with this problem? A discussion with those three bodies might help the Government to understand what the problem really is.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that the Government have any misunderstanding as to what is the problem. The Government and my department are, of course, always happy to discuss with anybody, whether an agricultural union, the NFU or engineering businesses, any problems that they may have over exports.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should like to avoid our developing an inferiority complex about how we make use of the EEC machinery. Does my noble friend agree that the criticisms from the opposite Benches may well have been true four years ago, but that the knowledge that we have, the use that we make of the machinery' and how we take advantage of it for national reasons, are so much better now that the implications behind the questions put to him are unwarranted?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I think that the House would expect me to say that, of course, I broadly agree with him.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question here is not one of party policy but of what is happening to our attempted exports? The noble Lord has made a categorical statement that there is equality of criteria as between the different EEC countries and the level of support they give to their respective manufacturers. Will he look at the recent cases of the attempted export by British Aerospace of 748s to Zimbabwe and the attempted export of 748s to a Caribbean country, where he will find that there was not that same equality of criteria?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in my answer earlier I said that there were a series of understandings within the Berne union. I did not say that there were laws or rules. There are understandings and notices given with regard to terms as between one partner and another, but the general criteria remain basically the same. In so far as the export of aeroplanes to Zimbabwe is concerned, I think that I answered that question a short while ago. Concerning the other export matter, of British Aerospace 748s, I very much regret to have to tell the noble Lord that I cannot help him this afternoon.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any figures that tell us how much help in cash terms has been given to agricultural exports during this past year?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In monetary terms, my Lords, no. The export of agricultural products is around £700 million. It is a very small percentage—less than 2 per cent.—of our total exports in hard goods.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first part of the main Question did not deal specifically with agriculture? That was the second part of the Question. Therefore will he answer my question about future policy on export credits, without restricting his answer to agriculture, which forms only the second part of the main Question?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the policy with regard to support given by ECGD remains broadly the same as it has done for a number of years.
A noble Lord: It is better now than it was.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that there is information coming from Brussels that the French intend further national aids for beef producers to the tune of £35 million? May I ask my noble friend to keep a very close eye on this and to consider whether the French really ought to withdraw it, or else whether more ought to be done universally within the EEC, bearing in mind the pressure upon meat markets of the milk quotas? Will he do this in order to ensure fair competitive conditions?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the attention of the House to this matter of French beef exports. What I can say is that through the association we have with our partners in Europe, to which I have earlier referred, I will certainly cause investigation to be made. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the result of such an investigation, but, if I may, I will take the opportunity of writing to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord briefly confirm that he is saying that the British producer is on exactly the same footing as his French counterpart in so far as the export of grain and beef is concerned? Is he aware that there is considerable concern at the present time about the export of beef and what is regarded as unfair competition from the French producer?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, what I am saying, and confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is that through the understandings which we have through the Berne union, and through other organisations to which I have referred, there is parity, there is agreement as to the credit terms and charges that are generally levied as between one and another. Having said that, there is also an understanding that where one country departs from the strict criteria, notice is usually given. We have no knowledge that a departure from the agreed terms has occurred in recent times in relation either to grain or to beef. However, I have given an assurance that we will look at the specific point that my noble friend raised in his supplementary question a moment or two ago.

Primary Health Care: Green Paper
3.3 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a firm date for the publication of their Green Paper on primary care and whether the Binder Hamlyn report will be included as an annexe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, work is well under way on the preparation of the Green Paper, but the Government cannot commit themselves to a precise publication date. The Binder Hamlyn report may be published at the same time as the Green Paper.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, that response from the noble Lord was not unexpected. I think this is the seventh time this Question has been asked in Parliament. Can the noble Lord explain to me two simple things? First, why does the Secretary of State promise the Green Paper, get everybody excited, get them all on tenterhooks and ready to listen to the Government's thinking on the matter, and then not produce anything? Would he not agree that primary care is of the greatest possible importance to the health of the community and to the relief of pressure by way of the need for acute beds? Secondly, is he not further aware that everyone is awaiting the Government's proposals; that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, are all wanting to help and to collaborate when they know what the Government's thinking is; and that in the meantime they are simply stalled? Finally, will the noble Lord undertake solemnly before the House that this Green Paper, when it does finally emerge, will not be a late, sudden publication followed by a mere month or so for response, and that a proper period for consultation will be given?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course we feel that primary care is important. But it is equally important to ensure that the primary care services are reviewed really thoroughly and that we produce sound proposals which will provoke a wide-ranging debate, in the sort of time frame which I should think the
316
noble Lord would like, not only among the professions concerned but also among the public at large. That is more important than that we meet some pre-ordained, artificial timetable, which is what the noble Lord would like.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not very unsatisfactory that after what I think is now eight months the Minister should still not be able to give a date when the Binder Hamlyn report is to be published? It is obviously of great importance to the whole question of our system of primary health care. First of all it was going to be published, then it was said it might be published, then it was possibly to be published, then it was fairly soon to be published, and now we are back to "might be" published. Are not the professions, the House and the public entitled to see a report which, after all, has been paid for by taxpayers' money? Why are the Minister and his right honourable friend so cagey about this? Or could it be that, like the log of the "Conqueror", it has been lost?
Noble Lords: Unnecessary!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the noble Lord, when he was a Secretary of State, did not commission reports of some sort that were not in fact published. Of course, the Government commission lots of reports. The fact is that there is no obligation necessarily to publish them. So far as the Binder Hamlyn report is concerned, it deals with the forecasting and control of expenditure on the family practitioner services. This is just one of the issues which need to be considered in relation to primary health care, as I think the noble Lord himself would agree. The purpose of the Green Paper appoach, as I have said at this Box more than once, is to bring all these strands together. The Binder Hamlyn report is being studied in the wider context.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that leaks, of which there have been many, suggest that the Green Paper might be a much more acceptable document than was once feared? In those circumstances, would it not be very helpful to the Government if they could get the Green Paper out as soon as possible? Would it not also be helpful if we could end the uncertainty which exists amongst workers providing family practitioner committee services?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not really believe all the leaks that I hear, and I am sure that the noble Lord does not, either.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Lord not accept that surely the point of a Green Paper is that it is green? It does not have to be cast in concrete. Is it not the case that what we are expecting are the Government's preliminary reactions in the whole of this very important sphere, in order that those of us who are interested in that sphere and professionals who are competent to comment on it should then make their input? Then we shall be able to come to a final scheme, a White Paper, or something of that sort. So why should there be such a delay on the Green Paper?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the delay is purely so that the Green Paper can be cast in the sort of terms which the noble Lord would want. I think that is more important than artificial timetables, which is what the noble Lord and some of the noble Lords opposite seem to want more importantly.

Pensions: UK Citizens in Canada
3.9 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in their discussion with Canada on paying retirement pension increases to United Kingdom citizens resident there.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare has prepared the draft of a reciprocal agreement on social security which would provide for pension increases for United Kingdom pensioners in Canada. The test is currently the subject of negotiation between officials of my department and our Canadian counterparts. The implementation of any agreement will depend on the necessary finance becoming available.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that in a few days' time many thousands of British pensioners living in countries such as America, Spain, Turkey, Bermuda, and many other countries throughout the world will receive the new amount of £35.80, while many United Kingdom pensioners living in Canada, after fulfilling the same qualifying criteria, still receive no more than £10 a week? Will the noble Lord therefore accept that there is some urgency in the matter if we are to deal with this injustice? Is he in a position to give us some more definite timescale as to when the matter is likely to be resolved?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of what the noble Lord says. In principle, the Government accept the case for a comprehensive social security convention with Canada, which would enable the sort of increases to which he refers to be paid. However, as I have said, the problem is one of priorities and the allocation of funds. The potential cost to the United Kingdom of such a convention would be over £30 million a year, estimated at 1983 rates of benefit, and until funds are available that cannot be done.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for promising to pursue the matter. When he talks about finance do he and the Government take into account the fact that most of these elderly people are widows and widowers who left this country to go to stay with married sons and daughters and to make a home in Canada, and that thereby they are saving our social services a great deal of money and use of manpower? Can the noble Lord not therefore include in the balance sheet some of these savings and perhaps feel able to be a little generous very soon?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, although pensioners in Canada are not making use of the National Health Service and United Kingdom social services, it is not really possible to trade one thing off totally against another in the way the noble Baroness suggests. Besides the fact that one cannot quantify the savings on services, the financial arrangements for cash benefits are quite different. The National Health Service and social services are part of the social structure of the country available to residents and are financed as such.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord further on the financial arrangements? Is it not possible in considering draft proposals, to discuss some phasing in of the increases in order to reduce the immediate financial implications?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is true that partial unfreezing (the technical term, I think for what the noble Lord is getting at) would initially cost less than total unfreezing. It would cost about £2.5 million in the first year. However, ultimately, the annual cost would be the same as for a total unfreezing. In the present situation the Government cannot make such a commitment.

Overseas Trade: Select Committee
3.11 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the causes and implications of the deficit in the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures; and to make recommendations.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount—
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): I must put the Question first. The Question is, That the Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council be agreed to?
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I apologise for being a bit precipitate, but I want some information about this. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that this is a matter of supreme importance. It is the question of whether we can restore our manufacturing position. I should like to know in the first place: is there a similar Select Committee in the other place? If so, how long has it been operating, and with what result? Is it necessary to duplicate the effort? If so, would it not be desirable—here I raise a point that I intended to raise in a previous Question but was unable to do so because I was ill at the time—to arrange that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House could, of its own volition, enter into discussions with the Select Committee of the other place with a view to using their combined talents, experience and knowledge in order to deal with the aforesaid subject?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I appreciate his interest in this matter. This particular committee was set up following representations from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, indeed, from noble Lords in many parts of the House who thought it was desirable that an important committee of this House should look into the problems of our manufacturing trade over recent years. This desire was, I think, widely felt in the House. A committee was set up in the previous Session. This committee has to be reappointed in the new Session. The purpose of this Motion is to reappoint it for the new Session. I do not think that there is a strictly comparable Select Committee in the House of Commons. It is concerned specifically with manufacturing trade.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following upon the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may I ask: is this not the time to consider the possible benefits that could flow from there being a Joint Committee of both Houses? This is a matter that affects both Houses. Rather than have discrimination and difference of view, would it not be better that my noble friend the Leader of the House should perhaps think along the lines of a Joint Committee, so that the matter can be considered with the extra authority that such a Joint Committee would give?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it may be that a Joint Committee would have extra authority; and it may be, on some occasions, that it would not. I believe that it can be said that some of the Select Committees set up by this House have had very considerable authority indeed. Some very important people have been prepared to give their time to them. I think that on many occasions—I say this with all respect to the House that I left such a short time ago—they might easily have more to give to public knowledge than a Select Committee of another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable powers of attorney to be created which will survive any subsequent mental incapacity of the donor and to make provision in connection with such powers. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Dangerous Vessels Bill [H.L.]
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to empower harbour masters to give directions to prohibit vessels from entering the areas of jurisdiction of their respective harbour authorities or to require the removal of vessels from those areas where those vessels present a grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property, or risk of obstruction to navigation; to enable the Secretary of State to give
320
further directions countermanding those first-mentioned directions; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Central and Local Government
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk rose to call attention to relations between central and local government; and to move for papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, may I first welcome the return of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, to the Department of the Environment in a higher elevation, and to say, as I said when I wrote to him, that I wish him well but when it comes to work—not too well, just well.
In calling attention to relations between central and local government, it would have been very encouraging to find that everything was flourishing in the municipal garden. Alas! nothing could be further from the truth. The tendrils of central Government are strangling the roots of local government. Of course, it is true that never is all sweetness and light and that some tension is a natural part of the creative process of checks and balances in our democracy. But that tension has degenerated into what is virtually becoming a civil war in this country—a breakdown in communication between our central Government and local councils, with a strong shift in the balance of decision-making.
More and more, central Government is arrogating to itself decisions traditionally the province of elected local authorities. Coming from a Government whose Prime Minister is always saying that things should be devolved and that people should be given the opportunity to do things on their own and with independence, it seems strange to find in fact that the move and turn towards the centre is becoming stronger and stronger.
Since 1979, this Government have enacted a series of Bills fundamentally affecting local government. In doing so, they have promoted a curious linguistic mumbo-jumbo. We are cluttered up with words like "targets", "GREAs", "block grant holdback" and "rate capping". These do nothing, I think, for local government. They do even less for the English language. The screw has been tightened annually. The slippery slope began when the Government decided to control local expenditure rather than to influence it, as in the past.
In the past, the Government had been prepared to influence expenditure but not to control it in the way that they do today. Hence we saw the Local Government, Planning and Land Act of 1980 which enabled the Government to concern themselves with the spending of individual local authorities rather than the totals, which had been the practice in the past. This was taken a step further by the Local Government Finance Act 1982 which gave power to set targets and created heavy penalties for individual authorities.
The slippery slope then led to rate capping—not just of the 18 authorities which are likely to be rate-capped in 1985–86 but also, as we warned when the Rates Bill was going through this House, to a control over all rates and all local spending. But rate capping, with all the municipal coronaries it causes through shrinkage of services, is an irrelevance to the main drift of the Government's local government finance policies. Central-local relations are going to be put under further strain by the targets the Government have in mind for local spending.
The Government claim that rate capping has saved £400 million of spending, or, put another way, is likely to force £400 million of cuts. Yet these figures have to be set against the gap of £800 million, or 4 per cent., between the Government's plans for local authority spending in 1985–86 and the cost of existing policies. In 1986–87 the gap will widen to £2 billion. Therefore, rate capping is not going to deliver cuts of this magnitude. All authorities will be affected and relations between central and local government will worsen more as the Government try to impose the cuts, using increasingly severe financial mechanisms.
This is the sort of thing which we saw some centuries ago in relation to punishment generally: the harder the punishment the greater the deterrent, it was thought. Then, "Might as well be killed for a sheep as a lamb", was the sort of slogan that came in. That can be applied to local authorities, who feel that they are up against not a Government who are trying to help them but a real antagonist.
This is not reserved just for members of my party. A number of distinguished Conservative members of the local authority associations opposed the Government during the passage of the rate-capping Bill in this House; they were sitting on these Benches over there. One or two of them even voted with us in the Lobbies. Now that the cuts are biting, many of the Government's own supporters are complaining bitterly. In a letter to The Times today, the Conservative chairman of Buckinghamshire County Council, explaining why he is standing down from the chair next May, writes:
"Right across the country prudent Conservative Councillors know their targets are unrealistic and ridiculous, and that to spend above them is inevitable if local services are not to break down or become the subject of derision".
One wonders why any Government should want to woo unpopularity in this way, particularly from members of their own party. It is not just a case of unpopularity, because in doing this they are not able to do what they have said they set out to do. In pursuing these dangerous manoeuvres the Government are under attack from a quango of their own creation—the Audit Commission. These policies, according to this government-appointed body, have actually added £1.2 billion to local rates as authorities strive to cope with the Government's chopping and changing.
Then take capital spending. That has had a similar removal of local discretion—another area where we have seen the whittling down of local powers. The badly battered and under-nourished housing programme has been the victim of more severe cuts than any other area of public spending. As a result of the cuts just announced by the Chancellor, the number of new homes is likely to be a quarter of the number
322
built 10 years ago. There is not much hope here for the homeless and for the overcrowded. The cuts in improvement grants will mean more dereliction and deterioration in a society where one of the things that we are all aware we are suffering from is the condition of the infrastructure—the state of our buildings, houses, roads and everything else; and at the same time unemployment in the construction industry is among the highest in this country. It really would be an Alice in Wonderland situation if it were not for the fact that it is so tragic.
Concern and respect used to be accorded to local government, but now functions are being taken away from it rather than remaining with it or being given to it. An example is the taking away of further education to give it to the Manpower Services Commission. This has been against the strongest protest from the Conservative Association of County Councils as well as the Labour Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Then there is the whole area of local transport and bus deregulation, which my noble friend Lord Underhill will be dealing with when he speaks later in this debate.
The theme connecting all these actions seems to be the belief that Whitehall knows best, coupled with a disdain and even, as it seems to many councillors, a contempt for local government and its 25,000 councillors. This was not always so. The Consultative Council on Local Government Finance set up by the late Anthony Crosland in 1975, when he was Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, was a forum for consultation and partnership. After the first meeting Sir Robert Thomas, then chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, said:
"The amount of co-operation was very surprising. Whitehall has opened its doors to us".
Of course, again, all was not smooth all the time; one would not expect that and it would be absurd to pretend that this was so. But the leitmotifs were consensus, co-operation, sharing and consultation. That consensus has now been broken, and this is one of the most dangerous areas between local government and central Government. Co-operation has been replaced by virulent opposition, and consultation is unfortunately now considered almost a farce. The present chairman of the AMA, Councillor Jack Laydon, was reported in the current Municipal Review in these words:
"We are totally dissatisfied with the present workings of the Consultative Council. With monotonous regularity Government Ministers either ignore consultation completely, presenting us with a fait accompli, or demand an instant reaction to papers on complex issues. I sometimes think it would be enough for me to send down my photograph and pin it to the back of a chair".
If members of that council can feel and talk like that, there must be something very wrong.
Is it any wonder that the latest addition to this unhappy chronicle of derogation of local government in this country is the major piece of legislation for this Session—the abolition of the six metropolitan counties and the GLC? Pre-1979 it would have been inconceivable that a manifesto commitment, born out of political pique—one line included in the pages of a thick manifesto—should have found its way straight into a legislative programme: a commitment without prior thought, a commitment without consultation with those involved, a commitment without the views

323
expressed by the people and organisations who would be affected. All recent major reforms of local government have been preceded by Royal Commissions, but not this one; not at all. It came straight from the manifesto into the programme—the Queen's Speech—and then into the legislative machine.
It is true that the Secretary of State, in the Financial Times of 28th October 1983, said that an inquiry was the time-honoured way to go about such a major reorganisation but that there was no case for such an inquiry when, as he said,
"the course of action is already clear".
How clear is this course of action? We have yet to see the Bill, which I have no doubt the Department of the Environment is currently knitting with, I guess, many a dropped stitch. How clear is it when the White Paper Streamlining the Cities was greeted with a deafening chorus of opposition? How clear is it when a MORI poll conducted this summer showed that fewer than one in five—or 18 per cent.—approved the abolition of the metropolitan counties, while in London the latest opinion poll shows 74 per cent. against abolition?
This House obliged the Government in the last Session to think again and it forced them to drop the undemocratic interim councils from the paving Bill, as it was then. Now we shall be asked to accept a structure of joint boards, identical in nature to the interim councils. Indeed, in the case of both the metropolitan counties and the GLC the bulk of current expenditure—that is, around 70 per cent.—will be going to joint boards and quangos, or directly to the Secretary of State. At what price accountability here?
It will probably be said that the members of the joint boards will be elected, because they will have been elected by the boroughs. But we all know that it is one thing to be elected for a particular job in the boroughs within the concept of borough work, but it is quite a different thing to be almost thrown from there into a body that is concerned with strategic planning. The concepts are entirely different. To describe this as a democratic way in which to deal with the matter seems to me to be a rather odd use of the words "democracy" and "democratic". When we come to the quangos and the Secretary of State, we are getting further and further away from any democratic system at all and away from the aegis of local government. So once again we have this even stronger movement to the centre.
The chaos and complexity inherent in the Government's abolition proposals were devastatingly demonstrated in a study published this morning by PA Management, a well-known firm of consultants. Their report is based on a thorough, wide-ranging study of the Government's proposals. I should like to quote just two of their conclusions. The first conclusion is:
"Overall we have been unable to find a single service where the quality of service to the local elector is likely to be improved as a result of the change in structure. In many cases we believe there will be a marked decline in quality".
I remind your Lordships that that conclusion came from an outside, objective, experienced organisation.
Secondly, they say:
"The substantial and increased role for central government which is included in the Government's proposals means an inevitable loss of local accountability and increased centralisation of decisionmaking".
We have heard also about the money that will be saved. However, nothing has yet come out from the Government. The only study that has been undertaken is that by Coopers & Lybrand for the metropolitan county councils and they could not find any way in which money would be saved. In fact, their finding was that it was likely to be more costly.
In view of the number of speakers this afternoon, this is not the time to go into the areas which will be affected by abolition, which cover an enormous field and which are causing justifiable anxieties across all political parties. I do not believe, because it was all done so quickly, that at the time the Government were really aware of what they were undertaking. All of us must have received communications from organisations as wide ranging as, on the one hand, the voluntary services, and on the other hand, the arts organisations, as well as organisations concerned with archives, archaeological organisations, professional bodies, and those worried about the break-up of, for instance, the GLC scientific services, which were referred to in such glowing terms in our debate in this House on the report of the Royal Commission on the Environment. The communications are coming in all the time, and we shall deal with them if, and when, the Bill reaches this House.
I should like to mention just one area, and that is the voluntary sector. I am aware that a great many of your Lordships are concerned with this sector and are tied up with it in many different ways. This month the Secretary of State spoke to the voluntary organisations. He told the National Council for Voluntary Organisations that they must reduce their over-dependence on GLC funding and move towards independence. The chairman of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations put the situation very well when he said that it was like telling starving people that it is their own fault that they have become too dependent on food. Whichever way we look at the situation, it can only mean a cut in the work of the voluntary organisations.
I am not pretending—it would be silly to do so—that local government is perfect. It needs improving. It needs to be helped along with the problems that are coming up today. It needs encouragement and it needs respect. But it certainly does not need to be destroyed. If the Government want to destroy local government, then rather than strangle it to death, why do they not come out into the open and say, "We do not believe in it. We have no time for local government"? At least they would then have the courage of their convictions. If that is not so, then it seems to me a very peculiar way in which to go about trying to build it up and support it.
Six months after we on this side of the House had attempted in two Bills to get an inquiry set up into local government finance, the Government decided to do so. But the Government's inquiry, recently announced by the Secretary of State, is closeted in the Department of the Environment. To ask the DoE—which has had to work on the policies which

325
brought us all those things such as block grants, targets and penalties—to have another look at local government finance is like asking Heath Robinson to have one more go at designing Concorde! It really is ridiculous.
The Government will not grasp the nettle. They will not have a proper inquiry into local finance, structure and accountability. That is the way in which to go about it. We do not want some of the half-truths which appear in the article in The Times today; Mr. Kenneth Baker does not seem to have taken into account, when talking about the domestic ratepayers, that in fact 40 per cent. of people in this country do not pay taxes, are not eligible for taxes. So taking it to its logical conclusion, does it mean that in fact the wealthy should pay less, that the wealthy should get better services and something more than the poor who cannot pay tax and many of whom are not paying rates? The Government will not have a proper inquiry. Instead, what they are doing is continuing on the path of dismantling local government. They are doing that by over-loading central government and by moving towards one central, uniform faceless system.
Yesterday in this Chamber the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, made a magnificent speech during which he referred to the protection that was being given by this House to local government and to small groups,
"against the ever-growing and engrossing powers of a centralised Government and an ambitious bureaucracy."—[Official Report, 13/11/84; col. 235.]
That is what is happening in this country today. If, as the noble Earl says, we are the body which can act as a protector—because with the large majority in another place it is not very likely that the Government will not get their legislation through there—then it will be time for us to take steps ourselves once again when the Bill reaches this House.
It is at this very time that we need the strengths of local government; we need its responsiveness to local needs, its innovations, its capacity to experiment and to find the right answers to many of the complex and community problems of the last part of this century. That cannot be done by the centre, which is much too amorphous and enormous an organisation. Unless local government is given some powers, unless it is given encouragement, and unless it is able to get on with and do the job for which its members were elected, we shall gradually see the end of local government as we know it in this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the nice way in which she welcomed me to this Dispatch Box, speaking as I am again for the Department of the Environment.
It is a little over a year ago that your Lordships' House last debated the subject of relations between central and local government. On 26th October 1983 my noble friend Lord Beloff, who I am glad to see is speaking later this afternoon, rose to call attention to this issue, on that occasion with particular reference to financial matters.
326
At that time my noble friend Lord Bellwin was at this Box, and I should like to pay my tribute to his devoted work during the last Parliament. During my 18 months away from the tentacles of environment, I was at the Department of Energy, but by a quirk of fate my time there took me into fairly close contract with local government. My responsibility covered energy efficiency, and this gave me good relations with the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee and enabled me to travel all over the country, making visits to local authorities in such diverse cities as Cardiff, Darlington and Norwich, to name but a few. Therefore, when later on in my remarks I talk about the quality of local government, the House can believe me that, from personal experience, I am indeed an admirer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her opening speech today, has had much to say on the question of finance, and I too shall be reverting to that theme in a little while. But, with the House's approval, I should like to make some attempt to look at local government and its relationship to central government in both an historical and a constitutional context.
Surely a measure of tension must be endemic in any system of government which has elected representatives at both national and local levels. Those who hark back nostalgically to a time when perfect harmony existed between local and central government are certainly deluding themselves. Any society which accepts even a small measure of decentralisation inevitably accepts the certainty of some degree of conflict. And the extent to which that conflict is likely to arise is undoubtedly magnified when both central and local forms of government enjoy the power to tax the citizen.
In such circumstances, intense debate is only to be expected between those seeking to meet local pressures by running neighbourhood services in a particular way and those striving to achieve national policy objectives, be they social or economic in character.
Over the years we have seen many examples of governments of all political persuasions attempting to strike a sensible balance between these often competing interests. On occasions, the tide has flowed in the direction of increasing the scope for local decision-taking; at other times, the dominant pressure has been for the adoption of national standards in such subjects as housing, social services or education. All that is certain is that the scene is constantly shifting to meet the needs of the day.
For example, the House may recall that in 1977 a report was published by the Central Policy Review Staff entitled Relations Between Central Government and Local Authorities. This report concentrated on ways to improve communications and working relationships in the field of social policies and recommended, inter alia, that central government should reconsider the detailed controls they exercised over the activities of local government, and that the role of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance should be expanded.
Thereafter, there was not much progress until 1979, when, as noble Lords will recall, a general election intervened. The Conservative Government took early action. In 1979 an exercise was mounted to relieve

327
local government of a mass of minor duties and constraints. Detailed control over local authorities' capital projects was swept away two years later. At the same time we abolished the infamous housing cost yardstick and the mandatory Parker Morris standard for new council housing, both controls having been the butt of much noisy criticism from local authorities over the preceding decade. We have sought to develop the consultative council as a useful and flexible forum for a two-way flow of views on all matters of policy affecting local government, not just on matters of rate support grant and expenditure.
To pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, I believe that it ill behoves the chairman of the AMA to complain of a lack of consultation when, despite repeated invitations, his association has refused point blank to negotiate with the Government on abolition proposals and rate capping.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way on that point. We had this argument before when we discussed the paving Bill, so I do not want to go over it again. I was talking about the on-going work of the consultative council, which is extremely important, and I think that the noble Earl should treat it seriously. It is not concerned only with abolition proposals. I do not want to go into that because it is a long story and a different point, but I do not think it is fair that it should be brushed off as being concerned only with abolition.
The Earlof Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention, but I did start my remarks by saying:
"It ill behoves the chairman of the AMA",
and I shall stick to that. I give these examples to demonstrate that the relations between local and central government are, and always have been, a fruitful source of debate, and indeed we are doing it now. In a healthy democracy that is exactly how things should be; and I am not surprised that this afternoon the noble Baroness is pointing to some current manifestations of that tension which are much more worrying.
We have heard accusations of overweening centralism on the part of the Government. It is being said in some quarters that Whitehall is rapacious in its desire to seize control over local authority activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. In so far as new controls have been introduced, it has been done with great reluctance and a considerable degree of sadness.
The Government strongly believe—as they always have—that local decisions should be taken locally and the Government are also the first to recognise the quality, skill and devotion of the vast majority of those who serve in local government, both as elected members and as officers.
Nobody in their right mind could for a moment believe that the vast range of issues which affect the day-to-day lives of people living in the myriad communities up and down the land can, or should, be decided by Whitehall. The expertise, the sensitivity to local circumstances, the capacity to act speedily exists overwhelmingly at local level. I am sure that we can all agree on that point.
328
But, we have also to recognise that the healthy relationship which I have just described has been based—and properly so—on certain constitutional principles and with the acceptance of certain common obligations. Underwritten principles and obligations certainly; but none the less powerful or correct for that.
Let me briefly state what this basic framework is. I believe that it is necessary to restate these principles because it is the Government's view that much of the conflict between central and local government which we are experiencing at the present time results from this framework being challenged in some quarters.
I define the principles as follows: first, the sovereignty of Parliament as law-maker; secondly, respect for those laws by all citizens. There can be no selective opting in or out of legality: that way chaos lies. The third principle is the right and duty of central government to determine and manage national finances, which of course includes controlling the level of public expenditure.
It follows from this third principle that no government could disregard the major influence which local authority spending exercises on the economy. After all, local government is responsible for a quarter of total public expenditure.
I also mentioned the common framework of obligations. At the head of this list I put the duty to safeguard the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers, and then to provide services efficiently and economically in the interest of those who ultimately finance those services.
As I said a moment ago, most of local government adheres to these principles and honours the obligations I have described. We are all conscious and grateful that the tradition of loyal service, of uncorrupted devotion to the task of meeting the genuine needs of local people, is so widely and diligently sustained. It is therefore a source of sadness and concern that a breakdown of these traditions has occurred in certain areas.
Some people have pointed to the rate limitation provisions in the Rates Act, to which this House devoted so many hours of debate earlier this year, as an expression of central government's interference with the normal relationship by imposition of unprecedented controls. The noble Baroness has argued that the proper constitutional relationship between central and local government has been undermined by the powers taken in the Act to set an upper limit on the rates or precepts authorities can charge their ratepayers. But I believe that is to confuse cause and effect. The Rates Act is not a cause of that change but a response to the fact that a number of local authorities have deliberately sought to depart from the constitutional principles I have just described.
Until very recently the Government's legitimate duty to determine the overall level of public expenditure, including the spending of local councils, was acknowledged by local government. We did not hear councils complain in the expansive days of the 1960s when central government were encouraging them to spend more on particular services. But now economic times have changed. The attempts by successive Governments since the mid-1970s to halt the inexorable growth in spending by local

329
government, sometimes by persuasion and sometimes by modifications to block grant arrangements, have failed to influence the hard core of the highest spenders who deliberately seek to flout the convention that, in a unitary state, central government have the right and duty to set the financial framework within which local councils have to manage their affairs. It was to curb the defiant extravagance of this smalll group of high-spending councils that rate limitation was introduced.
It is at this point that sometimes opponents of rate limitation say, "But these are democratically elected councils; they have a mandate to spend as much as they like, and to rate as highly as they can get away with". But this is clearly not so. The truth is that the link between the ballot box and the rating system is thin. On average, more than half the national rate bill is met by the non-domestic sector, which has no vote. In some areas, the figures are even more dramatic. In Camden, for instance, only 17 per cent. of the council's net spending was met by domestic-ratepayers, while 60 per cent. was borne by the non-domestic sector.
This is why the Government took action: both to protect the ratepayers who are suffering as a result of council policies over which they have little direct control and to ensure that national economic policy is not undermined. In July this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the list of 18 authorities selected for rate limitation in 1985–86. These 18 authorities between them account for 75 per cent.—or £632 million—of this year's budgeted overspend by local authorities as a whole.
At the same time, my right honourable friend announced the expenditure levels on which he proposes to base the rate or precept limit for these authorities—in most cases a cash freeze on this year's budget. Within this limit, it will be for local councillors—not Whitehall—to decide on spending priorities within and between services. The scale of reduction being sought has been regularly achieved by other authorities in the past. Some vociferous councils are claiming that these reductions will require savage cuts in essential services. Yet, despite my right honourable friend's repeated assurances that authorities with a genuine case have nothing to fear from the statutory redetermination process, none has brought its case to him. Surely this could mean that, despite their scaremongering, most of the councils recognise the reasonableness of the reductions we are seeking. The alternative is to recognise their intention to sacrifice the interests of their employees and the ratepayers who depend on local services for the sake of ideology. I do not need to point out the danger of this course. I can only urge them to bring their case in before time runs out.
We have heard it said today that the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils in some way also represent a breach of the principles. But reorganisation of local government is by no means a new issue. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s little else was talked about. The changes made then were sweeping. In particular, the 1972 Act abolished all existing authorities and set up a completely new system (except in London, where reorganisation took place some seven years earlier); and many of the
330
authorities which were abolished then had many hundreds of years of history behind them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, would the noble Earl give way for a moment? Those changes followed detailed inquiry. Does the noble Earl not realise that what many object to on this occasion is the fact that there has been no such inquiry?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I have quite a lot to say on abolition, and if I may I shall use that in my winding-up remarks.
Local authorities are statutory bodies whose powers are conferred upon them by Parliament. What Parliament gives it can take away. That is precisely what we shall be asking Parliament to do: to take powers from the GLC and the MCCs and give them instead to the boroughs and districts—authorities which, in many cases, exercised these powers as county boroughs up until 10 years ago. I might add that most of them cannot wait to get those powers back. I now turn, in conclusion, to two issues on which the Government will be looking to local authorities for their active co-operation and participation in the coming months. First, finance. My right honourable friend intends to make the full RSG statement for 1985–86 at the usual time in December. It will continue to reflect the Government's policy since 1979—keeping public spending under firm control. Helped by the pressures of the block grant system and of the system of targets and penalties, the great majority of local authorities have played their part in this. Of course, it has not been easy, and some very difficult decisions have had to be taken. What they have achieved is that after a prolonged period when local current spending rose steadily, year after year, by an average of around 3½ per cent. in real terms, that figure has now come down to below 1 per cent. Not the least of the consequences of this achievement is that in this year, 1984–85, rate increases were the lowest for 10 years.
Nevertheless, the Government are well aware of much dissatisfaction within local government and elsewhere about the whole local government finance system; not only the traditional dislike of the rates as a form of local taxation, but concern about the nature of financial relationships between central and local government; about the complexities (which the noble Baroness illustrated) of rate support grant, including the somewhat mystifying system of targets and penalties; and not least, about accountability. Local government simply will not work if local councillors do not feel themselves accountable for their spending to those who provide the revenues to finance that spending.
Accordingly, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, together with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the Member for Bristol West, have begun a series of internal studies into the whole system. The study is intended to be comprehensive and thorough: and, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed in another place on 7th November, these internal studies will result in proposals on which there will then be widespread external consultation. The Government look forward in due course to the active participation of local government in this process.

331
My last point is another important aspect of local government—the way in which conventions traditionally observed by all political parties in the conduct of a local authority's own business are beginning to break down. Local government legislation is based on a 19th century model of councils controlled by part-time councillors operating for the benefit of the community as a whole, with little reference to national politics, but in many urban councils today we are seeing the emergence of a deliberate attempt by some political groups to use local authorities as a laboratory for policies which have little or nothing to do with that traditional concept of local government.
Not all councils are experiencing this challenge to their normal practices and procedures, but the trend is clear; and it carries implications for the democratic safegards enjoyed at the local level by ratepayers, by those reliant on local services and by those working for local councils. Too often we see conventional checks and balances being scorned; the rights of minorities on councils being suppressed; standing orders being manipulated to stifle debate; councils squandering millions on virulent propaganda campaigns.
The Government have received countless demands for action to be taken to prevent the more flagrant abuses that have hit the headlines—abuses which present grave challenges to the health of local democracy. But one must not be led into assuming that there are easy answers. The developments we are seeing may well reflect fundamental changes in the way in which society operates—changes from which local government will not be immune. The issues involved are complex, and any remedies may well be controversial.
That is why my right honourable friend has indicated his intention to hold a careful and dispassionate study, not only of the kind of abuses I have mentioned but also of those underlying changes which the abuses reflect. He will shortly be putting forward proposals for an inquiry into these issues on which all parties will be consulted. The Government, will also be in touch with the local government associations about the proposal. We are at the moment encouraged by the reactions so far received to the intended inquiry. I am sure that local government generally will recognise the value of this study, aimed at protecting the future health of local democracy. I welcome this debate for the contribution it can make to such a study. Constructive suggestions in this tricky field are always difficult. I am sure that this afternoon we shall hear of some which will be useful.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, my noble friends and I warmly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place this afternoon. We shall clearly spend an immense amount of time this Session debating local government; not only the Government's proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the substantial changes in the responsibilities in the metropolitan areas, but also we shall have the opportunity of discussing, I suspect on a number of occasions, the consequences of the Government's rate capping legislation. That being so,
332
it is of considerable value that we have this opportunity today of debating these issues.
I am afraid that we have to face one unpalatable fact at the outset. In this I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is that relations between central and local government are poor and that they are getting a great deal worse. But these problems did not begin—and on this the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was entirely right—with the election of the present Government in 1979. I believe they have been deteriorating gently for about 10 years.
As successive Governments found the central economic problems facing our country increasingly intractable, so inevitably they began to intervene more directly in the affairs of local government. I remember attending meetings in the Department of the Environment—the first of which were presided over by Mr. Crosland and then by Mr. Shore—with the local authority associations, when at several of such meetings there were bitter complaints about the level of central Government intervention in matters which the local authority associations believed were properly the responsibility of local government; about the attempts of the then Government to place some form of ceiling on staff numbers and about the suggestion—I have some feeling that there was justice in their complaints—that local government was to a substantial degree responsible for some of the grevious problems we were facing in terms of the management of the British economy.
I believe it is therefore untrue to suggest that the present Government began this process and are wholly and exclusively responsible for it; that when they came into office there was an idyllic relationship between central and local government and that they recklessly destroyed it. That would be far from the truth. But in order to understand the reasons for the present difficulties it is necessary to consider not only the behaviour of the Government (and I will be coming to that in a moment) but what has been happening throughout English local government in the last few years.
There are still many local authorities, both Labour and Conservative controlled, which are prepared to co-operate closely with the elected Government of the day. They will have occasional rows with central Government, but by and large they understand their own role and that of the Government. But over the last four or five years we have witnessed the emergence of a very different type of local authority. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, commented on this towards the conclusion of his speech. I should like to remind the House of the words uttered by his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, then the Minister responsible for local government, when he spoke in this House on 26th January last year. He said:
"Scarcely a day passes without some news of some new departure from standards which in my experience were once generally accepted without question in local government and taken for granted by the whole community."
He added:
"we hear of disproportionate majority group representation on committees, of manipulation of agendas, of the denial of access to papers, and, incredibly, curtailment of the opportunity to debate in full council, and so on—all designed to prevent minority groups or individual members from playing their proper role in council affairs. We hear, too, of selection of officers by reference to their political

333
leanings; and even of the administration of services in a selective basis—for the wrong reasons—within the area of a single local authority."—[Official Report, 26/1/83; col. 359].
We all know, in whatever part of the House we may sit, that what the noble Lord said on that occasion was entirely true. Week after week we see further examples of intolerance directed against minorities or against those who have upset the powerful men and women who run some of these authorities. I propose to cite two examples from one of the least attractive of these authorities—the London Borough of Islington. In the last local election, the Labour Party in Islington secured 51 per cent. of the vote, the Conservatives and the Alliance obtained 49 per cent. of the vote. Under the first-past-the-post electoral system so passionately supported by the Government and Opposition Front Benches we had the absurdity where 51 per cent. of the voters were represented by 51 councillors and 49 per cent. of the voters were represented by a single councillor.
That was bad enough; but what followed was even worse. A systematic attempt was made to prevent that single councillor from obtaining information about the council's activities. The solitary councillor, Mr. David Hyams—I give this as an illustration—asked for copies of documents involving council expenditure relating to the services of two officials of Islington council who were servicing the London Labour leaders group. He was refused the information, not because the information should not properly be supplied to him—it was very difficult indeed to maintain such a proposition seriously—but because the leader of the council objected to the use that might be made of the information. She wrote:
"It has become perfectly obvious that you are determined to pass any information you obtain straight on to your Party and to the Press. You are simply using it to fuel the campaign of misinformation and distortion which you and your Party are currently fomenting."
That statement, I should have thought, would hardly lead to its author being given an award in a Freedom of Information Year. In that statement there is not a trace of recognition that a member of an opposition party has any rights whatever, or that she, as leader of the council, is accountable to the electorate in any way whatsoever for her conduct. It is the language not of a democrat but of a municipal Bourbon.
One could cite example after example of similar conduct. There was, for instance, a matter which was debated on the Floor of this House only just over a year ago—and I think it right to remind the House about it—concerning the deplorable example of the publicly-financed Islington News Co-operative designed by the council as a free-distribution newspaper to put a small local newspaper, the Islington Gazette, out of business. The Islington Gazette had offended the current council leadership in Islington and they were going to be punished. That was the objective of the operation. My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock and I warned the Government and the House what was going to happen in Islington. In particular, we pointed out that unless an amendment was made to the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill then going through the House, Islington council would be committing large sums of public money to this deplorable enterprise.
334
The debate took place at the end of July last year and the Government were not prepared to accept our amendment because it would delay the passage of the Bill, a perfectly worthwhile Bill, for a few months. So, despite our warnings and the support that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, the Government Chief Whip used his majority to defeat us. The Opposition, I may say, considerably to their credit, abstained on the issue despite the fact that it was a Labour-controlled authority which was involved. And what happened? The council leadership in Islington used this new legislation as we had predicted and financed the new newspaper. But, despite the substantial sums of public money pumped into it, the new newspaper was a disastrous flop. Within months, it went bankrupt and at a cost of roughly £100,000 for the ratepayers.
My Lords, although it is tempting—and one is bound to say this, particularly in the presence of a number of noble Lords opposite who formed the Government majority on that occasion—to read out the list of names of some of those noble Lords who (unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter) provided the majority, I will not do so. But I hope, nevertheless, that this incident may make it easier for some of them to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in the future. But I would just add this; and I think it is appropriate to do so in the light of exchanges which took place in another place yesterday. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the fact that the Government were being compelled to give £90,000 in golden handshakes to a number of Labour appointees to London Transport because of the contracts entered into with them by the GLC, demonstrated in her judgment the strength of the case for the abolition of the Greater London Council. How, I wonder, would she describe this expenditure, committed as a result of legislation of her own Government and greater than the sum which caused her to make this rather extravagant remark yesterday? I look forward with interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will say about this episode when he comes to reply. I hope very much that he will do so.
As the House will be well aware, although the two examples that I have given of lamentable conduct of this kind by a local authority relate so far exclusively to the London Borough of Islington, these are in no sense at all isolated examples. I now wish to give a further example of what I regard as a dangerous trend in local government. I turn to the South Yorkshire County Council. Ever since the passage of the Police Act 1964 there has been, by and large, a reasonable relationship between police authorities and central Government. As the House is aware, police authorities are made up of two-thirds elected members of the authority and one-third of magistrates. Certainly, in the five years when I was the Home Office Minister responsible for the police, I can recall no occasion on which there was a significant dispute between a police authority, its chief constable and the Home Office.
I recognise—and one would be very insensitive were one not to say this at the outset—that the bitterness of the present dispute in the mines was bound to put that relationship under severe pressure in a number of local authority areas. But we have witnessed in recent

335
months, I believe, a most dangerous situation which has, I am afraid, exceeded my own most pessimistic assumptions. To be blunt, there has been a determined effort in South Yorkshire and in one or two other authorities to prevent chief constables from carrying out their duties to enforce the law. In South Yorkshire, resolutions were passed instructing the chief constable to spend no more money on policing the coal strike without the authority's prior approval, and declining to meet the cost of billeting officers from other forces despite an explicit statutory requirement that they should do so.
The Attorney-General was compelled to take the authority to court and the councillors surrendered. However, within weeks, they were at it again. Following a serious disturbance involving several thousand pickets at the Orgreave coking plant in which the police only succeeded with difficulty, and thanks to a very considerable extent to the existence of their mounted section, in maintaining control of a most ugly situation, the South Yorkshire Police Authority decide to abolish that mounted section. The grounds on which they did so were, ostensibly, of course, based on financial considerations, but it was, as we all know perfectly well, a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of their own police force. This time the Home Office intervened with the threat of further legal action. Once again, the authority beat a retreat. But within a few days we had the quite extraordinary attack made on the policemen of South Yorkshire by the chairman of their own police authority when he compared them with Nazi stormtroopers.
The cases that I have cited from just two local authorities demonstrate, I believe, the seriousness of the sitution which we are now confronting. There are, I believe, a dozen or maybe 20 other local authorities which are a great deal more venomous than South Yorkshire, where there is a contemptuous disregard for the rights of minorities and a settled determination to use their power to reward their friends and punish those whom they choose to regard as their enemies. This new type of local authority believe in confrontation right down the line. They believe in heavy expenditure increases; but no rate rises. They have an unqualified enthusiasm for all-out conflict with the Government of the day and, if need be, the courts as well. As a result, next year we are going to see a series of bitter battles over rate capping between the Government and a number of local authorities, the like of which we have not previously witnessed in this country.
My Lords, I will make on this issue the position of my noble friends and I abundantly clear. We are totally opposed to the Government's rate-capping legislation. We regard it as both dangerous and misconceived. This is, first, because it involves an unacceptable degree of interventionism by central Government in the affairs of the local communities. Unlike the Government, we do not believe that the "gentleman in Whitehall knows best." Secondly, we are against it because the standards that the Government are applying to determine which authorities are to be rate capped are both arbitrary and capricious. Thirdly, we are against it because the
336
impending clash between the Government and the hard core of militant rate-capped authorities may do severe damage to some of the most deprived communities in this country.
The prospect of this clash does not frighten people such as Mr. Ted Knight in Lambeth, I can assure the Government. He will enjoy every moment of his martyrdom. There is no point at all in the Government proclaiming constantly their enthusiasm for local government—and we have heard more of this from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, today—while at the same time they transfer from local government more and more power to Whitehall. Just as we were told by Ministers during the last Session how much the Government simply hated having to come forward with this legislation caused by a limited number of extremist local authorities, we heard today in slightly more restrained language from the noble Earl of "their considerable degree of sadness" at being compelled to take this action.
I think there are risks, quite apart from the question of expenditure which I have dealt with and the rate-capping issue. I come back to the example I gave of what happened, and is happening, in South Yorkshire and in a number of other police authorities. There is a serious risk here, too, of increased Government interventionism, and that in a few months' time or at some stage in the future we will be having a Minister coming to that Box and telling us that the Government have been reluctantly compelled to re-examine the basis of the control of policing in this country. Let me make it quite clear that if any Minister comes forward on some future occasion and makes any such statement, my noble friends and I will resist with all the power in our possession any proposal in that direction. It would be deeply damaging to the cause of improving relations between local communities and their police forces.
But of course, having said that, the Government do indeed face a dilemma, as I have illustrated in my speech, because the threat posed by the minority of extremist local authorities is a real one. It cannot possibly be minimised. Everything that the noble Earl said on this was, in my view, entirely justified. Many of these people have a contempt for parliamentary democracy, as we well know, and indeed of the rule of law. Most of them represent only a minority of the electorate. In Lambeth, for instance—and I have already mentioned Mr. Knight—two out of every three voters at the last local elections in Lambeth voted against Mr. Knight, but Mr. Knight, thanks again to our first-past-the-post electoral system, has got an absolute majority on Lambeth Council. Yet in regard to the Bill which I brought before the House and over which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I were engaged in dispute, the Government indicated on that occasion, as I am sure they will indicate again today, that they are adamantly opposed to proportional representation in local government, which I believe is the only way in which the scandal—and it is a scandal—of minority rule by extremist cliques can be eliminated.
Unless Parliament exerts itself and insists upon such a change, the present drift towards still more rigorous central Government domination in our lives will gain even greater pace. Already we are the most centralised

337
democracy in the Western world. I believe that unless this process is checked and put into reverse it will do lasting damage to the quality of life in this country.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, by common consent, the Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC is the most important and indeed the most contentious measure that will come before this Parliament. For me, with over 30 years' service in local government, this is very sad because it indicates a failure on the part of the Government to recognise the proper role of local government in this country. As a vice-president of the British sections of the International Union of Local Authorities and the Council of European Municipalities, I have some knowledge of local authorities in other parts of Europe; and I have always believed that we have had perhaps the most effective system of local administration in the world. It has been distressing to see the damage done to it during the last five years—damage acknowledged by all the local authority associations, most of them Conservative controlled, and by almost every leading Conservative in local government. I say this to demonstrate that this is not just a fantasy of opposition parties but a matter that must be taken very seriously by this House. I would say that no local authority association or professional body would recognise the picture of central and local government relations painted by the noble Earl this afternoon in respect of the Government's wish not to centralise all functions.
The present legislation is a development from the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Rates Act 1984. These draconian measures provided for an increasing centralisation of power and were produced under pressure, each made necessary by the failure of earlier measures, as it were, blundering from one problem—some people might say from one mistake—to another. As the Royal Town Planning Institute has said,
"At a time when European countries are moving towards a greater degree of local responsibility, local government in this country is moving towards increasingly direct control by Ministries".
The Government have always relied on the theory of the manifesto, despite the scathing attack made upon it and its unconstitutionality by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But, as the Royal Institute of British Architects have said,
"A major constitutional change is being proposed without any clear rationale, and without any assessment of the present system, appraisal of alternative ones, or estimate of the cost".
The Government say they are—
"… firmly committed to carrying out their manifesto promise to abolish an unnecessary tier of local government and to produce a major transfer of power and responsibility to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts".
In the Guardian a fortnight ago Mr. Robert Mitchell, the Conservative Member of the GLC for Wanstead and Woodford, said:
"The alleged transfer of the GLC functions to the boroughs to give the electorate more direct control is, quite simply, a deception".
Under the terms of the Yellow Paper, many reserve powers are being retained by the Secretary of State, who will give regional strategic guidance on planning.
338
He will have reserve powers to take over the operation of urban traffic control systems if the districts are unable to make satisfactory arrangements. Even in that most basic of all functions, waste disposal, the Secretary of State is to take reserve powers to establish joint arrangements if he is not satisfied that those made by the authorities voluntarily are adequate. Why, my Lords, if the object of the exercise is to give more power to the lowest local level, are so many reserve powers being retained by the Secretary of State? This is a really massive shift of powers to Marsham Street and a complete abandonment of a long-standing Conservative principle which rejects the view that Whitehall knows best.
Since 1979, local authority expenditure powers and the ability to make local decisions based on local needs have been increasingly curtailed by the Government. The Government have made an attack on local government expenditure with a barrage of often unsubstantiated assertions about overspending and profligacy. However, all the experts in local government have always believed, in the case of the earlier measures, that the Government had enough powers already to deal with the things that they wanted to deal with. Indeed, the local authority associations on several occasions have offered their co-operation in securing the objectives which the Government have set themselves, and those offers were rejected.
The claims of overspending and profligacy have never really been proved. If they were correct, they would represent only 0·7 per cent. of total expenditure in 1984–85, and local government has anyway been more successful in controlling its expenditure than has central Government. However, the Secretary of State set up an Audit Commission for the purpose of showing local government how to get "value for money".
In its first report on the block grant system, the commission has made a series of criticisms. Mr. Derrick Hender, chief executive of the West Midlands Metropolitan County Council, writing in the Local Government Chronicle in September, said;
"the conclusions of the Audit Commission Report on the block grant system are so damning that it surely cannot survive".
He says:
"it is obvious from the report that even if all the authorities had acted exactly as the Government wishes, the grant system would still have been a nonsense".
The commission says that the block grant system is uncertain and has led to a building up of reserves. It is based on inadequate, out-of-date information. It encourages some authorities to spend more. Management accountability has not been strengthened. Few people understand it and there are few incentives for efficiency and effectiveness. This is an extraordinary indictment, not of local government but of government policies by its own Audit Commission. Even so, as Sir Ian Gilmour said on the Second Reading of the local government paving Bill, rates have risen in general because the Government have cut the subsidy and the total sum of money available to local government from central government and there will again be less money next year.
One of the claims in justification of the change being made by the Government was that the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC would lead to

339
considerable savings of some £120 million. These original figures have now disappeared and not even the Treasury—or so we learned by a leak published in the Guardian a week or two ago—now believes that any savings will result, unless there are major reductions in services and major job losses. As was pointed out in the Coopers & Lybrand investigation, carried out at the request of the metropolitan counties, the Government's only effective options are to cut services, to raise by so-called safety nets or to subsidise the boroughs in some other way. So there will be no increase in local accountability; there will be more centralisation of control; there will be no saving of money for the ratepayers, and there will be no more effective delivery of services. On the contrary, most of the services on which we rely are carried out by local government and a weakening of local government means a weakening or a reduction in services.
One service that has already taken a 17 per cent. cut since 1978–79 is housing and it was named by the Chancellor on Monday in the Autumn Statement as a candidate for another cut. Public service housing starts have been reduced by 56 per cent. since 1978. The record is appalling and it is increasingly recognised as such right across the board—by the building and construction industry, by the Building Employers' Confederation, by the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, by the Royal Institute of British Architects, by the National Council of Building Material Producers, and even a fornight ago, at its conference, by the CBI.
As the Financial Times said recently,
"As business failures continue at record levels in this country, bankruptcies increase more steeply in the building and construction industry".
Perhaps the Government should remember that it was the boom in the building industry in the 1930s that first started this country moving out of the depression.
In the debate on the paving Bill, the Government made a great deal of the need to assist local industry—a theme which I supported, and I suggested a number of ways in which this could be done. However, the changes here proposed will do little or nothing for industry and it is significant that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has said:
"It has become urgent for the Secretary of State to provide a detailed breakdown of the savings expected and give clear guidance on where and how the economies should be obtained. Only if such evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon.".
The Government have no friends in this matter.
It is very difficult for us, and indeed for many Conservative supporters, to understand, with all Britain's unemployment, inadequate and, in many cases, declining infrastructure in the public services, the special difficulties that are faced by the urban communities and inner cities, the problems of the black and ethnic minorities and of rural decline, that the role of local government should at this time be a declining one.
These major changes are being made without any consultation with anyone associated with local government; no inquiry, and no real examination of the structure, or the problems. Many of us would have
340
welcomed an open inquiry into the structure of London government and indeed, perhaps, of the metropolitan authorities, too. I gave evidence before the Royal Commission in the late 1950s on the London government reconstruction, as my borough was at that time included in the terms of reference of that inquiry. I have never been quite happy about the structure of London government. I have always believed that for some things it was too small and for other things it was too large. But, of course, many people, including Mr. Livingstone, have criticised the structure of London government. Why could we not therefore have a proper inquiry? The result of all this will be to leave London as one of the only capital cities not to have an elected authority.
The Bow Group paper by Mr. Cyril Taylor has said:
"There has been some form of London-wide government ever since 1855 when the Metropolitan Board of London was established. A purely borough-based solution with no form of London-wide body will leave a vacuum and make it difficult for decisions on contentious London-wide issues to be reached."——
this is a Conservative speaking——
"The proposals are therefore unlikely to be a permanent solution to the problems and may well be changed by a future government."
I believe that in another 10 years some Government, Conservative or other, will reconstruct London government, bringing back an elected authority, at least for the strategic functions. But the cost in terms of upheaval and disruption will, like the creation and abolition within 10 years of the area health authorities, be very great indeed. Above all, it will have been unnecessary. Consultation and consensus is a prerequisite of stability and could avoid another costly mistake.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in the debate a year ago, to which the noble Earl called attention, we were largely concerned with the problem which is endemic in local government finance between the desire that elected members and their electorates should have a say in both the nature and the cost of their services and the impact of the rating system—or, indeed, of any of the alternative systems that have from time to time been suggested—on the economic health of the community in question and of the country at large. These are problems, but I venture to say, despite the appeals made by the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that what we do not need is another major inquiry.
The problem is not lack of knowledge; the problem is not lack of statistics. The problem is that you have wishes or aspirations which cannot all be met at the same time, and Governments have not been able to make the choices and would not much be helped by further inquiries. Further argument, further discussion—if you like, further consultation—but not, I think, another major Layfield or any other similar exercise.
However, I do not believe that today's debate has been raised in order to rehearse once more these important issues, financial and constitutional. I think we must regard it as a political occasion; the first shot in this House in a campaign which is likely to take up many of our afternoons and, alas, later this year, I fear, many of our nights. It is an attempt by Her Majesty's

341
Opposition to use this House as a method of blocking the proposed legislation on the GLC and the metropolitan counties, not through——
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I hope he has finished his sentence, because I do not want to interrupt. Is the noble Lord really blaming the Opposition for attempting to block future legislation, which is not of our making but of the Government's making? It seems to me that the noble Lord's criticisms should be levelled at his own Government, who have brought forward the legislation that is going to keep him up.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, if the noble Baroness had been good enough to allow me to finish my sentence, she would have found out what the end of that sentence was. At the end of that sentence I was going to say that it was to be done by appealing to Conservatives, and to Cross-Bench Peers of a Conservative habit of mind, to go into the Lobbies with the Opposition. The noble Baroness cannot dissent from that, because the numerical facts of the case show that the Opposition does not by itself command enough votes in this House to defeat a measure of a Conservative Government. I feel we must be agreed about that if we are agreed about nothing else.
My point is that this operation is being conducted somewhat disingenuously—and this in two ways. An attempt is being made to suggest to noble Lords on this side of the House, on the Cross-Benches and in the Alliance parties that what is being argued about is local government in its traditional sense. It is being argued that what is being damaged by rate capping or other measures of the present Government in relation to local government is the kind of local government which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us does still exist over much of the country, which still functions satisfactorily, and which is still worth preserving.
Quite clearly, what has brought this argument about—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out—is that there exists in some of the tiers of local government which are about to be abolished and in some other local government authorities an entirely different form of local government—with different aims, different principles and different methods of operation. It is disingenuous to use language which relates to one kind of local government and argue that it applies to the other kind.
It is equally disingenuous to use one of the other favourite arguments, which has not been notably stressed so far by the other side of the House, although I am sure we shall hear more about it before the day is over. It concerns the damage that will be done to voluntary societies if certain organs of local government are abolished or if their capacity to spend is reduced. When people talk about voluntary organisations they naturally think of Barnardo's Homes, the Spastics Society and other worthy causes. But, as has been pointed out before in this House, a great many of the voluntary bodies which receive grants—notably from the GLC—are set up to perform functions which have no relationship with the
342
charitable or other needs of their communities but which are wholly or mainly political and go outside the framework of local government as it was conceived in the nineteenth century—to which period we are constantly being asked to cast our minds back. Therefore, when we are told about the weakening of voluntary societies, we ought to ask, "Which voluntary societies have you in mind"?
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned several of the features of the new style of local government. I should like to mention another which I believe is of very great importance. In the classic model (if I may use that shorthand) of local government, one had part-time councillors advised by permanent officials, who were appointed through a system of merit by qualifications in legal, technical or other fields. It was assumed that such advisers would play the same role in relation to councillors in their committees as permanent civil servants play in relation to their Ministers. But now one has, increasingly, pressure for local authorities to spell out in their advertisements or to make plain in interviews that such officers must be persons who conform to the political philosophy of the ruling group. There have been in the professional journals of the societies which represent local government servants expressions of grave concern at the way in which this facet is spreading.
I myself would feel much more inclined to listen to the pleas being made for the GLC, for South Yorkshire, or whatever, by noble Lords opposite if they were ever prepared to come out and say, "Of course, we condemn the abuses. We condemn the way in which the GLC is increasingly run as a method not of serving the people of London but of serving the personal friends and political associates of the Leader of the Greater London Council. We object to the kind of proceedings which have gone on in the London borough of Islington"—the favourite stamping ground of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—"and in certain other London boroughs. We deplore these as much as anyone. We condemn them. But we are asking you to consider what kind of local government London and the metropolitan areas might have without this degree of government control or without the abolition of those tiers".
But noble Lords opposite have not said that. Indeed, when in our debate a year ago I referred to the growth of the spoils system in London local government, I was challenged from the Dispatch Box opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I had come unprepared for this attack, and have no references to hand. However, I and others of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches have stood up strongly against law breaking and against any spoils system in local government, wherever it may be.
Lord Beloff: Not, I think, my Lords, in debates on local government—but I am quite prepared to believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has expressed himself to that effect. Indeed, knowing him, it would be surprising if he had not done so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And others, my Lords.
Lord Beloff: And others? My Lords, I would be glad to hear them speak from that side of the House either this afternoon or in future debates on local government, and to hear them make those same points.
Let me add one point, because it was raised for a slightly different reason by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Had the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, been in his place this afternoon, it is a point I might have produced to justify the things I said on the last occasion. The noble Lord referred to the sum of money—£90,000—paid in compensation to those persons who have lost their places on the London Regional Transport Board. What worries me is not the £90,000—because Mr. Livingstone can get through that on publicity between his porridge and his kipper. What worries me is that it has been revealed that the GLC appointed a number of persons to run one of the major services of any local authority who, on any account, had no qualifications whatever for the field in which they were being given authority, and whose only perceptible qualification was their acceptance of the general political philosophy of the body which appointed them.
This seems to me to be a very important illustrative principle. If it happens in respect of an area where publicity is so easily directed—as it is in the case of the arrangements for transport in London, upon which we all depend—then one fears that it must equally apply in other less notable spheres. Once one draws away from the idea of a qualified permanent service and of councillors who are themselves basically the representatives of their own ratepayers and their own citizens—and not, as in so many cases, involved directly in the provision of services which they are supposed to monitor—one cannot make sense of any future plans. For that reason—dislike it though we may, and agree though we may with the noble Lord, Lord Irving, that at some future date London may, and perhaps should, acquire an overall voice of its own—I cannot believe that the effort to bring my noble friends in on the Opposition side in forthcoming legislation is, in fact, going to be successful.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he please clarify whether he is suggesting that the abuses to which he referred took place in cities other than London? Frankly—having regard to Standing Order No. 29, I shall try not to break it—I am just a little tired of having discussions in this House on nothing but the GLC. I propose to talk about anything but the GLC.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, there certainly have been no abuses comparable to the GLC's. The expenditure on publicity by the GLC is much greater than that undertaken by any of the other metropolitan counties in respect of their own abolition. The use, for instance, of members employed by other councils by some neighbouring councils within those authorities is an abuse which is not confined to London.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister started to take us down this road. He was the first to refer to the abuse of power by the local authorities. I shall be interested to know whether this
344
abuse of power is reflected in the number and the nature of the complaints which have been filed with the local government ombudsman. If there is abuse to the extent we are led to believe, and if the citizen is suffering as a result of that abuse, it ought to be reflected in a large increase in the number of complaints lodged with the local authority ombudsman. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House on that point later this evening.
The Minister has also told the House, in a very brief review of local government, that there has always been a tension within the system. Of course there has been a tension within the system. There has been a creative tension within the system. For 75 years there was a tension between the old county councils and the county boroughs. But what is new, of course, is that we now see a change in the relationship between central Government and local government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that this pre-dates 1979. I think we can take it back to the period shortly after World War II. But over the past few years we have seen an unchecked trend towards centralisation which is causing not just tension but conflict in the relationship between local authorities and central Government.
The Minister again mentioned the word "conflict". He started off by having "a tension" and later in his speech we came face to face with "conflict". Today many of us see a great danger of the country becoming grossly over-governed by central Government. According to one academic—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Harris—our country is probably the most centralised of the European democracies. I believe it was Priestley in his own day who spoke of the great dangers of centralisation. It is interesting that there was a time when the words "local government" featured in the title of a Minister of the Crown, but it has not been so for many years. Your Lordships may ask, "Well, what's in a name?" I suggest that the absence of the words "local government" in any ministerial title may be a reflection of the reduced status and importance of local authorities. As I see it, this is the main theme of the debate this evening.
In my part of the world certainly there is no shortage of councillors who have been driven to criticise central Government for making it more difficult for them to match their services to local needs and for local initiatives to meet those needs, unless those needs are approved by central Government or their appointed agents. After all, it is the matching of policies to meet local needs, local problems and local circumstances that is the bread and butter of the business of the councils. Therefore, directly or indirectly, central Government intervention affects the whole range of services as they are delivered to the citizens in our towns and villages.
We have told how specific grants are increasing at the expense of general grants. We have told how a council is obliged to cut back on service "A" while maintaining service "B", although in the light of its own perception of local needs it would have given a far higher priority to service "A". My noble friend Lady Birk referred in her opening speech to the intervention of Government agencies in the field of further education. Many schemes of study will no longer be available to the local authority unless they are promoted by the MSC. Schemes of technical and

345
vocational education will not survive unless they are approved by the MSC. A similar process is seen at work in the social services and the community services. For example, it is extremely difficult to build up initiatives for the mentally handicapped unless the scheme has the approval of the appropriate department.
The district councils are unable to preserve their public housing stock, although the waiting-list queue of the homeless is undiminished. The district councils who operate bus services—and there are about 50 such authorities in the country, some of which have been operating a transport service for almost a century—will be unable to retain transport under their direct control notwithstanding the need for such transport to meet the needs of local communities. In short, local authorities continue to have the semblance of control and the trappings of independence but without real control. We on this side of the House consider that there are objections of principle to intervention on this scale by central Government. It undermines local democratic control. It undermines diversity to meet the widely different local needs and problems. Indeed, such intervention may make services less efficient. Therefore, efficiency, democratic control and flexibility are the hallmarks of local authority—even the classical model or modern model of local authority mechanism—and these are very much under attack.
More intervention on that scale creates within the institutional framework very, very many points not of tension but of conflict between the local authority on the one hand and central government on the other. That makes it very difficult to achieve a constructive partnership and collaboration. There will be continuous pressure to resist central government policies and to argue against instead of for. The local authorities will be left with no sense of power.
Given that climate, it is not surprising that we find that more and more local authorities, with their close interest in such matters as infrastructure, the social budget and regional development, want their own voice heard in Brussels. They are not satisfied with central government departments acting as their spokesmen in the Community. I should have thought that that is also evidence of the diminished trust between the local authorities and central government.
In the early 1970s there was a rebellion in Scotland, and to a much lesser extent in Wales, against over-government from the centre and against policies of closures—policies apparently engineered by faceless administrators in a far away centre. We know that that rebellion ebbed away, but not before it had wrestled from the centre the Scottish and the Welsh Development Agencies to develop and improve the environment, to provide industrial estates and to provide finance for industrial undertakings. Those agencies were created outside the main stream of political activity. They were undemocratic pieces of machinery. But I submit that their establishment was an acknowledgment of the failure of central government in a key sector of life.
I submit from my understanding of the position in Wales that, if the present trends continue and gather force, and if the metropolitan boroughs are
346
abolished—and that will be my only reference to the metropolitan boroughs—the pressures that we saw in Scotland and in Wales in the late 1960s and early 1970s may re-emerge in the not very distant future. At a time when we have abolished the metropolitan counties it may be seen that an elected regional tier, representing the historical provinces of the land, is the only effective means of strengthening local government against the power of central government; the only means of maximising local autonomy; and the means of bringing dignity back to the community.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I have no intention of following the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in what to me seemed an amazing speech from an academic, in which he used the exception inside local government to try to demonstrate the general. He used what everybody knows is the exception in local government of so-called abuses in order to try to justify an abolition Bill that will sweep right through the country. I certainly did not intend to come along here and fire the first shot in a campaign to prevent the abolition Bill. I thought that the right way to treat this subject was to place it in its historical context, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench said. Lord Beloff almost started to do that. He started by talking about local government being conceived in the nineteenth century, as though somebody sat somewhere and conceived an organisation to do certain things. Local government did not start like that. Local government responded to the needs of certain areas.
The first ever medical officer of health was not appointed as a deliberate act of policy, worked out by academics such as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and then put on paper. The first medical officer of health was appointed in Merseyside not even by local government. It was first proposed by the ruling class in Liverpool, who happened to be the landowners and the ship owners who could see the dangers that they themselves had helped to create in the spread of disease and illness inside Liverpool. It was from such origins that local government sprang. If it had not been for that effort and for those well-intentioned persons, what would have been the situation in Liverpool? Anybody who knows the history of Liverpool knows quite well what the situation would have been. It would have been socially untenable, and there would probably have been an overthrow of the system of government that was then known in the nation, spreading from Liverpool.
Local government is not about that; and relations between local and central government are not just about institutions. One of the biggest mistakes that we make in the modern world—and this applies to political parties—is that we sometimes set up organisations and institutions in order either to achieve change or to do certain things, and when an institution has been in existence for a certain time it becomes an end in itself. That is the real problem that we are facing today.
The bodies governing our affairs in the public sector have become institutions in themselves and are now fighting to preserve themselves. That applies to local government. It also applies to national government and to the Tory Party. When the Tory leader makes

347
stupid statements such as, "We will abolish rates", without any thought, the rest of the Tory Party follow behind like Gadarene swine, and we are now reaching that situation. I am not bothered about local government, central government or the weapons that are supposed to be used to cure our problems and help the dispossessed and under-privileged. I am not bothered about those organisations; I am bothered about people.
When I talk about relationships between local and central government I see central government as representing a body that has the job of administering the nation's affairs, which can be administered only on a national basis. I do not quarrel with the idea, and I never have. Lord Beloff is wrong. We have never quarrelled with the idea that a Government should be master in their own house and determine the total spend of local authorities. What we have quibbled about is the way the Government have tried to do it. If the Government had been honest and really intended to have co-operation between the whole machinery of local government and central government on the question of spend, they could have presented local government with the case as a whole. But they did not. They seized the first opportunity to divide and rule. Just as Lord Beloff has done today, they picked on the exceptions and used them to smirch the rest. That is the issue that we are facing.
We cannot divorce that issue from the way in which people's affairs are handled in a locality and how they are handled nationally. If we look at the problems of Brixton, Toxteth, the coal-miners and Northern Ireland, we ask, what is the fundamental reason for them? It is simply that within all those areas a large body of people, and sometimes the leaders in those societies, feel that they are alienated from the decisionmaking. The miners feel as though they are being trodden on. The current position in Northern Ireland arose because for too long this country allowed a large proportion of its population to be dictated to and made into an under-privileged class. Of course, once the trouble starts, there is no solution, is there? As the noble Earl said yesterday, the miners are the finest set of men in Great Britain. After countless generations of putting in hard work, they began to feel that a distant Government were beginning to tread them into the ground, and so they became alienated. As in a war, once the trouble starts, truth is, of course, the first casualty. Lord knows where it will end! That is what I am concerned about.
Bad relations between London and the provinces and London and local government are comparatively recent. We had a century of tolerance between the two. We had a real partnership. We never had any problems. If the Government say that they do not need another inquiry, well, God help all of us! Who made the mistake in 1972? Who would not listen to local government in 1972? What local authority in this country did not say that the 1972 reorganisation was wrongly based and would not work? Let me say this. How many Labour politicians said—I know many who have—that the idea of substituting payment for loss of earnings, in the payment of local councillors, was wrong in principle? There were many of them. More than the Tories, who subscribed to the point of
348
view that to get a good man you had to pay him. But we never subscribed to that point of view. We believed that the best service is voluntary service. I still believe that. In any case, when we talk about expenses, I think it is time that we started giving some consideration to the expenses that we earn in this House because, compared with what is received by local government members, they are pretty good.
I am interested in what is going to happen in Merseyside, and in Liverpool in particular. As I said in this Chamber when we were debating the problems of Merseyside, and Liverpool in particular, there we have a situation of people who are alienated. They were elected to local government on a programme. That programme was to solve some of the problems that are facing the people of Liverpool. Then they were faced with central Government who refused to allow them to do so. Then they were faced with concentration. No real attempt was made to bring in everybody concerned to try to get a solution. So, once the alienation takes place, it goes on. The Government have rate-capped Merseyside. The next rate capping will be Liverpool. Do your Lordships really think that the people of Liverpool will stand rate capping when already, even now, when the Government are contending that the economy is returning to a boom situation, that boom is taking place in the South-East and not in the North?
Look at the latest figures. The situation growing up in Merseyside is a dangerous one. We do not need any central Government to tell us how to run things. We built one of the finest electricity supply industries in the country. We had in mind also the question that that electricity supply industry had to feed outside. When it was nationalised—and this is not a criticism of the Tory Government, is it? No.—we were promised soundly by the Mother of Parliaments that there would always be retained the local democratic link with the electricity boards. Where are they? Look at any electricity board now: local government is not even represented on it. Local government is the only organisation which can elect representatives from the people.
Only recently, consequent upon the 1972 reorganisation, we set up the water boards. I was a member of the AMA general purposes committee at the time. I remember quite well urging the AMA general purposes committee to recommend the association to have nothing to do with the water boards. I said, "Don't argue with the Government about how much local government representation you will have on those boards because they will give you every promise; they will promise you that the amount of local government representation on the water boards will remain and they will give you a majority"—and they did. Where are they now? They have gone. Of course, there is no local government representation on water boards. We had the finest gas distribution system in the country. It has gone. It is not even ruled from Merseyside now. It is ruled from the South-East through the Gas Council.
These are the kind of relationships that we should be discussing today. If we take that as a trend in the distribution of powers between local and central government, in regard to all those services that I have mentioned, following the lines of the hospitals, sewage,

349
water—and the list now goes on to include police—and all the others that will go to joint boards under the new Bill, what will be left? What will there be left for the so-called local authorities to organise? Nothing—because we shall have moved slowly but surely, sometimes at a snail's pace, sometimes in a hurry—especially when somebody makes promises about abolishing rates—to a situation where the centre says, "We cannot trust the local authority and therefore we must do it". And they are doing it.
Let me give a perfect example of what is happening in Merseyside and in other conurbations, because understanding the threat to real democracy in our land depends upon understanding the threat and seeing it. We have a water board. The water board in its single-minded way will determine priorities within the water and sewage system.
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I must remind him that the Government whose policy he is questioning so strongly is the democratically elected Government of this country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am fully aware of that. But as somebody else, much more qualified than I am, said, we do not want an elective dictatorship. It is quite easy to score a debating point, but the real issue I am putting to this Chamber is not the question of which institution is the right one, but how we get consensus among the governed and the governors. That is the issue.
If you will let me demonstrate it, we have the water authority in the North-West. They decide priorities. We have an electricity board who decide on their capital investment for the North-West. The Gas Council decides down here what money should be put into the gas industry in the North-West. Who decides the priorities? Who decides that perhaps water is spending too much on recreation and leisure and that the health services in Merseyside are getting too little? Who makes that representation to the Government? Is it the water board? Of course not. Is it the electricity industry? Of course not.
If responsibility is taken away from the local representatives of the people, then the area representations will not be made. We shall find that we are slowly moving to a centralised, bureaucratic state. That is where we are going. If we sit down and look at the services that were once controlled in an evolutionary fashion by local government, no one can deny that that is where we are going.
There might be a good argument in favour of it. It might be said that it is extremely efficient; we get more value by the pound. Well, that is all right. It is an argument that I can recognise. I do not accept it. Mussolini got the trains to run on time, but, my God, we had a terrible system after he had finished, did we not? So we can well get a very efficient society. If we are talking about efficiency, how on earth has this Government any justification for criticising local government when they support the EEC?
Let us come a bit nearer home. Talking about the efficient governing of this country, is Parliament really the right body? Do the other place and this House
350
really efficiently tackle the job of looking after all our economic problems that so affect our social problems? All I can say to that, using a Liverpool expression, is "Come off it"—because it is not very efficient. My first tutor in local government was an old town clerk of the old style who served his apprenticeship in a place called Wigan, and then came to Liverpool. When I criticised some of the inefficiencies of local government his reply to me was, "Certainly, sir, there are inefficiencies in local government. That is the price you pay for democracy". If I have to pay that price I shall be willing to pay it over and over again. In my opinion, this is the real issue we are talking about.
We have now reached the situation where the Government say, "We don't need an inquiry". My goodness, they should know! They know all about the mistakes they made in 1972. In my opinion, we need more than an inquiry. We need solid discussion among people who are interested in democracy and in preserving a democratic situation. If we do not do this, the situation will be that Parliament—the Mother of Parliaments, as some people call it—because of dogmatism and arrogance that is sometimes beyond belief, will have created a system from which we shall get more alienation. More people will be dissatisfied with our Government. If we go along this path, I do not think that we can possibly survive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, on the question of historical perspective, whether he would not agree that under the Saxon kings there was a tolerably efficient system of local government with the Witenagemot council which worked reasonably well within its own well understood remit?
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I have not much knowledge of the Saxon kings, but I would accept the case that at that time it was tolerably efficient. However, we are not talking about Saxon kings. We are talking about 1984. There are some very serious economic and social problems to be solved, I am not pleading that the Labour Party or the Tory Party have the answers. What I am saying is that if, in this situation, mistakes are going to be made, then it had better be with the consent and consensus of the population, and not dictated from Whitehall.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, this debate is taking place under the grandiose if somewhat imprecise description "Central and Local Government". It may be that it takes that form to counter any feelings of surfeit that a reference to local government simpliciter might arouse among your Lordships who spent so much of the last Session on this topic and who are promised, if that indeed is the mot juste, another very substantial helping in the present Session. The description that we have today is no doubt intended to whet the appetite or at least to diminish the feeling of surfeit, the feeling of déjà mangé, that might otherwise arise.
The title of this debate is overtly dichotomic—central and local government. But it may also contain an implication, if not express, certainly implied, of conflict, and that this is so was put—I am glad to see that the noble Baroness nods

351
assent in anticipation of what I am about to say—beyond doubt by her, with her characteristic candour and felicity of phrase, when she referred to a civil war: a civil war, no less, between central and local government. Well, that was a colourful phrase. I choose my epithet with, I hope, courtesy and circumspection. I am bound to say, however, that it grossly overstated the case.
Such a suggestion may well be calculated to stimulate debate on what might otherwise be thought to be the aridities of local government. But it is certainly not well founded in law or in fact. My submission is that, properly understood, there is no such conflict, let alone a civil war—no such conflict, constitutionally or practically, express or implied, patent or latent, between the claims, the interests and the functions of central and local government.
Reference has been made in the debate by my noble friend the Minister among others to the constitutional position. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who has just spoken, referred to it, too. The constitutional pattern is clear—clear, that is, in its framework, though open to adjustment and adaptation in its specific content. The form and function of local government are those which Parliament at any time chooses to give to it. The form and function of local government derive from our unwritten constitution, from our governing principle of the sovereignty of Parliament that gives to the institutions and practices of local government a welcome adaptability and the capacity to respond to changing need and changing circumstances.
There can be no question as to the position of local government vis-a-vis central government. Ministers have the power to change the pattern of local government if they can persuade Parliament that it is appropriate so to do. No doubt, a case can be made that local government preceded Parliament chronologically with its shires and its hundreds. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, with his characteristic erudition, has just made reference in his intervention to the Saxon days. Of course, as he would agree, since Edward I assembled Parliament in the 13th century, the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament has obtained.
By contrast, modern local government is the creature of statute. It derives from 19th century legislation, in particular the public health Acts and the local government Acts of the last quarter of that century, including the creation of the London County Council less that a hundred years ago in 1889, followed by further legislation in the 1920s and the 1930s.
The present pattern of local government dates only from the Local Government Act 1972, with its 274 sections and 30 schedules with the metropolitan counties specified sub nomine in the first schedule thereof. Your Lordships can relax. I do not propose to cite all those sections or schedules, or indeed any of them. But the reality, surely, is this. Though the concept of local government is old, its form and functions are new. We get this position. What Parliament has given, Parliament can take away. What Parliament has fashioned, Parliament can refashion. What Parliament has considered,
352
Parliament may reconsider. I am grateful to hear support. A noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench actually indicated dissent. I understand, however, that he is not to delight the House by any intervention today. It would be interesting to know on what conceivable grounds he could justify such dissent.
I must be careful of understating my case. I say "may consider", but, clearly, Parliament has a right and power to reconsider. May it not also be that it has a duty to reconsider, to review the present state of local government, to see that it is adapting to changing needs, that its form and functions are suited to the changing needs of a complex society? Clearly, it does so have, since the pattern and workings of local government are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unchanging and beyond the challenge of time. They are made to a modern specification which requires periodical overhaul, strengthening and improvement. It is this proper and necessary activity that Ministers presently have in hand.
What, then, are the criteria which should guide Ministers in this task and by which Parliament should judge their efforts? There are, I would suggest, three related criteria—democratic working, efficiency and economy. Of course, democratic working does not require any frozen pattern of local government. A borough or district is at least as democratic as a metropolitan council. Many, indeed, would think more so. But there is, too, a wider context in which the criterion of democracy must be applied—the criterion of the national interest.
It is impossible to isolate individual local authorities and their actions from the wider impact on the community as a whole. After all, a large part of local authority activity is, as your Lordships know, funded from rate support grant, paid for not only by the local beneficiaries of such action but by the taxpayer at large. As my noble friend the Minister has reminded us, a large part of the rate-financed element itself derives from the commercial hereditaments which do not enjoy any suffrage in these matters.
Is it not then part of the function of democracy to provide some protection for those who pay the piper without direct benefit to themselves? We are, after all, brought up on the principle of "No taxation without representation", and it is right that effect be given to that basic principle in this context by giving suitable powers to check and control, giving those powers to the representatives of the taxpayers—that is to say, to Parliament and to Ministers responsible to Parliament—to act in the name of Parliament and under its authority. It is to this principle that the setting of limits and the insistence on savings give effect. An action by central government in this context is appropriate and justifiable on both constitutional and practical grounds.
I referred to the related criteria of efficiency and economy by which these actions should also be judged. Here again, there is a national as well as a local interest. Work done or services provided less than efficiently provokes waste and falls to be paid for by national as well as local funds. It would clearly be wrong, and I should be the last person to suggest, that all local authority work is done less than efficiently. But it can fairly be doubted whether many of the

353
functions discharged by local authorities—refuse collection, construction, maintenance and the like—spring readily to mind as matters inherently suited for local authority administration. It can also fairly be doubted whether a combination of part-time councillors and local government officers innocent of business experience provide an ideal mix for the efficient and economic discharge of activities of a growing size, complexity and technical difficulty.
An injection of competition, a devolution to private enterprise in many of these activities, is surely a good thing—beneficial to the citizen, whether ratepayer or taxpayer, and no whit less democratic than direct action by the council. If such benefit stems from guidance by central government, that in no way makes it less desirable or less democratic.
I am conscious of the general nature of the observations I have made, but they are, I hope, not unsuited to this occasion. This is, to use the epithet much in vogue in the last Session, a paving debate; it is a curtain-raiser for the main drama to be put on later. That will be the time for particularity, for close examination into the pros and cons of government proposals and their effect. At this time, I would say only this. I hope that the exchanges then will have regard to the constitutional, historical and practical realities of the matter. I hope that conflict of interests, civil war and the like, will not figure in the terminology of our exchanges then. I hope that we shall be spared exaggeration seeking to portray this creature of statute as the Ark of the Covenant and to denounce Ministers for the impiety of laying their hands upon it. If these hopes are realised, there can be a high quality of debate and useful and informed discussion of the legislation in its various stages. Ministers, I am sure, will assist in this by their receptivity and willingness to welcome helpful guidance from this House.
Our ministerial spokesmen here are fortunate in their Secretary of State. I have had the good fortune to know him since he was a pupil at the Bar. Improbably and unexpectedly, I was leading his then eminent pupil master, now a very distinguished ornament of the judicial Bench, in a complicated right of way case. It was not quite like that case which your Lordships may recall, when Mr. Pickwick interrupted the learned labours of Serjeant Snubbin on a protracted lawsuit originated by the closing a century or so earlier of a footpath leading from somewhere where nobody ever came from to somewhere where nobody ever went.
Ours was, nevertheless, a long and complex case. I said to my eminent colleague, "You have a very bright pupil. We must get some work out of him". We did, and very good work it was. He remains very bright and has done good work ever since on the broader national stage. So, in my view, the matter is in good hands. It is complex and difficult, as is its presentation and interpretation by those who speak from the Government Front Bench in this House. They are engaged in a task of great importance and great complexity and deserve to be sustained, as I hope will be the case, by the support, the confidence and the goodwill of this House.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I must say, first of all, that I am rather surprised at the criticism and some
354
of the snide remarks that are being made about the subject of the debate today. I should have thought that Members on all sides of the House would have welcomed an opportunity to discuss some of the principles that are embodied in a very important Bill which will be before us at a later date. Today we have the opportunity to look at some of those principles.
However, it seems that, if nothing else, there is some unanimity in the House about the fact that relationships between central and local government are poor at the present time. I think also there is some agreement that that situation arises out of the confusion on matters relating to accountability. On the one hand, the Government are concerned about local government expenditure, and particularly expenditure in certain authorities. On the other hand, the local authorities themselves are critical of government for the way they feel the Government are manipulating the rules for distributing the block grant.
Beyond finance, there are conflicts about the guidelines within which local government services are provided. If I may say so, it is no good the noble Earl telling us, as he did, that there have always been conflicts and tensions in local government. I think we have reached a situation today where the differences of opinion and the distrust are so deep that it is difficult for local government to function. That is quite different from the kind of tension that we might have experienced in the past.
Unfortunately the changes that the Government are proposing to introduce in this Session—that is, the abolition of the six metropolitan counties and the GLC—are not likely to help the situation; they are more likely to exacerbate it. Inevitably the confusion will increase when the powers of the metropolitan counties are transferred. Again, if I may say so to the noble Earl, we are not talking here about a transference of powers from one level of local government to a lower level of local government nearer to the community; we are talking about a transference of powers to new, precepting bodies which will not be directly responsible to anybody, to a number of ad hoc inter-departmental working groups set up by the different metropolitan district councils, and a transfer to national Government departments. So it does seem that the confusion that exists at present in local government is really going to be institutionalised through the Government's proposals for reform.
I want to look at this matter from the point of view of two areas in which I am particularly interested. First, education; and secondly, the services of the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, which is one of the authorities that will be abolished if the proposed Bill goes through. Here again I would join with my noble friends who have protested that the exception is being used in order to attack the general rule. There are bodies and local authorities which have carried out the very fine traditions of local government, which are going to be swept away because of this insistence upon using exceptional cases.
However, I turn first to education. This is a very important area of local government. In those authorities which are responsible for the education service, education accounts for a very substantial amount of the spending of those authorities.

355
Traditionally the service has relied upon co-operation between local government and national Government. Within that framework it has also relied upon an extension of the power-sharing—it has relied upon cooperation between the local education authority itself and the individual schools and other educational institutions.
It is not a static structure: it is a structure that has evolved over the years to meet the changing circumstances. But essentially it is a structure that depends for successful working upon mutual trust and respect for each other's role. That is why the Government's unilateral action in a number of areas of education has caused very real concern—concern not necessarily about the policies that the Government are pursuing, but concern about the way in which those policies are being projected. Let me give your Lordships three examples.
We have already had reference to the White Paper entitled, Training for Jobs, which was introduced earlier this year without discussion with the local authorities, despite the fact that it was seeking to transfer from the local authorities to the MSC much of their work in non-advanced further education relating to employment and vocational training. As my noble friend Lady Birk has said, that White Paper met with complete opposition from both the Labour controlled AMA and the Tory controlled ACC. Now, after a great deal of aggro and ill-feeling, at last the authorities have agreed with the MSC that non-advanced further education is to be jointly considered by the LEAs and by the MSC. In the meantime, the MSC has agreed that it will return to the local authorities exactly the sums which the Government are proposing, in their spending targets, to transfer to the MSC. Would it not have been much better if that discussion had taken place before the White Paper was published so that some of the problems could have been overcome?—because there is a knock on effect.
When we heard about the White Paper, when it was published, we were already in the middle of discussing the grants and awards Bill, which was concerned with transferring money which had been given to the LEAs back to central Government for projects as regards which central Government were going to determine whether or not they were of sufficient priority to warrant a specific grant. That is the second example of an important area where a great deal of useful work is no doubt going to be done. But it is an area which again did not involve proper consultation between national and local bodies and as regards which the local authorities felt that money was being taken from them and that powers to determine their own priorities were being taken from them.
Thirdly—and again this was at about the same time—there was the whole question of the TVEI scheme, where local authorities thought that the MSC or may be the Government—at any rate, one or the other—had taken a unilateral decision and were imposing a new system on the education authorities. I repeat: I am not saying anything about the aims and objectives of these policies. In themselves they may or they may not be perfectly justifiable. However, it was the method by which they were introduced that caused the problem.
356
At a time when we are discussing very important developments in relation to the curriculum and standards in education, we are having to do so in an atmosphere that is already soured by the way in which the Government have handled the situation. I am speaking in the context of the wider issues that we are considering today and the wider issues that we shall be considering when we get the abolition Bill in front of us.
Some noble Lords today, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in the debate yesterday, referred to the report of the Audit Commission and its commentary on the effectiveness of local government finance and the ramifications that has for the services provided by local government. Indeed, there is one section in the report, at page 56, that is headed:
"Frustrations caused by detailed central intervention in local affairs".
I can give an example in the County of West Yorkshire which concerned the lease for a fish and chip shop. An applicant applied to the county council on 27th July. By 11th September the county council had agreed on consent for the application, but because of the paving Bill that we were concerned with in the last Session, it had to go through Government departments. The applicant himself wrote to the Secretary of State asking for a "quick decision". The applicant's letter went through the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Office and then to the Department of the Environment regional office in Leeds. After remaining on a desk for two weeks, it eventually got back to London. After further pressure, a telephone call was received on 26th October to say that the lease could go ahead. That type of detailed involvement by national Government is just a nonsense and it aggravates the whole situation.
If we get the kind of proposals that are likely to come before us in a short space of time, and if we get the kind of structure that is being proposed, with central Government having a finger in even more detailed areas of local government, then I am afraid that the whole problem will be compounded.
I must say at this point that I would join with those noble Lords who have said that the time is ripe—indeed, it is absolutely essential—to have a detailed examination of local government: local government finance and the structure of local government, because the two go together. The announcement of the Secretary of State to the Conservative Party Conference, which has been elaborated on today by the noble Earl the Minister, is not sufficient to meet the situation. We cannot divorce structure from finance. We really need to take a completely new look at the whole structure and financing of local government.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, when I first heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speak on local government matters in this House, I felt most resentful, but I have since learnt that the noble Lord brings an otherworldliness to the debates on local government which is almost touching, and I am beginning to develop what almost amounts to an affection for him. Almost always he confines his remarks solely to one or two local authorities or one or two individuals, as though they and they alone abused

357
the system of local government. I know of no noble Lord on this side of the House who would disagree with him on the worst of the abuses of the local authorities and the individuals he has mentioned. But does he really believe that some of the bland, urbane and politically deadly people who have been running certain of the local authorities in this country in the Conservative interest for generations are not capable of the same abuses, and does he believe that they have not ever taken place?
The main difference between the individuals and the local authorities that he mentioned and those to whom I have just referred is that Mr. Livingstone, Mr. Knight and others are great self-publicists, and of course the media love that. The people in the shire counties are far too clever to carry on in that way. Does the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, really believe that in some of the areas to which I have referred a senior appointment would be made of a person who had the slightest leanings towards the Labour Party, or, for that matter, towards the Liberal Party or the Social Democratic Party? Of course not. It does not work that way. Despite the fact that these things are not publicised, I believe that they are nevertheless abuses, and just occasionally they see the light to day.
Over the last year or so we have witnessed the most serious attack upon the foundations of local democracy. The Government's obsessional tendency towards centralisation should alarm us all. It certainly alarms me and it alarms local government generally, and local government feels that local autonomy and democracy are under seige from Whitehall.
I was privileged to serve as the chairman of the Welsh Counties Committee for two years from 1982 to 1984, and during that time and since I have seen the most determined attack on local democracy by the present Government, an attack which, tragically, has served only to deflect attention from many of the grave economic and social problems which Wales in particular and the country generally must solve.
The most worrying aspect of all of this is the way in which the Government completely ignore the united stance in support of local government, which goes right across party lines, and then go to great lengths to push through legislation with the unashamed use of their large majority and with a total disregard for the reasoned arguments of those who really believe that local democracy is important and vital for us all.
Here are just one or two examples of the march of centralism over local democracy: first, the never-ending squeeze of local government's financial arrangements, which has resulted in the odious rate-capping doctrine; secondly, the introduction of specific grants into the education service, and in particular the way in which the specific grant which will be used to finance the "training for jobs" programme has been arbitrarily cut from local government's rate support grant settlement; thirdly, the shameful intent to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils. Here I shall give some examples, and I am very grateful to Professor John Stewart for reminding us that since 1979 there have been eight different local government finance systems.
Since 1979, we have had the rate support grant system based on the needs and resources element: this
358
was inherited from the previous Government. Secondly, we have had the system that I have just mentioned, but with the transitional arrangements' penalties, which was applied in 1980–81. Thirdly, there was the block grant system based on grant-related expenditure, which was introduced under the rate support grant settlement for 1981–82. Fourthly, there was the block grant system with holdback penalties based on volume targets, which was introduced in June 1981. Fifthly, there was the block grant system with holdback penalties based on volume targets but with exemptions for authorities meeting grant-related expenditures, which was introduced in September 1981. Sixthly, there was the block grant system with holdback provision related to a composite target based on GREs and volume targets, which was introduced in the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83. Seventhly, there was the arrangement which I have just mentioned, with the abolition of supplementary rates. Eighthly and finally, there was the block grant system with holdback provision related to volume targets only, which was introduced in the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84.
What organisation can possibly put up with such a plethora of changes? There is an urgent need for an independent commission to be appointed to report quickly on the constitutional relationship between central and local government. We have already pointed the way in Wales where, as early as last June, the county and district councils in Wales, at a joint conference which I was privileged to chair, urged the Government to establish such a commission. The response so far has been silence.
Those of us who have spent many years in local government resent what this Government are trying to do now to impose a uniformity of mediocrity upon the whole of the local government services in this country. Local government traditionally provides much needed services in the localities, and provides these in a way best suited to any particular area. Local government services are more badly needed now than they have ever been before, and it is for this reason that I and many others in local government, no matter what our political persuasion, are alarmed at the growing gulf between central and local government. This gulf has widened far enough and must be bridged. We must all make sure that our local services are able to meet the challenges of educating our children to meet the new demands of the new technologies and of maintaining our social services provision—a provision which has been so painstakingly and carefully built up over so many years, and which must be improved if we are to cope with pressures caused by the present unprecedented and unnecessary levels of unemployment and hardship. We must ensure the development of our infrastructure and our planning capabilities to continue to meet the changing needs of industry into the 21st century and beyond.
Local government is best able to do all these things and still gear its services to the individual requirements of different localities. We must halt the trend towards centralisation of power instead of local democracy, and we must start now in returning initiative to local levels. We must not perpetuate the power and influence of the quangos which this Government will have us believe are such an effective way of working.

359
Why not, for instance, give the vast finance available to the Manpower Services Commission to local authorities which would do a much better job in their local areas and, I am convinced, provide permanent jobs which our people so desperately need and deserve?
Why not return the water industry and the health service to local control? Best of all why not end all the petty and restricting controls which this Government are so intent upon and let local government get on with the job it knows best and which it has always done better than central government—the job of providing the essential services which are needed now more than they have ever been? Our society needs local government with its diverse solutions, and not central government with its uniform answers.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I, personally, am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us a chance to discuss these questions concerning all local government before we become totally drowned in London. I listened with great profit and interest to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brooks. With many things he said towards the end of his speech I found myself in total agreement, but there are two points on which I disagree with him. I do not believe that the Government are deliberately out to kill local democracy. The troubles of local democracy arise from muddle and confusion, and from the frequent changes to which he himself drew attention when he outlined what has been happening over local government finance.
Secondly, I am not keen on a further inquiry. My own view is that inquiries have become part of the British disease. When the British cannot make up their mind about anything they say, "We must have an inquiry". There are a great many outstanding inquiries on various aspects of local government, and what is needed now is that someone should make up their mind. Apart from that, I found myself in considerable agreement with his speech.
My experience of local government, such as it is, arises in Scotland, and the points which I make arise from that experience. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that there was always tension between central and local government because they compete to some extent for the same resources. That is true, but for many authorities the tension has been a profitable one. My experience is that many of the Scottish authorities conducted a dialogue with central government which was a friendly and indeed useful dialogue. As has been said by previous speakers, I am afraid that that happy relationship is breaking up. It is important that it should not break up, and it is important that the whole of local government should not be driven off course by the lunatic goings on of a certain minority of local authorities.
There are great changes coming over local authorities. There are the changes in these particular councils which have been mentioned which have fallen into the hands of people who are not particularly interested in democracy, who are not in the least impressed by the traditional methods of carrying on local government, and who regard local government,
360
candidly, as a vehicle for their own ambitions. This has been well illustrated by my noble friend Lord Harris, and I do not intend to go into it further.
Of course, there has also been an enormous increase in the size of local government. It has become big business. It has become very bureaucratic and councillors have to give up an immense amount of time to it. Is it too big? The first point I want to make is that I believe there is one tier too many in local government in Scotland. Secondly, a part of the troubles of local government arises from the lack of any proper definition of its powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, referred to the 1972 English Act and said that it had some incredible number of sections. I have been looking up the 1973 Scottish Act, and it rivals the English Act in the number of sections and number of appendices. No doubt out of it you can get a good deal of information about what local authorities are supposed to do, but it is an incredible process to find out. When you have found out, the knowledge is by no means precise.
For instance, I found it difficult to believe that it was intended that local authorities should undertake a sort of advertising campaign such as we have seen. Today, before I came here, three copies of a paper called The Londoner were pushed through my letter box, paid for by the ratepayers of London, of which I am one. I did not ask for it and I did not want it. I do not believe that it is part of the functions of the local authority to produce it. I tremble to think what is going to happen if this use of public funds for advertising goes on, because we shall find the Government doing it with the enormous funds at their disposal, and it will totally contort the whole democratic process.
Basically, the powers of local authorities have not been given sufficient consideration. Secondly, since the 1972 and 1973 Acts there have been many other Acts which have loaded on to local authorities new responsibilities for an extraordinary rag-bag of stuff. There is the winding of clocks; provision of public lavatories; the provision of seats, and so forth. At the same time the Government say that they are not to have more staff and they are not to have more expenditure. The situation is somewhat chaotic.
I should also like to ask about the duties of the auditor. We have heard both here today and in another place yesterday severe criticism of these redundancy payments. If the redundancy payments are outside the powers of the GLC, the auditor will disallow them. If they are not outside the powers of the GLC, should not the powers of the GLC be reexamined? We have heard this afternoon a little about the spoils system. Well, we all disapprove of the spoils system. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, hotly deny that he, at any rate, would give any countenance to it. I am sure that is right.
But, of course, there is the system known as "the old boy network", from which I am bound to say that some of my contemporaries, and even possibly myself, have from time to time benefited. Of course, it is not the spoils system, and it is perfectly proper; but there are some people who think that the division between it and the spoils system is occasionally rather thin. The point I am getting at is that if the spoils system is creeping into local government it should be clearly

361
taken outside the powers of local government, and it is up to the auditor to disallow that and other expenses.
This brings me to the whole question of local government finance, which I believe is the root of the trouble. It contradicts every canon of good government. The local authorities spend money they do not have to raise. They are forced to undertake functions which they do not want, and there is no taxation which affects the great bulk of their constituents. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, again drew our attention to the fact that only 17 per cent. of the income of Camden is raised from ratepayers. How can you run a democratic system on this basis?
I believe that you should change over to a system of local income tax. It is untrue to say that there are no alternatives to the rates system. The Conservative Party themselves promised to abolish the rates system; and being no doubt a sensible party, they have some other system in view. But is there no question of local income tax or the possibility of indirect taxation? Until there is some correlation between what the local authorities do, their functions, and the money they raise, you will not be able to run it democratically because the whole sanction against what many people consider are the follies of local authorities should be that the local authorities are turned out at the next election.
Of course, a great many people gain from the expenditure of local authorities but they do not contribute, and, therefore, why should they mind? Why should people who do not pay rates, or pay very small rates, worry particularly because of extravagance in local government? There has to be greater correlation. To my mind more people have to be brought within the rating net if you are going to keep to the rates (which I am not in favour of doing) and you must seek to help the poor (which I am in favour of doing) by other means than simply letting them off rates. Otherwise, you will destroy local government because in any form of government those who pay the piper will eventually claim some right to the tune. If you take all, or nearly all, of your income from central government, you are bound to have the type of centralisation about which we have been complaining.
I am not convinced by the argument that business or industry should not pay rates. Is it to be said that large industries, which make immense calls on the services of local government, and quite rightly, should not contribute? And if it is said that they have no representation, they have no representation in Parliament either. Are we to have people sitting in the other place and here as representatives of limited companies because they have to pay national taxes in just the same way? I hope that the Government do not intend to put the whole of the rate burden on to the individual and private ratepayer and exempt industry.
Again I want to mention a point which arises from my experience in Scotland, and that is the overlapping which exists between local and other authorities. I very much agree with Lord Brooks. I never understood why the water boards were set up. In the north of Scotland there are four authorities advising or helping the Shetlanders over agriculture. I have to let your Lordships into a secret; the Shetlanders are not the world's greatest farmers but they have plenty of advice from no fewer than four authorities, including the
362
local authority. The same is true of development. Local authorities have development officers and we have the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The same is true of tourism. There is great overlapping of various quangos and local authorities, and if the Government are anxious to save money they might look into that.
I should like to finish by drawing the Government's attention to the position of the Western Isles. Representatives from the Western Isles were down here yesterday, but I understand that they failed to see the Minister. I am the first to admit that the Western Isles have every reason to be grateful to the taxpayers who have provided a great deal of income for a great many years. But it is a unique authority. It differs even from Orkney and Shetland and very much from the mainland of Scotland. The Western Isles had a very high unemployment long before unemployment became rife on the mainland and they have great geographical difficulties. I am not employed by them to make their case, but in a general debate I want to point out the immense diversity in local authorities. The idea that one can rate-cap people by some stroke of the pen from London because all Great Britain is essentially the same is disproved at once when one considers the Western Isles. If the cuts being asked for are brought into effect that undoubtedly will seriously affect the services. I do not deny that the Government have done a great deal for them, but do we really want to deny them the services which are taken for granted in other parts of Britain?
No one has given the Western Isles a chance to develop their own potential. The Faroe Islands, although they receive a lot of money from Denmark, have developed their own way of doing things, their own economy, and they are, or were, thriving on it. Thus our system of local government seems to be in confusion. It is far too centralised not only in its methods but in its thought. It does not take enough account of the immense differences throughout Britain and badly needs a new system of finance. I hope that in this Session we shall not be entirely absorbed by the problems of London.
Finally I point out that the rich commuters of London get an enormous subsidy; a far bigger subsidy per head of the population than do the much poorer crofters and fishermen of the north of Scotland. It is typical that this is the type of, whatever one might call it, maladjustment which has crept into local government in this country because of the enormous confusion and constant changing of the method of raising the funds and the lack of any distinct principles which have lain behind it. I very much hope that when we see the London Bill it will be in rather better order than was the paving Bill which we dealt with in the last Session.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I welcome this debate and am very glad that it has spread a little because one very often feels, sitting in this House, that there is only one part to local government and that is the GLC. Many of us have worked in local authorities for many years and we come from all parts of the United Kingdom. We have quite a lot to contribute to

363
debates of this sort rather than just thinking of the GLC all the time. We have our points of view, our criticisms and our experience to give to this House and to these debates. This is why I welcome the opportunity to participate.
I, too, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I do not want another inquiry into local government. My word! I have served on too many inquiries and I have chaired inquiries. I have often wondered what happened to the reports at the end of these inquiries. Nobody seems to take any notice of them for years; then somebody in Whitehall has a bright idea and looks up a report and says, "Did Taylor do that in 1974 or 1977?" or something like that. They will bring out the report, go through it and decide what will happen. I do not want an inquiry. What we want is a little bit of action.
I was a member of an old county borough of precious memory for 20-odd years. It was an all-purpose authority. I know that some of our functions were not adequately carried out, that quite a number of things that we should have done we could not do because we were not of the right size and things had to change. The police force had to be transferred to the county council. We were a reasonably-sized authority of about 130,000-odd and were able to carry out an educational function; therefore I think we did a reasonable job in education. For the rest of the services of that local authority I thought that as a county borough we did very well indeed, and still could if county boroughs were allowed to return in the course of time.
I gained great experience in those days in serving on the various committees as a voluntary member. I think there was something called "loss of earnings" but few of us could claim those. There was no such thing as attendance allowances in those days. We served because we thought that we were helping our fellows in the local community and we got a great thrill out of serving our local community. Many people still receive a thrill, but not the same thrill that we used to have because they are now so frustrated with Government red tape. I know that this is the song that we used to sing in those days, that Government interfered too much with local government. But as I listen now to the members of my local authority, they tell me of the frustrations that they have. Only last week the chief executive officer of the now district council of Blackburn sent me details about the rate support grant that he will receive for next year, or what he believes he will receive at this stage. He sent me the document showing the position. In 1975–76 the council obtained 66½ per cent. from central Government. In 1979–80 it was 61 per cent. In 1984–85 it will be 51–9 per cent., and the estimated figure for 1985–86 is 48·8 per cent. He said that his financial director is asking him, "Where do we go?" These are officers talking, not elected representatives: "Where do we go? How can we decide what our budget will be?"
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is quite correct. One frustration of local government is finance, which is at the root of quite a number of problems. They cannot plan ahead. Local authorities know only one year in advance what their rate support grant will be.
364
That is no good. I know that the argument has always been from the national side that local authorities cannot be told earlier than one year ahead because grants are affected by external pressures over which there is no control; therefore a system cannot be devised to enable authorities to plan three or four years ahead. Such a system is long overdue in local finance. The only way for local authorities to progress is to plan ahead in that way.
Again, may I remind the House that the problems of this country are so diverse? The problems of London are completely different from the problems of Lancashire. In Lancashire, we are suffering today because of the Industrial Revolution when houses were just thrown up; they just grew like Topsy, overnight. Now those houses are no longer fit to live in. Over the years we have had our clearance policies, and they are continuing. But now what do we find? Again, I am told that because of frustration from national Government they cannot even plan that policy ahead, because they are being cut again on the housing programme. The same applies to the sewers. The sewers were built at the same time. They need renewing, and again because of financial stringencies, they cannot go ahead. I know that that is the water authority's responsibility. All of these matters in a county borough were the responsibility of the county borough, so my memory goes back to those days.
One of the things that I cannot understand is this. I believed the Conservative Party and I believed the Government when they said that they wanted to keep local government local. I remember sheets and sheets of material, the kind which comes out from Conservative Central Office as part of the election address saying, "Keep local government local". If they mean this sincerely, why make all these changes in this particular way; in the way of abolition, and so on? But I do not want to enter into that debate because I am sure that we shall have many hours of that as time goes on.
My Lords, I would plead for the local authorities to be given the opportunity of thinking ahead. I would plead for the removal of a lot of the petty restrictions, and for giving them an opportunity to try to uplift the morale of local government because the morale of local government, of its elected members and officers, is very low. It is low because of the frustration of not knowing exactly where they should go. May I urge central Government always to remember that it is important that they should sound out the localities and find out what are the feelings in the regions and in the districts before they decide to embark on fanciful policies that do not always work because they are not really cut out for certain parts of the country.
I hope that this debate will bear some fruit. I hope that somebody somewhere will listen to us. The other day I was speaking to my noble friend Lord Sefton and I asked whether he was going to take part in this debate. If ever a man has had experience in local government it is Bill Sefton, who has worked so hard for so many years in the Liverpool area. I am sure he must be feeling deeply at the moment over that great city of Liverpool—and over the way that Liverpool F.C. is playing at the present time; but I am not going to go into that, either, at the moment. Nevertheless, I am sure that somebody who has given so much must

365
be feeling very hurt about the way in which things are going in that part of the world. When I said to my noble friend Lord Sefton, "Are you going to contribute to this debate?" He said, "What's the use? Does anybody take any notice of you? Does anybody take any notice at all?" I sincerely hope that somebody will take some notice of points that have been mentioned in this debate this afternoon.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, noble Lords will not be entirely surprised to know that I found myself very largely in agreement with what my noble friend has just said with such knowledge and conviction. But I am afraid that I did not find myself in agreement with what the noble Earl said in reply to my noble friend Lady Birk. He talked of his experience of local government, which seemed, as far as I could judge, to consist of his having visited a number of local authorities on two or three occasions. I did not gather that he, himself, had ever served on any local authority; and I rather suspect that the only way to get an intimate and realistic knowledge of local government is to have been on a local authority either as an elected member or as an official. As far as I know, the noble Earl has done no such thing. But this handicap did not prevent him in any way from deciding to lecture local authorities on democracy.
The spectacle of a Minister who has never been elected to anything standing at the Dispatch Box in a non-elected Chamber pontificating to those who have behind them the authority of the electorate would be laughable if it were not something worse than that. The noble Earl is a charming person, but his brief was one which matched in arrogance and insensitivity the appalling article by the Minister for Local Government in this morning's edition of The Times. If this balderdash that he was given to utter did not stick in the noble Earl's throat, then he is not the man that I think he is. However, he managed to get it out; it was his duty to do so. I should like to think that behind the outward conviction there was some inner lack of conviction; because what he was uttering was a negation of Conservative principles as enunciated by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who time and again has inveighed against centralisation of government, against control by government.
At that time, of course, a Labour Government was in power. The noble Earl talked about principle. If principles are involved, then the principle of central government not imposing their will on local government applies equally whoever is in power in local and in national government. I can give an example of that. There was a time when the GLC (which at that time was under Labour control) proposed to trunk the North Circular and the South Circular roads, to make a trunk road running through the whole area. A number of us objected to that, particularly people whose constituencies were affected—Douglas Jay and myself among them. We were able to rouse the local population. We had meetings all over the place, and we persuaded the GLC to change its mind. Now let us suppose that a quango was involved in this. How is a quango going to change its mind? It is the instrument, it is the pawn, the
366
creature of central government, and central government will not be sensitive to local issues in the same way as a locally elected body is sensitive to local issues.
What the noble Earl was saying about democracy was something totally anti-democratic, because democracy fundamentally must mean that the people's voice can be heard; and the people's voice can only be heard on local issues providing that it is heard by people whom they themselves have elected and whom they are in a position to dismiss.
This country is one of the most centralised in the world. I do not think it is realised how grossly overcentralised we are. Under this Government, local freedom to dissent from national decisions is being eliminated. As I have said, that is the opposite of what I understood to be Tory principles; although, not being any expert on those myself, I have had to take what I know of them by reading and by listening. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that what is currently being done in the interests of monetary policy is totally opposed to the Conservative theory of government—totally opposed to it. The noble Earl also talked about principles. He said that Parliament has the sole right to make laws—which, of course, is not in doubt. However, it is not true that all laws are equally enforced. Governments seem sometimes to be much keener upon the poor obeying the law than the rich.
The other proposition which the noble Earl enunciated—that the Government must have the sole right to determine how much local authorities should raise and how much they should spend—is not a principle at all. This so-called principle is an item from the armoury of economic monetarism. That is all it is. It is not a principle; it is an ideology. It is from the exploded ideas of Milton Friedman which are not followed in any country now, with the possible exception of Israel, about which no more need be said on its economic situation. I believe that the primary reason—and if not the primary reason, a very important reason—for the better performance of the United States and Germany is precisely that central control is ineffective because they are federal states; and regional and local government is in a position to save central government from its own theories by raising and spending money internally, whether or not the central government likes it. In other words, internal expenditure—not international expenditure— should be plural, and once again plurality, as I understand it, is supposed to be a principle of Conservative theories of government.
Some of us do not have to rely upon visits to local authorities for our experience of local government. Many of us, as my noble friend has just illustrated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has also illustrated, have served on local government, which is perhaps the best way of getting to know something about it and a good way of avoiding saying things which everyone who has served on local government knows to be balderdash.
In my own family the first experience of local government was that of my wife. She was first elected to the Croydon Borough Council and subsequently to the Greater London Council, where she was chairman of the Housing Management Committee. House

367
building and the power of local government to build houses, together with the readiness of central government to allow local government to build houses, has been one of the enormous successes. We know nowadays that we perhaps made mistakes, but at that time, when people were living in multiple occupation and when there were six, seven or eight to a room, when people perhaps for the first time since they were married had their own front door, they wept with joy at having their own front door, created for them by a local authority's sensitivity to their needs. That would not have occurred but for the foresight of the Labour Government at the time deciding that the great effort in house building to recover from the depredations of the war should be in the hands of local authorities and that local authorities should be encouraged to get on with it.
The Government's decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties—and I apologise for raising the GLC here, but the government of the capital is an extremely important subject—is, in my opinion, one that they will regret, and for a number of reasons. Ultimately, I think they will regret it for electoral reasons, because in fact the people of this country will not stand for it. They will not stand for having the power to determine the government of their great cities taken out of their hands—because that is what it amounts to, in spite of the Government's pretence that it is being distributed.
Another reason why the Government will regret their decision is that the consequence of abolishing these large authorities is not only what will happen to the local authorities themselves but what will happen to all the organisations dependent upon the local authorities. One example is the arts. The Greater London Council, for example, is a very important patron of the arts, and without the Greater London Council many of the artistic activities in the capital will collapse. The Government say, "We have given the Arts Council £16 million to replace it"; but they have been pressed upon this, and if the GLC disappears there is no guarantee at all that this £16 million will in fact cover what the GLC is currently spending, let alone what it would spend next year and the year after that.
There is no guarantee at all; and in fact the Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no intention, so far as they are concerned, to attempt to replace the financial input of the GLC to artistic activities over a period of years. Therefore, in the course of a very short space of time one of the consequences of the abolition of the GLC, if the Government get away with it—and I sincerely hope they will not—will be that there will be an outcry from all those who are interested in the arts in the capital.
Another consequence of the Government's determination to decide everything centrally is that they have created for themselves a number of people who are their creatures, who are the voices of the Government at other levels. At the present time we can see, for example, that Sir William Rees Mogg has become the MacGregor of the arts. He is now the voice of the Government in artistic terms. That is what is happening for the first time in this country: the arm's-length principle, on which we have so much
368
prided ourselves, has become eroded, so that the Arts Council is now, for the first time, forced to go along the Government's road in exactly the same way as Mr. MacGregor eagerly goes along the Government's road, following policies which are dictated by central government. So the freedom of our country is being eroded in economic terms, and if it is eroded in economic terms, then it is eroded in other terms.
It is not, of course, that local government is sacrosanct. Changes have been made—some members may have felt too often—and changes should be made. But if we want to do anything about London, what we should do is something which I tried to do when I first came into Parliament in 1964. I tried, unsuccessfully, to abolish not the GLC but the City of London. It is the City of London, the hopelessly antediluvian undemocratic City Corporation which wants abolishing, and not the GLC. So if the Government want to do a little abolition, let them get hold of their friends in the City and let them deal with that. Let the noble Earl remember the figure of 74 per cent. He will not forget it because it will come back to him many times. The Government will be turned out, and they will deserve to be turned out. Labour will return because Labour will deserve to return; and when we do return we will undo some of the damage which the Government seem determined to inflict upon us all.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, after that rather unpleasant and unnecessary personal attack on the Minister, I feel perhaps I might be right to defend myself for a start by saying that I was a county councillor for 13 years. There can be no disagreement—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? I would say it was a political attack and not a personal attack upon the Minister, whom I specifically said I regard as a charming chap.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I do not think there will be any disagreement about the importance of local government spending to the economy. The 1984 Public Expenditure White Paper made clear that present capital and current expenditure of all local authorities was no less than £31.5 billion, a quarter of all public expenditure and 12 per cent. of the gross domestic product. No Government can ignore that sort of expenditure; and both Labour and Conservative Governments have always kept, and must keep, control of local authority spending.
In 1979 the Conservative Government was elected, and was re-elected in 1983 with a pledge to control public expenditure, to reduce public sector borrowing and cut taxes. These policies would be utterly unachievable if 25 per cent. of public spending (that is to say, the local authority share) were to be ignored. Less than a quarter of local spending—this has been mentioned several times already—has been financed by those who actually vote. More than a half of the expenditure is financed by the non-domestic ratepayer, and therefore I believe the Government really do have a duty to protect the non-voting ratepayers and to safeguard the strategy on which they were elected.

369
In the past, as we all know, there was no great abuse of the system and councils fell into line generally with the Government's overall policy. But recently—and again I am not the first to mention this in the debate—there has been quite deliberate abuse of the system and there has been a quite deliberate refusal to heed or to pay any attention to the Government's strategy. That, of course, has led to the Rates Act. Naturally it has upset those councillors particularly who have been bent upon high spending. Not many councils have been involved: three-quarters of the overspend of £848 million has been done by 18 local authorities. But the ratepayers in those areas have had substantial rate increases during the last three years. Nine of them have had increases of 40 per cent. and some increases have been even more dramatic. Southwark's rate went up by 56 per cent. from 1981 to 1982—including a 192 per cent. increase in the GLC precept—while Sheffield's went up by 41 per cent.
These rate increases have impoverished householders and, in particular, those retired people who are on fixed incomes. The increases have tended in many cases to drive out businesses; and this in itself has exacerbated the problem for those businesses and ratepayers who have remained in the area. One may take the examples of Lambeth and Wandsworth, where in 1978 council rates were by and large in line. But in Lambeth the rate is now 233p after being Labour controlled for some years, while in Wandsworth which has been controlled by the Tories the rate has increased by 97p less than that. I believe that the Rates Act will limit extravagance and bring hope to occupiers and business ratepayers. But, needless to say, it has brought fury to Labour councillors who, I believe, have brought this upon themselves.
Many of these councils say that the spending which they do is absolutely necessary because it is all on essential services, and yet they often refuse to put those services to the test and out to competitive tender. They give in to the unions and have staff levels which the unions demand. I had personal experience of this at home, where I was asked to contribute to a particular council expenditure on a matter in which I have an interest. I was asked to contribute a certain sum, but I was able to do the job myself by private tender for almost exactly half.
Councils insist that essential services include such things as women's committees, support for the CND, enormous propaganda campaigns and a host of weird schemes and services. What causes all these problems? Very often, it is the takeover by the extreme Left of certain councils. They have abused the system regarding central Government, they have abused the system regarding the election of councillors, they have abused the system regarding the payment of expenses and they have abused the system regarding even the election of their own leaders.
I believe that these Left-wing councils are a bigger potential danger to any new Labour Government that might one day get into office than they are even to this Government. Furthermore, we have seen cases of local authority officers—and I know of one from my own experience—who have been intimidated and abused by what are now full-time Left-wing councillors, while minority groups are ignored or intimidated. The noble
370
Lord is laughing, but these are facts of life and I shall be glad to recount the story afterwards.
It is argued that the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan boroughs is against the wishes of the majority of people and yet, through their manifesto, the Conservative Government had an overwhelming majority to do that. But what has happened? What has happened is that there has been massive advertising. Millions have been spent on advertisements at every corner and in every national newspaper and, naturally, these have taken their toll. It is a very great credit to the power of advertising. These advertisements have been unopposed. The sum of £12 million has been spent on The Londoner, extolling the GLC for no particular reason, but there has been nothing from the Government. There is a very good reason for that. The Secretary of State has no money available for spending on counter-advertising. We shall see the same with the buses—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes play with the expenditure of the GLC on putting forward its case against abolition and he makes his views quite clear. He then goes on to say that the Government have no money to put the counter-case. Surely the noble Lord is not unaware that in recent weeks the Government have spent much more money than the GLC in putting their case on both the rate capping and the abolition. The noble Lord ought to be more careful before he makes such sweeping statements.
Lord Gisborough: Yes, my Lords, I am unaware. As I understand it, the Secretary of State has no funds to do that. The Government have been singularly ineffective, because one opens The Times and sees full page advertisements by the GLC, but does not see the same from the Government. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on this.
I believe that it will be the same with the buses. When I read the White Paper, it seemed like a gale of fresh air, and yet I do not have the slightest doubt that there will be great advertisements against the freeing of the buses, with dire warnings and misleading propaganda paid for by the ratepayers—the very people who will gain the most from better and cheaper bus services.
Before ending, I should like in fairness to try to see the other side of the picture. Local authorities no doubt resent what they believe to be excessive Government interference in local affairs. They believe that their problems are not listened to and that the rate support grant formula is never adequate. They resent the proposal that further education is to be handed over to the MSC. They resent the accusation that they are not keeping costs down, and they say that they have more duties to perform, which is perfectly true.
For example, in my own county of Cleveland we have the highest fire risk in the whole of Europe. There are new regulations coming out, regarding reports on hazardous sites, which have to be completed by 1986. There are 42 of these hazardous sites in Cleveland, and if the existing staff did nothing else they would still not be able to do what is required by 1989. So extra staff are needed but there is no extra cash available to pay them. There are other special problems in the north,

371
particularly those linked with unemployment, and it is not felt that those problems are fully understood in the south. Cleveland is 260 miles away. Many councils are even further away, and they feel that they know better than Whitehall how to run their own affairs. They find it difficult to meet Ministers, or to convince them when they do, and it is necessary for there to be even more visits to the north by Ministers so that they fully understand the problems and can help as well as direct.
There is no doubt that, in return, all councils will have to contribute to the Government's policy. They will have to privatise, economise and modernise. They will have to make economies regardless of their political inclinations, and any Government will have to ensure the same. But I ask your Lordships to remember that not all political inclinations are necessarily Left-wing. Some views are very sincerely held and many councillors, who may not necessarily approve of the Government's line, while sometimes unimaginative, are certainly honest union members. Within the confines of their past personal experience with unions, and their present administrative experience in dealing with union pressures, they do not really know how to achieve the results demanded of them.
There are problems—there always will be —between local authorities and central Government. But once local authorities are streamlined and the metropolitans are disbanded, I believe that they will become more efficient, will be able to provide better services and will gain more trust from the Government and thereby more independence. I believe that, once the dust has settled, the way we are going forward will end in a happier relationship and a sounder future for the local authority system.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are very grateful—certainly I am very grateful—to my noble friend for starting this debate. At least, I was very grateful until I realised that it was turning into a debate about abolition and, yet again, about the GLC. Sometimes, it is quite difficult to remember that this is the House of Lords and not County Hall. Since I first came here—which I agree was not very long ago, just a mere two years or so—it seems that we have done nothing but talk about the GLC.
Frankly, for those of us who belonged to other authorities or who have worked in other areas, that subject can get rather boring. I therefore propose not to mention the GLC again in the rest of my short intervention this evening. Nor will I mention the abolition, other than to comment that, as I understand it, the percentage of the electorate affected by abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be something like 40 per cent. Surely the remaining 60 per cent. must be just as important, if not more so.
In this country we have government by consent. The essential element in government by consent is trust; trust between people and their local government, trust between the people and central Government, trust between central Government and local government, and trust between the people and the law enforcement
372
bodies. If we lose that trust, then we will lose the very basis of our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was right when he said that central Government can in law do what it likes. But surely we have not reached the stage where the Government are going to take all power from local authorities simply because they have the right to do so in law. Successive attacks by government on local authorities and the public condemnation of their activities has undermined public confidence in those authorities. The knock-on effect of that will be loss of confidence and trust in government itself.
We have seen some small evidence of that already. There will always be agitators. We have always had agitators in this country. Those agitators cannot gain a hold if the people trust their Government and trust the system. It really is most important to see that that system remains trustworthy.
I want to turn now to one effect of the bad relations between central and local government at the moment which has not been mentioned so far—or at least, only in passing by one or two noble Lords. It is the effect on local authority staff. Local authority staff are service minded. I have worked not only as a local councillor but also for several years—some time ago now—on a project by the Department of Applied Economics. It concerned job satisfaction and involved a very long and complicated series of interviews with staff of local authorities as well as of industries. I, together with a number of colleagues, spent a number of months talking to members of staff of other local authorities—not my own.
Those staff were aware of their role as public servants and they were proud of it. We held discussions with everyone—from the dustman to the chief executive, if I may put it that way, and from the gardeners to the chief executives at all levels. Through them all—to a greater or less extent—ran the same thread; that they were proud of the service they were rendering to the community. This was only four or five years ago. But if that survey were conducted now, I wonder whether the result would be the same?
For example, the rent collector looked upon himself not merely as a collector of rents but as a link between the people whose rents he was collecting and the local authority who received the money. He conveyed complaints and remarks about what tenants thought was wrong. He acted as a go-between. If people were in need of help, he saw to it that help was forthcoming. This was typical of the level of service given by local authority staff.
My case now is that many of those dedicated people are foresaking local government. They see no future in it. It is not a matter of finance because they are well-enough paid; it is simply that the local authorities are not attracting the quality of people they have been used to employing—and early retirement has been sought by a number of very good chief officials whose expertise we cannot afford to lose. The reason for such staff leaving is that they cannot see a future. They can no longer see the point of what they are doing.
That is because they can no longer see the direction in which central Government is trying to steer local authorities. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, who pointed to eight different financial

373
systems in the past 10 years or so. Imagine what effect that must have on the city treasurer's department. People working there are growing old before their time. It really is an unbearable burden to place upon them. We do not need another review. We do not need another full inquiry. We do need a sensible decision on the part of someone that local government must follow a good line and that they must stick to it.
The attitudes of dedication among the staff I have mentioned are shared by the staff of most local authorities. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, was a little patronising about many local authority staff. I would not patronise them. Certainly all the people with whom I have had dealings, at whatever level they join, and whatever their background may be, were dedicated to the service of the local authority. There is no question that they—and I am leaving the GLC out of this—were in it for what they could get or that they were seeking any patronage.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the assertion made by the noble Baroness is grossly unfair. I do not believe that I said anything of the sort, or implied it.
Baroness Nicol: I am very glad to hear that, my Lords. The fact remains that many of those people are puzzled by what they see as the vindictive attitude of central Government. The Minister may claim that he has not been vindictive and that the Government are not vindictive—but that is how it is coming over in the town halls.
I will not keep your Lordships much longer but I want to read to you a letter I received during the Recess from a councillor who is not a member of my authority; nor is she a member of my party. But she is highly respected in her council and has held many chairmanships; she has served her council for a long time. I thought that her letter would be of interest to your Lordships. I will not read it all because it is rather long, but I intend to pass the letter to the noble Earl the Minister when I finish so that he may see it all. She writes:
"I write to express deep disquiet in what seems to be central Government misunderstanding of the duties and requirements of local government. I do not write on any party political basis but as a worried local councillor on (1) the future of local government; (2), what appears to be the lack of liaison between central and local government".
She goes on to describe her experience, but I will leave the Minister to read that. She continues:
"I know that both officers and members since 1974 have worked diligently to get best value for money, keep the workforce within reasonable bounds, and keep the rates practical in the light of our obligations. We may be one of the few districts which have kept the rates much the same over this period—and on occasion it even went down".
That is, from 1974. Her letter goes on:
"You may be aware of the resentment building up within these councils, which have tried and succeeded to meet Government requirements in spending and yet have still been penalised. You may not be aware that two themes now emerge: (1), most councillors of any party political persuasion or none no longer wish to take directions for cuts without a clear indication from central Government on how the country will benefit from those cuts".
That seems to me a very reasonable request.
374
The letter continues:
"(2) How is it that Treasury officials so miscalculated their estimates for local councils' requirements that they now say, 'Too much, cut-back yet again'? We try to plan our capital programmes well ahead, as any competent management must do, and this stop-go attitude is losing all credibility. The public is losing confidence in all government. I regard the situation as so serious that central Government should realise that there is not only a rising resentment by the people who pay but by those who are locally accountable to the electorate, as they should be, but I find any support or understanding from central Government non-existent. Yesterday we had a special council meeting to discuss Mr. Jenkin's letter and it was clear that even our careful, responsible councillors have had enough.".
As I said, this lady is not of my party nor of my council. The council from which she speaks has been Conservative controlled for a long time. I happen to know from conversations with other councillors in other areas, and from my association with the Association of District Councils, that this is not a unique attitude. It needs answering. It shows how relations between central and local government have deteriorated to break-down point. I hope that this evening the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance and not simply concentrate on furthering the debate on abolition, because that is not what we are here for.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to those of us who have spent over a decade in the service of local government the past year has appeared to be a nightmare of appalling proportions. Being involved in some form of public life for 38 years, in the trade union movement, as staff-side chairman, as a councillor—I think I have held every single chair in local government—I have never known a shared bitterness (why do we always share things that are bitter and not things that are good?) against this Administration by Conservative councillors, Labour councillors, Liberal councillors and Social Democrat councillors, yet it makes not the slightest difference. All that we are having is diktat in place of discussion.
Worse than that, this afternoon we have had suggestions from the massive support that the Minister is getting from the Benches behind him. Let this go on the record; there is not one Tory Peer in this Chamber at this given moment. There are just two on the Front Bench. I am glad to see the noble Earl is looking round, because if what I have said is untrue I will give way for him to tell the truth. That in itself is an incredible description of the interest that this Government, under their Prime Minister, have in local government. They are all here in massive support of the Prime Minister! I can understand their absence. They are all ashamed. Of course they are. They are the people who tell others that dictatorial powers will not work. Some have told us that we ought not to be raising this issue now, that we should have waited until the Bill is before us. I do not share that view. I support the doctrine that, "There is no point in shutting the door when the horse has bolted."
There is another remarkable matter we must get into proper context. There was a tremendous outcry when the Labour Administration encountered its winter of discontent. Now, under this Administration, we have all seasons of dangerous discontent. We have strikes, unemployment, financial crises and declining

375
productions; a spring, summer, autumn and winter of discontent for almost the past four years, with not a glimmer of hope. What a massive condemnation that the matter which occupies this Administration is not unemployment, not the financial crisis and not declining production, but how to get rid of Mr. Ken Livingstone; because that is what it is really all about. That is the classic absurdity.
I am bound to say that there are so many other things which the Government should have been doing and which previous Governments, including Labour Governments, have neglected. I am perturbed, as was my noble friend Lord Sefton, at the increase in remoteness of many powerful organisations such as the water boards, and gas and electricity boards, the so-called complaints organisations which no one knows how to contact and the consumer organisations. A Bill could have been presented which would have done the Government proud, and which we would have supported, to create links between these massive, powerful organisations and the local authorities that most people know so well.
Parliament should also be concerned with what is going on in the European Community and the absurd European Parliament. They are also very remote. They can play an important part in our lives, but we do not seem to care. Direct elections to the European Parliament, as everyone knows, are an absolute farce. It was as much as I could do to look honestly after one ward as a councillor or one constituency as a Member of Parliament, let alone look after half a dozen and spending most of my time off the island. Those are the matters which the Government should be concerned about.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that relations between local government and national Government inevitably involve a degree of conflict. That is true. My charge is that this Administration goes beyond conflict. In place of conflict, we have assassination. The Government ought to consider that situation very seriously. When one talks about the abuse of minorities, as did the noble Earl, let me give an example of an abuse of minorities that occurred in Ealing council. It is the tradition—a good tradition —that not merely the ruling party but also the opposition parties should have the chance of providing the mayor. That is a good thing. But the Tories in Ealing changed the rules. These lovers of democracy decided to change the rules and said to the incoming mayor, a member of the Labour Party, "You can be mayor but we have introduced a new rule. You must surrender your casting vote." We all know why. The Tory council could not depend on its Tory councillors always coming to the town hall to the council meetings.
That is the sort of happening that the Government should be concerned about. We have this little swastika growing up in Ealing borough council. When one talks also about whether or not ordinary people are involved, I can understand the argument if it is said that there is no involvement. There is no real concern by ordinary people. But all the polls and the national opinion polls have shown this—and there are many examples, but I shall give only one. The National Opinion Poll of June 1984 in the West Midlands
376
showed that 59 per cent. of the people wanted to keep their councils and 26 per cent. supported the Government.
This is my major complaint. The proposed reorganisation is not founded on any reliable study. For example, take the creation of the GLC and the ILEA and the wiping out of the LCC. I have commented on this before. All these big changes in British local government were carried out. Some people laughed at us because we were a little long-winded, but we had the Herbert Royal Commission in 1957. We had the 1972 Local Government Act, and while many of us did not agree with it, it was preceded by many examinations the most famous of which was the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. That is what we had before other changes were made in the great county councils. However, the present proposal was simply spawned by a vicious emotional spasm of the Prime Minister.
Of all the things that the Prime Minister should be chairman of in Cabinet, she has eschewed them all to be chairman of the committee that is dealing with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. How about that? What sort of Government are they? The proposal was made because the Tories thought that it would be popular. But it is now hated by many Londoners (I regret to use that word, but my experience justifies my using it) and totally despised by some of Britain's greatest organisations—our voluntary organisations. I think that the time has come for people of all parties to come to the aid of democracy.
The pledge to abolish the GLC and the MCCs certainly was in the Tory manifesto; let us give them credit for that. But do your Lordships know how many words on it there were in the manifesto? I shall tell you. There were 66. There were 66 words in order to abolish the GLC and the MCCs. Such a cunning and clever move will have the approval of authoritarians everywhere; the people who do not like all this old talk, want to get on with it, bang the door and get rid of them. That is not our way, and never has been our way over the past 100 years. The change in government of the world's most renowned city, London, is a very serious issue, I believe. To abolish the government of the world's most renowned city is an appallingly serious error.
We have seen Cmnd. Paper 9063. It is now littered with amendmemts. It has the measles, there are so many of them all over it. The advisory council proposed to take the place of the GLC has no executive powers and no authority whatsoever. I believe that it will simply be a tool of central government. I can just imagine what the great free enterprise party would tell the Labour Party if it had indulged in such authoritarian action. I warn the Government that many devoted Conservatives agree with the submission that I am making.
We are also worried about whether it will be an enabling Bill. Will there be hidden or open powers to bypass Parliament? Will changes be made and other things done, without reference to a council or to Parliament, by certain individuals appointed by the Government of the day? I think that all this is designed to hide the cost from taxpayers and ratepayers.

377
What is much more dangerous is this. The proposal is redolent of creating a Tory Mr. Hyde whose purpose is to ensnare and destroy democracy's Dr. Jekyll. The elected representatives will be replaced by non-elected quangos, with all their chief executive officers, treasurers, lawyers, and so on—administrators. What a spectacle: the quangos of authority dancing tangos of death as they smother Britain's great democratic councils! I do not believe that anyone could be proud of that. Those are the things that ought to give us concern.
These great councils provide wonderful and humane services, and they will all be undermined. Millions of ordinary people in difficult circumstances will be deleteriously affected by the abolition of those councils. The morale of their loyal staff is being depreciated by this Fifth Column proposal. All they have to look forward to is the dole, which this Government seem to be enamoured of. They say one thing—that they are deeply concerned about the millions who are unemployed—and in their next breath they increase unemployment by acts like this. That is what we have to try to bring home to them.
I also find it difficult to believe that any Government would be prepared to destroy our voluntary services, of which we are proud and which in the metropolitan boroughs and in the GLC face elimination. The culture and art of the GLC and MCCs will also be vulgarised by an uncouth Government. I say to the Government and to the Tory Party that it may be a virtue to inflict strict discipline on oneself, but it is poverty of the spirit to inflict excessive measures, destined to destroy prudent democracy and harm our British constitution, on others.
The Government intend to abolish the elected representatives, who are to be replaced by lackeys who will be trained to obey central government instruction. That could have been written in Moscow, could it not? It is the sort of thing we read in propaganda against the Communist Party. I have to look carefully when I see the letters "CP". Do they mean the Conservative Party or the Communist Party? There does not seem to be much difference, does there? I believe that those are the dangers of which we have to take cognisance.
It would be to everyone's advantage, including that of the Houses of Parliament and all political parties, if this abomination were allowed to wither on the vine. The proposal is bad for the Tory Party, the Labour Party, the Independents, the Social Democrats, the Liberals and everybody else, including all those young people who aspire to serve their fellow men on local authorities. There has been no endeavour by the Government to find a middle way to achieve what they might claim is their rightful purpose—to cut spending. No; they know only one answer—the hatchet and the axe: destroy, cut, assassinate. That is not our way. It undermines the resources of idealism, which I believe are vital to our social endeavour. I ask the Government to realise that. Their policy on these appalling ideas reveals time and time again that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Lindsay of Birker: My Lords, I do not claim to be any sort of expert on local government but
378
comparisons are useful, and I thought I could make some contribution to this discussion by giving a rather anecdotal account of my experience of living for 24 years under a very different system of local government. Our family lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, which has a population of 579,000. In parts of the county all services are provided by the county government but there are also a lot of small municipalities—some of them very small.
We live in Chevy Chase, Section 3, which has just fewer than 250 houses. We have an elected committee, one of whose members is paid part-time as a secretary. The members meet in each other's houses, and any other residents who like to attend the meetings are invited to do so. Section 3 is responsible for the upkeep of our streets, street lighting and refuse collection. Subject to overall county zoning regulations, Section 3 gives the building permits if people want to add to their houses or make major changes. That, of course, means that decisons are made by people who have really detailed local knowledge. We have the right to regulate traffic. We can put up "Stop" signs or make one-way streets.
It is interesting that in some sense we get a real community spirit. Several people remodelled their houses, and the Section 3 committee held a party in a small local park and invited residents to come to see the alterations and the improved houses. Our money comes from a very small surcharge on local property tax, from part of the Maryland income tax which we pay and from various grants which I think were partly designed to compensate for what we do for ourselves instead of getting it from the county.
On the other side of a main road that is maintained by the state is Section 4. That has nearly 1,000 houses, and its committee is large enough to have a few permanent employees and a regular office. It also owns some equipment such as a snow plough. It made great use of its power to regulate traffic when it had problems with the increasing number of people using its streets as short cuts in rush hours. It closed off the ends of several streets and made a number of other streets one-way during rush hours. Then a little south of us is Chevy Chase village. This is a richer area and actually has its own small local police force.
These small municipalities provide better services than the big county organisation. County officials have asked our committee members how we manage to provide garbage and refuse collection so cheaply. We do provide extremely good service. Our dustbins are emptied twice a week. In the gardening season there is a once a week pick-up of garden trash. A once a week pick-up of newspapers for recycling actually brings a profit to the section. There is a day once a month when one can put out for removal anything that can be carried by two men.
In this small area, if anything goes wrong, if a pothole develops in the street outside your house, you know which committee member to notify. Usually within a very few days two or three men turn up with a small truck and do the repairs. People who live under the much larger county organisation say that it takes very much longer to get any action, and finally the county sends along a large truck with ten or 12 men to do the job.

379
Obviously, there are cases where it is necessary to have a large organisation with authority over a large area, but there are many other cases in which better service can be provided at smaller cost by allowing small areas to manage their own affairs with a minimum of formal administration. The absence of formal administration cuts down the overhead costs and the delays and inefficiencies that are associated with any large bureaucratic organisation. I think the encouragement of a do-it-yourselves attitude is an important contribution to democracy.
The management of schools is also highly decentralised. The US constitution puts education under the states but it is decentralised even from the state. There is a Maryland Department of Education, but schools are in fact run by the counties. They get their money from the property tax, which is extremely high. It takes about 20 per cent. of my income, which is a small income. But teaching policies, text books and everything like that are decided upon by an elected county school board.
This system can go wrong, but when it goes wrong it is really not too difficult to put it right. In the late 1960s elections to the Montgomery County School Board produced a board with a majority who favoured what I call fashionable fads. One was open class rooms. In the elementary schools the dividing walls between class rooms were pulled down to make very large rooms in which several classes met simultaneously. This would have been harmless if it had produced extremely large rooms. The actual result was that children at the edge of their class found they could hear the teacher of the adjoining class more clearly than their own teacher.
Another idea was to bring in what is called new maths. This was an attempt to teach small children set theory and numbers with bases other than ten, but it did not teach them multiplication tables. The view was that it was undemocratic to provide different teaching for fast learners and slow learners. The result was a very marked fall in standards in the schools. This annoyed the parents sufficiently to elect a different school board. They put back the dividing walls in the elementary schools and changed mathematics teaching to something which taught elementary schoolchildren how to do simple arithmetic.
Now standards have very greatly improved. The high schools offer advanced courses in many subjects and a good student can do work outside the normal curriculum. For half of last year, our elder grandson, then aged 15, was able to get off from school for two afternoons a week to work in the National Aeronautics and Space Agency.
The other point is that because the fairly small unit, the county, is the effective organisation, you can get quick redress of grievances. A few years ago, an official at Lelend Junior High School told us that our grandchildren were not really residents of Montgomery County because their mother was still in England and would have to pay 2,000 dollars a year to attend Montgomery County schools. My wife and I went to the education department offices, only six or seven miles away. The receptionist showed us round to an obviously very intelligent negro official. As soon as
380
we had explained our problem he said that he understood the Chinese tradition of extended families and got his secretary immediately to type out a letter overruling the man at Leland Junior High.
I think there are still many extremely bad schools in the United States. Education as a whole I think reached a low point in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But the point is that standards have now started to rise because citizens have the power to raise standards in their own local area without having to bother going up to state governments or, even more, to a federal government. I think we perhaps have had the quickest rise in Montgomery County because we have the highest proportion of Ph.Ds to the population than any other county in the United States.
The rise in standards is starting in other areas. Even parents with a poor education in a very poor area want the schools to help their children towards a better life. They naturally feel that they have been swindled if the school system lets their children graduate from high school without the skills needed to get any kind of job beyond unskilled labour. You can see this happening in the district of Columbia, which is the central part of the Washington metropolitan area. This has over 70 per cent. negro population. In the bad old days of racially segregated schools there were still one or two negro schools with extremely high standards. Then there was a period when all the schools in DC became extremely bad and families who could afford it sent their children to private schools or moved into the suburbs. However, the popular demand for better schools has been so strong that standards have been rising again over the last few years.
It seems to me that things have been very different in the United Kingdom. A few days ago I was talking to a high school teacher who told me that teaching policies were decided entirely from the centre. He said that he and other teachers at his school tried to help all children to make progress to the limits of their natural ability, but they had to do this unofficially because the official policy was uniform teaching regardless of ability. He said the result had been a gradual but continuing decline in standards.
I feel that people should be much more alarmed than they are about the decline in school standards. About two years ago Wireless World published several letters from the managers of firms in electronics complaining that they could not get good employees. One man wrote that he had tested applicants for jobs by drawing a very simple feedback amplifier circuit and asking them to calculate its input impedance. This was a perfectly simple problem for anyone who understood the basic principles of electrical theory, but he found that several applicants with university degrees in electrical engineering failed the test. As I say, if one projected the declining standards under a centralised schools system some way into the future it would produce a situation in which the United Kingdom could not have a prosperous economy because it did not have the skilled personnel to run it, and in which a large part of the population had become unemployable except at unskilled labour. So I think there is this very strong case in the education system for allowing people who feel strongly about good schools to be able to get them without having to try to change the central Government.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, having sat through almost all the debate this afternoon and this evening, I am tempted to begin by responding or replying to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers. However, since I am 18 speakers from the beginning, though I would only spend a few seconds on each, it would probably take some time and far longer than I intend to spare from my own remarks. Of course it would also be totally unproductive. So I will resist the temptation, except that I think I must at least say one word in defence of those of us who have been criticised for defending London.
It so happens—if it has not been noticed here, it has certainly been noticed by myself and by several thousands outside—that London has been constantly under attack. We have been responding to repeated attacks on London. These have been directed at the county administration. And, if noble Lords have been vigilant they will also have heard the London borough of Camden, of which I was proud to be a member for many years, mentioned by almost every speaker on the Government Benches either in this House or in the other place. Again this afternoon, the Minister, in his opening remarks, had to refer once more to Camden. I shall not reply at this stage. There will be other opportunities and I shall take them then. I shall resist the temptation to go down that road now. I feel, however, that we have good reason to defend London and our own local authorities, as I respect those who defend their own local authorities.
Today's debate is about the relationship between national and local government. It is not about some conspiracy. We do not have to be conspirators to talk about the relationship between national and local government. We are doing so in the open. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. In present circumstances, it would be impossible, in my view, to discuss this relationship without referring to the impending legislation dealing with the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan councils. It would be ludicrous to embark on that kind of discussion without mentioning the impending abolition. I therefore do not think that I can resist the temptation to talk about the impending legislation. The legislation, if carried, would represent the most far-reaching and damaging changes in the relationship between national and local government this century. To avoid that kind of discussion is just not possible.
Of course we shall not be able to discuss the matter in any detailed manner. We do not have the Bill in front of us. We can, however, have a discussion in general terms. Enough has been said today and on other days about the principles behind the forthcoming legislation to allow us, perhaps, to roam in general through the relationships and the effect on those relationships.
I should like to digress for a moment, because I believe that it is relevant. All of us present in the Chamber yesterday heard a wonderful maiden speech from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. I know that many of your Lordships were as enthralled as I was throughout the 30 minutes of that speech. It was an unusually long Maiden speech but, had it gone on for another 30
382
minutes, I should still have been listening, so important and so historic was the occasion. It was, in my view, a brilliant performance, enriched with wisdom and experience and uncannilly relevant, in many ways, to present circumstances.
I was involved in local government throughout the whole period of the noble Earl's administration. I heard many of his speeches and wrote many letters to him. Because of my involvement and because of his deep involvement at that time in local government, particularly in the run-up to the abolition of the LCC and the setting up of the GLC, I was interested in his reminiscences about those 12 wasted years to which he referred, and to which we referred in a booklet some years ago. I fully confess that I admire the noble Earl's wide-ranging experience of local government and its relationship with national government. I only hope that his successors in government today were listening to him and learning from his experience. I felt, too, as I saw him sitting in the Chamber earlier today, that it was a pity he was not speaking today, and enlarging upon some of the views he expressed yesterday.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Birk quoting from col. 235 in today's Hansard. It was a very relavant quotation, to which I imagine many references will be made in the debates to follow on local government. What the noble Earl stated is not new. It has been said before. I was reminded, listening to him yesterday, that I had been rereading recently a lecture delivered by Professor J. H. B. Masterman in the Royal Gallery here in 1909. In the course of that lecture—one of a series about Parliament and the people—Professor Masterman had this to say about local government:
"Centralisation—although we do not see it clearly yet, we shall learn it to our cost soon if we are not careful—centralisation is always the worst enemy, or almost the worst enemy, of all true democracy."
Those were the words of a very wise man. And other wise men have followed. I should like to read one other quotation from the Second Reading debate of the Bill to abolish the LCC, when Sir Keith Joseph, another well respected parliamentarian, an expert on local government with a great deal of knowledge and experience, said:
"We must be sure that the structure of local government allows locally elected people to play their part in tackling these great problems, which go to the very root of all that makes for the character of a town and, in large measure, for the quality of living which its people enjoy". [Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 52.]
I could go on. Other noble Lords have quoted from commissions and reports. My noble friend Lord Molloy mentioned the Herbert Report. That should be compulsory reading for everyone before they embark on the abolition Bill. However, as I have said, there will be further opportunities.
Government Ministers, in their arguments for so drastically changing the relationship between national and local government, have said, "We are not abolishing local democracy. We are simply handing services performed by the GLC back to local boroughs". But there have been no facts, no research and no reports from government sources to support that contention. On the contrary, research has shown and questions have elicited that this is not the truth. Indeed, most of the services will be transferred not to the boroughs but

383
to central government and to quangos. That is a major change in relationships as we know them between national government and local authorities.
Again, if I may refer to London, which I know best, transport has already gone. The arts—the South Bank complex—will, I understand, go to a quango. The fire brigade will go to a quango. Strategic planning will go to the Secretary of State, advised by a quango. Waste disposal will probably go to a quango. Superannuation and residual legal and financial matters will go; indeed, between eight and 15 quangos are being proposed to replace GLC control.
My noble friend Lord Sefton replied to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, saying that he appeared to be using the exception to besmirch the whole lot. Other noble Lords from the Government side have spoken of the whole proposition as though it was a punishment for local authorities. Because a few have stepped out of line, the whole democratic system must now suffer. We are now, therefore, embarking on this punitive approach. This has emerged in quite a number of speeches, as noble Lords will find if they read them tomorrow. It is not a well thought-out approach at all. For my part, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, appeared to scoff at voluntary organisations. I must confess that I do not know his involvement with voluntary organisations. I know about mine. I have had a life-long involvement with voluntary organisations, and I shall defend them. I shall certainly not do so tonight, but I shall defend them when the time arises, because it is part of this great attack—
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I shall certainly give way in a second, as the noble Lord himself said, when I have finished this sentence. I shall defend the role and the need for voluntary organisations in much of our life today. We owe them a great debt rather than besmirching all local organisations because there have perhaps been a few examples to which the noble Lord has pointed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thought that I had made clear, although I did not perhaps do so sufficiently, that I have, as, indeed, must all noble Lords, the greatest admiration for voluntary societies, whether national or local, whose objectives are those of benefiting their fellow citizens. My only objection was to extend the phrase "voluntary organisation" to include organisations whose objects are primarily political but are yet financed out of local government expenditure.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept that, and that is the part that I shall probably have to come back to in later debates. If the noble Lord persists in his argument, then I think I shall be able to reply in kind. I believe that we are in danger here of destroying very many good things because, as has been said, we want to get rid of one or two things with which some people do not agree. It is a danger of which we must all be aware and to which we must be alert.
I am also extremely concerned—again, I imagine it applies to the metropolitan counties as well as to London—about the future control of London's parks
384
and the recreational facilities that are in those parks. I take this as a small example of policy or a major change in relationships that has not been thought through. To some people, perhaps this is a small example, but to others it is a big thing. The Government have said that the boroughs will take over these parks. But those of us who understand the complexities of open spaces, leisure spaces and facilities, know that that is just not possible; it is not a feasible suggestion. Who will control those parks which cross existing borough boundaries? Are the Government suggesting, as they would appear to be saying, that in some cases those parks will be split up and divided among three or four local authorities? In that case there would probably have to be dozens of ad hoc agreements and there would be disputes that would go on interminably. The folly of that suggestion is apparent straight away to everybody who has any experience of local government, but apparently it is not obvious to those who are legislating.
I have an example, again in London, in Hackney Marshes, where there are over 110 football pitches plus other amenities, used by people from north-east London and all over London. Which ratepayers will foot the bill for Hackney Marshes in the event of the abolition Bill going through? There is no reply at the moment to these very principled questions. Who will control the Lea Valley regional park? It is a very important development. Little has been said. I am saying that these are the kind of details we would want to know before we agree to this major change in the relationship; and it is a change that we fear.
What is to become of my own local parks? I am entitled to mention Camden since, as I have said, it has been mentioned by every Minister and most noble Lords on the opposite Benches—it has also been mentioned in the other place—since the beginning of this discussion. What is to become of Hampstead Heath? People come from all over the world, never mind from all over the country, to Hampstead Heath. What is to become of it? Is it going to be split up into allotments and dished out to local authorities or quangos? I am afraid that there will be a great deal of concern—as there is now—at the proposal that it will be handed over to three separate borough councils, plus the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. An absolutely crazy situation will emerge if that is the kind of control that is now going to be involved for Hampstead Heath and Kenwood. In no way will local people understand why that change is necessary.
As I have said, I will develop these detailed points later in the argument. I am using them now to illustrate what I consider is folly on the part of the Government in embarking on a major change in the relationship when what was probably necessary was an inquiry into the functioning of local authorities and some necessary changes with which none of us would disagree. Many of us who have opposed these widespread changes have been advocating for years that what was necessary was a proper inquiry, a Government-initiated inquiry, and some notice taken of the responses to that inquiry and, if necessary, some changes made in the functions of local government.
I do not want to go too far down the road on the question of abolition; that will come. But I thought it

385
was necessary just to broach the question because of the severe damage that will be done if this extension of centralisation and this move away from local democracy is pursued by the Government in the way they are pursuing it. I should like to end by quoting the Secretary of State himself. In October 1983 he said:
"I believe the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates changes and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof, then change should not made".
I submit that the Government have not satisfied that burden of proof.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise in the knowledge that everyone who has spoken from these Benches has spoken with considerable experience and authority in local government. I do not make the charge that other Benches are bereft of experience in local government; far from it. But we on these Benches take with a pinch of salt being lectured by Ministers, ex-Ministers and academics on the reality of local government as they see it from whatever ivory tower they reside in at the moment. Everyone on these Benches who has spoken has served, and has wrestled with problems of Governments of all complexions. I speak with but 20 years' experience; there are others with a great deal more. What we bring to this debate is our experience, of course our emotion, and our party bias and invective.
I listened very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, who apparently feels that there are some mandates and some manifestoes that are sacrosanct and others that are not worth upholding. The noble Lord, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, made the charge that everything that is happening in local government has been rubber stamped and approved by the election results of 9th June. In London, the abolition of the GLC—I make no apology for introducing, in the limited way that we can, the abolition issues—was an issue. But that was not the major issue upon which the election was fought anywhere else, and certainly it was not the case in London. If noble Lords are looking for the big issues upon which the Government had mandates, I can say that sadly there are two or three other larger spheres—for instance, employment or unemployment. This was certainly a major issue.
When we are talking in terms of the impact of the partnership that ought to be forged between central and local government we can see that there are massive tasks facing local and central Government in the field of employment or unemployment. What I am sad to see, although I am satisfied it is the truth, is that when the Government have made up their mind that there are those outside their narrow confines and sphere of influence who disagree with and would seek to oppose their views, solutions come very quickly to their mind. If abolition is the answer, they will not hesitate to abolish. If abolition is too drastic, they will not hesitate to cripple. If there is so much insensitivity about crippling, then they will seek in some other way to destroy or diminish the local spirit.
What the Government have sought to do over the past period is to reinforce what is not in dispute, certainly not in my mind; to demonstrate that if there is a question of relationship between a superior being
386
and an inferior being, the superior is Parliament and the inferior in that relationship is local government. There is no argument. But what the Government have sought to do is to establish firmly a situation which rests upon a master and servant relationship, to establish without any argument that if anyone is going to tell anyone else what to do, it is going to be the Government. Once the Government set their mind on wanting to tame not merely local government but many other spheres of national life, we were established on a very bad course indeed. Cannot the Minister take on board with his ministerial colleagues the enormous disenchantment which must fill the minds of a great many councillors who have been sickened and disillusioned by the ambience in which they have to work?
My days in office in local government were in the 1960s and, goodness knows, I saw Conservative Governments and Labour Governments, and so here I make no party point. But there was excitement; there were things to do. Although I had arguments with the Government of my own choice, at least there was satisfaction. I point out to the Minister that he can go to the majority party in the London Borough of Enfield, which is my own, and they will talk as bluntly and as openly as I am talking. To be a local councillor in 1985 will be a nightmare—a nightmare in either having to defend the Government or a nightmare in being satisfied in opposition that one can do very little to help the people whom one wants to help.
What we are trying to say to the Minister is that although it is terribly late, it is not too late. There is still time in the arguments about atmosphere and relationships, and confidence and trust. There are still steps along the way before we say that we have reached the point of no return. I ask the Minister to listen as well as to talk. We all have respect for the Minister—and I take the opportunity to wish him well in the very important post that he holds. But it is not merely crucial to listen to advice on what it is best to do; it is also advisable to do something along the lines of what you are being invited to do.
I believe that a cynical situation is manifesting itself in Government Ministers in their relationship with local government. Let me, as an example, take the current situation of the Minister for Local Government who only five years ago produced a well written and well researched document. I see that the Minister smiles—he knows the document to which I refer, and maybe that is because we are Londoners. The present Minister substantially wrote the GLC manifesto for 1981. The problem was that in 1977 the present Minister was then in Opposition. He made a robust, well-argued case—which certainly I would support—for all of the things which he now says are not relevant. I understand that seven or eight years can make a difference. But to turn local government and its imperatives in planning and a great many other things on their head really is asking us to accept a great deal.
We then have the question of the reality of members of the Minister's own party. The Secretary of State represents Woodford. Only last week the member of the GLC who represents Woodford wrote in the national press that:
"London is a victim of a Tory deception".

387
He did not say "the Tory deception"—we know that there are many. What he was saying was that London is a victim of a Tory deception. He went on to say:
"The alleged transfer of GLC functions to the boroughs to give the electorate more direct control is quite simply a deception".
We would argue that; and indeed we have argued that. I wonder when the Minister will at least acknowledge that we are not only arguing from a narrow party political base. I heard my noble friend Lady Birk in a powerful opening address in this debate make reference to a member of the Minister's own party—the leader of the Buckinghamshire County Council. My noble friend Lady Nicol in a very effective contribution drew attention to members in the Cambridge area who are councillors. When will the Minister take on board the representations from the ACC, the ADC, the AMA, the ALA and the LBA? All of the bodies are collectively saying to the Minister, "First, we don't like what you are doing, but if you are going to persist in what you say you are going to do, will you take advice from us on the consequences and the effects?"
One or two references were made to the current distaste and distress which has been caused. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in his place because he drew attention to the compensation terms which have caused him so much distress and anger, and he has also drawn attention to the publicity.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I said that I was interested not in the compensation terms, but in the fact that the people being compensated had apparently been appointed without proper qualifications. Those are two very different things.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise for misunderstanding the drift of the noble Lord's argument. If we are talking in terms of qualifications, we should look at the net result of properly qualified people. At the same time as the issue of compensation hit the press this week there was also reference to the activities taking place at the Dunlop Company where four executives are to be compensated for terminating their service. I have with me a cutting from the Sunday Times in which reference is made to the fact that the compensation that they will receive for having got their company into its present state is £600,000. According to The Times this morning, it could very well cost £2 million to compensate those four people. The article in the Sunday Times very interestingly goes on to point out the state into which those so-called well qualified people have got the company.
What we have been hearing tonight, as my noble friend Lord Sefton quite rightly pointed out, is that in the whole field of local government there will inevitably be illustrations of how the way in which one administration or another decides to manage its affairs will cause offence or distaste, or cause some of us to say that that is not the way in which it should be done. Yet at the end of the day what we are being asked to point out is that this is the generality and universality of how local government is going on. Those are the premises upon which the Government allege that we need to make drastic changes.
388
I want to draw the attention to the House to one particular aspect of the consequences of the changes that could very well occur when abolition takes place. Together with other noble Lords I have received a letter from the Middlesex Area Magistrates' Courts Committee—a committee not unknown to my noble friend Lady Birk who serves with distinction on a Bench in the Middlesex area, as indeed must other noble Lords present. However, the clerk to the committee, Mr. Atkins, wrote to me and said:
"An unfortunate side effect of the Government's proposals will cause major reorganisation and disruption of the administration of the magistrates' courts in Outer London, especially in the Middlesex Commission Area.".
In a letter sent by Professor Allott to the Home Office—and this is what the Government must understand is the consequence of their proposals—he said:
"The disposal intended by the Home Secretary for the magistrates' courts service is calculated in the opinion of this committee and the other Outer London Courts Committees to cause major disruption of the administration of justice without any gain.
"In fact the reverse will be the case. There will be serious detriment both in the short and longer term:—
"In the short term: unnecessary disturbance and expense caused by the manner of implementation and rushed timescale; in the longer term: the abandonment of advantages derived from the existing Commission Area-wide organisation.".
There then comes the astounding proposal which I would be grateful if the Minister would take on board:
"Each of the Outer London Courts Committees has previously argued strenuously in favour of a solution to the enforced reorganisation of the magistrates' courts service in Outer London which will cause the minimum disruption, and the first criterion in their view was the replacement of the GLC by a single paying authority.
"They have suggested a means by which that might be achieved which has been rejected. No cogent reasons have been advanced for such rejection or in support of the Home Office preferred option for the creation of individual magistates' courts committees for each of the outer London boroughs with which petty sessional divisions are to be aligned if not already coterminous. In this Committee's view that option gives rise to the maximum of disruption to the administration of the service, is uneconomical and is undesirable.".
At the moment there are four committees and one paying authority. It is proposed that there should be 20 committees and 20 paying authorities. At the moment the paying authority is the GLC. That will disappear, and it is proposed that instead of four committees there should be 20. The Minister needs to take fully on board the advice and the earnest pleading from people who are at the sharp end of what he and his colleagues propose to promulgate.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, is not in his place because he made a point about the right of businesses to be involved in and concerned with the organisation of local government. He told the House that it was sad that businessmen did not have a vote or a voice in local matters. The noble Lord will be well aware that the rates which the local businessman pays do not come out of his pocket; the rates that he pays are paid for by the consumers of his services. The individual ratepayer pays his rates out of his pocket and, of course, the noble Lord will know that the payment of rates by businesses is a legitimate business expense and is, of course, tax allowable. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, is well versed in these matters because I know that on more than one occasion he has pleaded very successfully for, among others, co-

389
operative societies in their tussles with local government. So we should put the record straight in that respect.
On these Benches we have tried to draw attention to what we consider to be the catastrophic effect of many of the proposals which are likely to emerge from the abolition Bill when it comes forward next week. In my view the Government have it within their power to retrieve a great deal of lost ground. They should listen to those who operate at the sharp end—the councillors and their clients; the elderly, the homeless, the disadvantaged and the feckless. I say to the Minister: please try to reach agreement; compromise; take the councillors and the councils with you.
My noble friend and the initiator of this debate, Lady Birk, did not understate the situation when she described relations between central and local government as a civil war. In my experience the mood is bitter. Disillusion fills the air. Despair in local government is the order of the day. I hope even now that this Government will abandon their vendetta against all councils and some councillors. Only the Government can act like a government—they have a responsibility to do nothing less.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we all like to think that we are unique, and from these Benches may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that I think I speak as the only chief officer in this debate, having served in central government as a civil servant for 15 years and in local government for 22 years. Therefore, with great diffidence I speak from the point of view of a chief officer in local government. Secondly, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, because I feel compelled to speak about the Greater London Council, having served, at any rate for five years, on what was the London County Council.
I say with sadness and regret that I support the abolition of the Greater London Council as it stands today. There are some sectors of the service at County Hall which are of inestimable value to the people of Greater London and of London which must be preserved in some form. But there are other sectors which must be described as abysmal. I would contend that, as legislators, it is in part our own fault that we find ourselves in the position in which we are today. I contend that the Bill setting up the GLC and the many subsequent Bills referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, have been ill-drafted—indeed, I would use the word "sloppy"—and have been unwise and not concise or accurate in their recommendations. Mr Livingstone and his colleagues have exploited the ill-drafted and ill-thought-out Acts for their own political purposes.
I shall not go into the question of the profligacy and the expenditure of ratepayers' money, but I was going to touch upon an article published in the Standard yesterday on the golden handshakes. I am not so much concerned about the money side, but as a chief officer I was concerned that political appointments were made for professional jobs. Those of us who have had to train over a long period in order to hold posts of responsibility in local government would again like chief officers and their staff to be professional people without political motives.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Is she not aware of the fact that what is causing all the fuss on this occasion is that, unusually, the people concerned happen to be Labour people, and that throughout the years the practice of political appointments has been widespread on her side as well?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yes. I have not seen the curriculum vitae of the people who hold the posts in London Transport, but I would suggest that they were not professionally qualified to hold those posts. I believe that the Greater London Council should be replaced by an elected regional authority covering not only the area of the London boroughs but also the outer London boroughs and possibly beyond. Winston Churchill said:
"A wise legislator studies history".
As London grew in the last century Lord Melbourne realised the need for a co-ordinating authority, as indeed did Herbert Morrison. There surely must be an authority whose role it is to consider the overall needs, the future and the development of London as a whole. In the very nature of things this cannot be dealt with by the individual boroughs.
No capital city in Europe is without an elected authority, and on certain issues there must be a mediator, a co-ordinator and a forward-looking body for the whole of London. There surely must be balance and counter-balance as between boroughs and the regional authority. The role of a regional authority would need to be clearly defined, and the sectors on which expenditure is permitted meticulously laid down. This has not been so in the past.
In addition to its main role of co-ordinating and overseeing the needs of London, let us look at the additional duties which such a regional authority could carry out. I submit that it could carry out the education service. An independent, elected ILEA is a very odd concept floating about on its own. Then, the Historic Buildings Division, which is to go to the Historic Buildings Commission, I contend should be dealt with by London and Greater London alone. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who mentioned the arts, which are to be split up between the boroughs and the Arts Council. London should surely have its own department.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the fire service. I should also like to mention the police. In the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, at the Second Reading on 4th June, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said at column 435:
"Finally, I come to accountability, which is not dealt with in this Bill. … [I would say] that the accountability of the Metropolitan Police to the Home Secretary was necessary and that one need not take it further. I still agree with that view—that the Metropolitan Police should be accountable to the Home Secretary. However, I would suggest to the Home Secretary that if he could exercise that constitutional responsibility of accountability for the Metropolitan Police with the help of some kind of a committee drawn from the people of Greater London, and if he could be seen to act through and with that committee, even though the responsibility must remain his, I think that would be worth considering."
May I ask the Minister what is to become of the really excellent reference library at County Hall! Many of us have used this reference library on many occasions. What is to become of the good computer

391
development organisation, which again many of us have used? May I also support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in his comments on the parks and open spaces? Apart from the Royal parks, I cannot imagine how the individual local authorities are going to administer, for instance, Hampstead Heath. Supposing they wished to build on Hampstead Heath, what would the rest of London say? The recommendations I have referred to—and I say this again, looking at the errors we have made in the past—would have to be clearly outlined, clearly written, and clearly thought out, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, in the terms of finance and what money could be spent.
I turn briefly to the metropolitan county councils. Here, again, I support the retention of the metropolitan counties. The principles which apply to the abolition of the GLC apply to the metropolitan authorities. Here, as with the planning of the abolition of the GLC, Her Majesty's Government have prepared no costings. I ask the Minister whether he is able to tell us how it has been worked out that it will cost less if we do away with the metropolitan authorities and if we do away with the Greater London Council. I hope that this time around we shall not make a mistake so that in 12 years' time we shall have to look again at the reorganisation of local government. I beg Her Majesty's Government to look before they leap.
8.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I consider the wording of my noble friend's Motion I cannot resist the cynical thought that it is oppositions who are always in favour of decentralisation and governments who are always in favour of central authority, rather in the way that politicians who see that they have some prospect of an absolute majority in another place, or in a council, are against proportional representation, and those who have no such prospect are in favour of proportional representation.
I have been rather amused recently by the way in which the Fabian Society, of which I am an active member, has kicked over its strong centralist tradition, the tradition of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, in favour of what the cynical might call a populist decentralising posture. In fact, I sometimes see some similarities between Beatrice Webb and the Prime Minister. Both of them had this strong respect for discipline and authority, even though on oposite sides of the political fence. I do not know whether the Prime Minister would go so far as to approve Beatrice Webb's view that Moscow was a marvellous city because there was no spooning in the parks, but certainly what we are seeing in this Government is a strong, authoritarian position with regard to local democracy. It is one which I personally find disturbing.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in his perfectly accurate and correct expositon of the legal position of local authorities, said that the local authorities are a creature of central Government, of Parliament. He is no doubt correct in that. It is open to Parliament to set up, change, destroy local authorities if they so wish. That is our unwritten constitution. The question we must ask is whether it is wise to do that. Is it wise that
392
the relationship between local and central Government should be based on the exercise of unbridled authority by one tier of government and the total lack of independent authority by the other tier of government? After all, central and local government have to work together if this city is going to be governed. That is what seems to be forgotten all the time in this debate.
I wonder whether the Government ought not to give rather more consideration to the proposals which have been made notably and most effectively by Professor John Stewart and Professor George Jones that there should be some sort of, they say, charter—perhaps that is too grand a word—or some sort of agreement which, I should have thought, could be an all-party agreement, to set out the basis on which the local government financing and local government powers should be considered by successive Parliaments and not just by one Parliament. I appreciate the constitutional difficulty of that, but it is worth setting out the principles on which there ought to be agreement between both sides.
First there is the issue of local elections and local accountability. Ministers say—Ministers of both parties in the past have said—that local elections are not particularly democratic because so few people turn up to vote. Should we not try to make them more democratic? Why should there not be, for example, in local elections a right of recall? Why should not a specified number of local electors have the right to say that there should be another election because the council is going beyond what it was proposing in the first place, or is doing something which is costing us more money than we were told it would, or whatever they may think as a good reason?
Should there not be the possibility for a council, if it meets with votes of no confidence, for example, to say: "We are not going to wait for the next three or 3½ years, we are going to the electorate in order to seek a new mandate for our policies? These may be disturbing suggestions to constitutionalists, but I believe that they would increase the accountability and increase the meaningfulness of local elections.
Then there should be a firm statement on both sides that there should be a substantial independent income for local authorities. I believe that the dependence of local authorities on central grant, which had risen substantially and has recently been decreasing, is a bad thing for local government, because it gives the opportunities to central Government to twist the tail of the local authorities; and to do more than that, to wring the neck of the local authorities of which they do not approve. There should be a clear statement about those areas in which the local authority has the right to independent action.
I do not think that many people realise the extent to which in its actions, its expenditure, and its administration local government is carrying out the orders of Parliament very directly, and the extent to which it is taking the blame for many of the mistakes which Parliament makes in legislation.
Finally, I believe that local authorities should have the certainty of their powers and duties, that they should understand what it is they have to do and it should not be changed from year to year as it is at the

393
moment. If we had that sort of agreement—I do not believe that this is a particularly socialist point to make; I wish it were in some ways—then I think we could move to the next stage, which would be actually to roll back the powers of central Government, wherever there is a local organisation of a Ministry, wherever legislation sets up a duty which has to be performed by officials on the ground that local organisation should be controlled by the people living in the area and not by central Government.
I have a huge shopping list of that kind of responsibility which should be in local hands. My noble friend Lord Brooks gave some of these examples and I apologise for repeating them. First, health: there is no good reason now why district health authorities should not be under local authority control. The Manpower Services Commission: there is no good reason why the training aspects of the Manpower Services Commission should not be under local authority control; and there is a good argument for saying that the employment services, the job centres and so on should also be under local authority control, so that employers and the people living in an area can influence the way in which these organisations are operated. This is already happening through the MSC in local manpower committees and manpower forums, so why should it not be part of the democratic structure of the local community?
The probation services: in Scotland they work perfectly well under local authority control. Why should they not be under local authority control in this country, as in many places judicial services are?
Social security is the best example of all. Of course there have to be national standards for social security, but who better to understand the propriety and the necessity for certain kinds of local variations in the social security system than the elected representatives of the local community?
Health and safety executive: we already have trading standards under local authorities, so why should not the Factory Inspectorate, the Alkali Inspectorate and so on be under local authority control?
Gas and electricity distribution, a notoriously unresponsive and irresponsible service in many ways, could benefit from more effective local control than is provided by the existing consumer councils. And finally I say, with some caution, that I believe still that there is a place for the police to be under local authority control. I do not mean that there should be direct day-to-day operational control by politicians of police tactics or expenditure. I do not think that local councillors should accompany the police on their raids, although I had a colleague on the GLC who was chairman of the fire brigade committee. He used to be woken up in the middle of the night and go to fires on the appliances. I think that is going too far, but nevertheless the necessity for relating the very heavy expenditure of police services with local responsibility for the police services is, in my view, absolutely irrefutable.
What we should be looking for is a stabilisation of the relationship between central and local government as a basis for an increase in local democracy and a decrease in the powers of Whitehall. I am encouraged in that view by a quotation which, in my usual way, I
394
shall give without giving the source at the beginning:
"I believe that an effectively functioning local democracy can monitor the activities of local councils far better than civil servants in Marsham Street".
That was said by the right honourable Michael Heseltine, MP, on 18th July 1979. I thought he was right then, and I think he is right now.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this afternoon and this evening we have had 21 speakers so far, and I feel all noble Lords will agree that this has thoroughly justified the decision made by my noble friend Lady Birk to put this particular Motion on our Order Paper. All the speeches have been helpful. Some have been theoretical on the relationship between central and local government, and others have dealt with practicalities as they are or as the Government intend that they shall be. The noble Earl—who I am pleased to see against me at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, as we have had encounters previously—has always been helpful, fair and reasonable. I hope he will have listened very carefully to everything that has been said and will decide accordingly in relation to some of the legislation which is likely to come before us.
Noble Lords will all agree that during the debates over the last 12 to 18 months in your Lordships' House the question of deteriorating relationships between local and central government has been apparent, not just from your Lordships' official Opposition but from all parts of the House. Today it has been clearly evident, although the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, said there is no such conflict. The number of occasions on which leading officers of the three local government associations have told your Lordships of the worry and concern that exists in their own associations about these relationships has been frequently emphasised.
My noble friend Lady Birk referred to the concern expressed by the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the ineffective way in which the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance had been working. I was sorry that the noble Earl rather dismissed this as if it were of no importance. But the AMA is very worried and concerned. They want this national council to work effectively, and are concerned that it is not doing so. Instead, the noble Earl replied that it was ill of the AMA to criticise this body when it had refused to come into the negotiations regarding the abolition proposals. But seven of the major authorities of the AMA are being threatened with abolition. Can anyone expect that association to come before the Minister to tell him how to do it? The association submitted a response saying that it should not be done, and criticising it. That surely is the most anyone can expect of an association, some of whose major members will be affected by this legislation.
One of the complaints of the local authority associations is that they are not being consulted on principles: they are consulted only on how to carry out principles with which they disagree. That is one of the major criticisms.
The noble Earl referred to all the debates we had on the Rates Bill. I shall not be sidetracked into dealing with any of the individual authorities to which one or

395
two noble Lords referred, except to say, as my noble friend Lord Sefton said, that to point out the exceptions does not prove the rule.
I would say, however, that many noble Lords will recall that there was a Royal Commission in the late 1970s on conduct in public life. At the same time I was secretary of a Labour Party committee on the conduct of the party in local government. The commission praised the work of that committee and the decisions it had arrived at, so I think that will indicate the general view of the Labour Party upon any irregularities that may take place in local government.
Previously, it must be emphasised, the Government had a right—all Governments have a right—to determine what should be the maximum support given to local authorities from central government. That has been emphasised time and time again, and we do not disagree with it. But what the Government have done over the last few years is gradually to interfere with the actual expenditure and targets of individual local authorities. It is the Government's own actions that have led to the confrontations and the atmosphere of conflict that there is between many local authorities, local authority associations and central government. All the three local authority associations' responses to the rating proposals expressed opposition; but the Government went straight ahead. This has brought along some of the conflict with which we are faced today.
My noble friend Lord Sefton, in what I think was an excellent speech, speaking from the heart about the area in which he had worked for so long, stressed that local councillors are elected to provide services to meet local needs. Then they find that if they attempt to do so, they are targeted and there are penalties upon their authority. Noble Lords have listened to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn giving his account of the gradual drop in the rate support provided to his authority, a drop which affected the services which the local councillors felt they were elected to provide. So we find local councillors in various parts of the country facing a terrible conflict. There is the legislation on rates, on the one hand, and yet there is the councillors' legal responsibility to provide services which they were elected to provide.
I have been at the AMA conference of local education authorities for the last few days. Representative after representative stressed their legal responsibilities under the 1944 Education Act—responsibilities for services which many of them are not able to provide because of insufficient finance. What is the answer? The individual councillor experiences tensions and conflict. These are the sort of things that we hope the Government will help to resolve. At the same conference there was a resolution which was carried unanimously by representatives of Tory authorities, of Labour authorities and of other authorities, regretting that additional responsibilities involving increased expenditure were being continually placed upon local authorities by Government legislation with no additional funds to pay for those additional services.
Again, I say that this is the responsibility of Government and it is not sufficient for the Secretary of
396
State to say that local councils must shift their resources in order to cope. Many could not do this. To shift resources from one area to another means that the first area is then bereft of support. That is what the chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council —my noble friend Lady Birk referred to his letter in The Times—meant. I will just add one point: this Conservative chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council—a man with 18 years' service under the county and eight years as chairman, who is to resign—said, "We have been legislated into a corner". And then we are told that there is no conflict between local government and central government.
My noble friend and other noble Lords referred to the Audit Commission's report on the review that it carried out. In effect, what did the Audit Commission say? In a few words, that—and I paraphrase—the present system of block grants, GREAs, targets and penalties is a mess. There are too many uncertainties and no opportunity for councillors to plan one more year ahead. It may seem good that the Government's response is to set up this internal study; but it is an internal study, not an independent study. If the Government are to carry out this internal study in the same frame of mind that they have introduced their rating and other legislation, they will make a big mess of the thing at the end of the day rather than improving it. That, I am sorry to say, is the sort of attitude that we have today.
I must say a few words about abolition, because these are the practicalities. Ministers repeat time and again—we have had it this afternoon—that there will be efficiencies and savings as a result of the abolition proposals. If that is so, I wonder whether it would be pertinent to ask, if all that can be secured, why not extend abolition to the two-tier shires? Why not, if such efficiencies and savings can be secured and will be secured from abolition? I notice that, in the debate that we had on 15th February on the administration of metropolitan areas in Europe, in reply to a question by my noble friend Lady Birk about costings, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—I am sorry that he is not with us, but he would not deny what he said—said (in col. 315) that the request of my noble friend was fair. He went on:
"The Government do not have the costings and they will not be able to produce the costings until we see exactly what levels of employment and redistribution of staff will be involved between, for example, the metropolitan councils and the joint boards."
The Government do not know. Yet in Streamlining the Cities the Government were adamant that there would be savings.
My noble friend referred to the Coopers & Lybrand report. All I want to say about that is that I recall asking a Question in your Lordships' House which was replied to by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I repeat the challenge which I made then. Will the Government —and they are well-documented reports—actually issue a response to the Coopers & Lybrand report, challenging, if they wish, all the statements and results of the survey that that report produced—bearing in mind that Coopers & Lybrand are responsible consultants, used frequently by the DoE itself and therefore that they cannot be said to be an inefficient and loose organisation?

397
It must be faced that the abolition proposal was a piece of election dogma, ill-conceived and not thought out. That is reflected in the spate of consultation documents that have poured out. Somebody has said, "Oh, there is a problem. We have not looked at this one. We shall issue another document." My noble friend Lord Stallard mentioned one in particular. I note from the document on the transfer of functions that they do not know what to do with the Lea Valley scheme. It involves finances as well as who is going to run it. My noble friend referred to parks.
I could ask, "Do they know what they are going to do with Hainault Forest—not only has it two golf courses, on which I play, but it is in three separate districts, two London boroughs and one county district. But has Redbridge, has Havering, has Epping Forest had any experience of running a big forest? The LCC had; the GLC had. Has Epping district council, my district council, any experience of running a huge forest which used to be a part of Epping Forest, which was controlled by the Corporation of London? They have not thought this out. This is typical of many other matters which they have not thought out.
Now we are to have joint boards, joint committees, ad hoc working groups and lead authorities on some issues. The consultation papers and this document on the transfer of functions, only issued in July 1984, place excessive reliance on hopes of voluntary cooperation. They are just hopes of voluntary cooperation. If any noble Lord goes through that document, they will see references to the situation that, if it fails, the Secretary of State has reserve or default powers. It says this in item after item. That is the way in which the Government are proposing seriously to administer Greater London and the metropolitan areas if abolition goes through.
The present set-up enables important decisions to be taken on a wide area basis and not just on a localised basis. In London, it will mean returning to the situation before the LCC was set up; and denying the very reasons why the LCC was set up nearly a century ago. We will go back to that situation. It has been stressed that we will be the only country in Western Europe without an all-area administration for its capital city. It might be pertinent to ask which Government set up the GLC; it might be pertinent to ask which Government set up the metropolitan counties. But the more important question is this: Leaving out the political bias, does the GLC work; has it got important functions; do the metropolitan councils work; have they got important functions?
On the very issue of strategic planning, which is absolutely vital, there has been general criticism of the proposals which will really leave strategic planning absent from both London planning and also the metropolitan areas. We are told that what the Government will do is to have a planning commission for London to advise the Secretary of State on strategic-matters. In the metropolitans, we will have planning conferences to advise the Secretary of State on strategic planning. But we are also told that these joint boards that are going to be set up will be legal entities which will really act just like a local authority. Members will not be accountable to the borough or
398
district which appointed them. The joint boards will take decisions on important matters in complete isolation from other services. With the GLC and the metropolitan counties all these matters are considered because they come within the same resources. The joint boards will also have precepting powers, again determined in isolation from all the other services of those particular areas.
Then there is a very important change, which the Government will have to seek to justify if the proposals are put into the Bill: that for the first three years the Secretary of State will approve the precepts of these joint boards and, beyond that, he will also have powers to control the expenditure levels and manpower of the joint boards—and we wonder why there is criticism and there are bad relations between central Government and local government!
Obviously, all the details will be matters for the Bill which has not yet been published, and naturally I do not want to be involved in lots of theories. My noble friend said I would deal with certain transport matters, and I will attempt to do that before I close, because three proposals are all inter-related—maybe that was not intended to start with, but they are: the abolition proposals, the proposals in the White Paper on buses and now changes in transport supplementary grant. They are all interlinked, they all reveal the Government's philosophy and they will vitally affect local councils—not just those in the metropolitan counties and in London—because the White Papers and TSG will affect all counties, and proposals in the buses White Paper will also affect Scotland.
On transport issues, London is already dealt with by the London Regional Transport Bill, whereby transport is divorced completely from all the other services—strategic planning and traffic management—because the Government have nationalised London's transport.
The rationale for setting up the metropolitan counties was the development of a strategic role for the integration of highways, highways planning, traffic management, public transport and land use, and I challenge any noble Lord to say that the metropolitan counties have not succeeded in the work for which they were set up. They have gone a long way towards the integration of various transport modes. They have gone a long way in introducing innovations and, what is more important, a number of the metropolitan counties, through their PTAs, PTEs and innovations, have succeeded in reversing the drop in passenger use. I think that alone would justify the existence of the metropolitan counties. The passenger transport users' groups in London and in the metropolitan counties, meeting together, have condemned the proposals for the abolition as they affect public transport; and that should be noted as well.
On the White Paper on buses what real consultation was there? The Government issued the White Paper but made it quite clear that they had the intention to legislate. They had the seven consultation papers, again not on whether or not changes were desirable but on how the proposals in the White Paper Buses should be carried out. What consultation was there on the proposal to break up the National Bus Company?

399
That will affect the shires as well as the metropolitan areas. We have all the proposals in the White Paper for deregulation, cessation of route licensing, tendering for subsidised services, the break-up of the bus services and the passenger transport executives. We had the break-up of the municipal undertakings in the shires: all these proposals were in the White Paper. What real consultation was there with the local councils, which are going to be seriously affected by these proposals?
Not only will strategic planning be affected by the abolition proposals, not only will the councils be affected by the proposals in the Buses White Paper, but also the Government will follow up, as they have announced, with drastic changes in the administration of the transport supplementary grant which will affect all counties and not just London and the metropolitan areas. There is a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Transport should consult the local authority associations on the question of rate support grant and obviously involving TSG. The only consultation that took place this year on the drastic changes which are proposed in the transport supplementary grant was the issue of a draft circular. That to me, my Lords, is not consultation with local authority associations. That is the sort of thing which I believe noble Lords everywhere are criticising.
What they are proposing is that in future transport supplementary grants shall be for capital purposes only. Grants for revenue support for public transport, highways maintenance and other activities will be merged in the rate support grant. It has been found almost impossible up to now to work out a GREA for revenue support and for maintenance, in other words, which would help to compensate the authorities for the loss of the transport supplementary grant for those particular purposes. The order will be before us very shortly and we can debate it, but debating the order merely shows what is wrong with it: we cannot change it. But I hope that the Government may listen between now and then, and consider some changes.
In conclusion, may I say that some noble Lords, and I think in particular the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that finance is at the root of a great deal of the conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, said that Parliament is supreme. Of course it is, but Parliament can make mistakes and Parliament may have to be corrected. Parliament may have to adjust itself, because it is the Government's own actions that are the breeding ground for most of the present conflicts and tensions which exist between local government and central Government. My hope is that the Government will realise that on this issue they have got to change course. They have got to bring a new spirit in local government, where they feel they are trusted. At the moment, members of local authorities do not feel that they are trusted and the local authority associations—of course there will be differences because the Government will not always agree with what they ask for—have got to feel that they are trusted by the Government and taken into consultation on principles and not just on how to carry out things that they do not like. At present, I can assure your Lordships that the associations want this: only
400
the Government, which are supreme, can move in that direction.
8.49 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this has indeed been a wide-ranging debate. I do hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was in her seat when the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, took us to Maryland, because that at least got us away from London for one speech.
I assure your Lordships and the House that we shall certainly study this debate carefully. I in fact said this in my opening remarks. This is a convenient moment to have this debate, so that it can be with us for the studies which we are making. Equally, may I say now that if on reading Hansard tomorrow I find that I have missed some specific questions, then of course I shall write to noble Lords in response.
One of the points which was raised by most speakers was the question of an inquiry, and I am afraid that I lost count halfway through about the number of pros and antis. But I should like to quote from the Opposition environment spokesman, who in February 1983 said:
"We shall therefore legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake. We shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate".
I am sure that the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told that in 1969 the Labour Government produced their White Paper on the reorganisation of local government, and in 1970, after we came into office, we changed to a different system—essentially the one we have today. However, neither of these schemes was the one recommended by the Royal Commission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke of the Audit Commission's report on block grants. My right honourable friend has accepted that some of the report's conclusions seem reasonable and some seem to be based on little evidence. If I may give an example, the argument that rates have been higher than necessary as a result of Government policy simply does not stand up to examination. However, my right honourable friend has, for example, made it clear on a number of occasions that it is his aim to abolish the system of targets and hold-backs as soon as possible. It is issues of this kind which will be looked at in the studies of local government which I spoke about earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about the resignation of Councillor Parker-Jervis. We regret the resignation of so able a leader and I should like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for his unstinted public service in Buckinghamshire over past years. It is counties such as Buckinghamshire which have suffered in recent years through the extravagant overspending of a handful of authorities who flout Government requests for economy. Because of that over-spending, we have had to ask all authorities to make economies. But now for the first time we have powers under the Rates Act to restrain the spending of the higher

401
spenders and we have been able to set easier spending targets for next year for responsible low-spending authorities like Buckinghamshire.
Lord Harrisof Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question on that? If the problem has been solved by the passage of the Rates Act, which I understand to be his case, why does he think that the chairman of Buckinghamshire County Council has chosen this precise moment to resign?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is of course the choice of the chairman himself. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I have to say that I agreed very much with the situation which he painted for us. I was sad that he was against so many of our policies. I noted that proportional representation was one of the answers he gave. While I concede that it might have some benefit, I cannot believe that it would be the cure-all in all these cases. The noble Lord produced the case of the newspapers in North London and I believe that this would be an ideal subject for the inquiry into abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me about the ombudsman. The role of the local ombudsman is to investigate alleged maladministration where an individual citizen feels that he has been unjustly treated. But the kinds of cases cited by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for example, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others, do not bear so much on particular citizens; rather they bear on ratepayers collectively, by virtue of expenditure decisions of minority political groupings, whose rights to speak and gain information are under question, and on the traditional relationships between elected members and officers. These are different matters from the complaints of individual citizens via their elected members to the local ombudsman. That is about local authority actions.
I join other noble Lords in my appreciation of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who took us around Liverpool. I enjoyed the wide-ranging talk of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. In particular, may I thank him for his remarks about my right honourable friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in a constructive speech raised the subject of further education, as I think did both my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the ACC has recently agreed to co-operate with the MSC, and also that the AMA has agreed to join in the consultations with the MSC at this moment, which I am sure we all welcome.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, that it is no aim of this Government that there should be uniformity of mediocrity. That is very much not our intention. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, took us well away from London and then brought us back with a bump by quoting from The Londoner. I was very intrigued by his speech and he made some constructive remarks, including his point about local income tax. As with some remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the difficulty here is in using these constructive points and in getting a consensus from
402
Parliament to go ahead with them. I particularly agreed with the noble Lord on accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, accused me of giving a lecture and then I thought rather gave me a lecture on Conservative Party policy. I am sure that he welcomes the presence—and I was very pleased to see him listening to us today—of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, must be delighted to see him here, because he is responsible for the Life Peerages Act. I thought that the noble Lord, in his excellent way, rather turned some of my remarks to suit his argument, but I should like to say that one of the principles I did support was the right and duty of central Government to determine and manage national finances, which I said of course, includes controlling the level of public expenditure. I did not go down to the depth which I think the noble Lord rather attributed to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, amazed me in his remarks. After all his criticisms of this Government, I think it is incredible that he is not sitting here and I am not sitting up where he is. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made some good remarks on the magistrates, which I shall certainly look into and I will let him have a reply. Certainly it is not our aim in any way to anticipate or to do something which they would not wish to happen.
I must just take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, having come from the Department of Energy. His insults to my old electricity boards I cannot take lying down. I believe that the local boards do a great deal locally to help the communities and I am a great supporter of them. Otherwise, I found his speech amusing and constructive, as usual.
After that little preamble, I must I am afraid, for the sake of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, turn to the Abolition Bill and the general policy, because many noble Lords spoke on that. Not only that; one or two devoted their whole speech to it. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his kind remarks at the start of his speech. I do not believe—as he himself said—that this is the time to make a major speech on the abolition proposals. We shall have plenty of time to do that in the New Year. But I should like briefly to explain the Government's thinking and perhaps, while so doing, answer some of the questions at the same time.
The GLC and the metropolitan county councils now have few major functions. They do not run London or West Yorkshire and the rest. Therefore, the Government believe that they are an unnecessary and wasteful tier of bureaucracy. The London boroughs and the metropolitan districts are closer to the people and better able to meet their needs. Abolishing the upper tier of local government in these areas, and passing most of its functions to the boroughs and districts, will mean more economical and more effective local government and better value for money.
The history of London local government over the last century has been a debate between those who assert the importance of regionalism and those who seek local diversity. That debate did not diminish with the establishment of the GLC, and the debate over the

403
metropolitan councils has been even more fierce, though of course shorter. Not every power will be given directly to the lower tier authority. There are a few which we recognise need to be exercised over a wider area. That is why we are establishing joint boards for fire, police and passenger transport in the metropolitan counties and for fire in London. But these joint boards will be firmly rooted in local government. Their members will be appointed by the boroughs and districts. They will be recallable by those authorities. They will therefore be accountable to them and, through them, to the ratepayers, and there will be provision for powers to be transferred to individual boroughs and districts.
Some have argued that this reorganisation will cost money. Not so, my Lords. Doing away with a whole tier of local government must result in substantial savings. We have promised that we will provide our best estimate of those savings when the Bill is published; but my right honourable friend has already indicated in another place that we expect rationalisation savings alone to be near the figure quoted at the last election.
We have already made it clear that we are determined that the transfer of responsibilities to successor authorities should be carried out in an orderly way. It was for this reason that we had to take steps in the interim provisions Act to control certain activities of the GLC and the MCCs. The Government sought these powers with regret, but, again, we were forced to act in the face of evidence of irresponsible actions and threats—by the GLC in particular. It was necessary to ensure that Parliament's consideration of the abolition proposals was not prejudiced by such actions and that the interests of successor authorities and their ratepayers were protected.
The Government have no wish to interfere in any way with the normal functioning of the authorities. The authorities themselves can ensure this by acting responsibly and reasonably. We, for our part, are striving to exercise our powers of sanction in ways which minimise administrative burdens and delays.
I was sorry to hear the quotation from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I can assure her that the majority of applications for consent have been dealt with within two weeks of receipt. We have issued general consents covering a wide range of activities which leave no scope for irresponsible activities. We shall continue to review the scope for further such consents in the light of further experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested that the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils represent a step towards centralisation of local services and a shift again in the central/local balance. I believe that this view has been carefully fostered by the GLC in its advertising campaign. It is of course a complete misrepresentation of what will happen.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Earl too much as this is his maiden speech, so to speak, as a Minister, but I cannot let that
404
comment pass. I am quite capable of thinking for myself. That view has not been fostered by the GLC but is my own view based on my own experience and knowledge of local government.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Baroness is too touchy, my Lords. My remarks were not meant in the way she took them. I meant that it was a sort of campaign which had been fostered by the GLC. In no way would I accuse the noble Baroness of reading any of that sort of literature.
Three-quarters of the GLC's spending is on services which will become the responsibility of the boroughs. Those services will be dealt with in the future by the most accessible authority. The greater part of the remaining spending is on the fire service. This will also continue to be firmly in local hands through the appointed members, as I have just explained. Some activities will go to other bodies, such as the Arts Council, but I do not see that fractional change in the responsibility for certain functions can be represented as a weakening of our commitment to local government.
A number of noble Lords voiced their concern about the impact of abolition on voluntary bodies. There is, as we are well aware, concern that the present support provided for such bodies—principally by the GLC but also by the metropolitan counties to some extent—will not be replaced. I have to say that there is a fundamental dilemma here. Grant-aiding voluntary activity is essentially a matter for discretionary decision by the body giving the grant. Thus, the present GLC has undertaken a major expansion of grant giving. To give a secure guarantee of future funding to bodies now receiving these grants would mean finding some way of overriding the proper discretion which should be given to the boroughs and districts.
One way to do this would be to ourselves take over the funding of various bodies. I am sure that this would not be desirable. Central Government should not normally be directly aiding local bodies in this way. Nevertheless, this Government's commitment to voluntary action is strong and we have repeatedly made clear that abolition should not damage worthwhile voluntary activity. We have proposed a statutory basis for a scheme enabling all the boroughs or districts in an area to give grants to bodies serving wide areas, and to share the costs. In London, the boroughs already have in hand preparations for making such grants, and we have proposed traditional grant aid for funding taken on by individual authorities. We are listening carefully to representations from the voluntary sector. I repeat that our commitment to voluntary bodies is second to none. I am confident that the boroughs and districts will recognise the enhanced role they have to play, and that voluntary bodies will have a secure future.
I was asked a number of specific questions about Hampstead Heath and the archives by my noble friend Lady Faithfull; and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about various areas of land. I must say that he had me floored by one, but I believe that Epping Forest

405
is in fact run by the City of London, so I imagine that it still will be.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I referred to Hainault Forest. Hainault Forest was part of Epping Forest and part of Hatfield Forest many years ago. It is still there.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord is ahead of me. I think this underlines the fact that it will be better if we wait for the Bill on this particular subject rather than have me try to answer specific questions now.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked about the arts in London. The Government have said that they will make available an additional £34 million for central funding of the arts in England in 1986–87 and a similar sum in future years. Of this, £16 million will be made available to the Arts Council to look after the needs of major performing arts organisations and other bodies which are receiving grants from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Some £17 million will be provided to meet the cost of the major museums and art galleries.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but perhaps I may press him on this matter. Is my understanding of the position to be that the £34 million will increase in future years in the event of inflation? Is there any guarantee as far as the future is concerned, or not?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, instead of being subject to the policies of the GLC, it will obviously be subject to the policies of the Arts Council, which is funded by Her Majesty's Government.
I will say just a few words about the rate support grant before I conclude. My right honourable friend announced the July provisional expenditure targets for 1985 for all local authorities. Those provisional targets implied an increase in current expenditure provision in excess of £800 million. They would allow most responsible, low-spending authorities to increase spending next year by 4¼ per cent., in line with our current forecast of inflation.
There was a discussion between my noble friend Lord Gisborough and Members on the Opposition Benches—I believe one was the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—on the subject of advertising. There is a long standing convention in central Government that public money should not be spent on propaganda; that is, on partial, argumentative or persuasive advertising. The Government spend only on factual information, almost invariably after Royal Assent has been secured for that legislation. The advertisement informs the public about the operation of a new Act of Parliament, and this is entirely in line with the normal conventions on the use of pay publicity by central Government.
As I said in my opening remarks, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I find myself unable to accept the basic theme of the Opposition. The reason is the question of cause and effect. I believe that what has
406
been happening in local government has been the cause of the legislation that we have had to bring forward; it is not the effect of our legislation which has caused the irresponsibility. The study inquiry will, I am sure, help us to proceed. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this subject today and for giving me the opportunity of breaking my duck.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he is in a position to say whether the Bill that might be produced will be a straightforward Bill or a Bill of an enabling character? It is important that the House and, indeed, the country should know.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the last time I saw the Bill it consisted of just over 90 clauses and was very much a Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in this very lengthy debate. I am rather sorry for the Minister that there were so few speakers on his side. It would have been interesting for us and for him to have heard some enthusiastic support for what the Government intend to do.
All noble Lords made extremely important and telling points, particularly from these Benches and the Alliance Benches. All the contributions were substantial and, in fact, not really very party political. I worked out a small poll of what had occurred which, for want of a better name, I call the Birk poll. It comes out as 16 speakers against abolition and 4½ in favour. The half is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is for abolition of the GLC but against abolition of the metropolitan counties.
Tonight's debate has now come to an end, but it is quite clear that the debate on the wider issues, not only on abolition but on relations between central and local government, have but begun. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.

  DRIVING LICENCES: VISUAL REQUIREMENTS
  DRIVING LICENCES: VISUAL REQUIREMENTS
  DEER (FIREARMS ETC.) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1984
  DEER (FIREARMS ETC.) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1984
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL: BRUSSELS, 12TH-13TH NOVEMBER
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL: BRUSSELS, 12TH-13TH NOVEMBER